In an earlier comment, Nick pointed me to this post from Harold Paxton looking at the recent election of Bishop Robinson from the exact opposite point of view than mine. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that — as Mark Twain (I believe) said, it’s differences of opinion that make horse races.
In his post, he quotes two of the more definitive statements condemning homosexuality from the Bible — I Corinthians 6: 8-13, and Leviticus 18:22 (NIV). I’ll freely admit that on purely a “look — this is what the Bible says” standpoint, these two passages are extremely diffcult for me to argue with when trying to defend my beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, not something that people should be condemned for, and something that should be accepted both in today’s society and today’s church. Both passages are fairly cut and dry in their equation of homosexuality and sin.
Yesterday, though, I happened across this post from Matt Zemek that does what I feel to be an admirable job of explaining why, as long as one is willing to allow for a less strictly literal reading of the Bible, modern Christians should be able to overlook someone’s sexuality when discussing matters of the faith.
So, is homosexuality a knowing choice against God? Until the early 1970s, world opinion was that it indeed was. But in the early 1970s, scientists in various fields (social, cognitive, biological, genetic) began to speak to the idea that homosexuality was not the perverted and twisted sinful choice that it had been thought to be through the centuries, from Old Testament times all the way to the middle of the 20th Century. It began to be determined–and has been continuously reaffirmed ever since–that homosexuality is genetically and biologically determined, that it is not a disease or an inherently twisted choice rooted in lustful, primal desires and nothing but.
In scientific communities, there is no doubt today that homosexuality is rooted in biology and genetics, and not in the perversity of human minds, period. Therefore, knowing what we know now–NOT in Paul’s time, NOT 100 years ago, but today–it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not a sin, because it does not fit the dynamic of a knowing and free choice against what is good or acceptable before God.
There’s more good stuff in the rest of Matt’s post. I’ll also admit that there are statements later in Matt’s post that I have a harder time agreeing with. However, his outlook on why homosexuality was condemned at the time the Bible was written but should not be today speaks strongly to me, and puts into words the vague concepts I’d had rattling around in my head but hadn’t been able to articulate.
In the end, on a personal level, I’ve never been able to believe that God is nearly as interested in our sex lives as we often think he is (a phrase I picked up from Dad). To me, the measure of Godliness in a person is a matter of how much they are able to love and respect others, regardless of whether one agrees on a personal level with their choices, and how you treat others at all times. I’ve seen gay relationships that are every bit as loving and respectful as heterosexual marriages — sometimes moreso — and I cannot believe that God would overlook the love between two people simply because they happen to have the same genetalia.
Homophobia, and the condemnation of homosexuality as “sin” is an ancient and outmoded way of thinking, prevalent at the time the Bible was written, but thoroughly debunked today. I think it’s wonderful that the Episcopal church is so publicly realizing this, and I can only hope that more people start looking at it this way.
As you know, Mike. I do not read Hebrew or Greek, so I am dependant on “secondary sources.” I am told that, with one exception, every time it is mentioned in the Bible, it is not condemned in-itself, but is included as a list of “pagan” practices. The fear was not of homosexuality, but of the age old Biblical concern the faithful would be lured from “the true faith” to idolotry.
In addition, there is the “literalist” vs. “applicationist.” debate.
In general, literalists believe not a jot and tittle of the Bible can be observed other than as it says (there are many problems with this approach, but this is the wrong place to address them). I do not know how they get around the ones they obviously ignore.
The “applicatinists” argue, even if something was proscribed 2000-4000 years ago, the trick is to apply the underlying “truth” of the Bible to the present day setting. Some go as far as to say, were Jesus to reappear today (not in the “Second Coming” sense), Christ would be a black gay welfare mom with AIDS, as these are the disenfranchised of today. Though I tend far more to this position, I must admit there is a tendency here to slip into situational ethics.
Nevertheless, I am proud of the stand our Denomination took toward Fr. Robinson. I need more information about the rejection of “same sex blessings.”
Something that was the immediate thought in my head — and I will quickly own up to the fact that I’m not sufficiently educated to argue details, I’m only asking the question:
Isn’t the whole point of the New Testiment that Jesus had a different outlook on religion than the Old Testiment? And that some of the Fire & Brimstone thoughts of the Old Testiment were things he rejected out of hand, while embracing the Mary Magdelins and Lepers?
I also like dad’s point on “Pagan Practices.” That rings true to me. Thanks for the thought to chew on there.
Mike,
Thanks for the post, and for showing me to your blog… just four months into this thing called blogging, and I can always use–and will always appreciate–anyone who takes the time to extend my conversation circles.
With all this as prelude, what are the statements you found hard to stomach in my post? We could toss those around a little bit, at your convenience.
Best wishes, and again, many thanks!
Matt Zemek
Author, “Liberalism the Right Way: A Liberal Vision for Christian Conservatives,” now out in paperback and sold via Booklocker.com
Isn’t the whole point of the New Testiment that Jesus had a different outlook on religion than the Old Testiment? And that some of the Fire & Brimstone thoughts of the Old Testiment were things he rejected out of hand, while embracing the Mary Magdelins and Lepers?
Before I add my thought, I want to state I am not in any way arguing. I have learned a long time ago this is conterproductive. I am merely giving my opinion as asked.
Personally, I do not believe this is the point, or even the message, of the Hebrew Scriptures, though I understand this opinion. I can find text after text in the Hebrew Scriptures which makes God look as humane as does Jesus, and text after text in the Christian Scriptures which makes God look as bloodthirsty as any depiction in the Hebrew Scriptures – for example, just quickly scan the “Showing of God to John of Patmos”, which is commonly called the Book of Revelations.
I believe the person we know as Jesus was many things, but first and foremost he was a prophet, in the direct line of all the Hebrew Scripture prophets, calling people to fooresake their false piety, which excludes, and to return to the piety of God, which is inclusive.
Matt — I wouldn’t say that there was anything that I “couldn’t stomach”, that seems a mite strong — merely that I respectfully disagree. :)
The section that I have a difficult time with is this:
Having been involved in some of the aformentioned activities in the past (specifically, threesomes and “spouse swapping”, though as I’m yet unmarried, it would fall more along the lines of what’s commonly termed “open relationships”), and having no problem with them then, now, or in the forseeable future, I mostly take issue with your statement that such activities “do not reflect a respectful, honest or healthy sexuality.” While I can certainly cede that there are many people who do things that are disrespectful, dishonest, and unhealthy when it comes to sex, I don’t think that any of the activities that you mentioned necessarily equate as such, and would argue that there are also many people who pursue such activites while taking care to be respectful to, honest with, and healthy with any of the other people involved in such pursuits.
Time for a quick admission, too. I initially hesitated on responding to your question of which parts of your post I disagreed with publicly, and debated with sending you an e-mail instead. This was in large part because I know that my parents are regular readers of this weblog, and I’ve historically not referred to some of the more private areas of my life because of that.
However, I decided that if I’m going to claim that partaking in such activites is something that should not be condemned, whether or not one agrees with them, and do so from the viewpoint of someone that has been in such situations in the past, than I shouldn’t have to hide that response in a private e-mail for fear of who would read it. I’ve done things in the past and may do things in the future that important people in my life might not necessarily agree with. My choices are mine to make, though, and the corresponding consequences — good and bad — are mine to bear, and I feel that my relationships with my parents and with my friends are strong enough that I can reference such events without having to worry about it.
That said, this blog isn’t about to become some tell-all down-and-dirty expose of everything and everyone I’ve ever done. ;) My private life is mine, and will, for the most part, remain as such. I just didn’t want to have to avoid certain references if an appropriate discussion popped up.
Huh. I may not be gay, but I think that in a sense, I just “came out.” Interesting.
“Bizarre displays of sexual behavior–admittedly a feature of some Gay Pride parades and certainly a source of mainstream disapproval of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender lifestyles–do not reflect a respectful, honest or healthy sexuality.”
Hold it right there buster!
Bizarre displays? Could you spell it out a little more?
While I have seen the parade and I admit some of it is not to my taste I still don’t see where the public has any right to condom and entire group of people for the actions of a few. The “bizarre displays” that I witnessed this year at the Seattle Pride march were tame compare to what I’ve seen in the Marti Gra.
Would somebody please explain to me why the religious right doesn’t exclude those people from basic human rights? As they do to me. (A gay man)
They are not fired from their jobs; they are not evicted from their homes they are allowed to marry. And I haven’t read of any Marti Gra bashings lately.
When straight people dress up in outlandish costumes get drunk and have a parade it’s a “party” In fact a world class party attracting followers from around the globe. But when gay people dress up in outlandish costumes get drunk and have a parade its shameful, sinful and unhealthy. Get a grip. Using the Gay Pride parade antics to describe gay people in general is just another form of gay bashing.
sorry the line should read
“Condem an entire group of people”
That’s what happens when I type at 5am before I’ve had my coffee.
LOOK IT IS CUT AND DRY……. WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE GOES. THERE IS NO IF ANDS OR BUTS. GOD SAID STRAIGHT OUT THAT IT IS A SIN. WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS JUSTIFY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. HE TELLS YOU TO LIVE FOR HIM AND NOT THE WORLD. PEOPLE TRY TO BELEIVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BUT WHAT GOD SAYS IS THE WAY IT IS. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE THAT PEOPLE SAY ARE A SIN BUT GOD SAID IT STR8 OUT THAT MAN WITH MAN, WOMAN WITH WOMAN, & WOMAN/MAN WITH BEAST IS A SIN. YOU CANT MAKE UP YOUR OWN RULES IF YOU ARE LIVING BY GOODS WORDS. REF…. LEVITCUS 20:13. tHERE ARE MORE REF. BUT AT THIS TIME I DONT HAVE THEM AT HAND. BUT READ THE BIBLE…. THAT IS THE ONLY WORD THAT COUNTS.. GOD BLESS
Wow, Wudi. You’ve really found your niche pissing off the conservative bible-belt. How odd, given the normally accepting nature of your posts. (And why, oh why, do AOL users have to SHOUT IN ALL CAPS? It’s hard to read.)
So I tracked down the reference to Leviticus, and I’m intrigued to find that it’s a passage referring to Moses receiving the word of God and his rules. (no, I don’t read the bible regularly.) I find it fascinating that most of the statements that are in the 10 commandments don’t say “his blood shall be upon him”; they say “I am your Lord.” It’s the instructions that are related to sexuality (adultry, homosexuality, beastiality) and witchcraft (note, not pagan worship, but witchcraft/wizardry) seem to be the ones with a death penalty attached to them.
That leads me to read the passage that 2 different voices are at work here. One that’s interested guidance to the Lord, and the other that is more interested in worldly punishment.
It’s passages like this that lead me to believe that men wrote the Bible. They had God’s voice in their ears and their mind, but they also had free will, so they were able to expand upon His words. That and hundreds of years of oral tradition relaying the stories of the bible before they were written down, then toss in a couple of language translations, also by men, that may or may not be correct…
That’s what leads me to my understanding that the Bible is excellent instruction, but not meant to be a literal word-for-word interpretation of God’s word. However, as I stated earlier in the thread, I am comfortable with my lack of knowledge, and I’m willing to learn from an honest, non-accusatory conversation.
Hm. What’d I do with my asbestos-lined suit?
I wasted almost 40 years of my life believing a lie. I thought I was going to live forever and also that I was the master of my future. Absolute lies! God is not a myth, even though many would love to believe that as an excuse to continue sinning. We will have to answer to Him of all our wickedness when we die. He is a holy God, He is a just God and he will not let our sinfullness go unpunished. If you read the bible with the right frame of mind you will be impacted by its spiritual power to change lives, that is why is called “The Word of God”. It is no accident that this holy book has survived for so many centuries, hundreds of people have died to protect it, it has survived many attemps to be destroyed and yet millions of copies still exist, when we compare the ancient manuscrists with our actual texts only minor changes due to diferences in languages occur; no mayor doctrine of the bible is affected. This you can verify by reading any book of the history of the bible. Cant you see the protective work of God in all this? It was written in at least 3 different languages for as many as 150 writers with different cultural backgrounds, men of flesh like you and me but absolutely inspired by the holy spirit of God, compelled to write under His direction word by word his message and his moral laws for us to followed and to live for. God used human vessels to transmit His will for our lives so they could reach our human hearts. What a perfect way to reach His creation! All this different people, backgrounds, personalities, different ideas and points of view and still the bible has the most perfect unity of thought and purpuse: The message of human SALVATION thru faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Chist on the cross. Since the beginning of creation God warned us about sinning saying: “If you sin you will die”. It was not only a spiritual death but a physical death as well. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God He had the right to killed them instantly; He created them and warned them and still they sinned. But what a surprise, instead of killing His creation He showed MERCY giving them time to repent and come back to Him. We often think that when it comes to God we have rights: we have the right to steal, lie, adulterate, kill, envy, be a homosexual or a prostitute or whatever other aberration we can imagine because we think that we will never have to answer to anybody. Do you really think that we have a chance to stand before such a holy, just, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and free of sin God and get away with all this filth? Who are you trying to full? Obviously not God. You might as well not believe in God or the bible if your answer is yes, because if you are really a christian you have to believe that the bible is the infalible word of God and that He will definitely punish sin and rebellion because it is implied in his moral an just character. I can honestly tell you all this because I was really lost(I was a homosexual) until I started reading the bible with an open and penitent heart, full of repentance and recognizing that I was wrong and in rebellion against God. The moment that I read the judgement from God in black and white I knew I had to change, the power of this holy word triggered the right response from my heart. You can not possibly be change by the power of this Word until you humble yourself before God, you can not read the bible with a heart full of pride and a challenging attitude. The bible is a spiritual book it does not appeal to the flesh.” You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. Jesus tells us in the bible that He is THE WAY, THE TRUTH and LIFE and only thru Him we obtain SALVATION but this can not happen until you approached Him with thirst in your soul and a receptive heart.
I feel Carmen’s interpretation of the Bible is right on. How could any Christian believe part of the Bible but not all. If God was “in the ears of the men” who wrote it, why would an all powerful God let mortal men change his word to fit their own values and beliefs. There can only be one voice in the Bible. If you believe that there is a God and at least part of the Bible is his word, then you have to believe that it is entirely his WORD FOR WORD. –INFALIBLE
homosexuality is wrong