I realise that with the huge debate going on, we can lose focus on individuals and their needs. If you are a Christian who is homosexual, you might be wondering how on earth to live your life.
In my opinion, you can learn a lot from the Bible, particularly Paul's letters to the churches. If you study Galatians, you'll read about the fruit of the Spirit. Now fruit is not something that you do, it's something that is produced from a good tree. This means that if your heart is good, the fruit of your life will be good also. So, invite the Holy Spirit into your life and remember the greatest commandment - Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbour as yourself.
In Romans 14, Paul teaches about how to deal with different views. A key verse is 5 "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Later, in verse 12 we read "So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God." Finally, in verse 22 we read "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
The "eats" part refers to the debate about whether a Christian was free to eat anything or whether they had to follow Jewish laws and customs. However, it shows us that our faith and our relationship with God is what is important. It might well be that for you something is not okay that would be okay for someone else. And for this reason you need to pray about it and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.
Remember to always look for the fruit of the Spirit in your life and seek God's will in everything you do, and what is right for you, might not be right for everyone, so be very careful you don't lead someone else into sin.
God bless you.
Saturday 23 May 2009
the Bible... is not anti-homosexual
I have recently posted about my feelings against Bible passages being inappropriately used to discuss homosexuality (particularly taking an anti-homosexual position). However, in my recent quiet times and devotionals, I have felt led to more Bible passages that I think actually take an opposing view.
Firstly, a recap of the problems with traditional objections....
1. "It's not natural". This argument falls down very quickly. Firstly, who is to say that all things natural are good? Put a pack of hungry wolves in a room with a defenseless child and that child will be mauled. Good? No. Natural? Yes. Secondly, there are allegedly cases in the natural world of homosexual behaviour. I can't refer to these directly, but it is a good point to make - if an anti-homosexual argument rests on the case that it is not natural, then a finding that it is natural would completely wipe out that argument.
2. "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". A catchy slogan, even if rather simplistic! A verse often referred to in Genesis (Gen 2: 24)is "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". A problem with this is that we would be selectively choosing one verse at the expense of others. For example, the very next verse (Gen 2: 25) says "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame". If we take verse 24 to state that God designed one man for one woman, then we have to take the verse 25 to state that God designed men and women to be naked. In fact, they only wore clothes as a result of sin. Therefore clothes are a product of a fallen world. Are we to say therefore that practising clothes-wearers are sinning? Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a product of a fallen world, but I also believe that old age is a product of a fallen world. We accept old age and do not exclude people from positions of leadership in the church on account of it, but some feel we should excluse homosexual people from such.
3. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Two verses about homosexual practice. However, they are in a long list of other "forbidden practices" such as wearing clothes with mixed fibres, witholding a man's wages overnight, planting a field with two different kinds of seeds and cross-breeding animals. It sounds much more like an instruction to help a wandering people seeking to learn life in a community, very practical and also relating to sexual health. Some argue that Leviticus has "moral laws" alongside other laws that are more civil or practical. This is a rather desperate attempt to reconcile a text that does not sit comfortably with us if you ask me. Who are we to decide which laws are moral and which are practical? In Leviticus 17 it is clear that eating blood is forbidden. Is this practical or moral? Does this mean we can't eat black pudding (blood pudding) today? Surely this depends on our interpretation of what kind of law it is... and this is the problem with Leviticus as an argument against a same sex relationship.
4. Romans 1:18-32. This is a fascinating passage that mentions "un-natural relations". However, it is also in the context of worshipping man made idols and this hints strongly that we are talking about pagan temple worship, that included prostitution and same sex promiscuity. To pick verses from this passage runs the same risk as picking verses from Leviticus. In verse 29 we read "They are gossips" and in 30 "they disobey their parents". Does this mean that people who gossip (including sites like Facebook and Twitter) deserve death? What about rebellious teenage children? It says in verse 32 that "those who do such things deserve death". No, to me this sounds like a much more serious situation than a loving same sex relationship. This is about degrading of our bodies, sexual promiscuity and openly worshipping false gods.
5. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." This is a fascinating passage, particularly as we know that Christ came to save sinners, proclaiming almost the reverse message. To understand this passage, you have to understand the whole context of the letter. Paul was writing to a church surrounded by pagan temples with sexual activity relating to worship. The church Paul was writing to was slipping into "worldly ways" with people suing each other and acting in dishonorable ways (one man sleeping with his step-mother for example). Paul is exhorting them to not live in this way but to remember that they have been washed and sanctified and justified by Christ Jesus. However, many people look at this list, and selectively ignore the words "drunkards", "slanderers" and "greedy" and instead look at "homosexual offenders" and jump on this to claim that homosexuals are offenders and therefore God is anti-homosexual. However, this is a very dangerous game to play. We don't use the term "homosexual offender" nowadays. The closest term we have is "sexual offender". A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature. It is not a crime to be sexual. I would therefore argue that a homosexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is homosexual in nature. It is not a crime to be homosexual.
This type of debate can go on, but I hope to have shown that the most common arguments to state that the Bible or God is anti-homosexual are very weak indeed. True, if you start from a position of believing that homosexuality is wrong, you will find verses to back up your world view. The same happened with slavery, the same happens with people who don't want women in positions of leadership in the church and no doubt many atrocities throughout history.
However, if you approach the Bible with a different mind-set (I would like to say "open mind" but we are all subject to our own prejudice) then you can see a totally different message.
The Apostle Paul goes against the "Genesis principle" when he says in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better not to marry. A single person is able to devote themselves fully to God, but a married person is concerned with "worldly affairs". However, he makes a concession - he states in verse 9 that "if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". I wonder if Paul would have said the same of Civil Partnerships between same sex couples. It is better for them to 'marry' and be commited to one another in a loving, monogamous relationship than to burn with passion and sleep around.
Paul also says in verse 17 that "each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is a rule I lay down in all the churches." If a man or woman is gay and becomes a Christian, is it not anti-Biblical to try and "convert" them to heterosexuality?
The most compelling book in the Bible on the topic is actually Galatians. This was used by Luther as a foundation for reform. In it, Paul comments on Christians who tried to force other believers to abide by Old Testament Laws (in this case, circumcision). Paul makes a very eloquent argument that if you try to receive righteousness by observing the Law, you become subject to the whole Law and are under a curse. Furthermore, Christ then died for nothing. Paul says we receive righteousness by faith in Christ Jesus, not by our own strength in following Old Testament Law. How dare we try and force a section of our church to follow a few random laws from Leviticus when we ourselves continue to sin in many ways yet are saved by grace.
Perhaps the most compelling argument that Christians who believe God and the Bible to be anti-homosexual (or anti homosexual practice) is found in this same letter. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We are all one in Christ Jesus, and this includes homosexual Christians. To artificially raise divisions, separating "good Christians" from "Christians who are active homosexuals" is totally against the spirit of Christianity and the Word of God.
A good measure of our actions and attitudes is to look at Galatians 5:16-26. Here Paul talks of the fruit of spirit and the acts of the sinful nature. If your life is full of sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like... then you are not living a spirit filled life as a Christian. If, however, you are full of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, then you can be assured that you are living by the Spirit.
In the current debate in the church of Scotland, a minister has responded to a call to be a minister in a church in Aberdeen. He informed them about his sexual orientation, that he would move in to the manse with his Christian (male) partner. He was voted in by a majority and this was agreed by a majority vote by the Presbytery of Aberdeen. Those who testify to the character of this man say that he is a kind, loving man and a wonderful preacher.
A few objected to his appointment, resigned from the church, wrote letters of complaint to the General Assembly. Others took up this movement and started a petition against his appointment, claiming that the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual practice (oh, if only they would read this blog!). They are trying to raise enough objection to stand against this minister's appointment and are encouraging others to join this group.
I can totally understand where they are coming from. A few years ago I would have signed this petition. But today, when I look at the fruit of the Spirit and compare this with "dissensions and factions" I think I know where I stand on this matter. I will not be signing this petition.
Only when we can accept homosexual couples can we start to minister to these people, helping them in their relationships, drawing them to the love of Christ, encouraging them towards lives of purity and love and then in turn drawing others.
I pray a blessing on the Church of Scotland, on the worldwide church and on you, the reader. May God have mercy on us, may Christ surround us with his love, may the Spirit guide us and draw us together in peace, love and unity.
God bless <><
Firstly, a recap of the problems with traditional objections....
1. "It's not natural". This argument falls down very quickly. Firstly, who is to say that all things natural are good? Put a pack of hungry wolves in a room with a defenseless child and that child will be mauled. Good? No. Natural? Yes. Secondly, there are allegedly cases in the natural world of homosexual behaviour. I can't refer to these directly, but it is a good point to make - if an anti-homosexual argument rests on the case that it is not natural, then a finding that it is natural would completely wipe out that argument.
2. "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". A catchy slogan, even if rather simplistic! A verse often referred to in Genesis (Gen 2: 24)is "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". A problem with this is that we would be selectively choosing one verse at the expense of others. For example, the very next verse (Gen 2: 25) says "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame". If we take verse 24 to state that God designed one man for one woman, then we have to take the verse 25 to state that God designed men and women to be naked. In fact, they only wore clothes as a result of sin. Therefore clothes are a product of a fallen world. Are we to say therefore that practising clothes-wearers are sinning? Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a product of a fallen world, but I also believe that old age is a product of a fallen world. We accept old age and do not exclude people from positions of leadership in the church on account of it, but some feel we should excluse homosexual people from such.
3. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Two verses about homosexual practice. However, they are in a long list of other "forbidden practices" such as wearing clothes with mixed fibres, witholding a man's wages overnight, planting a field with two different kinds of seeds and cross-breeding animals. It sounds much more like an instruction to help a wandering people seeking to learn life in a community, very practical and also relating to sexual health. Some argue that Leviticus has "moral laws" alongside other laws that are more civil or practical. This is a rather desperate attempt to reconcile a text that does not sit comfortably with us if you ask me. Who are we to decide which laws are moral and which are practical? In Leviticus 17 it is clear that eating blood is forbidden. Is this practical or moral? Does this mean we can't eat black pudding (blood pudding) today? Surely this depends on our interpretation of what kind of law it is... and this is the problem with Leviticus as an argument against a same sex relationship.
4. Romans 1:18-32. This is a fascinating passage that mentions "un-natural relations". However, it is also in the context of worshipping man made idols and this hints strongly that we are talking about pagan temple worship, that included prostitution and same sex promiscuity. To pick verses from this passage runs the same risk as picking verses from Leviticus. In verse 29 we read "They are gossips" and in 30 "they disobey their parents". Does this mean that people who gossip (including sites like Facebook and Twitter) deserve death? What about rebellious teenage children? It says in verse 32 that "those who do such things deserve death". No, to me this sounds like a much more serious situation than a loving same sex relationship. This is about degrading of our bodies, sexual promiscuity and openly worshipping false gods.
5. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." This is a fascinating passage, particularly as we know that Christ came to save sinners, proclaiming almost the reverse message. To understand this passage, you have to understand the whole context of the letter. Paul was writing to a church surrounded by pagan temples with sexual activity relating to worship. The church Paul was writing to was slipping into "worldly ways" with people suing each other and acting in dishonorable ways (one man sleeping with his step-mother for example). Paul is exhorting them to not live in this way but to remember that they have been washed and sanctified and justified by Christ Jesus. However, many people look at this list, and selectively ignore the words "drunkards", "slanderers" and "greedy" and instead look at "homosexual offenders" and jump on this to claim that homosexuals are offenders and therefore God is anti-homosexual. However, this is a very dangerous game to play. We don't use the term "homosexual offender" nowadays. The closest term we have is "sexual offender". A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature. It is not a crime to be sexual. I would therefore argue that a homosexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is homosexual in nature. It is not a crime to be homosexual.
This type of debate can go on, but I hope to have shown that the most common arguments to state that the Bible or God is anti-homosexual are very weak indeed. True, if you start from a position of believing that homosexuality is wrong, you will find verses to back up your world view. The same happened with slavery, the same happens with people who don't want women in positions of leadership in the church and no doubt many atrocities throughout history.
However, if you approach the Bible with a different mind-set (I would like to say "open mind" but we are all subject to our own prejudice) then you can see a totally different message.
The Apostle Paul goes against the "Genesis principle" when he says in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better not to marry. A single person is able to devote themselves fully to God, but a married person is concerned with "worldly affairs". However, he makes a concession - he states in verse 9 that "if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". I wonder if Paul would have said the same of Civil Partnerships between same sex couples. It is better for them to 'marry' and be commited to one another in a loving, monogamous relationship than to burn with passion and sleep around.
Paul also says in verse 17 that "each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is a rule I lay down in all the churches." If a man or woman is gay and becomes a Christian, is it not anti-Biblical to try and "convert" them to heterosexuality?
The most compelling book in the Bible on the topic is actually Galatians. This was used by Luther as a foundation for reform. In it, Paul comments on Christians who tried to force other believers to abide by Old Testament Laws (in this case, circumcision). Paul makes a very eloquent argument that if you try to receive righteousness by observing the Law, you become subject to the whole Law and are under a curse. Furthermore, Christ then died for nothing. Paul says we receive righteousness by faith in Christ Jesus, not by our own strength in following Old Testament Law. How dare we try and force a section of our church to follow a few random laws from Leviticus when we ourselves continue to sin in many ways yet are saved by grace.
Perhaps the most compelling argument that Christians who believe God and the Bible to be anti-homosexual (or anti homosexual practice) is found in this same letter. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We are all one in Christ Jesus, and this includes homosexual Christians. To artificially raise divisions, separating "good Christians" from "Christians who are active homosexuals" is totally against the spirit of Christianity and the Word of God.
A good measure of our actions and attitudes is to look at Galatians 5:16-26. Here Paul talks of the fruit of spirit and the acts of the sinful nature. If your life is full of sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like... then you are not living a spirit filled life as a Christian. If, however, you are full of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, then you can be assured that you are living by the Spirit.
In the current debate in the church of Scotland, a minister has responded to a call to be a minister in a church in Aberdeen. He informed them about his sexual orientation, that he would move in to the manse with his Christian (male) partner. He was voted in by a majority and this was agreed by a majority vote by the Presbytery of Aberdeen. Those who testify to the character of this man say that he is a kind, loving man and a wonderful preacher.
A few objected to his appointment, resigned from the church, wrote letters of complaint to the General Assembly. Others took up this movement and started a petition against his appointment, claiming that the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual practice (oh, if only they would read this blog!). They are trying to raise enough objection to stand against this minister's appointment and are encouraging others to join this group.
I can totally understand where they are coming from. A few years ago I would have signed this petition. But today, when I look at the fruit of the Spirit and compare this with "dissensions and factions" I think I know where I stand on this matter. I will not be signing this petition.
Only when we can accept homosexual couples can we start to minister to these people, helping them in their relationships, drawing them to the love of Christ, encouraging them towards lives of purity and love and then in turn drawing others.
I pray a blessing on the Church of Scotland, on the worldwide church and on you, the reader. May God have mercy on us, may Christ surround us with his love, may the Spirit guide us and draw us together in peace, love and unity.
God bless <><
Sunday 3 May 2009
homosexuality... and the Bible
There have always been debates in the church about homosexuality. However, in the church of Scotland, things are reaching fever pitch, as a minister has been accepted as a minister in a church in Aberdeen. This minister is homosexual.
My issue is not with this man, as I know nothing about him. My issue is with the arguments that are put forward against homosexuality that claim to be biblical.
As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in its authority in my life.
What bothers me, is that I've only ever heard arguments that don't really stand up to scrutiny. Here are the 3 key passages I've heard used from the Bible to argue against homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Matthew 19: 3-9
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him [Jesus]. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
1 Corinthians 6: 9(b)-10
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Now, I should state that I am neither pro-homosexuality nor anti-homosexuality. It shouldn't be relevant, but I am writing this as a heterosexual, married man. Here are my problems with using the above quotes to put forward an argument that says homosexuality is unbiblical.
Leviticus is a passage that shows how God has given the Israelites various laws as they settled as a community and began to establish themselves. This quote comes in a long list of unlawful sexual relations. It includes not sleeping with relatives, women during their periods and animals. Interestingly, that chapter starts off with the following statement (verses 3-5):
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them."
Part of what follows appears to be a list of prohibited activites that does two things. Firstly, it makes a distinction between God's people and the other people around (who worshipped other gods). Sexual promiscuity was probably rife, and God didn't want this to be the case for His people. Secondly, a lot of these commands are to do with hygiene and health. We know now of the dangers of in-breeding and sleeping with close relatives. We know about sexually transmitted diseases too. Remembering that we are talking about about a time that is around 3-4000 years ago, it's pretty impressive to be reading about early sex education. Sleeping with a man as one sleeps with a woman probably refers to anal sex.
Now, it wasn't a pleasant experience, but I just did an internet search on the health risks of anal sex and found enough information about disease, illness and damage to put me off tomorrow's breakfast.
Yes, it's true that one possible interpretation of this passage is that God hates homosexual practice. However, it's not convincing me, because it could equally be a passage that is talking about sexual health and well being. What makes me even more uncomfortable about the use of this passage is that just a chapter before, we read that it was totally forbidden for an Israelite to eat any blood. To apply that directly to today (as people do with the homosexual passage) would mean that it is a sin for people to eat black pudding (or as they say in the US, blood pudding) or meat that is rare (as many chefs love to prepare!).
So why do we hear preaching about homosexuality being a sin, but we don't hear about black pudding or (as Leviticus 18:19 says) the sin of approaching a woman for sexual relations when she is in her monthly period?
Furthermore, there are verses scattered throughout Leviticus that are completely ignored by the church today. For example, it is wrong to hold back the wages of a hired man overnight (Leviticus 19:13). What about the 30 day invoices we use regularly or sending a cheque in the post?
Or what about Leviticus 19:19... where I read that I am not to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? My jumper is 65% polyester, 35% cotton. Am I subject to God's wrath on account of this?
I'm not saying that God is pro-homosexual in the 21st Century. I am saying that we cannot use Leviticus 18:22 as a sound argument to say that God "hates" homosexual practice.
Matthew 19 is also often referred to. Now, here we move away from Leviticus into New Testament times and in fact, the actual words of Jesus Christ. What has always intrigued me is that Jesus never actually spoke about homosexuality. If he knew it was going to be such a big issue, why didn't he address it? Of course, just because Jesus says nothing doesn't mean he said it's okay either - after all, Jesus didn't mention suicide bombing a primary school but it's fairly safe to assume that he probably wouldn't have approved. But what does Jesus actually say here? Well, it's really important, before we look at Jesus' answer, to look at the question. Jesus refers to Genesis, to man and woman uniting to become one flesh. Sounds like we might be getting close now... but no, we aren't. The reason is that this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with divorce. The teachers of the law are trying to trick him and ask a question about divorce. "Is it always okay?" they ask. Some commentators argue that he was being asked to side in a debate between two prominent Jewish teachers who argued about when divorce was acceptable. Jesus basically says [and I paraphrase] "look, Moses said you could divorce, not because it was the right thing to do, but because your hearts are hard. It's not the way it should be. Faithfulness is what's important. The only legitimate reason is if one party isn't faithful."
What fascinates me here is that Moses seems to have given them permission to do something that Jesus says stems from something that isn't the way it should be. So wait... it's not black and white? Life's not that straightforward? Surely not (!).
Another interesting point about this passage is that Jesus' disciples then pick up the discussion and say "if this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry". This sounds very similar to teaching by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. In this letter to the church in Corinth, Paul essentially says it's better to be single than married. Why? Because when you're single you can devote yourself entirely to God, whereas when you are married, you have other concerns.
Why do we not hear this preached in churches? Why do we hear arguments about homosexuality being "un-natural" and how the natural order is for one man to be married to one woman (when interestingly, so many people in the Bible had many wives). Why are we not hearing that being single is a great thing to be?
While we are on this passage in Corinthians, I think it helps us wrestle with another argument often put forward. We're told that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I have no problem with that. But then we're told by some that God loves homosexuals, but hates homosexual practice. Well, he certainly hated it in Leviticus, but perhaps for different reasons.
It is often suggested that a homosexual person should force themselves to live a celibate life. True, it's acknowledged that this might be difficult for some, but it's assumed that it's the way it just has to be. At first I was taken along by this argument. But when you look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, it throws a whole new perspective on things. Paul says "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
So here, the apostle Paul essentially says to people that if they have passions and can't control themselves, then the best thing for them is to commit to another person in marriage. So I would ask the question - why are we happy to let heterosexual people listen to this teaching, but we tell homosexual people they have to be single or be excluded from the church or positions of leadership? Would it not be better for a homosexual man or woman to be committed to another in a loving relationship where they have made vows in front of witnesses in the eyes of God than for them to suffer and feel excluded and abused by the church? Then we could apply the same principles we hear Jesus talking about - divorce is not an acceptable way forward unless there is marital unfaithfulness. So, it's a serious, lifelong commitment, not just a romantic gesture.
On another argument, that of "the way things were created in Genesis", I think that Paul's teaching above gives us problems. If God created man to be with a woman and Paul says "actually, it's better to be single", then how can we argue that Genesis gives us the blueprint for all Christian life decisions? The apostle Paul himself seems to put forward a compromise to the "way of Genesis".
Some people compare homosexuality to having an illness, perhaps as a result of the original sin or fall. This is a tempting analagy to draw on, yet is a very harsh way to describe someone. I do actually believe that homosexuality is a result of the fall, but in the same way that old age was the result of the fall. I would never consider calling someone who is elderly "being un-natural as a result of a sinful world". I would love them, encourage them to live godly lives and the age issue would be a non-issue for me.
Finally, if you do a search for the word "homosexual" in the NIV Bible, you only find it once. It's in the same letter from Paul. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul talks about homosexual offenders not inheriting the kingdom of God. Now, what is really interesting here, is to consider the context. Just as we got a lot from understanding the context of Leviticus, we learn a lot here when we understand how Corinth was full of sexual activity. The temple to Aphrodite at one time had 1,000 prostitute priestesses. The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by a culture that involved sexual activity. What intrigues me about this passage is that Paul doesn't say "homosexuals will not inherit God's kingdom" No, he says "neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". Seen in the context of religious activity that involved all these things in the list, it makes sense that Paul is essentially saying "come on guys, don't be like these people!" If we use that passage to say that Paul is anti-homosexual (and that therefore God is anti-homosexual) then this means Paul (and God) is anti-drunkards. Now, it's probably true that God doesn't want us to get drunk, but why don't we hear drunkards and slanderers mentioned in the same sentence as homosexual offenders... oh, and how strange, the word "offender" is attached. Yes, Paul could be saying that all homosexuals are offenders. But he could equally be saying that there are people out there who are homosexual offenders (emphasis mine) - perhaps something to do with the temple prostitution? It is also interesting that today we use the expression "sexual offender" but I hear no-one saying that God hates the sexual. A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature, not who is an offender because they are sexual. Perhaps the same applies to the homosexual offender?
On a side note, I read recently that the concept of homosexual identity only really emerged in the 19th Century, with the first use of the phrase "homosexual" being used in 1869. The Bible does, however, talk about homosexual activity, but people were probably not thought of as being homosexual in nature, rather people who practiced homosexual behaviour. It might seem a trivial point, but it does show us that in various translations of the Bible, the way of expressing homosexual activity probably is heavily influenced by the culture of the time.
I think I'll have lost most of my readers by now... either to sleep or starvation, so I'll stop soon. The point I'm trying to make is that I've yet to find a convincing argument that says the Bible is anti-homosexual. Perhaps homosexuality is a product of a fallen world in the same way that heart disease and old age are also. I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by that comparison. I also have a genetic disorder and I believe this is a product of me living in a sinful world that is not (yet) as God intends. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus died on a cross for me, that I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My prayer is that fear and prejudice will be assuaged by the love of the Holy Spirit to allow us to wrestle with the issues relevant in our society today. Instead of condemnation based on mis-interpretation of sacred texts, let's try and grow closer to God and learn how to fulful the great commission on our earth - Love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
God bless you all <><
My issue is not with this man, as I know nothing about him. My issue is with the arguments that are put forward against homosexuality that claim to be biblical.
As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in its authority in my life.
What bothers me, is that I've only ever heard arguments that don't really stand up to scrutiny. Here are the 3 key passages I've heard used from the Bible to argue against homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Matthew 19: 3-9
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him [Jesus]. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
1 Corinthians 6: 9(b)-10
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Now, I should state that I am neither pro-homosexuality nor anti-homosexuality. It shouldn't be relevant, but I am writing this as a heterosexual, married man. Here are my problems with using the above quotes to put forward an argument that says homosexuality is unbiblical.
Leviticus is a passage that shows how God has given the Israelites various laws as they settled as a community and began to establish themselves. This quote comes in a long list of unlawful sexual relations. It includes not sleeping with relatives, women during their periods and animals. Interestingly, that chapter starts off with the following statement (verses 3-5):
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them."
Part of what follows appears to be a list of prohibited activites that does two things. Firstly, it makes a distinction between God's people and the other people around (who worshipped other gods). Sexual promiscuity was probably rife, and God didn't want this to be the case for His people. Secondly, a lot of these commands are to do with hygiene and health. We know now of the dangers of in-breeding and sleeping with close relatives. We know about sexually transmitted diseases too. Remembering that we are talking about about a time that is around 3-4000 years ago, it's pretty impressive to be reading about early sex education. Sleeping with a man as one sleeps with a woman probably refers to anal sex.
Now, it wasn't a pleasant experience, but I just did an internet search on the health risks of anal sex and found enough information about disease, illness and damage to put me off tomorrow's breakfast.
Yes, it's true that one possible interpretation of this passage is that God hates homosexual practice. However, it's not convincing me, because it could equally be a passage that is talking about sexual health and well being. What makes me even more uncomfortable about the use of this passage is that just a chapter before, we read that it was totally forbidden for an Israelite to eat any blood. To apply that directly to today (as people do with the homosexual passage) would mean that it is a sin for people to eat black pudding (or as they say in the US, blood pudding) or meat that is rare (as many chefs love to prepare!).
So why do we hear preaching about homosexuality being a sin, but we don't hear about black pudding or (as Leviticus 18:19 says) the sin of approaching a woman for sexual relations when she is in her monthly period?
Furthermore, there are verses scattered throughout Leviticus that are completely ignored by the church today. For example, it is wrong to hold back the wages of a hired man overnight (Leviticus 19:13). What about the 30 day invoices we use regularly or sending a cheque in the post?
Or what about Leviticus 19:19... where I read that I am not to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? My jumper is 65% polyester, 35% cotton. Am I subject to God's wrath on account of this?
I'm not saying that God is pro-homosexual in the 21st Century. I am saying that we cannot use Leviticus 18:22 as a sound argument to say that God "hates" homosexual practice.
Matthew 19 is also often referred to. Now, here we move away from Leviticus into New Testament times and in fact, the actual words of Jesus Christ. What has always intrigued me is that Jesus never actually spoke about homosexuality. If he knew it was going to be such a big issue, why didn't he address it? Of course, just because Jesus says nothing doesn't mean he said it's okay either - after all, Jesus didn't mention suicide bombing a primary school but it's fairly safe to assume that he probably wouldn't have approved. But what does Jesus actually say here? Well, it's really important, before we look at Jesus' answer, to look at the question. Jesus refers to Genesis, to man and woman uniting to become one flesh. Sounds like we might be getting close now... but no, we aren't. The reason is that this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with divorce. The teachers of the law are trying to trick him and ask a question about divorce. "Is it always okay?" they ask. Some commentators argue that he was being asked to side in a debate between two prominent Jewish teachers who argued about when divorce was acceptable. Jesus basically says [and I paraphrase] "look, Moses said you could divorce, not because it was the right thing to do, but because your hearts are hard. It's not the way it should be. Faithfulness is what's important. The only legitimate reason is if one party isn't faithful."
What fascinates me here is that Moses seems to have given them permission to do something that Jesus says stems from something that isn't the way it should be. So wait... it's not black and white? Life's not that straightforward? Surely not (!).
Another interesting point about this passage is that Jesus' disciples then pick up the discussion and say "if this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry". This sounds very similar to teaching by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. In this letter to the church in Corinth, Paul essentially says it's better to be single than married. Why? Because when you're single you can devote yourself entirely to God, whereas when you are married, you have other concerns.
Why do we not hear this preached in churches? Why do we hear arguments about homosexuality being "un-natural" and how the natural order is for one man to be married to one woman (when interestingly, so many people in the Bible had many wives). Why are we not hearing that being single is a great thing to be?
While we are on this passage in Corinthians, I think it helps us wrestle with another argument often put forward. We're told that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I have no problem with that. But then we're told by some that God loves homosexuals, but hates homosexual practice. Well, he certainly hated it in Leviticus, but perhaps for different reasons.
It is often suggested that a homosexual person should force themselves to live a celibate life. True, it's acknowledged that this might be difficult for some, but it's assumed that it's the way it just has to be. At first I was taken along by this argument. But when you look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, it throws a whole new perspective on things. Paul says "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
So here, the apostle Paul essentially says to people that if they have passions and can't control themselves, then the best thing for them is to commit to another person in marriage. So I would ask the question - why are we happy to let heterosexual people listen to this teaching, but we tell homosexual people they have to be single or be excluded from the church or positions of leadership? Would it not be better for a homosexual man or woman to be committed to another in a loving relationship where they have made vows in front of witnesses in the eyes of God than for them to suffer and feel excluded and abused by the church? Then we could apply the same principles we hear Jesus talking about - divorce is not an acceptable way forward unless there is marital unfaithfulness. So, it's a serious, lifelong commitment, not just a romantic gesture.
On another argument, that of "the way things were created in Genesis", I think that Paul's teaching above gives us problems. If God created man to be with a woman and Paul says "actually, it's better to be single", then how can we argue that Genesis gives us the blueprint for all Christian life decisions? The apostle Paul himself seems to put forward a compromise to the "way of Genesis".
Some people compare homosexuality to having an illness, perhaps as a result of the original sin or fall. This is a tempting analagy to draw on, yet is a very harsh way to describe someone. I do actually believe that homosexuality is a result of the fall, but in the same way that old age was the result of the fall. I would never consider calling someone who is elderly "being un-natural as a result of a sinful world". I would love them, encourage them to live godly lives and the age issue would be a non-issue for me.
Finally, if you do a search for the word "homosexual" in the NIV Bible, you only find it once. It's in the same letter from Paul. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul talks about homosexual offenders not inheriting the kingdom of God. Now, what is really interesting here, is to consider the context. Just as we got a lot from understanding the context of Leviticus, we learn a lot here when we understand how Corinth was full of sexual activity. The temple to Aphrodite at one time had 1,000 prostitute priestesses. The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by a culture that involved sexual activity. What intrigues me about this passage is that Paul doesn't say "homosexuals will not inherit God's kingdom" No, he says "neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". Seen in the context of religious activity that involved all these things in the list, it makes sense that Paul is essentially saying "come on guys, don't be like these people!" If we use that passage to say that Paul is anti-homosexual (and that therefore God is anti-homosexual) then this means Paul (and God) is anti-drunkards. Now, it's probably true that God doesn't want us to get drunk, but why don't we hear drunkards and slanderers mentioned in the same sentence as homosexual offenders... oh, and how strange, the word "offender" is attached. Yes, Paul could be saying that all homosexuals are offenders. But he could equally be saying that there are people out there who are homosexual offenders (emphasis mine) - perhaps something to do with the temple prostitution? It is also interesting that today we use the expression "sexual offender" but I hear no-one saying that God hates the sexual. A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature, not who is an offender because they are sexual. Perhaps the same applies to the homosexual offender?
On a side note, I read recently that the concept of homosexual identity only really emerged in the 19th Century, with the first use of the phrase "homosexual" being used in 1869. The Bible does, however, talk about homosexual activity, but people were probably not thought of as being homosexual in nature, rather people who practiced homosexual behaviour. It might seem a trivial point, but it does show us that in various translations of the Bible, the way of expressing homosexual activity probably is heavily influenced by the culture of the time.
I think I'll have lost most of my readers by now... either to sleep or starvation, so I'll stop soon. The point I'm trying to make is that I've yet to find a convincing argument that says the Bible is anti-homosexual. Perhaps homosexuality is a product of a fallen world in the same way that heart disease and old age are also. I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by that comparison. I also have a genetic disorder and I believe this is a product of me living in a sinful world that is not (yet) as God intends. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus died on a cross for me, that I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My prayer is that fear and prejudice will be assuaged by the love of the Holy Spirit to allow us to wrestle with the issues relevant in our society today. Instead of condemnation based on mis-interpretation of sacred texts, let's try and grow closer to God and learn how to fulful the great commission on our earth - Love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
God bless you all <><
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)