It may be a coincidence that two different groups of Christians are hosting online discussion series on the topic of homosexuality as it relates to Christian sexual ethics to begin the new year. It may be that one is a response to the other. I don’t know, but if you have been wrestling with whether or not homosexuality is compatible with Christian discipleship in any form then you may be interested in this news:
On the one hand, Dallas Theological Seminary’s ‘The Table Podcast’ has a series on ‘Homosexuality in the Context of Christian Sexual Ethics’ beginning today (January 2nd) with four more parts scheduled to end on the 23rd. Part 1, Discussing Homosexuality and Sexuality Together has been posted already. Stanton Jones, Michael Brown, and Darrell Bock are the participants and I presume this trio will be featured for the entire series.
One the other hand, Darkwood Brew is hosting a series titled ‘For the Love of God: A Conversation about the Bible and Homosexuality’ that began December 30th, 2012, and end on February 3rd. According to Brian McLaren, “They’re launching a major 6-week series on Dec 30th called ‘For the Love of God: Civil Conversation on the Bible and Homosexuality.’ Confirmed guests include Dr. James Forbes, Bishop Gene Robinson, Dr. Jacq Lapsely (OT Prof, Princeton Theological Seminary), and Dr. Jack Levison (NT Prof, Seattle Pacific U), Rev. Bruce Van Blair (UCC minister/author, Invitation to Reformation, etc).”
Obviously these two discussions will approach the subject from different angles. This is one of the most controversial topics for Christians in Europe and North America. It has political implications, social implications, and it forces us to rethink our bibliology and hermeneutics. I hope these resources assist you in thinking about this subject.
If you have the time to listen to one or both of these series, or parts of these series, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
January 2, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Quoted “It has political implications, social implications, and it forces us to rethink our bibliology and hermeneutics.”
Does adultery, stealing, or any other form of sin force us to rethink our bibliology and hermeneutics? The fact we allow this sin ‘homosexuality’ to have this power IS THE issue. Isn’t that the controversy?
January 2, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Is it?
January 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Superficially, we could argue – no. We could argue many things all circumspect to the thing this quote exposes.
We don’t have debates about adultery. Murder doesn’t force us to rethink bibliology, or question our hermeneutics. Has anyone ever done a discussion series about how envy is changing the face of organised faith today?
These things are reserved only for this sin, homosexuality. This quote pointing out this curious power (in a blog about online discussions about the issue, no less) makes it more obvious that homosexuality is a sin like no other.
So, yes, I would say so.
January 2, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Then it seems you have your answer. I think there are a variety of reasons why some are rethinking homosexuality rather than, say, murder. It would seem that most of those who are rethinking homosexuality do so within the context of a monogamous version of it, so that needs to be considered. Now, if all forms of homosexuality remain sinful because homosexuality as homosexuality is evil then there is no discussion, but this is what needs to be determined. Some Christians would say all killing as a Christian is wrong. Others would say that there are exceptions such as serving as a soldier or police officer who defends the peace or functions as part of the government or in defense of the oppressed or even some forms of self-defense. In other words, while Jesus is pretty straightforward about turning the other cheek, and Paul is as straightforward about not repaying evil for evil, this hasn’t prevented Christians from asking if the words of Scripture address other scenarios not imagined by the authors of Scripture. Monogamous homosexuality is one of those scenarios according to some.
FWIW, I am not arguing (A) from a pacifistic position here nor (B) am I defending the idea of monogamous homosexuality. But I am trying to provide a picture of how these sorts of discussions can be more complicated than we may wish them to be.
January 2, 2013 at 6:00 pm
FWIW your eloquence speaks for itself, no disclaimer necessary.
It’s a good point, if undestanding ‘killing’ rather than murder biblically requires we exegete from the text, and its context, authorial intent, why not the same for homosexuality (especially given your point about monogamy, or others not anticipated)? I see no problem with a position like that.
I do see a problem with positions that suggest Christian values must change ‘to meet the times’ or ‘to reflect society’, ‘become relevant’, as is often the case with this particular issue. Godly values must (theologically) be timeless and eternal. Human values are rarely. It is more likely Godly values offend our sensibilities, than appeal to them.
So with respect to other scenarios not imagined by the author(s) of Scripture, if God is that author, there are no such scenarios, which means our efforts to inform our exegesis ultimately either results in realizing a dilemma between the values we prefer and ones that are ‘holy’, or we deny God is that author. Either way, your right, we must wrestle with scripture to make progress.
That said, homosexuality has been with us since Sodom and Gomorrah. It still doesn’t explain why this sin has power like no others (or even why a resurgence in interest in homosexuality is happening at this point in history).
January 3, 2013 at 8:49 am
I think it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the divine authorship of Scripture means that if we think we may have a scenario not addressed by Scripture then we must deny divine authorship. This is begging the question. We’d have to prove that divine authorship must include the idea that God made sure that Scripture has something to say about each and every ethical dilemma we might face. This seems (1) quite impossible for the size of the book and (2) to misunderstand the Bible’s role in the community. Why do we need the Holy Spirit if the Bible has the answer to every dilemma we might face? Why does the Bible as our narrative guide have to be understood as the skeleton key to every event we may experience? What if there are ethical questions faced by moderns not addressed in the Bible?
January 3, 2013 at 9:09 am
Brian, whenever this topic comes up for discussion, it reminds me of an event I attended years ago for a church denomination trying to come to terms with the homosexual constituency in its midst just wanting to be accepted. The seminar was part of the yearly conference. As people were given time to speak before a panel of church representatives (I was in the audience with a friend and not part of the panel; I am also not homosexual – my friend and me the only ones in the audience), I noticed in the conversations a number of angles of where the audience speakers were coming from: one had a tee-shirt with the line “I was an ex-gay,” expressing how trying to get out of what he now saw as God’s gift to him was impossible, and that he came to realize he had to embrace it to find peace. Another brought up the final acceptance of herself as a bi-sexual. Another pastor confessed that if he revealed his sexual orientation he would be de-frocked. I could see and feel the pain everyone was experiencing. Then, right in front of me, a young man stood up and began to share the struggles of having a sexual orientation to other males, but knew what God calls him to. He felt it was no different than any other sinful inclination that had to be “put to death by the Spirit” as Paul writes in Romans 8. No one else was forcing him to these conclusions he said; only scripture. As this was a time where monogamous homosexual relationships were not part of the dialogue, I wonder now how he would have been approached about his sense of sexual identity and its conflict in his understanding with God’s will. However that might be addressed now, I do know how what he said was received by the audience, especially when he said to the church representatives in tears and anguish: “if you listen to these people you will be of no help to me!”
I wonder if people who debate these things would be willing to at least sit in on the conversation of those on the opposite “side.” I know I was filled with such conflict and anguish I could barely process what was going on. At the end of the session, I felt that it would never be resolved. But I did wonder how someone like that young man would be received by either side – one commending him for his anguished discipline; the other rebuking him for not accepting himself. If the church would be no use to him in his struggles by listening to the audience, he would be of no use to the audience in the stance he knew he had to take.
January 3, 2013 at 9:19 am
Mark
One of the interesting things about the two The Table Podcast and Darkwood Brew is the very thing you observe: these two discussions are on either side of what seems to be a well-established line in the sand. I am sure the hosts of both will say and do say that people from other perspectives are welcomed into their discussion, and it may be true that this happens, but I get the same sense that you do that it may be one of those things where it is nearly impossible to get people to cross the aisle.
There have been period of my life where I have wanted to avoid the topic altogether. In fact, even mentioning these two discussions on my blog without accepting one and denouncing the other might be a bad move. People want to know the “side” you support.
At this stage in my life I maintain a pretty traditional Christian view of human sexuality, but I don’t feel bold about it, nor do I feel resolved. I feel utterly inept when it comes to addressing this topic at times because I know people from both sides. I know Christians who have come to reconcile their sexual orientation with their faith even when others do not. I know Christians who felt their faith helped them overcome (or has continued to help them) what they believe to be their trial and cross. I know people who think that if you even rub shoulders with homosexuals you are participating in something evil. It can be one of the hardest, upsetting, difficult to understand conversations in which a Christian can participate, no matter their view. I pray for more wisdom because I know I don’t have the answers.
January 3, 2013 at 11:49 am
Brian, have you ever read Richard Hays’ chapter on homosexuality in his book “The Moral Vision of the New Testament?” His stuggle resonated with me, especially since he had a friend who died of AIDS. I too hold to a pretty traditional view of human sexuality (and marriage), but am constantly trying to deal with it with more empathy than confrontation. I find much of the life of the Christians I engage with is tied up in other identities than that of Christ, be it nation, economics, politics, etc. In other words, if even sexuality becomes our main identity, it tends then to be something fought for and insisted upon. Things get pretty ugly here. And I do know if we don’t get the means right as well as the ends, the “ends” will be pretty catastrophic. I wonder if the “power-play” in the service of signficance and security wasn’t always the first card played, could something like this have a resolution? But then, our authority for God’s will has to be agreed upon and not made to serve other interests. Ah, I am rambling….so I’ll stop here
January 3, 2013 at 11:55 am
Mark
I have read Hays’ chapter, and it was helpful, as was W.J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, a text that has probably shaped my view of these topics more than any other. I think you are right that whether it be sexuality or something else there are very, very few of us Christians who place our sole identity in Christ. Nationalism is a huge hurdle for most Christians here in the US. Economic and political allegiances override our Christian unity frequently. Also, we pick-and-choose a lot when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on violence, money, divorce, the value of children, and so forth and so on. In other words, there is a reason why Romans 1-3 is so brilliant: we are gifted as highlighting the sins of others while turning a blind eye to our own. If we were as upset with our own shortcomings as we are with those of others it may be a very different conversation. I speak as one who is guilty of the “log in my eye” syndrom.
January 3, 2013 at 11:59 am
Brian said “I think it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the divine authorship of Scripture means that if we think we may have a scenario not addressed by Scripture then we must deny divine authorship. This is begging the question.”
Brian, that’s not what I said, but yes if I had said that – you’d be correct. It would be a false dichotomy. I agree that scripture doesn’t address all possible scenarios, divinely given or not. Divine authorship of scripture underlines the importance of asking the question “Are biblical claims true?”, “Does the bible provide sufficient ‘truth’ to ensure salvation?” etc.
If you’re reacting to the claim:
“So with respect to other scenarios not imagined by the author(s) of Scripture, if God is that author, there are no such scenarios, which means our efforts to inform our exegesis ultimately either results in realizing a dilemma between the values we prefer and ones that are ‘holy’, or we deny God is that author. Either way, your right, we must wrestle with scripture to make progress.”
I’m saying the ‘author’ is incapable of NOT imaging scenarios (I’m not saying the ‘author’ has explicitly provided instruction for EXACTLY EVERY scenario). You likely have surmised that unlike some, I assert Christian’s require FAITH and REASON (just as faith without works is dead – faith without reason is rotten). Therefore to assert that the ‘author’ is incapable of NOT imaging scenarios implies that whatever has come to us (in the form of scripture), if divine, should provide us sufficiently with either explicit or implicit material to address questions. This is why I concluded “we must wrestle with scripture to make progress”.
On the other hand, if we do find areas of human experience not explicitly or implicitly touched upon in scripture claimed to have been perfectly given by a perfect God, either that perfect God feels the matter doesn’t require clarification (human experience is sufficient to address the matter) or our God is not perfect.
The explicit argument I’m making here is that the church has correctly understood the bible’s view of homosexuality as sin. I believe the bible has provided perfectly on this issue.
I’d further add (since I’m being explicit) that nothing in human history suggests that over the course of the the Christian dispensation, we’ve somehow understood incorrectly. If anything, post modernism has transition the voguish fashions of our thinking from being ‘supremely confident in truth while doubting ourselves’ to ‘supremely confident in ourselves while doubting truth’.
January 3, 2013 at 12:04 pm
So, to keep it simple, you believe what Scripture does say is foundational enough to cover all possible forms of homosexuality? That is fine. I can accept that, though I don’t share your epistemological confidence.
FWIW, all caps text is the equivalent to yelling. I don’t think you’re yelling, but there are ways to italicize and bold text.
January 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Yes, exactly, with the provisio that I’m not committed to saying the issue is necessarily settled (though clealy I’m further down that path than you, as you point out)
Re: use of all caps – I apologize if it seems like yelling. That’s not my intent. Without direct access to markup (such as HTML tags, etc) the only way of shifting emphasis, or denoting intonation (that would otherwise be evident in speech) on the part of a commentator is to use punctuation or capitalization. I try to use both.
January 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm
I suspected that this was the aim of your caps, but this can be a contentious subject, and i don’t want your words to be misinterpreted by me or anyone else as being “angry” if you will.
January 3, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Based on the guest lists and institutions, it seems like both discussions are going be pretty insular and echo chamber-y and have their conclusions picked out beforehand.
January 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Joel:
Unfortunately, yes, I think you are correct. I’d like to remix the whole thing and put both groups in one room!
January 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm
I hold to a conservative position on sexuality, but I’m not sure how to engage the topic publicly, especially because I don’t have that many gay friends and no close ones.
January 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm
And I probably should have more, especially given where I live. But the typical ways of meeting people in big cities make me uncomfortable with any person I don’t know well.
January 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm
I don’t know that I know how to engage it publicly all that well either. When I moved to San Francisco one of my close friends “came out”. We started meeting to study Scripture and pray. He concluded that his sexuality was compatible with his Christianity. I told him that I considered him to be a brother in Christ, though I wasn’t at the place where I could reconcile homosexuality with Christian discipleship. Even though we came at the conversation doing our best to maintain a friendship, even after we had to agree to disagree, eventually it became a wedge. There was no way for him to see me as a friend if he felt I didn’t accept him for who he saw himself to be. It still haunts. I don’t know if there was a better way to do it though.
January 3, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Brian said “…but there are ways to italicize and bold text.”
Please. Do tell. HTML tags?
January 3, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Brian, may I offer some advice about reconciling with your friend?
January 4, 2013 at 3:55 am
Marlk’s example of the young man seeking to walk in Christian discipline and pleading that the church not accept the postition others were advocating ought to get more attention from Christians.
The ‘love’ mantra has distorted this issue as much as anyting. If anyone would care to perurse or review Love, Prayer, and Forgiveness: When Basics Become Heresies, I would be glad to send the pdf.
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/love-prayer-and-forgiveness-now-also-in-ebook-format/
January 4, 2013 at 8:52 am
Andrew
This page here shows how to do italics and bold: http://cms.about.com/od/maintain-your-cms-website/a/Write-In-Html-Bold-Italic-And-Links.htm
You are free to give advice, though we have long gone our separate ways, so my main aim is to be better prepared for the next time I am friends with someone who sexuality does seem to blend with traditional Christian sexual ethics.
Michael
Thank you for sharing. My personal reading load is a bit too full right now, but I hope someone who comes through here contacts you about it.
January 4, 2013 at 11:41 am
I knew this blog allowed HTML link tags but didn’t realize it would accept others. Thanks for pointing that out.
It’s too bad you and your friend have gone separate ways. The advice I would advocate would be this: Don’t allow yourself to see homosexuality as anything different than any other sin.
From this perspective, your friend sins – but don’t we all? The difference is that you happen to know ‘how’ he sins. I am impatient (which is a form of wrath). Now you know how I sin. How will you deal with me, knowing I am a sinner? Isn’t that how we should all deal with homosexual friends who are committed Christian’s knowing they are. How do we deal with our own sins? Don’t we pray for spiritual maturity (faith)?
There is no ‘homosexual’ category. There are only two categories as far as I can tell – saved and unsaved. If your friend was saved, your prayers should be directed as his spiritual maturity (so he like the rest of us, could be granted grace enough to manage his temptations). If he is unsaved, that is an entirely different problem (and likely a more difficult ones). To be saved we all need to recognize the need to be saved. Persistent sin hardens our hearts to deny this, but God can soften these hearts.
The form sin manifests itself is irrelevant (just as it being known to others is). Yet we hypocrites treat homosexuals as different (because we know the form their sin takes) when we ourselves are capable of hiding our sins, treating them as secret. To God it is all the same and equally plain.
Accordingly, we should treat homosexual as we treat ourselves as sinners; according to whether or not they are saved, and according to the grace they receive that strengthens them to manage their ‘falleness’, not according to their particular affliction. As believers, when we struggle with sin we pray for our ownunbelief. Does this mean we are not saved? No, but it does mean our prayer is directed appropriately at our lack of faith (maturity). We sin because of unbelief, so pray for that. Sin is sin.
Don’t allow yourself to see homosexuality as different from any other sin. As a Christian, you’re already equipped to exhibit grace towards unbelievers, you’re already equipped to fight a spiritual battle on their behalf. Either God will equip them or they will harden their hearts against Him. Either way, the spiritual battle they face is the same one you wage on your own behalf.
January 4, 2013 at 12:18 pm
You are correct that assuming homosexuality is sinful in and of itself we should not make it out to be worse than others. What is difficult is that when you are friends with someone who disagrees with you that (1) it is a sin and (2) sees it as part of their identity in a positive way and (3) has likely been abused (sometimes physically, almost always verbally) for their sexual orientation by others. If I say, “Well, you are homosexual and I have a pride issue” this won’t go far because while I interpret my pride as sin my friend doesn’t see his homosexuality the same way. Likewise, I don’t see my pride as a substantial piece of my self-identity, nor have I been treated unjustly because of my pride, so often the central aspect of the struggle is approaching someone for whom you care who self-identifies as a homosexual knowing that they have been mistreated for this and that if I frame it as “we all sin” it will be taken as just another slap in the face, another rejection of his identity.
January 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Agreed; and this was also my point.
Ultimately it isn’t you (or I) that convicts any conscience of its sin. It is God. So it isn’t evangelism that convinces anyone homosexuality is wrong. The purpose of evangelism is to reveal the truth of the bible so people arrive at the point they are able to obtain a relationship with God and believe Him fully.
So if a (homosexual) friend professes himself (or herself) to be a Christian but sees their sexual preference to be part of their identity, or causes them to exhibit pride, it means they’re not yet mature in their faith. This is not hopeless. Our prayers should be:
‘God grant them a soft heart, let them believe you Lord, speak to them, let them hear your voice and obtain a greater portion of faith; strengthen them in the face of temptation, and forgive them when they fail; lift them up in grace Oh God. Come soon our Saviour, tarry no longer, and please bring healing we pray!’
But isn’t that really a prayer for us all?