Category Archives: Sexual Ethics

Christian perspectives on homosexuality and sexual ethics

Posted on by

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:

table-podcast-logoOn 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.

1676627_300One 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.

About these ads

Is it 2011? The Gospel Coalition and Rob Bell have our attention, again.

Posted on by

Rob Bell is back with a new video titled “Rediscovering Wonder” that sounds a lot like a response to his detractors if you “listen between the lines.” Watch and tell me your thoughts (HT: American Jesus):

Also, we can’t mention Rob Bell without The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gaining our attention. Jared C. Wilson approvingly shared (see The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc) an excerpt from a book by Douglas Wilson (Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man) that describes the role of males in sexual activity as follows: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” What do women do according to Wilson? “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Interestingly he frames this as the good that rape culture and bondage games “pollute.” You can read the vulgarity yourself, though I do recommend caution.

Of course, as you can imagine, this has outraged quite a few. It could come across as quite insensitive to, oh I don’t know,  sexual abuse victims maybe? Doug Wilson responded by accusing everyone of not knowing how to read and Jared Wilson wrote a follow-up post (see Shades of Outrage) that is the equivalent to telling an impolite joke at a party and then responding to everyone’s outrage with, “What? What’s wrong? C’mon people, loosen up. Hey, where you going? No one can take a joke!” (see Dianna Anderson’s critique)

I don’t lose sleep that groups like The Gospel Coalition exist. I am sad that they are trying so hard to monopolize the word “Gospel.” Don’t they know misogyny is available? It is far more fitting.

Plenty of good, smart folks have responded already (I think the excerpt speaks for itself and I think anyone who thinks it is OK reveals their true colors…no need to argue with them): Joel Watts asks that these people unmask their ideas about sex and call  it what it is: rape. Daniel Kirk agrees calling “sexual conquering” rape. Rodney Thomas exposes the sexism and racism of this post. Rachel Held Evans gives a thorough response. Scot McKnight asks TGC to do the right thing by calling them to take the offensive post down.

Needless to say, it is 2011 again.

A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage?

Posted on by

What if there is a win-win approach to settling the debate over same-sex marriage?

Bob Hyatt, Tony Campolo, Kurt Willems, and others have advocated a “common sense solution” to the debate over same-sex marriage, but are evangelicals listening?

As I mentioned yesterday (see “Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.”) I am perplexed by the unspoken methodology with which Christians approach addressing the matter of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I think most Christians use the logic of (A) Scripture forbids homosexuality + (B) same-sex marriage (SSM) affirms homosexuality = therefore, (C) we should vote against same sex marriage. There are more complex, well-argued versions of this, but most Christians don’t seem to have given adequate attention to formulating their reasoning for their views.

Last year Kurt Willems wrote a satirical piece asking Christians to sign his petition banning divorce (see “Sign My Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce!”) that strikes at the heart of the problem I have with evangelical jargon on this subject. We use language regarding something being “biblical,” therefore we determine what should be “legal,” but we are inconsistent, especially regarding sexual ethics. Most of us would not want a constitutional amendment to ban divorce, even if Jesus gave very little wiggle-room on this matter. Why do we want people to have the freedom to divorce legally when divorce stands in opposition to a Christian understanding of marriage? While someone may ignore Willems’ post as being too tongue-in-cheek there remains an unanswered question: “On what premise do we fight against same sex marriage in the courts, but not against divorce?”

Today Bob Hyatt–pastor of the Evergreen Community here in Portland, OR–wrote a fine short piece titled, “Last Chance for a Win-Win on Same Sex Marriage” wherein he presented a view I share on this matter (a view that Tony Jones alluded to as a “common sense solution”). He wrote,

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

Then he acknowledged the deep sacramental and religious significance the word “marriage” holds for Christians:

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.

Then he provided his solution:

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.

I recommend reading the whole article. That this approach is being use elsewhere, successfully, ought to peak our interest. Sadly, I think many on both side are blinded by their desire to “win” this debate. There are Christians who think marriage is compromised unless the state reflects their views on the matter. There are others who think the “fundamentalist” win if they settle for anything short of the use of the word “marriage.” But if the heart of the matter is found in Hyatt’s first paragraph–that homosexuals want equal rights when it comes to sharing property that is their’s, or custody over children they raised together, or various tax benefits, then this isn’t about whether we say “civil unions” or “marriage.”

Let us leave “marriage” to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and the civil unions to the state.

If someone finds a religious body who will acknowledge same sex “marriage” then let that be a difference between various religious bodies, not a difference of civil standing in a pluralistic nation.

Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.

Posted on by

In December 0f 2006 I finished my first semester of seminary studies, grabbed a ride to the airport, and flew to New York City to attend the wedding of a couple of my close friends. I gave myself one extra day of travel to explore Manhattan afterwards. As my wanderings around the Big Apple came to a close I stopped into a Boarders (remember those?) by Madison Square Garden to browse. I came across a series of essays titled The Hauerwas Reader edited by J. Berkman and M.G. Cartwright. This book is an anthology of  essays by the Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas.

The Hauerwas Reader

I was challenged by what I was reading, so much so that I bought the book. I resonated with Hauerwas’ arguments, even when I couldn’t fathom the implications. Yes, Christian should live as an alternative people. Yes, Christians should refuse to kill. Yes to this and yes to that! Now what am I supposed to do with these arguments?

I am asking this question still.

One essay destroyed my black-and-white hermeneutical paradigm. It humbled me. I realized that I had a lot to learn regarding interpreting the Scriptures. I have been on a quest to reconstruct my hermeneutical approach to Scripture ever since.  The article was a short, three page piece that Hauerwas had written for the Charlotte Observer in 1993 when one of the major national debates was over whether homosexuals could serve in the United States military. It was titled, “Why Gays (as a Group) are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group).” (You can access it through Google Books, pp. 519-521 here.)

In the opening paragraph Hauerwas wrote:

“I am ambivalent about recent discussions concerning gays in the military. I see no good reason why gays and lesbians should be excluded from military service; as a pacifist I do not see why anyone would want to serve. Moreover, I think it a wonderful thing that some people are excluded as a group. I only wish that Christians could be seen by the military to be as problematic as gays (p. 519).”

He proceeded to argue that we were excluding homosexuals from the military as a way of trying to restore some sense of morality in a world where our morality was already out of order. We didn’t know why we were doing what we were doing as a nation. We didn’t have sexuality “figured out” anymore than homosexuals did. Hauerwas wrote this stringing remark:

“As a society we have no general agreement about what constitutes marriage and/or what good marriages ought to serve. We allegedly live in a monogamous culture, but in fact we are at best serially polygamous. We are confused about sex, why and with whom we have it, and about our reasons for having children (pp. 519-520).”

Hauerwas argued that our moral confusion led to our grasping at straws, seeking a scapegoat, someone to call “immoral” so we would know how to define ourselves as “moral.” Then Hauerwas turned the tables on us Christians as he has righteously done for many years. He asked what it would look like if the Catholic tradition of “just war” was persuade with as much vigor as our stance against homosexuals in the military. He asked what it would look like if Christians were so dedicated to love and non-violence that the military considered Christians a threat to their aims just like they considered homosexuals a threat.

What if Christians prayed for peace? What if Christians refused to submit to anyone, even a general, whose orders were not aligned with the peace of Christ? What is Christians sought to witness to Christ at all times? He wrote this pithy paragraph:

“Finally, consider the problem of taking showers with these people. They are, after all, constantly going about the business of witnessing in hopes of making converts to their God and church. Would you want to shower with such people? You never know when they might try to baptize you (p. 521).”

Then he ended with these words:

“If gays can be excluded as a group from the military, I have hope that it could even happen to Christians. God, after all, has done stranger things in the past.

“However, until God works this miracle, it seems clear to me that gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians (p. 521).”

I was a bit stunned. The thought came to mind, “Why do I judge homosexuals, especially Christians who struggle with homosexuality, yet honor Christians who serve in the military and possibly kill other humans?” Another thought came to mind, “Why does the church accept Christians in the military when Jesus spoke so straightforwardly about killing and violence? Why do we dedicate worship gatherings to honor military veterans, especially around the 4th of July? How have we explained away the call to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to never ‘return evil for evil’ so easily?”

If you were to ask me once every day for a week whether or not Christians should serve in the military I will say, “No!” three times; “No” twice; and “Maybe” twice. That is my pacifism.

What I have found most perplexing is how Christians can give so much energy to explaining why homosexuality is a sin while honoring Christians who participate in war as heroes saying nothing about the sins they commit. If you kill another person in Iraq you can come back to the United States and likely receive financial aid to attend almost any evangelical seminary around. This is not so if you write on your admissions essay, “I think I might be homosexual.”

I am not advocating the compatibility of Christianity with homosexuality. I am suggesting that our conversation on this topic is more rhetoric than substance. I agree with John Byron that this is a subject where we have shown little intellectual muscle strength, often fearing what might be said if we use the “h” word (see “Homosexuality: When will the church really have a conversation?”).

I see articles like James Emery White’s “The ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ to Culture Wars” where he advocates for Christians taking a political stance against same-sex marriage and I wonder why same-sex marriage is one of his “yes” answers while our nation’s military industrial complex is not?! Why is homosexuals aiming for a monogamous relationship worth our time, but the death of thousands of people (many who are not Christians, therefore damned in White’s worldview) isn’t?

I appreciate Christians like Tim Keller who are asking, “How do we acknowledge the image of God in all humans, including homosexuals ?” Yet I wonder what Keller says to an soldier home from duty about whether or not s/he could reenlist if s/he is a Christian (see “Tim Keller on how to treat homosexuals”)?

I am not asking Christians to affirm homosexuality as moral. I am asking why other matters of greater importance are ignored. What do we do with homelessness, disease, addiction, war, famine….on and on. Why is it “social gospel” for someone to make a call to care about these issues?

Christians who advocate military service for Christians often make arguments from silence like, “Well, John the Baptist and Jesus are depicted as meeting military personal and they never tell them to quit.” Sometimes I hear, “Yes, Jesus calls us to ‘turn the other cheek’ but [insert qualifications A, B, and C, including possible qualification D regarding "practicality in our sinful world."]! What if a Christian advocates for monogamous homosexuality by saying, “Well, in Romans 1 Paul isn’t writing about loving, monogamous homosexual relationships because he had never seen one.”? We respond, “Oh c’mon, you can’t argue from silence when we have so many clear passages that teach against it.” Or if someone says, “Yes, homosexuality was wrong back then, but we are in a different cultural milieu!” we accuse them of relativizing Scripture. God forbid they appeal to being “practical in our sinful world.”

It may be possible to affirm Christian military service while denying Christians being homosexual, but many of the arguments I hear are selective at best, disingenuous at worst. I wish more Christians would be smacked by someone like Stanley Hauerwas and forced to ask themselves, “What is my hermeneutical paradigm for saying biblical prohibition A no longer applies while biblical prohibition B does.” I think we have a long, long way to go to say we have done the hard exegetical and theological work to which John Byron calls us. I think many of us might discover our application of Scripture is already relativized by the majority culture. It is kind of like this comic:

Christians, homosexuality, and the President of the United States.

Posted on by

It should be apparent by now that Christians do not agree on what the “Christian” response should be to homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Even when some share the same position of the morality of homosexual there can be disagreement on the political response to it. 

Is this the Christian response to same sex marriage?

One day after Amendment 1 was approved by voters in North Carolina (see “Christians, homosexuality, and Amendment 1 in North Carolina: three views”) President Barack Obama announced that ”At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama cited his Christian faith as inspiration for his decision mentioning the sacrifice of Christ and the Golden Rule. This has upset and disappointed his Christian supporters who maintain a conservative stance on the matter (see “Obama’s gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear”). Others like Tony Jones (see “Obama Gets Off the Pot on Gay Marriage”) have expressed excitement. Jones wrote, “Kudos, Mr. President. Thanks for doing something so deeply Christian.”

So what is the “Christian” thing to do?

Some would say he did not do the Christian thing at all. The Christian thing was done in North Carolina yesterday. Katrina Fernandez lives there and she said she would vote for the amendment because she didn’t think it was loving for her to approve of the homosexuality (see “Because I Don’t Hate Gays I am Voting AGAINST Gay Marriage…”). Rachel Held Evans expressed the exact opposite sentiment (see “How to win the culture war and lose a generation”) writing:

“And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-at-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.

“Regardless of whether you identify most with Side A or Side B, (or with one of the many variations within those two broad categories), it should be clear that amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adults—both Christians and non-Christian—from the Church.”

Christian Salafia agree with Evans that what happened in North Carolina was not Christian, but rather oppressive. He wrote in “I Still Have a Dream…Thoughts on Amendment 1″,

“I am thankful for those who work so hard for injustice and inequality, because they draw me nearer to God and to peace in Christ through loving and blessing those who surely would curse me.

“Let us mourn with those who have been deemed unequal.  Let us stand, united in love, with those who,
like the woman at the well, are told they are unworthy of even the life God breathed into them.”

In a very cautious response titled “NC Amendment One and President Obama” Matt Emerson questioned the position of using Scripture this way while ignoring the passages that seem to speak against homosexuality. He wrote,

“…for those who support gay marriage, there is one camp  that says “who cares what the Bible says.” There is another, though, that seems to think that the Bible actually supports homosexual marriage, relationships, etc. I saw one man post that God gave the Ten Commandments but Moses gave Leviticus, so we just need to look to the Ten Commandments and not the rest of the Law. That clearly indicates a lack of understanding about the purpose, both historically and literarily, of the Law in the Old Testament. Leviticus is not so easily dismissed. Then our President says today that he is being biblical by paying attention to the Golden Rule, to love our neighbors as ourselves. What the President seems to forget is that the first part of the Golden Rule is the Great Commandment, which is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. The clear command there is to love not just any God, but the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible has very clear things to say on how he made men and women and what kind of relationships he intends for them.

Emerson is concerned by the response of conservative Christians as well though:

“I am struck by the lack of biblical literacy from virtually every voice in this discussion. Let me start with Christians. It seems that we have little sense about what politics does and does not achieve. My brothers and sisters, “we won” is not an appropriate response. Patting ourselves on the back is silly. Moving forward with anything less than continual proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ with the somber realization of the lostness we face is simply missing the point. Politics does not bring victory over sin, death, hell, and the grave – Jesus does. Laws do not change people’s hearts – the Spirit of Christ does. Elections will not bring this country to be a picture of God’s Kingdom – God the Father and his electing purposes will do so when he sends his Son to restore all things at the end of the age. Don’t get me wrong, we ought to vote in a way that reflects God’s Kingdom, and in doing so perhaps some will be confronted with the reality of God and his created order. But please don’t act like temporal laws in a temporal government will ever bring about the true spiritual change that’s needed to redeem hearts, minds, souls, and bodies for Christ.”

So what is the Christian thing to do?

We Christians must discuss the following matters:

(1) Is homosexuality a violation of Christian ethics? If so, on what grounds? What is the role of tradition? If our view is based biblical passages what is our hermeneutical approach since it could be argued that our Scriptures have been used to promote slavery, the oppression of women, and so forth.

(2) What is the role of Scripture in this discussion? Emerson asks a question that needs to be answered by progressives: Can we throw out Scripture? If we can throw out Scripture on homosexuality why use Scripture at all? In some sense this is a matter of hermeneutics yet again.

(3) Does our views on the morality of homosexuality dictate our response politically? Some say yes, if someone finds homosexuality to be immoral they should vote for the government to support it. Others do not find a biblical prohibition so the answer is quite obvious: yes, Christians should fight for homosexuals to have equal civil rights. Others hold a more dichotomous view: homosexuality may be immoral, but we shouldn’t use government to dictate morality. Then there are those who hold the view of Tony Campolo (one I think I share): marriage shouldn’t be the business of the State in the first place, so to debate the “legality” of same-sex marriage is to begin the conversation at the wrong place.

I don’t have answers for this. Sometimes I feel like someone watching a tennis match as arguments go back and forth at a speed too quick for my eyes and mind. If I were to make a prediction it would be this: for the church in the western world most Christians will come to affirm homosexuality as normative while Christians in the rest of the world maintain the more traditional view. I am not saying this is how it “ought” to be, but I think that it is how it will be. Much like Christians before Constantine would have been quite taken by the thought of a Christian serving in the Roman military so many Christians now cannot fathom homosexuality as a non-issue. Much like many Christians now who have no problem with the idea of Christianity being compatible with military service so I imagine many if not most Christians will feel about homosexuality–at least “monogamous” or committed homosexuality.

Whatever the church does the church cannot fail to remain prayerful on this matter. We must ask for the Spirit to guide us, to open our eyes, and to maintain unity in our midst.

Christians, homosexuality, and Amendment 1 in North Carolina: three views.

Posted on by

Should Christians in the United States vote for or against allowing same-sex marriage? Does this change depending on the possible implications of various votes (e.g. California’s Propisition 8 v. North Carolina’s Amendment 1)? 

Today the citizens of the state of North Carolina vote on a measure called Amendment 1:

The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of “domestic legal union” such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state of North Carolina. The proposed measure, however, would add the ban to the state constitution. (source: ballotpedia.org)

I have found three unique perspectives worth sharing. Two of the bloggers are current residents of North Carolina and the other came from there.

First, Katrina Fernandez is a Roman Catholic blogger who argues that, “If you support gay marriage you personally encourage the sin.”  In her post “Because I Don’t Hate Gays I am Voting against Gay Marriage…” she writes:

My support of the amendment means I believe in the sacramental nature of marriage. What it does not mean is that I hate homosexuals or am a bigot. Bishop Jugis wrote in his letter to the diocese “The Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love.”

You can disagree with this, but that is what the Church teaches. The Church, that 2,000 year old institution founded by Jesus Christ himself. If I were going to take the word of an anyone over my own faulty understanding, I would have to say the Church would be the safest bet. In fact, when we come across any Church teaching we disagree with it would be prudent to ask what is wrong with my understanding instead of what is wrong with the Church. If we search the truth with humility it will be plain to see the error is our own.

For Fernandez the Christian response is to vote for Amendment 1 because (1) it supports the traditional, sacramental view of marriage; (2) it aligns with the traditional teaching of the church; and (3) it doesn’t send confusing signals to homosexuals that their behavior is somehow appropriate.

Second, Daniel Kirk is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary who has a long history in North Carolina and considers it home. He doesn’t approve of homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle for Christians, but he doesn’t think Christians should have to vote against allowing same-sex marriage either. In his post “Regarding Amendment 1 in North Carolina” he expresses concern that this legislation goes beyong California’s Proposition 8 and it could remove the civil rights of homosexuals:

If my understanding of the amendment is correct, I would suggest that Christians not only have the freedom to stand against it, but are conscience-bound to vote against it. This is about being truly treated as equal under the law, something we should be at the forefront of making sure is the case for everyone–not just people like us.

Kirk understands this legislation as something that challenges us to ask how we should live in the dual spheres of the church and society. Also, this is an action that can determine whether one shows love to their neighbor (contra Fernandez above who interprets loving her homosexual neighbor as not supporting their sin).

Similarly, J. Kameron Carter is a professor at Duke University who takes a stand that is a tad stronger that Kirk. He says the Christian thing to do is vote “no” on Amendment 1. He writes (in “I’m Against Amendment One in NC, and (Especially if You’re Christian) You Should be Too. Vote Against Amendment One”) that, “As a Christian theologian, I urge all North Carolinians, but most especially those who are Christian in North Carolina, to vote NO on the Amendment. You must vote NO because the Amendment will legally enshrine division and bar some from the full benefits of the law and its protections that others enjoy.”

The crux of his argument is similar to Kirk’s. After listing some of the civil rights impacted by Amendment 1 he says:

If Jesus, and therefore Christianity, stands for justice and righteousness and fairness (and most certainly it does! See Luke 4:18–21 among many other scriptural texts), if in Jesus we find God’s affirmation of the life of us all in the face of forces of denigration, indignity, and death, then on Christian grounds, on grounds of discipleship or following Jesus, who placed no qualifications on his love for and embrace of us all, vote against this Amendment.

I don’t know what Carter thinks about homosexuality in and of itself. I’m sure there are some Christian writers who are openly in support of homosexuality being compatible with Christianity, but I haven’t see any posts on the topic (and yes, I went to the blogs of Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Diana Butler Bass, and Bruce Reyes-Chow but all I found was this article about Jay Bakker’s participation). These people would constitute a third view wherein homosexuality is compatible with Christianity and it is seen as logical to support their right to marriage.

__________

What do you think is the appropriate response as a Christian? Do any of the above responses resonate? If you are not a Christian what would you expect of Christians and why?

I now pronounce you man and robot?

Posted on by

A recent Slate Magazine article titled “I (Robot) Thee Wed” tells us that the day is coming when humans and robots may become sexually intimate and relational with each other. 

Rachel, a robot in Blade Runner, loves Rick Deckard…is it wrong?

For my friends who want to become pastors someday–in fact for anyone who is a Christian concerned about how our sexual ethics relate to social norms–let me introduce you to a new quandary: a future wherein humans may have partners that are robots.

We know of people who act sexually with non-humans (e.g. so-called “blow-up dolls”), but this article presents readers with robots that are human-like:

Realistic skin, the ability to make eye contact, faux breathing (to avoid that “walking human corpse” feel), convincing conversational skills, dexterous manipulation of objects, and the ability to not walk through sliding glass doors—we can assume that these things will be attainable within the next few decades.

Let me ask you what you would say to a parishioner who says, “Pastor, I love Sally and she is more human to me than anyone I have known.” What if you are a Christian who works as a counselor in an institution that doesn’t allow you to be outright about your religious beliefs (i.e. no explicit appeals to humans being imago Dei), what would you say?

I know this sounds extreme, but be careful, Christian ethics have been challenged in many ways in recent years. In the last one hundred years Christians have had to address lust over pictures in magazine, pictures online, “relationship” via virtual worlds like Second Life, and so forth.

So it 2030 and your child, friend, counseling client, parishioner tell you that they love a robot, what do you say?!