In Defense Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I’ve picked up my pen – er, pencil (or keyboard) – to try to give an attempt to explain to you where I’m coming from in regards to my sex ethic and decidedly Side A beliefs (i.e., the belief that gay sex is okay). I don’t want to make this a regular phenomenon, but I hope to outline my beliefs on the issue. I’m not trying to force anyone to accept my viewpoints, but I do believe there is a right and a wrong on this issue, and I’ll try to use as reconciliatory language as possible, but I apologize in advance if anything comes across harshly.
I initially thought I could side-step the so-called “clobber verses” because they are not my focus here, but I fast realized this would not be possible. I will try and address a few of these as briefly as I can.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
It is stunning to me that some Christians are willing to site Levitical mandates as a source of morality. If one desires to give Old Testament law, there is simply no way around justifying the commands, for we see even our Lord declaring, contra the Mosaic code, that “nothing that goes into a man can make him unclean”. Both Christ and his apostles explicitly freed us from the law. Some people try to distinguish between ‘moral’ and ‘ceremonial’ laws, but a clear test for determining members of each category must be presented, for the Torah itself makes no such distinctions. Because of the textual evidence (or lack thereof), and because I am uncomfortable adding distinctions where Scripture sees none, I do not buy the theory that there is a moral/ceremonial distinction to Mosaic law, and I have yet to hear a strong case for such a view. The breaking of any of the myriad laws is lawlessness. If these Levitical commands on male intercourse are binding, so is the Levitical command against menstrual intercourse, and all the other commands on any subject. I cannot explain all of the Mosaic code, and indeed much of it puzzles me, but I do not believe that it was not meant to be a static law given to all people for all time, and as people under Christ we are not to run to it as our guide.
Romans 1:26-27
If this passage is to be used to condemn homosexuality (or homosexual behavior, pick your lingo), one absolutely must accept the verse’s etiology (i.e., cause) of homosexuality. Paul clearly states that not only the actions but the desires of the people he’s talking about exists because of idolatry and (apparently) heterosexual immorality. For verse 26 begins, unambiguously, with the words ‘because of this’, directing the reader’s view upward to the actions described before. In fact, this brief stint on homosexuality is part of a passage that has nothing to do with sexuality, but a spiral of godlessness in the context of idolatry. To insist by reason of ‘face-value’ interpretation that this passage condemns all people engaging in homosexual sex, and yet not to accept the verse’s face-value cause of such a thing – that is, idolatry and immorality – is the height of selective biblical literalism. And those of us who are gay can tell you that we have not (most of us) engaged in idolatry nor in immorality leading up to the discovery of our orientation. It just is. Now I have heard the argument that this verse is communal: that is, because of general idolatry and immorality, God gave humanity in general over to homosexuality. However, this is not easily reconcilable with the rest of the passage, for in everything Paul assumes a direct impact on the practitioners of these sins, and chapters 1-3 do not condemn humanity in general, but each and every human individual specifically, Jew and Gentile. And we must ask if God a god who afflicts children for the sins of their fathers. Might I suggest not:
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deut 24:16)
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (John 9:1-3)
And so I see a God who is deeply personal. If we wish to interpret Romans 1 as condemning all gay people unambiguously (rather than those who, in worshipping idols and engaging in sexual immorality are given over to all sorts of sexual behavior, both natural to them and unnatural), we must also insist that every gay person is the way they are because of idolatry and immorality. You cannot claim Romans 1 condemns homosexual behavior, without recognizing that it also condemns the desire, and you must abandon all thought of biological or even psychological causes of sexual orientation outside of the context given in this passage. To be sure, Paul has nothing positive to say about the matter, and the thought of sanctioned homosexual relations probably did not occur to him, but when we come to Scripture we must come to it in context.
1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10
The issue here is over a word, αρσενοκοιτης, which I feel is of ambiguous meaning. Without going into a detailed lexical analysis (which I can go into sometime later if there is any interest), the word is far too rare to give a certain meaning. It probably has to do with some sort of homosexual behavior, but it may well be referring to pederasty, an all too common practice in many Greek cities. If I had my way, I would attach a footnote to the word (as is common in many Hebraic OT texts, if you pay attention) stating that the meaning of this word is uncertain. Translations that link this term to general homosexual behavior are modern, all of them originating within the past century. These verses are peripheral and may bolster a case once a case has been made, but deserve no place as centerpiece of the discussion on the Bible and homosexuality.
That is a brief overview, brief as I can make it, and the other passages I will let lie for the moment. But the discussion on homosexuality surpasses the scant few verses on it, and comes into that hazy area where we are not given a clear-cut example. We do not see manifest stories of homosexuality, and though one can go hunting for them, evidence is so shaky that I seriously question the results derived from such scavenging. (If you really want to see me get really offended, try asserting that David and Jonathan were gay, or even worse, Sam and Frodo, though that’s Tokienian and not biblical.) But I’m not ascertaining my morality strictly from specific biblical models but from biblical principles, and it is this – the derivation of morality – that is the true issue needing to be addressed.
“But if two men can get together and be ‘married’, then why not a man and a child or a man and a horse?”
Though many of us see this sort of statement as patently absurd, and indeed it is, there is a nugget of legitimacy there. The legitimate argument embedded in that phrase goes something like this: Morality is determinable only through a set of given examples, and so without a clear example to make an act moral, it is de facto immoral. In the Christian sense, this means that matters unaddressed by biblical stories and mandates are morally suspect, if not downright wrong. After all, mustn’t we have a gold standard from which to derive normality, morality, and holiness? On its surface, an appeal to a golden standard seems reasonable, but at its core, I believe, lies something wildly unreasonable and utterly untenable.
If we are only to derive our morality from specific biblical examples, we would be forever stuck in an ancient Hebraic culture. But even within biblical times, the view of morality shifted, for injunctions to kill the foreigner in one’s midst were later meliorated to commands of justice toward resident aliens. Times had changed, and cultures had changed, and so a stagnant view of God’s given law had to be rejected. Or for a more modern example, while it would be considered immoral in our culture to marry one’s cousin, the Indians in the Vaupez region of Amazonia consider any marriage within one’s language group to be incestuous and immoral, for those who speak the same language are considered ‘family’. For them, marriage to one’s cousin (who speaks a different language) is almost considered ideal. They don’t seem to suffer any genetic problems from this.
Morality then, must be derived from higher principles which, when applied to certain circumstances, generate rules for behavior. So there are two items that must be understood for any foundation of morality: the first is an understanding of the higher principles guiding your morality, and the second is an understanding of what you’re applying those principles to. I don’t wish to oversimplify an extraordinarily complex topic, but consider physics: there are a set number of fundamental laws that govern the entire universe. Now to understand what is going on in any particular region of the universe, you not only have to have the backing of these fundamental laws but you also have to understand the context in which they are applied. For example, the effect of a magnetic field on plasma is vastly different from the effect of the same field on a solid (and for that matter, a carbon solid or iron filaments).
If we take any other approach to morality, one that it is not based on a set of universal principles applied across domains, then we are left with a God who is arbitrary. The rules are simply the rules because he made them so, and he could simply have chosen a different collection of rules. And this is the god we are left with if we follow the golden standard approach, for however numerous, no set of examples will cover the entire spectrum of circumstance or culture. Is this the kind of God we desire to worship? It certainly isn’t for me, and nor do I think it is the God of the Bible, for he does not simply command us to be holy, but to “be holy, as I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16). Morality therefore is not arbitrary, and nor is it a list of rules simply because God likes making rules. It is derived from nothing less than God’s own character. As we understand his character better, we have firmer grounding for morality.
When it comes to the morals of sex, one first has to have an understanding of what it is. First, we know that both heterosexuals and homosexuals exist. (And indeed, bisexuals too.) Oddly, this is where I immediately begin to disagree with many of my conservative brothers and sisters, who insist that homosexuals are only heterosexuals that have been ruined in some way. However, this is less an existential objection than it is a moral one, for it is incapable of addressing both the personal stories of homosexuals and the mounting scientific evidence that it is an actual state of being not derived from psychological abuse or damage. (It also fails to deal with the existence of apparently homosexual creatures within the animal kingdom.)
Secondly, we know that sex is a powerfully and deeply binding experience. Divorce is painful, even for those without a religious objection to it. Dating break-ups, even if no sex has occurred, are also painful, and these are only the surface encounters of our sexuality. A couple in love can often be indicted for letting their other relationships slide because they are too enamored with each other. It seems that sexuality, and the physical sex act in particular, really does in some sense make one out of what used to be two. There is a Self, and there is an Other, and the two come together and make something new.
And lastly, we know that vaginal heterosexual sex can produce babies. This is how our species, along with a great many others, repopulates itself, and it must certainly be a necessary thing – else there would be very few of us here!
These are affirmed in Scripture: we see procreative sex (as it is fundamental to the very existence of human history), we see injunctions against divorce and commands for sexual fidelity, and the apostle Paul himself connects our theology of “Oneness” with sex itself, admonishing the Corinthian church saying, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ ” So our reasoning has not led us to apostasy, but the Bible is silent on the matter of homosexuality and sexual orientation.
Now if anything, the primary aspect of sex seems to be the oneness of it. For we recognize sex as beneficial both to elderly couples and the otherwise infertile, and the desire for it is felt universally among people of all orientations. Not all couples reproduce, and not all find the same gender to be attractive, but all are moved to unity. Again, this is in keeping with Scripture, which has far more to say on the matter of marital faithfulness than it does about reproduction or orientation.
The second thing we must understand in developing a sex ethic is what principles we are basing our morality on. There are a lot of rules in the Bible, but what does the Bible have to say about the principles guiding morality?
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)
“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
Here, then, is the source of all morality. But what about all the rules given, and what about our understanding of law and righteousness?
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Galatians 3:10-13, 23-25)
This is the Bible’s morality: love. And do not think it is a light thing, or that it is a good feeling one may get at the end of the day. Love is summed up in Christlikeness.
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:10)
So our call to love – at whatever the cost to ourselves – is the ultimate source of all ethics. As both Paul and Jesus say, all the law is summed up in the command to love. If we wish to put forth a regulation to God’s children, we must first be sure, absolutely sure, that this regulation flows from the law of love, which lies – vast, mysterious, wild, untamed, and unknown – at the very heart of God.
Strangely enough, I have heard people say, and even tell me to my face, that the Biblical injunction against homosexuality has nothing to do with love: that love does not enter into the question, but it is just a matter of design, or what God has intended for human sexuality. Can there be any less Christian reasoning for a law? How does this reconcile with the New Testament as a whole? Simply put: it does not. This is an argument from man’s religion, and it is opposed to the grace of Christ and the New Testament understanding of law.
I believe that those within the ex-gay movement actually recognize this logic implicitly. This is why they try so hard – and so futilely – to connect homosexuality with an inherent lack of love, be it in psychological malformedness (usually blamed on parents) or in presumed violent or dangerous relationships. Neither of these stand up against anecdotal or, more importantly, scientific and psychological evidence, but the very fact that ex-gay groups will try and push this misinformation proves that they recognize that, in order for the command against homosexuality to be moral, it must stem from the law of love.
Where then does that leave me? What is in bounds and what is out of bounds? This is tough, but before I go on to enumerate my sex ethic more clearly, let me return to the question so often posed: what about bestiality and pedophilia?
We saw that sex is a unifying experience, and if this is true, bestiality and pedophilia are not only logical contradictions but also lack the love I spoke of earlier. Because sex is unifying, it must unite two beings that are capable of being united. Both members must be able to contribute and receive from the relationship on all levels of intimacy. This includes mental, emotional, and sexual ties. A child does not know what sexuality is, and neither is a child capable of relating mentally or emotionally on the level of an adult, and so pedophilia takes two objects which are by nature not relatable and attempts to unite them. Pedophilia also, in its true form, loses the desire for its object of affection once it matures, and thus violently and necessarily breaks the command of love. I do not speak of particular age limits (three thousand years ago quite large age gaps between a husband and wife were much more accepted, and Scripture passes no condemnation of it), but of the pathological desire to sexually have that which is helpless and immature. Though it is a hazy line, and different cultures assign that line to different ages, it does nevertheless exist. A man may teach a child, for that is what the child needs, and so love the child, but a man may not love a child as a spouse, for the child is not in nature comparable to an adult.
Bestiality is much the same, for a man can, after a fashion, love his dog, but he cannot expect his dog to fathom the rich sublimity of Chopin or his favorite well-versed poem or a story contemplating the divine. The union that runs between souls must necessarily bring together two beings that can relate along the varying levels of understanding that run within the other. To the human, containing the very image of God (though corrupted), nothing short of human will do. Otherwise the two are unable to relate. Both the perversions of bestiality and pedophilia are self-contradictory, and reduce the ‘lover’ to a mere seeker of personal passions, and the ‘beloved’ to an object or toy; they are naturally predatory. Reciprocity, and thus oneness, is lost, and sex is reduced to a collection of stimulated neurons, beginning somewhere in the nether regions and terminating somewhere in the brain.
But with two human beings, it is indeed possible for the two to sharpen each other, to sustain each other through a broken world such as ours, and to come to a deeper understanding of humanity and each other and the nature of self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness. For this is where sexuality leads us: to love, which we see exemplified in Christ – a love that puts its object of affection above itself and before itself. And so far as the relational, emotional, and intellectual unifying of two beings into the creation of a new and communal One, there is nothing lacking inherently in homosexual couples that their heterosexual counterparts have. The ‘complimentarian’ nature of heterosexuality is simply (and wonderfully) a physical difference, and not necessarily a spiritual or relational one, unless we begin to claim that the souls of women and men are fundamentally different before God. No two people are the same – we are all somehow Other to all our neighbors – and it is the working of Otherness into Oneness that is where the difficulty, and the triumph, of union lies. I am not trying to indicate that such a union is easy, nor that it is always a simple matter to turn one’s thoughts and actions to Christ in the face of a seemingly overwhelming and more immediate spousal relationship, but I am presenting the goals and ideals of such a union, its functionality and appropriateness, and the path which it can ideally take in the sanctification of the two.
The stipulation I have set on my sex ethic is that it must take that drive which seems inherent to nearly all of humanity and raise it from a simple biological response to something holy before God and beneficial to its participants. And like all things, it is holy when it brings us closer to God. Simple acts of pleasure (sex) are not enough for this, and neither are simple acts of pain (abstention). It is following the earthly pleasure straight along that path of worship to its source in that infinite fountain of all pleasures that makes earthly pleasure worth anything at all. And it is following the earthly pain straight along that path of loving obedience to its termination in that infinite treasure-store of grace and freedom that makes earthly pain worth anything at all. We must not focus exclusively on the former and ignore the giver for his gifts. But we must also be careful not to focus exclusively on the latter and become ascetics, for any pleasure that God created (like sex) he created to be enjoyed and received with thanksgiving. I am convinced that any other view – a view which denounces pleasure for its own sake – presents a twisted view of God, and is even demonic. Pleasure is inherently a good thing, as it is inherently a godly thing: we must forget these silly notions of an austere and harsh Father in heaven, and instead realize that at his side are ‘pleasure for evermore’. ‘He is a hedonist at heart.’ My ethical dilemma is not whether pleasure is to be enjoyed, but in this world where indulgence and worship of the gift so easily exceeds our worship of the giver, in what context is it that the pleasure can be enjoyed without making an idol of it?
As I’ve already noted, sex by its nature forms a bond between two beings: it creates a oneness from what once was two. But the two were not wholly compatible before their union, both from their individual propensities to sin, and from neutral personality traits and conflicting interests. This is where pain comes in: that pain of altering and denying the Self for the sake of the Other, and in the closeness of union it can be quite intense. But thank God that within union a most intense intimacy is also forged by and through its pleasures (such as sex). It is in this context – the fires of a union between two bodies and two souls, and not in mere pleasure – that sex finds its redemptive and sanctifying value. It spurs the two toward a self-forgetful and self-sacrificing lifestyle, and so makes us into a clearer image of Christ, for his selflessness and his humility were the greatest the world has or shall ever see. Many of my heterosexual friends have said, after being wed, that ‘marriage is the greatest sanctifier’, and I have no reason to doubt their words. Within the pains and struggles that being in a union with another corrupted (though by no means worthless) soul, and in the continual difficult surrender of Self, it is the love and intimacy in which sex plays a part that redeems the act from good to holy.
I will go further and say that such an intimacy cannot be enjoyed outside of the bonds of commitment. Although there is a damning sort of intimacy (like the intimacy one would have with an omniscient but unbenevolent God), there is a secure sort of intimacy (like the intimacy with a God both omniscient and benevolent). Without some degree of commitment that security does not exist, and the intimacy of sex only opens us up to harm. The individual cannot know that his or her vulnerability is safe without some assurance (however that may be communicated) that the other is committed to this new creature brought into being by their union. If one or the other pulls away, for whatever reason, the oneness is torn apart, and something that had a life and pulse of its own dies. And so therein lies the doctrine of marriage, and the reason for the tragedy, and not the mere inconvenience, of divorce. The first is profoundly creative; and the second equally destructive.
If we continue to condemn homosexuality, it must be on one of two grounds. The first is an arbitrary rule, based either on nothing at all or ‘because I say so’. This gives us an arbitrary view of morality and an arbitrary view of religion, both of which are wrong and unhelpful for learning the nature of God. The other option is to lift genital differentiation to an almost transcendental realm, a realm where we begin to worship the penetration of a woman by a man simply by virtue of what it physically is. This is not to say heterosexuality is not (or should not be) normal – it most certainly is, and appropriately so. But to esteem it is almost paganistic sex worship. So the claim of moral superiority of heterosexuality rests either on arbitrary values derived from some inscrutable source independent of love, or it is a sort of worship of the physical act itself.
But it is the calling to selfless love – to the pursuit of the benefit of the Other rather than the Self – that is what sex and union are, in their best and most purified states, calling us to. This, and not our particular flavor of sexuality, is part of the manifestation and sanctification of our redeemed natures before God.
I haven’t obtained all this, and living up to one’s morals can often be a difficult path. But I’m here because I’ve thought about it and I’ve sought God about it, and I fearlessly hope that he will bring me closer into harmony with himself.
David, I have to admit that I disagree with a great deal of what you’ve written here, but I have thought a lot about most of what you’ve mentioned. I’ve questioned the scriptures quite a bit in some hopes of better understanding what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, and what is God’s will for me in this regard.
I do believe homosexual sex is wrong. I think that because it’s not something God designed our bodies for. Two men are not physically made for sexual intercourse. It’s a physically unnatural act. And beyond that, if it were acceptable to God, I find it hard to believe it would be mentioned in the Bible as many times as it is, as being something undesirable, unnatural, and/or sinful. Why would it be condemned so many times if it were okay with God? And frankly, I feel that if it’s something wrong for one person or one group of persons, it’s probably a good bet that it’s wrong for all.
One thing I did get a sense of in your post was a feeling that maybe you’re somewhat confusing sex for love. The two should go together, but I do still believe there are some restrictions there. It is possible to deeply love another guy without having sex with him. I’m one of those people who believes that’s what God wants. Anything beyond that is too far, and beyond His original intent.
God does want us to love each other, but in some cases, sex shouldn’t be a part of that love. Just because you love someone, doesn’t mean you should have sex with them.
Likewise, sometimes I think it’s good to deny ourselves, or to abstain. Jesus himself said that we are to give up ourselves or deny ourselves and pick up our cross (or something like that). So, sometimes, I think it’s good that we have things to have to resist. Even something such as this. It gives us a reason to cling wholeheartedly to God. And I don’t feel that that’s God being mean to us or anything. It’s Satan tryng to confuse and frustrate us, in order to pull us away from what God wants for us in life. We should deny ourselves what we want though, in exhange for what God wants for us, no matter how difficult resisting the temptations to do otherwise might be.
Anyhow, that’s my feelings. Please don’t take any of this as a personal attack against you or anything. It’s certainly not meant to be. Just my thoughts thrown into the mix.
Hello – I’m probably going to come back and comment specifically on this entry when I get time to read it. However, I wanted to thank you for your note of encouragement. It helps a *lot* to get those kinds of things. I am going to keep this blog up, I’ve just been pressed for time to do it. At the end of this week, however, I’m free to do nearly whatever I want, so I hope to post more regularly.
Hope all is well with you!
Brandon,
I do understand your disagreement – I was there but seven or eight months ago. Let me try to respond to a few of your points:
The first issue (and I’m sorry, but I do take exception to this somewhat) is that of “confusing sex for love”. The closest friend I’ve ever had was a straight guy who I roomed with. To give you an idea, we probably have a better understanding and knowledge of each other than most lovers our age. There was never anything sexual there – not even the faintest glimmer. (Obviously not from him, but not on my end either). Perhaps it is because I have experienced strong platonic bonds that I am so offended when some try to draw erotic bonds in platonic relationships. But it is foolish, I think, to claim that there is no special intimacy (and no special love) with sexuality. Should my friend marry, I would know I could never touch the level of intimacy he would have with his wife; and vice versa for me. But that does not mean we would cease being friends, and I want to make it clear that my (future) embrace of spousal love by no means eliminates or diminishes my strong beliefs in platonic love.
You make the argument about design, as I have heard many times before, but my problem is that it is so subjective. In what way do two men not “fit”, and how can we say they are “unnatural”? Since when, anyways, did “unnaturalness” determine morality, and why? Few would condemn straight couples if they take pleasure in a sexual practice a gay couple may engage in, and so I feel that these arguments from naturalness are thinly-veiled appeals to procreation which, as I attempted to show, is not a prerequisite for heterosexual couples. And if it is not an appeal to procreation, what makes the union holy? The physical genitalia themselves? And as I have said, if we are to take Jesus seriously (Matt 22) or Paul seriously (Rom 13), one must demonstrate how the command against homosexuality stems from the law of love: love of God and love of others. I have yet to see anyone undertake to show this.
You say that if a behavior is wrong for one set of persons, it’s probably wrong for all. I question if you truly believe this: I sincerely doubt you follow the Torah’s commands on other issues, such as food and clothing regulations. I also know nothing of modern Christians who take Paul’s command for a woman to wear a headcovering literally. The fact is that most Christians already believe many laws are cultural or temporary, and while we ought to use discretion and discernment in this regard, blind application of any rule has never been an appropriate reading of Scripture.
I understand that you didn’t attack me personally (and I hope you realize that neither am I attacking you). I see as much as I believe is flawed in your reasoning as you probably do in mine. Let me close with a quote on the final issue of self-denial. You speak of self-denial as if it were an inherently good thing, which I do not believe it to be. It may be a good thing, but in all of Scripture self-denial is blessed only when it is done for the benefit of another; we do not take up our cross simply because it is great to suffer. We do not just abstain to be holy, or to follow a law. Christ didn’t even do that: he did it (amazingly!) for our benefit. Abstention must have as its goal the benefit of someone else. Self-denial may come into the picture, but it is not the point. Lewis put it far better than I ever could:
The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith.
(from The Weight of Glory)
Ach, and because I forgot to add this:
I realize I’m probably not going to change anyone’s view on this. (Besides, that is not my job, but God’s.) But what I am trying to demonstrate is that my viewpoints do not come from “justifying a sin”, but I have actually worked through this with what I believe to be very Christian reasoning, and have not come to any conclusion idly. This is not “that one area I have not given over to Christ”. I hope I have shown that.
David, thanks for responding back to me.
I do agree with you that we do not necessarily have to follow Levitical Law. We are saved through Christ, not by keeping the Law. But, the issue of homosexuality is such a broad one that there are many points of reference throughout the Bible, in both old and new testaments, which seems to say pretty clearly that homosexual acts are wrong. Or at the very least points us in that direction.
In all parts of the Bible where sex is mentioned, we’re always told that sex outside of marriage is wrong. And we’re always told that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only. I don’t understand how you could disregard that.
Now, here’s a passage from 1 Corrinthians I want to mention. This is chapter 6, verses 9-11. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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 kingom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”.
Notice how homosexuals, idolaters, and male prostitutes, and so on are all individualized in this passage. If Paul were only talking about idolaters, wouldn’t he have simply said “all you idolaters…”? I think he singled each of these out because he meant each of them in themselves. Idolatry is wrong, sexual immorality is wrong, homosexual acts are wrong, male prostitution is wrong, and so on and so on.
Now, I’ll try to answer the following:
“In what way do two men not “fit”, and how can we say they are “unnatural”? Since when, anyways, did “unnaturalness” determine morality, and why? Few would condemn straight couples if they take pleasure in a sexual practice a gay couple may engage in, and so I feel that these arguments from naturalness are thinly-veiled appeals to procreation which, as I attempted to show, is not a prerequisite for heterosexual couples. And if it is not an appeal to procreation, what makes the union holy? The physical genitalia themselves? And as I have said, if we are to take Jesus seriously (Matt 22) or Paul seriously (Rom 13), one must demonstrate how the command against homosexuality stems from the law of love: love of God and love of others. I have yet to see anyone undertake to show this.”
Simply put, no one’s body, and I don’t care who you are (man or woman, gay or straight), is physically designed for anal sex. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you it’s about the most risky sexual act there is. The body is damaged by that act, and I’ll not go any further to explain that. You can use your imagination. It is unnatural because I do not think God intended for two men to ever have sex with each other. If he had, why not simply leave out woman altogether and make man alone capable of all procreation and sexual satisfaction? Now, if it’s not what God intended, then it’s a perversion, and is therefore immoral.
You are right when you say that procreation purposes is not a prerequisite for heterosexual couples. And sex is meant to be a pleasurable experience to be enjoyed. However, not everything a heterosexual couple does is right. Just because most don’t call them out on such things, doesn’t mean it should be permissable or is right. It isn’t.
And of course we are suppose to love each other, and I didn’t mean to imply before that sex is without intimacy or without feelings of love. However, I do believe the intimate act of love making (sex) is only to be experienced or expressed between one man and one woman committed to each other in marriage. The relationship is holy because of their commitment of love for each other before God. Yes, we should love others, and God wants us to love others, but we don’t have to have sex in order to love. And by no means did I mean to imply that there’s not a plutonic love between friends. All I was meaning before was that that alone can be enough.
On the issue of self-denial, I never meant that self-denial in itself is inherently good. Only that it can be good. I believe in abstaining from gay sex (or any sex outside of marriage) because I believe those acts are sinful. I also abstain because I want to please God, doing what I feel he wants of me. And I abstain for my own benefit as well, and others. Being single gives me more time to do for others, and I do like that. But also, I know what acting out on those feelings can do to you. Nothing else I’ve ever done ever made me feel more emasculated, effiminite, or different. But that’s neither here nor there. I do believe that denying oneself for Christ, themselves, others, or for whatever reason can be a good thing though.
I do want to clarify something now. I’m not responding in order to tell you you’re wrong; only to give you some additional points of view. I am glad that you’re putting a lot of thought into all this. It’s good to know what you think and why. Just keep an open mind and really really think hard before giving in to your desires. Listen to your conscience.
God bless.
Brandon,
This’ll be my last reply to this. Not because I don’t want conversation but because I believe we are at an impasse, and I don’t want to devolve into petty squabbling. You can respond with the last word if you wish.
Marriage, first of all, is not spoken of in the Bible as only between one man and one woman. Polygamy occurred in OT times and was never explicitly condemned. I think monogamy flows out of a high regard for women, but there you go. The fact is that marriage, as a covenantial relationship, has evolved and changed, in its participants and ages and familial roles. I think you are appealing to an Adam-and-Eve model here, not the biblical story as a whole.
You bring up 1 Cor 6:9 though I addressed this (very briefly, I’ll admit) in my blog post. Did you not take it seriously? I am no scholar, but I have taken Greek and can get through most of the New Testament and most other Koine and even Attic works without too much trouble. I came at this passage very sympathetic to the modern view that Paul is referencing general homosexuality. And it is a modern one,for no commentators I have found took this as referencing general male-male behavior until the late 19th century, and it only became incorporated into translations in the 20th. Since looking at the matter, I don’t believe that this interpretation is a slam dunk. The term translated “homosexual offenders” in the NIV is so rare – this is its first occurrence in the surviving Greek corpus – that one’s prejudices inevitably color the reading. It can swing either way, and as such, and based on the heavy silence from church tradition regarding these verses, I left 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 out of the picture when I was studying what the Bible really had to say on homosexuality. As I said, I don’t know how technical to get on this here, but that is an overview.
In regards to anal sex, I very much doubt you want to pin your argument on a particular modality of sex. Otherwise, the lesbians get off scott free.
But in seriousness, there are male gay couples who do not have anal sex, and I have looked into the matter a little and am not convinced the act itself is damaging. It can be painful if done violently or ignorantly, but so too can vaginal sex be painful for the woman if mishandled (and I hear very few complaints about that!). But this is a matter for the bedroom, and to be honest, within a covenant my concern would be more for my husband’s pleasure than my own, and I would not want to do anything he is uncomfortable with.
You have again appealed to procreation as an argument against homosexuality, saying that if God wanted this, men would be able to procreate. If that is how you wish to define your sex ethic, fine; however I have outlined (extensively) why I do not believe procreation or precreative potential is a necessary or characteristic aspect of sex. If you wish to make it so, I cannot understand how you believe sexually active post-menopausal women to be within the will of God. But regardless, I do think a lot of sex was meant simply to be pleasurable and to build up a spousal relationship. I understand God as both a God of pleasure and community (and responsibility and selflessness, too!). This all fits within my sex ethic.
As I’ve said, my goal here was to demonstrate that I am not simply trying to justify something or, as I believe you have put it, “give in to my desires”. If I simply wanted to give in to any and all desires, there are plenty of places I can go to get serviced. But what I’ve tried to show is that I am grounding myself biblically, whether you agree or not with my interpretation, and am seeking God. I came to no conclusions blithely or without massive amounts of prayer and Scripture study. We actually have many similar thoughts on singleness; the only real difference being that I am open (and yes, even hope) for the ending of my singleness one day. My conscience is clear before God, and if I have been mistaken, I will answer to him and have to fall on his grace. But how will that be different than any other day? I do not want to violate your conscience or anyone else’s. But I do want to demonstrate there are those of us who accept homosexuality, and that doesn’t simply make us a bunch of godless queers. It is not an abandonment of morals, and certainly not an abandonment of Christ. Where would we be without him?
Peace,
David
David,
Thanks for posting this. I’m impressed with your knowledge and the humility with which you espouse it. I believe what you’ve done here is a fine example of “working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling”.
love and grace,
pam
David,
I really do hope I haven’t offended you. We’ll just agree to disagree. I too have no desire to get into a squabble, but I would like to respond to just a couple of things you mentioned last.
I agree with you that sex is not just meant for procreation. I evidently did a poor job explaining that before. It is suppose to be an intimate and pleasurable experience. I simply believe sex should be confined between one man and one woman who are married. And on the subject of marriage, I’ve found that just about anytime it is mentioned in the Bible that a man had more than one wife, there always seems to be trouble that follows. Either between the offspring, the wives themselves, or others. The Bible may not directly at any one point mention that it’s wrong to have more than one wife, but I can’t help but feel that it does hint that way in more than one passage.
I actually do hope to be married myself someday (to a woman). I really would like to have my own family and to have kids. I’m not completely turned on to the idea of being alone the rest of my life. But, those are my only options based on my beliefs.
I’ll just say again, I hope I didn’t offend you before. If I did, I apologize. I don’t think you’re unGodly or nonChristian just because you believe the way you do on this one subject. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that before, if that’s what you thought I was saying.
Bless you, man!
Brandon
David, usually I just skim your posts as theyre a bit too long for my A-D-D self. But I printed this one and am making notes in the margains. I was actually thinking about going through the verses on my own blog. I have alot to comment on and hopefully challenge you with and hopefully be challenged by such a thoughtful thinker as yourself.
Could I repost your post on my blog inserting my comments where I want? And then maybe we could dialogue from there? ITs alot easier than just bullet pointing them out in your comments section. It will take me a few days to finish but I love this stuff. I really want to work it out. I want to know truth and so I will challenge others in hopes of refining my own beliefs on the matter.
Brandon,
No offense, just frustration. I can be something of a zealot sometimes (i.e., putting beliefs ahead of people), and it’s something I simply need to temper. I hope I haven’t scared you off.
Pomo,
You are more than welcome to put this up on your blog and comment on it. And we can carry on discussion over there, if you wish.
Dear David,
I’ve been reading the conversation between you and Brandon. You both have interesting points. I am aware that you have worked through these verses with great care. So did Brandon and his faithful perspective. To be honest David, I’ve been to where you were. There were times I dared asking God to lead me to a MAN that I can love, can lust over, can give my TOTAL self to him. It is scary though, that man could likely be my new IDOL instead of God. But anyway, the point is God never lead me to a man. Instead, He showed me the truth in the Bible: IN THE BEGINNING.
Creation theology points out clearly God made man and woman. God did not creat Steve for Adam, but Eve. This is BEFORE the Fall. God intended that a woman is a helper of a man in the matter of procreation and friendship. After the Fall, sin distorted the whole notion of sexuality, self-control, sexual attraction, erotic arousal, etc., and of course other sins. This means homosexuality and heterosexuality both are in the affect of sin.
The Levitical Law was meant to INSTRUCT people to live in a possible way that they MIGHT please God. God’s boundaries are still obvious there: no sex between people of the same sex, no bestiality, etc., This sexual law code expresses God’s initial pre-fall model.
Now, when we face our problem of homosexuality, we have to be aware that the Fall has been there before we arrived. i.e., into sin we were born. And so, since we cannot deny the affect of sin on our sexuality, we have to be humble and live under God’s instruction.
What I am trying to flag up is the mentality that drives us to think we can do something PERFECT in God’s view. We want to be approved by God and try to be legalistic with Him, on what is okay and what is not okay. We shouldn’t have this mentality because this drives us to the point where we think we deserve to be treated like a righteous person. Remember that even Job was a righteous man, his righteousness was condemned by God’s righteousness.
Therefore, David, even when we think that the safest sex between two men in love is right, that does not mean God approves it! Many times, I have spent hours with God on my knees asking God why He thinks it’s wrong for me to have sex with whom I love so dearly… There is only one answer: we are fallen humans and we can never GAIN approval from God. And in Jesus’ name, we are justified as righteous, but that does not mean we can GAIN approval over homosexuality. Jesus himself told us that He came to UPHOLD the Law, not even a stroke or a dot in His WORD will change. If Jesus had something to say about homosexuality, He must have said it, whether or not we believe homosexual orientation exists in His society.
Jesus, however, redirected us to true love and the preaching of the Gospel awaiting for the day we see Him face to face, when there is no more affect of the Fall and of Sin upon humanity. There would be no more sexual attraction! [We will be like angels in heaven.]
I hope I’ve made myself clear. If there is more time, we can discuss about the notion of pre-fall sexuality according to St. Augustine’s viewpoint. For now, I hope you’re not bored yet with exchanging viewpoints. I think I’ve learned a lot from your writings, too!
My prayers are with you, brother!
Beast.
Hey Beast,
I am getting a bit bored of it, but that’s okay!
Believe it or not, I’ve been where you are, too, and have used the very same arguments.
I find creation theology to be very spurious, and eventually rejected it in its totality. Why? Because if morality can be extracted from the Genesis narrative, we must take seriously the facts that:
- the created order was vegetarian
- the created order was naked
- there is no room in Genesis for celibacy
It is really the last point of celibacy that moved me away from Genesis. Your “Adam and Steve” point is equally valid for celibacy, for Genesis also knows nothing of someone choosing to abstain from sex entirely. And yet we find this path blessed by God in Scripture. How can this be, if we are trying to extract morality from Genesis?
You write that a man can become an idol, but so can a woman (well, if I were heterosexual). This is a caution to all who are married, and not just a gay thing. I’m afraid I don’t really understand your point here, because it is universally applicable; and I agree that it may be tough sometimes to turn to God in the midst of marriage. But I do not think that condemns the whole union.
You write that Jesus came to uphold the law, but he actually broke (on several occasions) the law’s Sabbath restrictions. Not just rules from the pharisees (he broke those too) but actually Torah Law for the Sabbath, which, ironically, God set a precedent for in Genesis. Jesus also handily did away with all BIBLICAL food regulations (Mark 7:18-20). It is not so easy a matter as to say that Jesus came to uphold the law, for he and his followers have done away with much of it.
This disturbs me somewhat:
“Jesus, however, redirected us to true love and the preaching of the Gospel awaiting for the day we see Him face to face, when there is no more affect of the Fall and of Sin upon humanity. There would be no more sexual attraction! [We will be like angels in heaven.]“
Yes, I think Jesus clearly revealed that sex passes away. But you seem to think because of this that sexual attraction is a result of the Fall? I would have to emphatically disagree. Just because it is temporary does not mean that it is bad, only that something greater is coming: the beatific vision, or what Keller calls “the face”. Somehow that intimacy with Christ will swallow everything else up, and in him (I believe) we will also relate to our brothers and sisters more deeply than we have known here.
You have made yourself clear, Beast. And I understand where you are coming from. Like other responses I’ve gotten from this side, though, you are only able to assert that “it is the rule because it is the rule.” My respect for this point of view would increase enormously if someone – anyone – on this side could present to me how this rule really hangs on love for God and love for others, as Christ indicates all law must. (And to say we obey for love is a start, but far from a finish: for that could be applied to any of the numerous Mosaic or general Scriptural rules we no longer see as binding.) So far, the only defense I’ve heard is that it’s a rule, and simply must be obeyed.
David,
You have done some really great work here. I hope you keep up your writing and exploration. You are a valuable part of the conversation.
Cole
Dear David,
Thanks for your reply! I am very thankful you are such an excellent writer and a humble one with much patient, too! I hope that you are aware that once you put up a post, you’ve agreed to exchange viewpoints with others who read it, right? So, with that assumption, I step forward believing you are open minded enough to listen to me, as much as I am to you. I believe that we are not devolving ourselves into any kind of squabbling. I don’t consider this chance of sharpening each other’s viewpoints a squabble. HONESTLY, I love to listen to what you’ve got to say.
(1) Firstly, my quote ‘It is scary though, that man could likely be my new IDOL instead of God’ is just to say how real and how powerfully I could feel for a man whom I love and that I would possibly give in to idolising him. This was not a part of the argument I presented.
(2) Second, coming back to Creation Theology. No offence, I think it is a big mistake to reject creation theology in its totality. This is where I think you’ve become somewhat liberal in your theological approach. The model that I drew your attention to was the model of marriage. I did not mention anything about food, state of the body, or celibacy [By the way, if you read Augustine's 'The City of God', you will see his argument more clearly]. The model of marriage in the Bible has NEVER mentioned a samesex union. God HAS NEVER blessed even one erotic samesex union in the Bible. Therefore, if samesex union is a part of creation, is significant in God’s intention and pleasing to God, then why shouldn’t it be in the Bible?
Let me make my point clear again. When God found out it was not good for Adam to be alone, He did not made Steve first to keep Adam company, not even for a test. Rather, He brought Eve to Adam. And if we look close enough, we can see how He made Eve from Adam as well. I’ve read the conversation about marriage between you and Brandon and I realised that even polygamy was mentioned in the Bible, it was still a marriage between men and women. The only way to reject the exclusiveness of this man-woman marriage model is to reject the unity and the authority of the Bible. And you’ve clearly shown in your previous response that you choose to reject Creation Theology in its totality. I respect your view, but no further comment.
(3) Thirdly, coming back to Jesus and the Law. Jesus did not break any Law as you said ‘he actually broke (on several occasions) the Law’s Sabbath restrictions’. When Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, He meant to say HE was the LORD of the Sabbath. Moreover, He performed the miracles to glorify His Father. He did not do anything for His own benefit.
(4) Fourthly, about sexual attraction. The point I made was about our fallen sexual attraction. Again, our sexuality in its totality was affected by the Fall. Augustine thinks that the occurrence of nakedness was the point where our sexuality got distorted by our disobedience. He believes that before the Fall, humans were able to control their sexual organs like any other muscles. Because, if God intended nakedness, sex and procreation to be good, then arguably there would be no wrong to perform them all in public. But after the Fall, we all are so affected that sex, procreation, nakedness became somewhat private and to be seen only by the people that are involved. I did not say sexual attraction was BAD. Heck no, neither is nakedness! We are enslaved to them: That is bad! Therefore, there is a probability that Adam and Eve must have had a different ability to love and were not enslaved to anything. They did not have a corrupted and selfish heart like ours.
(5) Your last point ‘It is the rule because it is the rule’ could be seen in a different perspective. God did not make rules for nothing. He wants to protect us from harming ourselves. He is a good God and He has missed NOTHING good that He could have given us. God does know how happy I feel to be with a man, right? But that does not mean me being with a man is right in His sight. God wants to protect us in His good will and wisdom.
(6) The final point I want to make here: our so-called sexual orientation is actually more spurious and deceiving than we think. Our world today encourages us to EXPLORE our sexuality. The more people explore, the more straight people eventually end up being gay or at least bisexual. If someone first claims he is 100% straight, then after his sexual-exploration realises he is actually bisexuality and decided to stay faithful with his gay partner, what does it make him? Is it wrong for a straight guy to test, or explore his sexuality? If we believe that 1 Cor. 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10 are talking about perversion of heterosexual people…then in this case it is patently WRONG and ABSURD to explore and discover gayness in one’s sexuality. You once said ‘[W]hat I am trying to demonstrate is that my viewpoints do not come from “justifying a sin”.’ If you believe that the many Bible verses which, for many Christians, condemn homosexuality is talking about a ’sin’, then, what sin is it? If homosexuality is not to be condemned, then a clear sin must be in there in its place.
Here is what I think: God is trying to send to us so many rules and commands to protect us, but we keep rejecting hoping He was speaking about something else. In order to make homosexuality approvable, one has to reject the OT law and consider it merely Hebraic customs or thinks the apostle Paul was speaking about something so specific that he forgot to make clear perverted homosexual acts [performing by heterosexual people] and homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is a sin, and it existed since the moment sin entered the world, spreading through the Old Testament AND the New Testament, appearing in the Greek culture, in Jesus’ time and Paul’s time until today. And thus, it is impossible to say Paul was not aware of it. There are mythical erotic love-stories in the Greek gods’ world. Homosexual ‘love’ was as much genuine as it is today, and there is no difference between our feelings nowadays and theirs back then. BUT, but a sin is a sin and never change its nature. Homosexuality is not new to God for He created us. If there is such a big issue like this, would He care less to forget to mention it in the Bible? If our God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, He would have mentioned it in the Bible where He said not even a dot, or a stroke would change!
In conclusion, homosexuality is not an option for Christians as it is pointed out: Homosexuality is a SIN, whether it is a trying out, a test, an exploration of one’s sexuality, or it is genuine feelings. God did not intended homosexuality in His good will.
What’s next?
(a) A Christian, who struggles with homosexual attraction, is not sinful; but if he gives in to the desires, he is committing SIN.
(b) Change is not impossible to God. Those who choose to stay faithful to God are truly in a battle not of flesh and blood. It is a daily battle of self-denying and God-centring. But God will always be there to strengthen us.
David, like you, my ONLY wish is to live for Jesus and to please Him with my life. I will do all it takes to avoid sin. I hope you’re not too tired reading this whole junk! My brother, I would love to hear from you, to know where I have been wrong. Now, please challenge my view and let me listen to what you’ve got to say!
My prayers are with you!
Beast.
David, there is something you’ve mentioned in conversation with Beast that I’d like to correct you on. Actually I think Beast did reply some comment on this, but I’d like to go a step further.
You mentioned that Jesus broke the Laws (in particular on the Sabbath). Actually, he did not. Jesus never broke any of the Levitical Laws. What he did do was break some of the traditions, which the Jews had added onto the Laws over the course of several centuries. He broke Jewish traditions, which made following the Law very difficult and tiresome. Dealing with the Sabbath, the Jews had made a literal burden out of that day by all their traditions, many of which caused more harm than good for the people. When Jesus broke these traditions and preached against them, he did so to show the hypocracy of the Jewish leaders. They would tell people it was okay to save their livestock from danger on the Sabbath, but if a person was in need, they could not help that person, if in helping them they would have to break some trivial little tacked on traditional law they’d made. In all, that’s why Jesus says to take on his yoke, because it is light. What that meant is that through him, one could have a far simpler and easier relationship with God. All those hundreds and thousands of tacked on traditions would be thrown out the window.
I just thought you’d be interested in knowing this. It’s not that Jesus went against the Law. He went against the traditions which had been added onto the Law throughout the centuries before him.
Take care.
Beast and Brandon,
I am afraid that this really and truly will have to be my last post on the topic. As I’ve said, my intention was not to get into a Side A/B debate, but to outline where sexual morality comes from in a Side A perspective. And at this point, I really feel like we are talking past each other: that I have already answered many of the questions you are asking me, and I am sure you feel the same way. If I could somehow convince you, what would I do: revel in the intelligence of my arguments?
On the last issue of the Sabbath, I do want to clarify: you are right, it appears that the people in question here are Jesus’ disciples. Check out the first part of Matthew 12, though. Jesus’ disciples (and Jesus?) were picking heads of grain, when the Law expressly forbids both work and harvesting (Ex 34:21) on the Sabbath. But Jesus does not even defend himself saying, “Well, we aren’t *really* breaking the Sabbath, see let me show you…” Why then do we defend him this way? Rather, he brings up a time when King David broke the letter of the law, and does not condemn him. This does not make Jesus antinomian; he is simply putting the law into perspective, getting at the point behind the law, rather than the letter. Mankind was not made for rules, but rather the rules (Shabbat) were made for man, that he might have time to rest and to remember God. Again, read the passage. You may disagree, but that’s where I’m coming from, and you still have to deal with Jesus’ pronouncement of all foods as clean (when this is clearly against OT regulations).
Beast, you have still not connected the law against homosexuality to the laws of love, and I challenge you to continue to seek to do this. Much as OT rules still baffle me (as I think they do for many, including NT rules such as head coverings for women) and I must continue to seek to understand, so must you on this issue, I think.
I’m glad you are both seeking God on this, for that is what truly matters. We may disagree – and it seems quite sharply – on issues of interpretation. And of course we are each convinced of our correctness. But we also know that our righteousness is in Christ, and our salvation, both salvation from the meaninglessness of our existences and salvation to the bosom of the Father, comes from him. In the world outside of this, the foundation of our faith, there is diversity, but we all come to the same fountain for drink, and there, in Christ, is unity.
Peace, brothers,
–David
David, I don’t mean to keep things going, but you’ve intrigued and also confused me on something. What exactly do you mean when you say, “…you have still not connected the law against homosexuality to the laws of love…” I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Are you saying that homosexuality is okay if a great love is involved?
David, I am very impressed with your research and argument here. I am a heterosexual Chrisian who has off and on struggled deeply with the issue of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. Lately I have come to strikingly similar conclusions to what you have laid out here, although it is clear that you have given it even more thought.
It is hard for me to be in the situation that I am, and I am sure I know only a tiny bit of the difficulty of being a gay Christian in this culture. I’m very concerned with the future of the church: how will we find unity among those who disagree on such controversial issues as this? Is it possible? Is there a way to overcome such differences, by living under the love of Christ? I urge you from the bottom of my heart to get the word out. The gay Christian community needs to be loving and proactive toward the homophobic side of the church in very humble, serving, gentle ways. I guess I assume you already know all of that though. Really, I’m just sharing my heart here, for I have been longing to find someone who I can talk to about this, and then it occurred to be to check out some blogs.
God bless you and keep you!
Jathan