In a recent conversation where I was talking to someone about inviting non Christians to join in on something, they suddenly thought what if a gay person wanted to join in? For them that seemed to be a line they just couldn’t cross, a line worse for them than not calling themselves a Xn.
As much as everyone s going to talk about loving others the real question is can you be gay and Christian. I think yes and here’s why…
1. There are very few texts about homosexuality and they are not as strong as many think they are. The first is Sodom and Gomorrah and with just a quick flick with a Biblical concordance we can see that homosexuality has nothing to do with why it was destroyed. The second one is Leviticus. The part of the Bible written when the Jews were in exile a written to keep themselves separate from their captors, with lots of cleanliness laws (Leviticus 13:47-59 about mildew is one of my favourites) food laws and Sabbath laws and even a law about haircuts 19:27. I would guess you’d be lucky to find a strict fundamentalist Xn who follows even 75% of the laws in Leviticus, so to elevate one above all others that the text doesn’t elevate above all others is ridiculous. The third is Paul in Romans 1:25-26 where as a result of sin women "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and men " were consumed with passion for one another". Now even though technically Paul doesn’t call these actions a sin (just a result of) I think that he thinks of them as wrong. Now Paul also thought women wearing hats in church was also wrong – a cultural issue akin to wearing fishnets and high heels to church. Now Paul is speaking to a culture who saw women as 2nd class humans (women were considered the property of a man) and a culture where sex with a younger male slaves (pederasty) was common place. It is importnat to note that lesbian activity is not mentioned. I think most likely that when Paul is talking unnatural he is talking about sex with male and female temple prostitutes. What I think Paul is doing is defending the value of a heterosexual relationship rather than dene grading a homosexual relationships per se (particularly as lesbian relationships do not get a mention anywhere). Akin in our culture perhaps to having a lover on the side.
As much as everyone s going to talk about loving others the real question is can you be gay and Christian. I think yes and here’s why…
1. There are very few texts about homosexuality and they are not as strong as many think they are. The first is Sodom and Gomorrah and with just a quick flick with a Biblical concordance we can see that homosexuality has nothing to do with why it was destroyed. The second one is Leviticus. The part of the Bible written when the Jews were in exile a written to keep themselves separate from their captors, with lots of cleanliness laws (Leviticus 13:47-59 about mildew is one of my favourites) food laws and Sabbath laws and even a law about haircuts 19:27. I would guess you’d be lucky to find a strict fundamentalist Xn who follows even 75% of the laws in Leviticus, so to elevate one above all others that the text doesn’t elevate above all others is ridiculous. The third is Paul in Romans 1:25-26 where as a result of sin women "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and men " were consumed with passion for one another". Now even though technically Paul doesn’t call these actions a sin (just a result of) I think that he thinks of them as wrong. Now Paul also thought women wearing hats in church was also wrong – a cultural issue akin to wearing fishnets and high heels to church. Now Paul is speaking to a culture who saw women as 2nd class humans (women were considered the property of a man) and a culture where sex with a younger male slaves (pederasty) was common place. It is importnat to note that lesbian activity is not mentioned. I think most likely that when Paul is talking unnatural he is talking about sex with male and female temple prostitutes. What I think Paul is doing is defending the value of a heterosexual relationship rather than dene grading a homosexual relationships per se (particularly as lesbian relationships do not get a mention anywhere). Akin in our culture perhaps to having a lover on the side.
2. Just because something doesn’t feel right or natural doesn’t make it wrong. Some people argue aside from what is written that it doesn’t feel right or isn’t natural, and as a heterosexual male I can understand that for me it doesn’t feel right either, mind you it doesn’t feel right or natural to eat desiccated coconut either but that doesn’t make it wrong. There seems to be research going into seeing if there is a gay gene or studies of animals were homosexuality appears. Now even if science (or who ever) does prove that homosexuality is not natural this is not important to me. If someone is born without the use of an arm or if they were blind, that in some way that doesn’t feel right either, it is not the way that we expect someone to be born. But we do not demand that they live as if they were not born that way? What is more God has not given us the power to heal the blind and the lame in a miraculous “hey your back to how we expected you to be kind of way” instead God has given us the power to treat people so that they don’t feel like they are any different to us. Maybe we could give all people who are different to us, in what ever way, that same courtesy.
5 comments:
Hi Chris.
I think the problem you pose is an important one - why do Xns cringe at homosexuals in the same way Jews avoided leppers?
However, I think it is clear that God *does* see it as a sin. In Rom 1, Paul talks about men kicking God out of their lives, to please their own "shameful lusts"(v26) and "wickedness"(v29). The natural relations for men (and women, v26) are not wrong because they *feel* or *seem* unnatural, but because its not how God intented things to be (Genesis 2).
Sorry for ranting on, but let me propose a different solution to the problem. Instead of saying, "its not sin folks, don't worry about it", how about this: "it offends God, but I'm going to *love* you just the same". After all, isn't that *exactly* what Jesus did, both in his life and on the cross?
The problem is that many Xns fail to reflect that love to the ppl who need it most, like homosexuals.
Hey Adrian thanks for your different solution - that is certainly a big step up from how some Xns operate but I would guess this is probably how most compassionate evangelical Xns would think. A lot of my thinking around this issue was sparked from a conversation I had where a homosexual person that said didn't buy the love the sinner hate the sinner line (which I know is a bit of crude paraphrase of what you have said). As someone who tries to avoid being offensive where I can (and I know that on many occasion it is very important to confront the behaviour of others) I thought I need to seriously look at this. In general terms I know that what I have quickly outlined in the post is no where near mainstream Xn though I'm willing to be challenged and persuaded otherwise.
None the less, behind all this the big question I'm asking is if Paul says don't do X. What is the principal behind that that is wrong. It may be that X is the principal it self. So Paul says women don’t wear hats in church, are hats bad or is there a greater principal there.
One of the things that is hard about Paul is that he speaks into contexts. So for Paul hats in church are bad and slavery is ok two things which quiet rightly we would disagree with today. My question is men “giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another” a different context today as to what modern day homosexuality is (in particularly a monogamous lifetime relationship)?
Without meaning to knit-pick on your paraphrase Paul doesn't talk about people kicking out God in order to please their own "shameful lusts" and "wickedness" rather it is as a result of them rejecting God 1:21-23 & 25 then God gives them up to "degrading passions" (1:26). I don’t think this would necessarily weaken your argument, but it is important not to read more into the verse than what is there.
As far as Adam and Eve being God’s blueprint for relationships, I’m doubt that that was part of the original intention of the writer and certainly not the way many of the polygamist heroes of the old testament would have read it or “hey being single is great” Paul would have read it.
See also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_prostitution
and
http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
or
http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/sda/sdahsex.html
The creation accounts get so often bandied about, heavy with fundamentalist spin, as God's definitive word on gender relations:it drives me crazy.
Thanks for pointing out that the polygamist biblical writers & devoutly single Paul probably wouldn't have read the same things into the passages.
It's refreshing to find such an intelligent and compassionate criticism; thank you.
Kind words Christabel. Thank you
Post a Comment