homosexual hermeneutic
During the last semester of my undergrad career I went to JBC and met a man by the name of Dr. John Rumple. As of yesterday he has resigned from JBC and has a blog opened to discuss the homosexual hermeneutic. Go to this web site- www.outofcontext.us please let me know your thoughts on the homosexual hermeneutic.
living from the back of the line,
ben.
227 Comments:
I’m really upset that today’s pc culture makes me look like an arrogant bigot anytime I suggest sexual immorality is a sin, but it’s the truth so I will try my hardest to speak it in love. I don’t know where everyone else stands, so if I offend anyone please forgive me and if my conservative background has blinded me please prove me wrong. The biblical texts concerning this issues seem very clear to me.
I totally agree that the church, and we as individuals, need to be much more compassionate towards unsaved homosexuals, and saved people who do not practice, but struggle with homosexual temptation. But I don’t think that is what this guy is going for. It seems he is an unrepentant homosexual and is trying hard to justify it. If this is the case the church should not condone his behavior any more then they would an unrepentant single pastor who’s sleeping around town. If he thinks he can somehow prove that homosexual behavior is not sinful, I think he’s wasting his time. If that is the case, this has nothing to do with hermeneutics, and everything to do with false teaching (although it seems he is accusing me of the same). Someone needs to gently lead him back to the truth, not for the sake of being right, but for the sake of his soul. Correct me if I’m taking Paul’s teaching out of context, but people who embrace a sin to the point of making it a lifestyle show that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9) There is a huge difference between someone struggling with sin, and someone running to embrace it.
If he was trying to get people to treat homosexuals with the same love and respect they would any others sinner, then I would be right behind him 100%, it would help us to lovingly bring them the good news that Jesus truly can give them freedom. I get the impression though that he is saying homosexuals don’t need to be freed from this particular sin, and that’s not cool.
The guy really didn’t make any clear argument yet, so I may understand him better when his website is all up and running. He says he’s writing some huge article supporting his views but right now it’s not finished and most of the links on his site seemed to be inactive and there was no content on a lot of the pages.
7:21 PM
i found this lecture on Mr. Moore's web site. It gave me a better understanding of what this guy may use to defend his position. Mark does a great job of illustrating the hermeneutic and makes some great points at the end of his Lecture.
Lecture on Homosexual hermeneutics
12:12 PM
I am a student at Johnson Bible College... John Rumple was my favorite professor the past school year. I held him in high regard because of his conservative views on baptism and reverence for God. He has an undergraduate in Preaching and Bible, a Masters in New Testament, a Masters of Divinity, and is about to receive a Doctorate in New Testament I believe. He is a very well educated man. He came from the non-instrumental Church of Christ and a much more conservative background then myself. This was a man I trusted and in fact has inspired me to teach theology. When I herd about him being gay I was so angry. I listened to Mark Moore’s class on homosexuality and better understood the arguments for homosexuality, so I would like to thank him for his excellent teachings. I guess I don’t really know what to say because I am still speechless about this news. I know he is wrong for his lifestyle and that he has been misguided in his studies. I agree with Shane and that he is trying to justify it and, even if he is right he was still living in sin by living with another man who Mr. Rumple said was his “partner”. I have never had a mentor exposed like this before and has caught me off guard. I just pray that he will realize his misinterpretation and strive for a celibate life if he cannot find attraction in women.
9:23 PM
Let me weigh in on this with three comments. (1) Shane, thank you for linking my audio lecture above on Homosexual Hermeneutic. The printed material can also be downloaded in PDF format (it is part of a rather lengthy notebook): http://markmoore.org/resources/issuesnb.pdf
(2) There is a significant betrayal here beyond a homosexual life-style. That is, he was living a secret life against the community he was a part of. Obviously, we must be concerned with sexual purity. But in many ways, deceit of the body of Christ is worse because it destroys our ability to function as the body in confession, restitution, conversation, and healing.
(3) Mr. Rumple taught many of you in many significant ways. Please don't disregard that. His love for you, attention to you, teaching of you will continue to bear fruit. May it not be that my sins discount the good I have tried to do.
(4) Mr. Rumple is hurting more than any of the rest of us who grieve over this event. When I am in pain, I don't always conduct myself in as clear-headed ways as I would like. I urge grace in understanding Mr. Rumple. I can't speak for him obviously, but I suspect that in hind-sight he would do many things differently. Wouldn't we all when we have the luxury of thinking dispationately about an issue after the fact.
(5) I am saddened by his website that has a tone of anger (perhaps even retaliation). Again, I would probably be just as angry given his circumstances. But he is shaming an institution and individuals who are noble and God-honoring. This kind of public criticism will likely give many unbelievers reason to speak ill of the bride of Christ and that saddens me.
8:20 PM
Mark-
I think you bring up a good point in regard to character. He has become the kind of man that can live in deceit, slowly this has become easier for him, until now he can live in sin and be comfortable with it. Jonathan, I don't know how you're feeling, but it has to be tough. How close were you? I know how I highly I respect some of my proffs, in many ways I think they can do no wrong, but this is a healthy reminder that none of us are beyond the boundries of a community no matter how many degrees we get or even policies we may disagree with. God help us we need community, a community of character I'm learning more and more. The faithfulness of my friends, even in their sin, has made me more repentant, more honest and more faithful. I love my friends, and pray that God will challenge me with their faithfulness.
9:26 PM
Mr. Moore,
I'm a confused and concerned student at JBC and I just wanted to say thanks for your comments here and for the lecture on homosexual hermeneutics. It's helping me make sense of some of this. God Bless.
11:03 PM
Mr. Moore,
I graduated from JBC in 2005, and only had Mr. Rumple for one class, but I have to say that he is extremely knowledgeable in the scripture, and what I learned has been valuable in my life. Like you said, "May it not be that my sins discount the good I have tried to do", I feel that there is too much hostility toward Mr. Rumple in the younger students who have looked up to Rumple as one of the Freshmen Professors. My question for you is in James 3:1, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." How should we view this passage in a situation like this. I know the passage is about taming the tongue, and what the tongue can produce/destroy. Anyway, thanks for your time, and I hope that JBC has you come back for some more awesome seminars from you soon.
8:23 PM
Justin, James 3:1 is for me and Mr. Rumple not for you (unless or until you are a teacher). You are not the one that does the severe judging, God is. This will help you rest better. One of your other students said to me in a personal email that he was trying to figure this all out. Well, good luck! Figuring out deceptions, sexuality, judgment? Sometimes the best we can do is honestly experience life in both its pain and pleasures. To arbitrate, judge, control, or categorize is thoroughly beyond me. Nevertheless, your point is well-taken, if I presume to be a teacher, I must take the responsibility of greater moral, intellectual, and spiritual paths or be prepared to answer to God.
9:06 PM
...
Focus on the Family is dealing with this issue right now also. Here is a link to a brief news article about the latest Focus on the Family controversy: Click here.
My brother JD asked me what my opinion on this matter was. Here are some of the thoughts I came up with:
It would not surprise me if Focus on the Family is guilty of twisting data for their purposes. While I know that Focus on the Family does much good, I have also witnessed firsthand some of the evil it has done, and I do not agree at all with Dobson's political methodology. I think it is unchristian. I tend also to think that Focus on the Family is focusing on the wrong thing, both in this situation and in general.
I do think Dobson should meet with Soulforce [a pro-gay and lesbian family group] privately. Refusing to do so and demanding instead a public debate seems a bit like a stratagem to me. By refusing to speak with them privately Dobson is able to avoid getting to know his enemy personally, and, what's more, he is empowered to twist words to his advantage in an environment where he has the majority vote. He does believe, after all, that he is the President of the Moral Majority.
Or maybe he's just too exhausted for a private meeting. That could be the case. I wonder, though, when the last time was that Dobson had dinner with a homosexual, or a homosexual couple.
As far as the sin of homosexuality goes, I think homosexuality is for the most part a different animal today than it was in the ancient Mediterranean world when Paul wrote Romans chapter 1. Moreover, Romans chapter 1 leads directly into Romans chapter 2. Christians tend to forget that fact. We like to read how bad Paul says homosexuals are. We don't like it pointed out to us that Paul's talk about homosexuality was a rhetorical ploy to get Christians to see how wicked they themselves are. Paul's point was that we tend to read Scripture over against others when we should be reading it over against ourselves.
For that reason, I try to choose to reserve judgment about to what extent or in what way homosexuality is a sin. I know there are plenty of homosexuals out there who profess to be Christians and actually do a pretty good job of it, better than a lot of the heterosexual Christians I know. Of course that itself does not make homosexuality any less a sin if it is in fact a sin. But it brings me pause.
...
4:32 AM
Hi, I thought I might post something. Its Jason McCheyne here an OCC graduate and follower of Jesus who is married to another man and has been for 6.5 years and with a 5 month old baby boy here in Melbourne Australia. I am really glad to see that dialogue is occurring finally. If 3-5% of any given population on the planet is same sex attracted then how we interact with this section of God's creation is paramount. This is over one million Australians and over 15 million American's. I know it can be hard to see but there is surprisingly and boringly very litle differnce between a gay or lesbian person and a heterosexual person. A person should be judged on their character, not their gender, race or orientation. Anyway just wanted to say hi and am happy to dialogue with anyone. The pursuit of truth and the renewal of our minds is one of our most important tasks as followers of Christ. jason@jayado.com
7:29 PM
...
Thank you, Jason, for joining us here. You bring up a good point about population. The numbers alone should force conservative Christians, at least, to reevaluate their tactics. I do think it begs the question, though, for a lot of people here at least, to say that a person should be judged by their character and not by their sexual orientation. While I might agree with you that a homosexual orientation is more of a biological than an ethical issue, not everyone here would share that assumption. Many, as you know, believe the Bible tells us that homosexual orientation is precisely a character issue. I do not think it is so cut and dry as that, but there needs to be dialogue on both sides. Neither side will serve itself well by simply begging the question and making a bald statement of fact out of what is obviously a factvalue (that's right, factvalue) claim.
Regarding what I said earlier, I just want to qualify what I said a little. While I have my suspicions about Dobson, I have no reason to doubt that he is entirely sincere. In fact I'm sure he's convinced what he does is what God requires of him. While I again stress that I do not think his political methodology is Christian, I want to tone that down a little by making it clear that I'm aware of the great good he has done in the lives of so many. It is not up to me to weigh whether he has done more harm than good. So while I emphatically reject much of his agenda, I do not wish to deny the sincerity of his heart or the good fruit of his incredibly hard and consistent labor.
...
8:25 PM
Regarding homosexuality as a biological question I have several questions. First, is homosexuality evident in cultures that are not affluent? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in third world countries homosexuality simply doesn't exist. Is there a correlation? If homosexuality is not a question of character why does it seem so connected to character when it is talked about in both the OT and New? In Leviticus homosexuality is the only sin specifically connected to the Hebrew word for "abomination." Also, the material in Romans 1 (no, I don't think of it as "factvalue," but historically it has been interpreted by the Church regard homosexuality as a sin). Third question, if homosexuality is a question of biology, which I don't think it is, what would that change? The ethic of Jesus is that of the cross. Our desires are crucified and reshaped after God. I know that there is more to say and learn, but these are some initial issues I have.
7:10 PM
Though I have no proof, I would agree that in some cases, not all, certain people are born with natural homosexual desires, but I might be wrong. Regardless, I don’t think that can in anyway justify acting on those desires. We live in a fallen world, every person has natural desires that it would be wrong to give in to. If God says something is wrong, who are we to question him? Lusting is wrong, and it is something I have struggled with since I was a young child. When I see an attractive women, my biology tell me that I should desire her and there is nothing wrong with that, my character, on the other hand, will be shown by what I choose to do with that desire. Will I entertain it with mental fantasy, will I follow the desire and pursue her physically, or will I deny my sinful self and remain loyal to Christ and to my loving wife? I can’t control what tempts me, but there is always a way out of giving in to those temptations. The real danger comes when I make a pattern out of giving into those temptations and I slowly become their slave. From there the only way I can live with myself is to rationalize it in my head and harden my heart until my conscience is so seared that I no longer feel the prick of the Holy Spirit’s conviction, that or repent.
I certainly have a lot of compassion for my brothers and sisters who desire a same sex partner, and I certainly don’t expect them to magically flip a switch and become attracted to the opposite sex, but maybe chastity is not such a small price to pay in the long run. This is what I know to be true; sex is made for marriage, and marriage happens when a man leaves his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two become one flesh. If we compromise this truth, what part of God’s Word will be next, and when will we stop. I see a slippery slope. I know some will disagree with me and I respect their right to there own opinion, but I can not accept it as truth.
9:38 PM
Also, isn’t it amazing that God designed man and woman in such a way as they can intimately express their love for each other sexually, mutually, with dignity and respect, face to face? As far I know we are the only creatures on the planet that can peer into each others eyes during the act of sex.
9:42 PM
I want to say thank you for all the responses for the blog i had post. Obviously, this is a key issue within the church today and one that needs some dialogue and should not just be ignored. When I was introduced to church at a younger age I would have never thought we would be discussing this issue. Thank you for your thoughts!
love wins.
living from the back of the line,
ben.
6:14 PM
Thom, I am absolutely thrille dthat dialogue is happening and am pleased to be a part of the conversation.
Shane I understand what you mean by your struggle wth temptation and that struggle is a valid one. However a person's sexual orientation is formed and stable by the timethat person exits the womb. Their awareness may take a decade or too to actualise. I am married to my same sex husband and there are many countries today who encourage and support stable families because sexual orienatation is not a character issue (it can be just like it can be for hetersexual persons). The reason the church has to confront this reality is because 3-5% of its own population is same sex oriented. Its just a asimple fact. And we love Jesus too.
Tyler, homosexual people (though not necessarily branded that term" exist in every population across the planet and across the ages. The 3-5% figure is stable and consistent.
Shane, same sex couples peer in to each others eyes when having sex too. Interestingly and I am sorry that the sexual act needs to be explained here, please forgive me if I offend anyone. The research reveals that more heterosexual couples practice anal sex than same sex couples and interestingly a males g spot is in his anus. Sex is not dirty if practiced appropriately.
I hope this opens up some further discussion.
WIth love and respect,
Jason
1:22 AM
...
Thank you, Tyler, Shane, and Jason for your good comments.
Jason, no one here wants or means to deny that you love Jesus. That's something we all share here. I would be interested to hear from you personally just what your love for Jesus amounts to, how it has changed you, and why and in what way it makes a difference in your life.
I appreciate your countering Shane's comments about the "naturalness" of heterosexual sex. I hope it is not too graphic for some, but I think it is important that we be careful the kind of assertions we (and here I mean we conservatives) make. More often than not our prior attitude toward homosexual orientation/activity is going to determine for us what gets to count as "evidence from nature." None of these kinds of arguments will ever be anything like conclusive in either direction. "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" is not an intercommunitarian argument. Although it is significant as an argument to those on the more traditional side, it clearly has no logical force on the other side. Jason brings up a good point about the male g-spot being located in the anus. That could be used as evidence in an argument that at least homosexual sex is not unnatural. It may not be persuasive to those already convinced of the contrary, but that it gets to count as evidence from any perspective is an indication of the kind of dialogue we're having here. Let's take this as a call to transcend the typical pro- and anti-gay slogans and move on to real, descriptive dialogue.
The challenge on both sides is to locate and evaulate the hermeneutical commitments and general moral assumptions that drive our telling the story of "naturalness" one way rather than another. In other words, we're dealing with two in many ways similar but in significant ways different rational frameworks here. For both sides (if there are only two sides) the Bible is authoritative. The question is not the authority of the Bible but rather what we mean when we say that the Bible functions authoritatively in the lives of Christians. (This is not to say that the biblical passages on homosexuality are hermeneutically unambiguous. I am eagerly awaiting the writing of John Rumple's exegetical essays over the next several months.)
However, I still think both Shane and Jason are begging the question. While I am not in principle disputing with either of them yet, I am still waiting for a descriptive account of how each person's reading of the biblical narratives amounts to their confidence in their position on sexual orientation. Shane has given intracommunitarian arguments, i.e., argument that confirm the position of those who already hold it. Jason has given us a rather non-descript claim that homosexual orientation is already decided by the time of birth.
What we have to realize is that, as of yet, no intercommunitarian descriptions have been put forward.
As far as Tyler's arguments go, I have this to say. Tyler has argued that the Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin, and that Christians are called to crucify their sinful desires. While I agree with the latter part, my judgment on the former is suspended (as far as this discussion goes) until any argument either way is put forward. The question here is not what homosexuals should do with their sinful desires, but whether homosexual desire is itself inherently sinful. Obviously, good homosexual exegetes have different (i.e., unconventional) readings of key passages of Scripture to offer us. The question here actually is whether homosexuality is a morally deficient or a morally neutral state. (I see no one arguing that it is morally preferable.) If it is morally neutral, then there is no in principle reason to crucify homosexual desires. To crucify homosexual desires in this case would be morally the equivalent of crucifying heterosexual desires (i.e., for the sake of chastity and thus the kingdom). If homosexual orientation is morally deficient, Tyler's point may stand, though that is also a debate (see Verhey in Remembering Jesus).
The disastrous assumption on the part of some here is that determining the deficiency or the neutrality of homosexuality is just a matter of observing which side has the more "facts." The question is not what the facts are but what the facts are. In other words, the quetions is what gets to count as evidence one way or the other, and how we answer that question depends upon a host of assumptions that lie beneath the surface of what we would ordinarily call "argument."
Having said that, I want to recognize very loudly and clearly that we are not dealing with mere ideas here, but with (according to some estimates) 3-5% of the population of the world and how we label those very real, very earnest people. I am not willing to label unchristian millions of professing Christians just because I think the facts are on my side. I think the question of whether or not someone is a Christian lies much more closely to questions about how one treats others in terms of justice, peace, mercy and servanthood. If a homosexual person did exemplify these virtues in the name of a crucified Christ, that would be significant to me. Of course if it could be shown that homosexuals in general tended to be materialistic, self-serving, power-politicking, liberationists, that may be significant for determining the moral value of homosexuality as a practice from a Christian perspective (but I think such a claim would be ridiculous). And of course, on that line of reasining, 95% of the American churches would be damned first.
I do think Tyler's question about the affluent societies tending to have more homosexuals is an interesting investigation. Although I do not think the answer to this question is going to give us conclusive evidence for either position, it should weigh in the balance. Jason claims that the 3-5% population runs through just about every nation. That remains to be seen. I don't know where he's getting his numbers. Andy Rodriguez pointed out to me that in the country he was in in Africa, homosexuality wasn't even an issue, i.e., there weren't any to speak of. He said this in response to my suggestion that the poorer countries often are governed under a general conservative religious ethos. Andy pointed out the this particular African country had no official religion.
That is not evidence that homosexuality doesn't exist in poorer countries. As Jason put it, "homosexuality" is a term we use. It may take different forms and different names in different environments. But then again, it may just be absent.
Given that heterosexuality is usually the norm in any society, what are the conditions under which homosexuality would be given room to surface? Are the conditions necessary for such surfacing primarily economic ones, religious, intellectual, or otherwise? I think these are the more precise questions that need asked under this line of reasoning, but at the same time framing the questions this way already indicates the kind of trouble we're going to run into later once we want to start making general claims about the conditions necessary for the surfacing and survival of homosexuals or homosexual communities. There actually need not be any one set of conditions necessary. And a general tendency in one direction only takes on the character of "evidence" within the context of an argument that already has first principles and a suspected or desired conclusion.
Jason, I hope this doesn't sound like we're arguing theoretically about whether or not you have the right to exist. My place here is as a mediator and I'm doing my best to cater to the kind of questions that are required from the standpoint of my more conservative friends.
...
2:28 PM
It is very interesting the dialouge going on here. I just want to raise one more issue that for me has always stood out. Shane mentioned how God naturally created Man and Woman to have face to face contact. He failed to mention one more astounding design of God which is obvious- procreation. Simply put a homosexual person cannot procreate, g-spot or no. Now, Jason and his partner have adopted, I assume, a baby, and I'm sure they are going to love that baby and bring it up the best they can or any of us can. But, forgive me for an ultra-conservative position here, but the issue of procreation does a lot for the natural vs. unnatural argument, at least in my mind. This said, I have had some homosexual friends. Any Christian who has habitually fornicated or committed adultery is the same. The Bible calls for all to be sexually pure. My point here is that many Christians (heterosexual too) are tarnishing that command on many levels.
2:56 PM
...
You do bring up a good point, Greg. But I wonder if you would want to go so far as to say that the purpose of heterosexual marriage is to procreate. If this is what you're saying, on what grounds are you saying it? An easy argument to make against that notion would be that procreation was necessary for the filling up of the earth, but that marriage was instituted by virtue of man's need for companionship, which is a divine characteristic.
There has been a lot of theology of marriage done that talks about marriage as a form of asceticism, learning to deny self by loving the other, and that the purpose of marriage is the cultivation of the virtues necessary for sustaining Christian community. Although procreation is a part of marriage, and a necessary part of any good theology of marriage for a Christian people in general, I see no reason why we should say that it is necessary for every good marriage. (I think that would be asburd.) Adoption, then, certainly is more than just an option, but a theological obligation. An argument could be made that adoption is actually the more Christian form of child rearing, since, among other reasons, it is more closely analogous to discipling converts. The children of the church are not generated biologically.
I see potential room there for a theology that would include homosexual couples certainly not deficient in their capacity to raise children. Such parenting might actually be necessary since adoption among Christians is so irregular.
Again, your point that procreation is possible only in heterosexual relationships is an argument for the naturalness of heterosexuality from your tradition's perspective. From another tradition's perspective, that might not be immediately apparent.
Moreover, I think the question of whether homosexuality is natural is at least in one sense a little ridiculous, since there are obviously millions of people for whom homosexuality is quite natural. The question isn't whether it is natural or not, but from where we derive what gets to count as "natural" in the first place. Often times arguments from the "natural order" tend to underwrite the status quo mentality of a given society. Paul's very traditional point (in my understanding) was not that homosexuality was unnatural, per se, but that a general pagan rejection of the creation narrative resulted in certain kinds of cultic behavior which included homosexual sex as part of temple worship. The homosexuality to which Paul referred was connected to the rejection of the Jewish creation myth (not fictional myth) and the worship of false gods.
Jason, do you reject the creation myth and worship false gods?
Unless Jason's answer is different than I expect it to be, the homosexuality we're dealing with seems to be a different sort of animal than the kind Paul was referring to in his argument from "the nature of things."
That doesn't mean the discussion is over. That just means the discussion is a little more complicated than we think.
...
4:02 PM
I agree this is a very sticky issue. I really thank all those apposing my view for their patience and courtesy. I’m sure I am challenging your convictions just as much as you are challenging mine. I am glad we can discuss this out of a desire to do God’s will and not a desire to prove the other wrong.
Aside from all the biblical texts that, at least to me, appear to obviously call homosexuality a sin, I also have another honest concern. My question is why has the church for the last 2000 years, and God’s people for thousand of years prior to the birth of the church never approved of homosexuality. The only time it is ever mentioned in scripture is to point it out as sin. Isn’t this the first time this has seriously been an issue. It seems across all times and cultures the Church has stood against any kind of sex that takes place out side the guidelines of a heterosexual marriage?
Jason you said “a person's sexual orientation is formed and stable by the time that person exits the womb. Their awareness may take a decade or too to actualize.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, what I am saying is that no one is born with a healthy sexual appetite. My flesh is perverted and it would be a terrible thing if I gave into all my natural desires sexual or otherwise. It’s not about what feels natural or what society thinks; it’s about what does God think. I really don’t want to appose your lifestyle, if God is ok with it I am too, but I need to know Biblically where I can find confidence that homosexuality is permissible before I can stand against thousands of years of church history and deny what my conscience and God’s Word has convinced me to be true. I think everyone can understand the fear of not wanting to be duped, or played the fool, especially when doing so could me you were outside of God’s will. Thanks everyone for the comments.
4:31 PM
...
Thank you, Shane. Appealing to church history and church authority is the best argument from the conservative side put forward so far. But we need to be careful. The church historically also perpetuated patriarchy, racism, anti-Semitism, in many places slavery, and not to mention nationalism and power politics. While church authority is the first and the best place to look for guidance, that too is a complicated move.
...
5:07 PM
I am enjoying reading everyones posts. I only have a few minutes to write today and I promise to write again on Friday and answer the questions posed that I don't have time for today. The statistics I quote are from the research and are the conservative estimates. I am happy to furnish the references is abyone is interested. Our son was born through surrogacy. He is biologically one of ours, so yes we have procreated, just used an extra step. There are now a generation of thousands of kids born to same sex families all over the planet. The outcomes for these children (provided the parents are good parents...the character issue again) are same same as for children in good heterosexual families.
Sorry I can;t wirte more but I will on Friday.
Cheers
Jason
6:50 PM
What an intringuing converstation. Thanks to all who have shared their thoughts and arguments. I am always reminded reading this how much I have to learn.
Thom mentioned the conversation that we had today. It is true that the countries I have been to in Africa had no concept of homosexuality. It was a foriegn idea to them. That was also the case working with the Indians in Ecuador as well with the poor in the Yucatan. But I must also say that I did befriend an Arab homosexual last year while working in Israel. This was in a very muslim culture where homosexuality is considered very taboo. This fellow did hoave the oppurtunity to travel both to America and Englad for some time. I am a bit leery of stats of percentage of homosexuals among different nations. Whether they come from an ultra-conservative tradition or homosexual there is an agenda behind the stats. There is something to prove.
Regardless, I dont think the statistic question is the the right question to ask. I am fine with accepting the 3-5% of every population. Sounds fair to me. I think the more important question is: Is living the homosexual lifestyle sinful? Or, is homosexuality consistent with God's design for the union of marriage? This is why I, like Thom, am looking forward to the exegesis of the "homosexual texts" by Mr. Rumple. Just as I am not comfortable with "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" menatlity, I am equally not satisfied with "homosexuality today is different than homosexuality then so the texts dont really matter." I know that no one has said this, but it is a popular homosexual tactic.
More than just focusing in on the "homosexual verses" I would also like to hear more on "marriage verses." There seems to be a consistent theme through the biblical narrative on God's design or creation of the institution of marriage. An unbiased reading of Gen-Rev seems to portray God's perfect design/creation of marriage to be male and female. Maybe a good discipline for all of us to do would be to an inductive study on marriage, union, hhomosexuality, sex, etc. and see what the texts say before we start saying what they mean (I know how muc of an ozarkian suggestion that is, but gosh, i still think the Bible has some things to say to us today. Call me crazy).
I also thinks Shane brings up a great point about the church's interpretation of homosexuality as a sin. Someone who considers homosexuality as an acceptable practice would have to be comfortable going against what the church has consistantly dissapproved of.
May I issue a warning to the bloggers here, and this could simply the the evangelist coming out in me. We all have a lot to learn, and all of us could be wrong. Jason, I dont for a second question your commitment to follow Jesus. Nor do I for Thom, Shane, Ben and the rest. But i confess that for the first time in my life I am personally befriending a homosexual who is not a christian. May God forgive me. I dont care if Jason or Thom or Mr. Rumple pointed him to Jesus, but I desperatly want him to surrender his life to Christ. He is not the only one. As we debate and learn and argue let us not forget that we can work together as fellow disciples learning to become better disciples to bring lost people to Him.
6:55 PM
...
Thank you, Andy. Your challenge is the right one.
Jason, where-a-bouts in Oz are you? I grew up on the Gold Coast.
...
7:15 PM
Friends,
I have posted some exegetical work I have done for a paper regarding homosexuality in the book of Leviticus. This is an attempt to convince Thom and others that the Bible in the community of believers since at least Moses through all of church history has understood homosexuality as wrong. Historically, lexically and grammatically this makes good exegetical sense.
Thom, you said, "The question here actually is whether homosexuality is a morally deficient or a morally neutral state." How could this be determined aside from the bible? especially when the question of what counts as "evidence" is such a significant issue. The complexities exist for a number of reasons especially when one considers that our Lord had no sexual practice. But, the bible does speak to this issue, how it is to be understood is the question.
Also, I would like to draw attention again to Andy's observation that while in Malawi, Africa homosexuality simply isn't an issue. The stories of the people there have made "homosexuality" an unintelligible term. Until very recently (1960’s) this has also been the case in the Church even in cultures (i.e. the first-century world) where homosexuality was considered an acceptable practice.
EXEGESIS:
Homosexuality is explicitly prohibited in Leviticus (18.22; 20.13). The difficulty is found not in understanding these passages as clear prohibitions of homosexuality, but their application in the new covenant under Christ. One cannot simply argue, “Leviticus says it is wrong!” This point is seen explicitly in light of other laws which clearly have been done away with (Lev 18.19; 19.19; 19.27). At the same time, dismissing these laws because they are in the Old Testament is also mistaken. So then, how should these prohibitions be applied to a Christian, living under the grace of Christ and not the law of Moses (Col 2.6-23)? How even more in the contemporary world that believes the only thing to be intolerant of is intolerance.
These prohibitions against homosexuality occur in the portion of Leviticus commonly referred to as the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26). The previous 16 chapters have been devoted to the cultic worship practices of Israel focusing especially on atonement and Israel’s relationship to God. In chapters 17-26 the author shifts focus to holiness (19.2; 20.7, 8, 26; 21.6,8, 15, 23; 22.9, 16, 32) and Israel’s relationships within the community. The key exhortation to the Holiness Code is “You shall be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (Lev 19.2). The context of the whole section indicates a call to holiness based on the character of God. This holiness runs counter to the nations which previously occupied the land Israel will inherit (18.1-5, 24-30; 20.22-24). Therefore, it must be kept in mind that regardless of what is culturally “appropriate” the exhortation is a call to holiness as defined by God.
With that context in mind, the text themselves clearly indicate that these laws are normative for Christians regardless of whether or not one considers this view to be “based on antiquated views of impurity.” Robert A.J. Gagnon in his book "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" highlights six salient points that indicate why these texts are normative for the contemporary Christian. (1) Lev 18.22 occurs in the context of forbidden sexual relations outlawing incest (18.6-8), adultery (18.20), child sacrifice (18.21), and bestiality (18.23) all of which continue to apply. The only sexual prohibition that is not considered universal like the others is intercourse with a woman in her menstrual uncleanness (18.19). (2) The word “abomination” תּוֹעֵבָה (tô‘ēbâ) indicates the ungodliness of the homosexual act. In the summary of chapter 18, vv 24-30, all of the prohibitions are described as “abominations” תּוֹעֵבֹתהַ (hatô‘ēbot). However, 18.22 is the only single act that is described in this way from the preceding list (18.6-23). In addition, Leviticus 20 describes the penalties for many of the unlawful acts of 18-19 and only homosexuality is described as an “abomination.” (3) The penalty for homosexuality is death (20.13). The only other offenses that are specifically penalized with death in Lev 20 are child sacrifice (20.2), cursing one’s parents (20.9), adultery (20.10), some forms of incest (20.11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20.14), and bestiality (20.15-16). All of which have remained normative for Christians. (4) Lev 18.22 and 20.13 are absolute and unqualified. (5) As already mentioned, the entire context of the Holiness Code stresses the distinctive holiness of God’s people. (6) The prohibition has been carried over into the new covenant (Rom 1.27, 32). The textual evidence, literary context, and theological continuity between testaments all indicate that homosexuality is prohibited for one claims to worship Yahweh.
Jason, how can a text like this be understood to support homosexuality?
7:19 PM
...
Thank you, Tyler. Your exegesis brings out the point (your strongest point) that homosexuality is listed among sexual sins that continue to be forbidden in the Church.
I am anticipating John Rumple's essay on the holiness code text. Certainly he will have to address the point you've raised here.
You did say, however, that you are writing in "an attempt to convince Thom and others that the Bible in the community of believers since at least Moses through all of church history has understood homosexuality as wrong." I'm not sure that anyone here needs convincing of that fact. No one (especially not I) has questioned that historically homosexuality has been condemned in Israel and the church.
Yet the concept of sexual orientation would have been foreign to Israel and the church. The question, then, is to what extent the Bible speaks to homosexuality today IF it is true that homosexuality is a biological and not inherently a moral disposition.
Moreover, your citing Romans 1 as evidence that the prohibition against homosexuality is carried over into the NT I think is a misstep, not because I personally disagree with you (my judgment is suspended currently), but because it could be argued (with some integrity I think) that because Paul's condemnation of the pagan idolaters is a rhetorical move to expose the guilt of "judgmental" Christians, Paul is not NECESSARILY sanctioning everything said in the traditional argument against gentile immorality. The point is, it's precisely a traditional argument. That's what Paul used to get in on the good side of his audience before showing all his cards. Just like all of my argument here for the homosexual hermeneutic could be a rhetorical ploy meant to spring a trap later, Paul may not necessarily be concerned with the traditional diatribe against gentile immorality either way. His concern clearly is the judgmental, exclusivistic attitude of Christians.
Finally, you asked Jason how a text like Leviticus 18 could be "understood to support homosexuality"? Not to be picky but I don't think anyone would claim that it "supports" homosexuality, as though someone is arguing that what Lev. 18 actually means that homosexuality is a-okay with Jehovah.
I think what you mean to ask is how homosexuality can be reconciled, from a Christian standpoint, with Lev. 18.
And your throwaway jab at the "tolerance" ethos is a good hit but I don't see its relevance here. I haven't heard anyone on the homosexual side (in this debate, John Rumple, or anyone else) bring up the word tolerance. Nor would I think John Rumple would side with those who say that the only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance.
Apart from those caveats, I appreciate your exegesis and candid remarks. I love and respect you.
Shane, if you would like to shoot me an email (tmstark@gmail.com) I would like to say a personal word to you. If you're worried about my having your email address you can make up a new one and discard it later.
...
9:51 PM
Hey Thom,
i emailed you my address, just letting you know incase it goes into your junk mail or something.
9:23 AM
...
Got it and replied. Thanks, Shane.
...
10:01 AM
As this conversation continues, it might be helpful to have somewhat of a historical background for homosexuality in the Roman World against which Paul makes his comments in the New Testament. Caution: the quotes below are explicit. If salacious material offends you, please pass on this comment.
Petronius (c. 27-66) (advisor to Nero on entertainment), Satyricon 75.11, “When I was fourteen, I became my master’s ‘favorite.’ I mean, what’s wrong with doing what your master wants? Of course, I was doing it for my mistress, too. You catch my meaning? I don’t publicize it because I don’t like to boast.”
Seneca the Younger (c. 3 BCE – 65 CE), Letters 47, “Yet another slave, the one who pours the wine, is decked out in feminine clothing and fights a losing battle against age. He is a boy approaching manhood, but he must present a boyish appearance. Thus, although he has the bodily build of a soldier, he remains beardless because his hairs are rubbed away or pulled out by the roots. He is awake all night, dividing his time between his master’s drunkenness and sexual desires. In the bedroom, he is a man; at the dinner table, he is a boy.”
Tacitus (c. 56-117 CE), Annals 14.42 “One of his own slaves killed Pedanius Secundus, the city prefect. The slave committed the murder either (1) because Pedanius Secundus refused him his freedom after agreeing to the ‘purchase price,’ or (2) because the slave was in love with some young man and could not tolerate his master as his rival.”
Tacitus (c. 56-117 CE), On Tiberius, the Caesar of Jesus’ day, 6.1 Tiberias’ Pederasty: “In the fashion of a despot he debauched the children of free-born citizens. It was not merely beauty and a handsome person which he felt as an incentive to his lust, but the modesty of childhood in some, and noble ancestry in others. Hitherto unknown terms were then for the first time invented, derived from the abominations of the place and the endless phases of sensuality.”
Catullus (c. 84 BCE – 54 BCE) Poems 93, 57 on Julius Caesar’s sexual appetite with his homosexual partner Mamurra: “They suit one another well, these two lewd lechers, Mamurra and Caesar with his unnatural lusts. And no wonder! They have both been stained with an equal number of blotches which cannot be washed away [i.e. venereal disease], one picking them up in the city, the other at Formiae [Mamurra’s hometown, south of Rome], equally diseased, equally debauched, like twins, both learned scholars in affairs of the bed, both renowned for their adulterous appetites, friendly rivals also of young girls. Yes, they suit one another well, those two lewd lechers.” Because of such behavior Caesar was mocked as “a man for all women and a woman for all men.”
Suetonius (75 CE – 160 CE), The Twelve Caesars, on Tiberius the Caesar of Jesus’ day: (3.44) “Some aspects of his criminal obscenity are almost too vile to discuss, much less believe. Imagine training little boys, whom he called his ‘minnows’, to chase him while he went swimming and get between his legs to lick and nibble him. Or letting babies not yet weaned from their mother’s breast suck at his breast or groin—such a filthy old man he had become.”
Suetonius (75 CE – 160 CE), The Twelve Caesars, on Nero the Caesar of Paul’s day: (6.28 & 29) “Not satisfied with seducing free-born boys and married women, Nero raped the Vestal Virgin Rubria. He nearly contrived to marry the freedwoman Acte, by persuading some friends of consular rank to swear falsely that she came of royal stock. Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he went through a wedding ceremony with him –dowry, bridal veil and all – took him to his palace with a great crowd in attendance, and treated him as a wife. A rather amusing joke is still going the rounds: the world would have been a happier place had Nero’s father Domitius married that sort of wife. He dressed Sporus in the fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Streets of the Sigillaria at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then. . . . Nero practiced every kind of obscenity, and after defiling almost every part of his body finally invented a novel game: he was released from a cage dressed in the skins of wild animals, and attacked the private parts of men and women to stood bound to stakes. After working up sufficient excitement by this means, he was dispatched – shall we say? – by his freedman Doryphorus. Doryphorus now married him – just as he himself had married Sporus – and on the wedding night he imitated the screams and moans of a girl being deflowered.”
10:38 AM
...
Sounds like every homosexual couple I know: obscene, debase, depraved, violent, deviant, promiscuous and gratuitously bodacious.
...
7:55 PM
Yeah but those aren’t really descriptions of homosexuals, they are descriptions of the lewdest of lewd lifestyles which just happen to at time include homosexuality. They also included pedophilia, cross-dressing, prostitution and rape and we certainly don’t allow that kind of behavior.
What if a brother and sister decided they wanted to enter into a monotonous committed sexual relationship? Would that be ok? What if they were both sterilized and there was no chance of it affecting an innocent child? Would that make it better? Is something wrong because it has consequences, or is it wrong because God says it’s wrong?
If we are throwing out Lev. 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.) then why are we hanging on to the rest of that chapter?
9:29 PM
...
"Yeah but those aren’t really descriptions of homosexuals, they are descriptions of the lewdest of lewd lifestyles which just happen to at [the] time include homosexuality."
Yes. I was being sarcastic. My point was that this does not describe homosexuality as we understand it today. Mark's point was that these texts might help us understand homosexuality as it was understood in Paul's day.
"Is something wrong because it has consequences, or is it wrong because God says it’s wrong?"
I'm not sure I like either option. Good and evil isn't the product of an arbitrary decision made by God, any more than it's the product of our own determination of what seems to be expedient. Yet sometimes an act is wrong simply because it has negative consequences (Romans 14.15).
"If we are throwing out Lev. 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.) then why are we hanging on to the rest of that chapter?"
No one here has argued that we should throw out Lev. 18:22. The question is not whether or not we should listen to the Old Testament but what the Old Testament is saying in context and what kind of people we need to be in order to read it rightly. I'm not sure who you are, but Tyler already called our attention to the point that in Lev. 18 homosexuality is listed among other sexual vices the likes of which we clearly do not allow in our churches. It is not, as it were, in the same class of OT laws as, "Do not eat anything with curly tails." I responded that Tyler brought up a good point and that I am eager to hear from John Rumple on this matter in his forthcoming essay on Lev. 18.
All in all, let's all try to be a little more patient, and seek to understand one another rather than to defeat one another in argument. I'm convinced that everyone here is to the best of his or her ability honestly seeking to do the Lord's will. I choose to give both sides the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
Peace.
...
10:04 PM
While i cant say that i disagree with the sentament expressed, I would like to comment on the nature of the historical quotes. All of the above sources quoted are hardly neutual. Modern historians generally agree that these authors are propogandists, with axes to grind. Catullus was a political prevoceture like no other. And Suetonius, in particular, had his own strict political agenda. For this you can see JM Roberts among others (there is one author in particular who spells this out, but his name escapes me, he wrote a book named after Suetonius' called "Twelve Caesers")
Secondly, that Ttacitus claim, also does not seem particularly relavent, unless we think that stories like Othello should advise us against heterosexual love. People do crazy stuff for love.
The one exception to the above is Petronius's Satyricon, which like Plato's Symposium before it focuses on debauchery and bachinallia. But this is a comedy, a raucous one for sure, but still a comedy. And homosexuals are staples in comedy to this day. Is that really differnt then La Cage aux Folles, and Will and Grace. Additionally is the depravity expressed in the heterosexual porn industry an indictment of heterosexual love? The answer might be "yes," i dont know but we should ask, and be careful about appllying quotes from history.
ahh, in one final note, i would liek to point out that to attempt to quanify the percentige of homosexual people in any given population, much less all populations of all time strikes me as exceptionally daft.
12:02 PM
...
Once again, let's pay attention to Mark's puprose for bringing our attention to these quotes. As Mark said, "It might be helpful to have somewhat of a historical background for homosexuality in the Roman World against which Paul makes his comments in the New Testament."
Could it be that these quotes highlight for us all the more that what Paul was describing in Romans 1 is not what Jason is describing for us here?
Finally, let's try to avoid using adjectives like "daft" in our descriptions of one another's arguments. Matt, I recommend sticking with the socratic method of your third paragraph.
Peace.
...
2:18 PM
Hello friends, this discussion is beginning to get interesting. I just want to say a couple of things. I don’t have a “lifestyle” anymore than any of you do. I follow Jesus and teach him in my chaplain role at school. I am also of homosexual orientation but am not a “homosexual” as if I am some separate entity that is somehow less than human or not imago dei. If there are any errors forgive me my 5 month old son keeps pressing the keys!
Thom I am in Melbourne, Victoria. Are you Jackina’s husband by any chance? I have just been accepted into a PHD program to explore “gay dads”. The interesting thing is that 95% of the kids born to the thousands of same sex couples world wide will be of heterosexual orientation. After all, heterosexual families raise same sex attracted children without ever teaching them anything but heterosexual normative behaviour. I am very excited about the opportunity.
Once again, it’s a question of character not orientation. It wasn’t long ago that parts of the church discriminated and oppressed people of different colour/race, upported slavery, and it still denies women true equality. Race, gender and orientation are beautiful aspects of creation. The variety is wonderful consistent and divine. Please don’t think I have an agenda to use statistics to support my arguments. I have researched extensively and these are my general findings. It is not a learned or actively chosen lifestyle. It is innate and a part of the normal range of human experience.
Sorry this is a bit rambly, Ruben needs to be fed and I can’t proof my piece.
Peace
Jason
2:41 AM
One other thing... Matt, the statistics of 3-5% are proven not daft. This means there are 100a of millions of gods creation who are same sex attracted. Up to 10% have same sex attraction but are not actually oriented that way. It is simply not a case of millionsof people waking up one day and decding to defy god and sleep with the same gender.
2:44 AM
...
Jason,
Thanks for writing. In answer to your question, No. I am not Jackina's husband. That's Tony Stark and I am a bit too young for his job. I actually have no relation to Jackina apart from student-teacher.
...
10:26 AM
Ok I retract the use of "daft" and to be clear, I was not calling anyone "daft" but the project itself.
thom stark, Mark's intention is duely noted, thanks for pointing that out. Yet, i still wonder if we should consider lible as "historical background". Likewise fiction, does tell us something about the historical background even if it does not depict actual events, but in a differnt way. It is for this very reason that I am willing to entertain the notion that the contemporary pornography indistry offers a kind of indictment against heterosexual love. The problem with lible is that it is fiction trying to pass its self off as historical documentation. I say this just because the use of the "historical" quotes struck me as just the kind of misapplication of genre that makes bible scholars chringe when the same is done to scripture. Thats my only point.
Jason Mccheyne, lets start with things i grant. I grant your claim that are millions of same sex attracted people to one degree or another. I also grant that it is not, as you say, "a case of millionsof people waking up one day and decding to defy god and sleep with the same gender." Ok, so that is where we agree, now on to where we don't. Lets consider for a moment the concept of a "proven statistic." A statistic is definitionally a figure of numerical data often expressed (as in this case) as a ratio or percent. Again, definitionally, statistics are data established from a sampleing of data, which if done correctly can then be extrapolated to discribe the larger group from whence your sample is derived. Lets think of an example. Lets say John that you and i decide to take a random sample of Major League Baseball Stadiums (i apologize for such an Americanized example). WEll lets say that we wrote down the names of all thirty staduims on note cards and drew out five randomly. So, John, you and i hop in the car and visit these five stadiums, and at each stadium we go to the concessions stand and order a hot dog and a Foster's Beer (thats for you). Ok, now lets say that at all five stadiums we get the hot dog, but only one stadium carries the Fosters. From that sample we can form the statistic that 5 out of 5 (100%) of major league baseball staduims serve hot dogs, and 1 of 5 (20%) of mlb stadiums serve Fosters beer.
So here we have two statistics, they are certainly reasonable generalizations from the facts at hand. But, as anyone can see, there is plenty of room for reasonabe generalizations to be wrong. Knowing this, lets say that we decide to check out our statistical predictions, or in other words to "prove" our statistics true or false. How would we do this? Clearly we would have to visit all thirty major league baseball stadium and order a hot dog and a Fosters beer. Ok lets say that we undertake this task. It would take a while, and require a lot of beer drinking and hot dog eating, but we could certainly do it. Well ok we do, and we keep good records and when we get finished we find out that, low and behold, we were right about the Fosters Beer 6 out of 30 (our predicted 20%) of mlb stadiums serve Foster's beer, so we have "proved" our statistics correct! But things are differnt with the hot dogs. Wouldn't you know it, the stadium in Toronto, canada did not even serve hot dogs. So in this case 29 out of 30 (roughly 97%) of all mlb stadiums serve hot dogs. Now, in this case too, we have succeded in "proving" our statistic, it is just that we "proved" it false.
Application, what can we learn from this? In our example it was easy enough to "prove" our statistic, since that only required visiting 30 ball parks. My criticism of your stat was that such a thing could, for all intents and purposes, never be proven. Yet that is exactly what you claimed, that those numbers were in fact proven. So not only is what you claimed, John, untrue (consider the fact that we can't even say exactly how many people there are in the world) what you said was also untrue in principal. Such a statement simply can not be made, at least at this point in our technolgical history. So rather then make vast generalizations as you have done, you should instead be making strong qualifications to your numbers, like limiting them to a given sample or area or time span etc.
Furthermore, lets consider some of numerious variables. In our example above we could encounter lots of them. What if in the middle of our project of "proving" the statistics some stadiums go out of busness and other new ones are built? Wouldn't this drasticly effect our results? What if the Toronto stadium served a special healty Tofu-dog as an alternitive? Would we be able to count this? Doesn't such a possiblity necessitate that we come up with clear necessary and sufficent conditions for what is and is not a hot dog? Would't this also impact our results. And these things are simply things that will influence our data collections and classification, there may be many others that will have even greater impact on our interpertation of that data. For example what if we go to a place where hot dogs are illegal, so people are afraid to tell us that they have them. All of this just serves to say that what you have claimed is way to broad and strong.
If you intend to hold to your numbers then you owe some kind of qualification, because they are not and can not be proven.
11:47 AM
Sorry for numerous spelling mistakes my sp checker is currently malfunctioning.
11:48 AM
Oversight: i should have stated in the application section that the problem with John's claims out his stats is that to "prove" them would require speaking to every person in the world. This problem is implied in what i said, but I should have said it explicitly.
11:56 AM
...
Matt,
John's name is actually Jason. Point on statistics noted. I tend to agree.
Point on historical background noted. I don't think Mark thought he was painting a neutral picture of first century homosexuality.
Matt, where are you educated?
...
12:25 PM
I do not like it at all when Christians are hostile towards homosexuals. We are called to love all of God’s creations and not discriminate for any reason. That is just like not removing the plank in your own eye. In my estimation the Bible is against all sexual sin, lust included. In Hispanic ministry, I don’t deal with homosexuality. The sexual sin I deal with is mostly cohabitation or “shacking up.” I would link this right in the same category as any other sexual sin- fornication, adultery, lust, etc. We have created a totem pole of sin, and that should not be—sin is sin. Some are not worse in God’s eyes than others. Heterosexual sin is the same, only with different ramifications. The church has not been kind in many situations. But I hope that is changing slowly for the better.
I’m very glad that our friend Jason has been so open and candid with this group, and long to learn from his experiences (especially the research on gay parenting).
That said, I, like Agrippa with Paul (only different subject), don’t think I can be persuaded so quickly to think that homosexuality is inborn. I believe there are factors, even in early age (Familial issues, molestation in some cases) that can contribute to a gender identity confusion of sorts, but not a genetic make-up. I’d be anxious to hear your opinions on this, I can’t support with any numbers.
I brought up the naturalness of procreation. Jason’s baby was born through a surrogate, so is biological to one parent. What about before the technology for surrogate mothers? What about the need for a mother to birth? We cannot compare this to a barren wife, or sterile husband for these are exceptions to the natural way of things.
Thom asked me before if I’d go so far as to say the Bible’s view of sex is strictly for procreation. No way! Song of Solomon is an explicit depiction of God’s intention for sex- between a man and woman. “The Gift of Sex” by Clifford and Joyce Penner has a good chapter on the Biblical view of sex.
I believe that we cannot come down hard on one sin, and ease up on others. Sure from the same verses, we see gossips and adulterers, and there aren’t any gossip activists or people trying to justify adultery. But neither should Christians be homophobia activists. We should love all people as God does.
“Love Wins Out” is the title of a Pastor to Pastor production done by Focus on the Family. Despite what has been said of Dobson, and the controversy Thom brought up, this is with H. B. London Jr. and other guests: Joe Dallas from Genesis Counseling, Alan Chambers from Exodus International, and others who can come out of this what they called “lifestyle.” I’m still in the middle of listening to this, but wanted to share these thoughts, and here’s a clip that you’ll find interesting:
3 min. clip
4:04 PM
...
Thank you, Greg. Great post.
...
4:49 PM
Greg, you brought up some good points. One thing in particular is the focus that homosexuality has received. There are a handful of biblical texts that speak to sexual orientation (regardless of how they are interpreted), and yet many of us in the Church have made this our "flagship" issue. Why is that? What is it that has made homosexuality such a talked about issue especially in the last 10 years.
I read a great article on homosexuality by Richard B. Hays, from his book "Moral Vision of the NT." He has one chapter on homosexuality and I would highly recommend it. One point that he brought up that Greg pointed out is how peripheral this issue is. However other core issues that the Church has largely ignored remain ignored. I think a prime example would be the lack of conversation considering particularly the post above this, particularly when the majority of the bloggers here are living in a country that is in a war. A war, I might add, that is largely supported by the evangelical church. I don’t want to draw attention away from this significant issue, but perhaps if we talk a moment and think through some of Jesus’ larger concerns we can gain a more faithful perspective on this issue.
8:03 PM
This is a shocking post. Should the fundamentalist evangelical church not address the issue of adultery over and above the issue of homosexuality, which is only included in lists that pertain to a variety of sins describing the nature of sin in general. Even at that point they could quite possibly be reffering to a more pedophilic form of homosexuality than one including two consenting and monogamous adults.
It seems as though it is easy to garner affirmation of your position by only referring to sins that the vast majority of our churches accept as taboo. Notice this as it pertains to a just war mentality versus an open declaration of passivism and protest to the wars started without just cause. I know this goes without saying but I have homosexual friends that are more sacrificial and caring than a vast majority of "conservative evangelicals" that I am acquainted with in ministry.
Lastly the most important statement I want to make is the obvious one and that is that those of you who have been close to Dr. Rumple are so quick to assume you know the right position due to the dogma you hold. This is decided not by accepting his decision as one that is well studied, i.e. the high level of scholarship he holds, and that it is hard enough to live up to the presuppostions and dogma within the independent christian church/ churches of christ without declaring that having a drink is not a sin let alone that you can be involved in a same sex relationship and still be a believer, a minister with integrity and character. It should go without saying that justifying a position is as far from an objective truth as sitting in a classroom makes you a learner. Life is a complicated and complex maze to which each of you will find yourself lost and scared to death on some occasions and the important thing in these times is to hold on to your love for God and make a decision you feel is right. Dr, not Mr., Rumple has done just that. May this brother in the faith be accepted with the same love that Christ accepts the sinless and pious in the midst of their theological arrogance. Selah
11:19 PM
Tyler,
You said ,,, "What is it that has made homosexuality such a talked about issue especially in the last 10 years."
Because the issue has been raised (I'd make it in the past 20 to 30 years) to a "racial" status.
That's a key aspect. As often as the gay community / populace wants to be treated as a "race" rather than people who don't care anything about race, the more often they will find opposition - politically at the very least. Socially, at the best.
1:03 AM
Dear Anonymous,
What an antogonist you are!
I don't think anyone here has said said anything contrary to "Sin is sin without degree."
Of course heterosexual sin is sin. Of course homesexual sin is sin. Of course lieing is sin, gossip is sin, all the things the Bible teaches us about sin is just that. SIN! There is no sin that can / should be "above" any other. And I won't hold my tongue on the issue -- you are WRONG to try to discuss it this way. You already know that both are wrong. You are saying it yourself. I'll stand along with you, in that.
As to your last paragraph (the first portion) I think you go way to far. You do not speak for Dr. Rumple. We're waiting for him to say whatever he will. Please, don't lay claim to his purposes. Thank you.
It should go without saying that, "It should go without saying..." is an insipid use of argument. Please stop, and don't make me use it again. Thank you.
Further, you say::: "Life is a complicated and complex maze to which each of you will find yourself lost and scared to death on some occasions and the important thing in these times is to hold on to your love for God and make a decision you feel is right."
Yes, we know that already. You are not our teacher. We are in the middle of a discussion about someone many of us have had as a teacher. Either reveal yourself, bugger off, or stop being a wrench in the works. You're not really helping. You're just being mad. From what you have have written, I think you're just doing it for the sake of it.
There is no question of love from this group. They are dealing with a curious and frustrating situation.
Please, leave the loving group alone.
Selah.
1:59 AM
...
Straight to the point as always, JD. I love you dearly.
Anonymous, however overly strong my brother's words may have been, they are, I'm afraid, on target.
You have missed our hearts, you have hidden yours (i.e., "anonymous"), and you seem to be more interested in condemning others than listening to them, the very sin of which you wrongly accuse my pious brothers.
Back to you, JD. While I agree that in one sense the gay community has gone to great pains to make this something like a "race" issue, there are many homosexuals that also go to great pains to stress that being gay is not a "lifestyle" that makes them any different than "the rest of us" apart from the fact of sexual orientation. They wish to stress that they are not really different from heterosexuals at all, except of course in terms of sexual orientation. So while there is the rhetoric of the "gay community," I think the desire of many homosexuals is not to be seen as different at all.
However, my attempt at a response to Tyler's question is that we are discussing this more than we do other sins for a couple of reasons: 1) Dr. Rumple's coming out is a very recent event and one that is rarely so public in our movement; 2) (and this one is in the same spirit as JD's response) adulterers do not often create websites arguing that adultery is not a sin. Some sins require more conversation than others simply because they require more conversation than others.
...
4:53 AM
Thom, dear, were you up all night again blogging? I just wanted to let you know that I finally got online and am following this dialogue. I want everyone to know that my self-appointed job in this discussion is to pray. This is a big and important conversation, let's make God and His Glory the purpose of it.
9:57 AM
...
You're incredible, babe. See you this evening.
...
10:27 AM
Let me just say thanks to everyone for writing on here. I'm writing a paper on the homosexual hermeneutic this summer and this information is helping more than you could imagine.
Tyler, Thom...I love and miss you guys. Thanks you for your insight and truthfulness.
Jason, thanks for taking the time fo explain your situation and life. I'll shoot you an email in the next few days with some questions for my paper if that's alright (they don't fit this conversation).
-Tony
3:49 PM
I wish I could spend more time on this blog...parenting is life consuming. I am happy to answer any questions any of you have and tony feel free to email and I would love to help you out.
Hi MAtt your name sounds familiar did we ever meet at OCC? I am almost a qualified psychologicst and stats are a part of my work. The stats I have quoted are fair and reasonable, not overstated and based on census and research (not my own opinion) I always thought the 10% figure from Kinsey was too high. If you have other information that I can read please let me know. I am just trying to pursue the truth.
The issue of how my sexual orientation seems to matter heaps and IS out of proportion with what the churches focus should be is valid. The wars that mine and your country currently are particpating in right now are not just. The way our countries promote the powerful and the rich at he expense of the weak and the poor is not just. Our focus on issues that are far away from the great commission and Matthew 5-7 are shameful.
Gays are not a race, however we are human and our orientataion is different. IT may be a surprise to some poeple but I am boringly the same as anyone else and my family is also. Unfortunately because there is an inbuilt ignorance and hatred towards homosexual people in parts of our cultures we have to stand for our right to be respected as fellow human beings and not be denegrated. Just like blacks and women and Austtralia's indigenous people have had to do in the past.
What hurts me as a fellow follower of Jesus (since I was twelve years old) and who has known he wqs gay since i was 5 years of age. The church (even though my spiritual gifts are obvious, mature and well developed and my character is in tact. Yet I am not allowed to exercise them and further the Kingdoms interests from inside the chruch. This breaks my heart.
Thw wonderufl gift from this from God is I have been given greater opportunities to encourage and pastor people in the wider community... probably being more effective. I hope so anyway.
Love and peace
Jason
7:06 PM
Jason,
What convinced you that you were this way?
Cheers, Peace, Selah
8:03 PM
Greg, I was never convinced. I tried my hardest to be a heterosexual man, I have always been just like I assume you have always been heterosexaul and you never really thought about it.
Cheers
9:26 PM
... not a scholar nor an expert on any subject concerning God and His ways, I leave this...I wonder what would happen if honest, sincere people desiring God's view on the subject (from both sides of the issue)were to gather together in prayer to seek Him. Not in small numbers but in large numbers. It seems to me it would be a good place to start.
10:46 AM
...
Childish,
I agree that a massive prayer meeting would be beneficial to the mutual understanding of the two sides on this matter. I am putting you in charge of organizing this event. I would just suggest that in the fliers you make sure to specify, "No clubs, bats, brass knuckles, knives, shivs, or other weaponry."
...
5:35 PM
Whatever may need to be said is beyond understanding here. It is evident in the fact that when the gentleman named Jason mentioned the findings he has and how his orientation was not a matter of decision, the bridge to any resolution was blown. You see it is not about some set of reasons that many have made decisions in their walk with Christ, at least not by any set of defensible standards beyond the subjective realm. Rather it is through an ardous and painful task of living in close proximity to the holy that we reach a state of spiritual growth that alows for those without our same convictions to be seen in a more accepting and embracing light. If we were to simply state a case my whole argument would be dismissed out of hand and so I choose not to bring an argument, a passage of scripture or a set of historical references with which to prove my point. Instead I show you each other and my anonymous and by nature inadequate target as a means to accomplish the ends of the greatest hope in this world. If I seem ambigous or equivocal please note it is not by accident but as a point in order that you may taste a wider embrace that ackowledges all of the complexity and still seeks love and finds it in the person of Jesus.
Another blog brought to you by anonymous and his/her/its hommies
6:11 PM
One last thing, you should probably read the information of the opposing position and not use "straw men" that you can tear apart using the "approved" commentaries/persons responses on the issue. Also removing the stigma of right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable, clergy/layperson, scholar/undergraduate student, no wait keep that last one. Get my point. In bias, we all lose... espescially a sophomore (wise fool)
6:43 PM
Big Fish... Small Pond
I shall swim elsewhere and bother you no more.
12:13 AM
One last thing. In accordance with the ministry and this discussion what sort of parallels can be drawn...
The news rocked the cycling world, already under a cloud following a massive doping investigation in Spain which forced several of the world's leading cyclists off the Tour.
"I know Floyd Landis, he's a good guy, he comes from a good family. If all this is proven, it will be a part of the tragedy that crosses this sport: Even good people are obliged to deceive," LeMond told Le Journal du Dimanche.
"It is cycling as a professional sport that represents the problem. It can transform someone into a liar."
Who are you all behind this mask of theology? Did you think only the one who blogs anonymously is the problem... who is the clown on your stage telling you the theatre is on fire... are you laughing?
12:39 AM
...
For the sake of staying on track, I ask that no one respond to the above anonymous posts. I would just say to anonymous that if there is any value in his or her rebuke, we here will do our best to figure out what it is and appropriate it. Certainly seeing the other as other and not as a cheap and less successful version of ourselves is a skill in seeing we can all strive to acquire.
...
1:40 AM
Anonymous,
I'm glad we have had your infinitely wise perspective to guide us. What would we do without you to show us mere bloggers the true way, the “ardous and painful task of living in close proximity to the holy [sic.]”? I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do hope that we are trying in earnest dialogue.
To everyone who cares about listening,
I know that I have been forced to rethink the questions I have about homosexuality as normative behavior for Christians. Hopefully this discussion will continue helping us to hear each other filling our words with honesty and truthfulness while putting ourselves in a disposition of discernment and love. I think a discussion of the NT passages which refer to “homosexuality” is quite in order. Romans 1.18-23 is an often cited text and, as the whole book of Romans, often misunderstood. Jason, how do you understand passages like Leviticus 18, Romans 1; 1 Cor 6.9-12? I’m not trying to be patronizing, so don’t hear that. I really do want to know how these passages can be understood. Also, how does your faith in Jesus affect your life as a homosexual? How does it change they way you raise your son? Do you ever struggle with finding your identity in you sexuality more than in your Lord? Do you ever struggle with thinking your sexuality is a sin (regardless of whether or not you or I think it is or isn’t)? Again, I’m not asking to patronize, but