(The post below is a response to a comment posted to the previous article on homosexuality.)
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I wish more people were compelled to discuss things as thoroughly as you.
The comparison you make between the Bible passages on women in church leadership and homosexuality is probably the strongest argument to be made in favor of the moral acceptance of homosexuality. However, I think when these two issues in Scripture are thoroughly examined it becomes clear that they are not parallel.
The passage you cite in 1 Timothy 2, along with 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, definitely seem to be as stark and uncompromising as the prohibitions against homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, but there are a few important mitigating factors:
1. One of the reasons some conservative Christians believe these prohibitions against women leading in church only applied to those in the specific contexts Paul was writing to is because there are other passages that seem to indicated that women do have a role in leadership or teaching. For example, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon he quotes the OT prophet Joel saying:" 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”
Also, Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 11 that women should cover their head when prophesying. He also uses the word “Apostle” in Romans 16 to describe someone named “Junias” or “Junia,” who some very reputable NT scholars believe was certainly a female. (NT scholar, Ben Withierington III has a lot to say about this)
2. It’s also a big question whether or not the Greek word for woman in the 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 passages refers to women in general or specifically to wives.
3. Also, something I think a very important consideration is the inherent nature of the issue in question. As I said in a previous post, a fundamental question in any discussion on homosexuality must be this: Is sexual behavior an inherently moral thing? When we talk about women church leaders, we are talking about what Scripture says is the right role for women in the Church. Those who argue against women in Church leadership don’t say that it’s wrong to be a woman, but that it’s wrong for women to assume roles that are contrary to the identity and function God intends for them. So the argument would say there’s nothing wrong with being a woman, but rather with women working in the wrong context. The same is true (not that I’m arguing against women in leadership) for heterosexual sex. What makes sex between a man and a woman right or wrong is context. The behavior itself is not wrong or perverse, but it is if practiced in a wrong context--out side of marriage.
By the way, this is why arguments that pair homosexuality with racism are not valid. Race is amoral; it is not wrong or right to be black, white or Asian. In contrast, it is wrong to practice certain sexual behaviors.
The thinking behind the prohibitions on homosexuality is not that it’s practiced in a wrong context, but that it is behavior that is itself inherently perverse. Certainly, the practice of homosexuality between two people who are in a committed, monogamous relationship is better than it being practiced promiscuously, but the act itself is thought to be perverse, regardless of its context.
The exact same would be true about incest. In fact, I don’ t think there are any prohibitions against incest in the NT that are nearly as strong and clear as the one’s against homosexuality. And yet there’s not much disagreement on whether that constitutes sexual perversity. And this behavior would not cease to be sexually perverse if it were practiced in the context of long term, committed relationships. I know this might sound absurd to even apply the phrase, “long term, committed relationship” to incest, but it probably would have sounded equally absurd sixty years ago to apply this phrase to homosexuality.
In turn this raises some important questions:
If homosexuality does not constitute sexual perversity, what does, and how are we to know?
If the context of a long term, committed relationship makes homosexuality morally acceptable, why is the same not true for incestuous or polygamous relationships? (Would churches who want to be “open and affirming” to practicing homosexuals also be open and affirming to a man and his three wives? If not, why not?)
15 comments:
What is homosexual relationship? Do we define it as any same sex relationship involving sexual interaction? If so, is a platonic same sex relationship a homosexual relationship? Or stated slightly differently: if two persons of the same sex were involved in a loving, long-term, platonic relationship would they be labeled homosexuals?
This may seem like a bit of a "rabbit hole" but I think it is important to have a common understanding of the terms/expressions. Some times people use the same words but mean different things.
With that said and moving on a slightly different tangent, I object to same sex marriage because it is not consistent with God's design/purpose for marriage which is procreation which requires a man and a woman ideally in a long-term, loving relationship. Same sex marriage is not consistent with God's design/purpose as I understand it.
As far as defining a homosexual relationship, I agree there are issues. Without rehashing everything I have already mentioned, I do wonder how a same sex couple who claims to be celibate would be accepted into a conservative Christian community. I still believe they would be labeled homosexual since they are still attracted to and loving towards the same sex, even if they choose celibacy.
Your slightly different tangent is an interesting one. I personally believe procreation is a blessing, not a command. Assuming your stance, what is to be said of a heterosexual couple who chooses not to procreate. I believe the Roman Catholic church refused to marry such couples at one point. In this case, marriage by your definition is also not consistent with God's design. Consider the time period and the practices which included multiple wives, concubines, etc. Describing marriage between one man and one woman helps to abolish that practice. As far as the purpose being procreation, yes it does do that but there was plenty of procreation going on already with many wives, concubines and prostitutes. I lean toward the purpose of marriage being a relationship. Can a same sex couple have the same loving relationship as a heterosexual couple? I think yes. Can they give a home to children? I think yes. Would they want the right to support one another financially, carry insurance for each other, be given the same civil rights as a heterosexual couple? I think yes.
Again, a lot to consider.
I'm glad you both brought this up; it's an important clarification. The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is the sexual behavior. A nonsexual relationship between two people of the same gender would be best labeled a friendship, and of course, there would be nothing wrong with that at all. Though I think it would be important in a situation where two Christian adults of the same gender were living together and had close companionship that they make it publically known that they are celibate, so not to give wrong impressions and be a "stumbling block."
Also, Kelly, I'm curious to know your thoughts on a related issue. If you believe homosexual couples can make healthy parents for children and should be allowed the same civil rights as heterosexual couples, would you say the same about parents who practice "open marriage"--would this sexual practice be irrelevant to their competency as parents? Or what if a man has a polygamous orientation and is married to two women--should he be able to claim both women as a dependant on his taxes and insurance?
Thanks for discussing.
MM
Hmmm. As far as an open relationship is concerned, though I don't necessarily agree with it, I don't feel it would be an problem as far as raising children. I know plenty of monogamous heterosexual couples who would have trouble passing a parenting class and have known of couples in an open marriage who have done well with parenting. As far as polygamy goes, it is illegal which puts a damper on the whole thing, and again, I don't really agree with it, though there are days I could use another wife around here. Parenting though is another topic and I would have to say it depends on the parents. Kids don't come with instructions and there are plenty of happily married bad parents. Also, as I've said before, I'm not sure homosexuality is a choice where as open marriages and polygamy most definitely are in my mind anyway. Would love to hear ideas of others.
Kelly,
I am confused by your comment on knowing couples in an "open marriage" to have done well with parenting. Maybe better defining our terms would be helpful here. When someone says about a couple, "They are good parents," I define good parents as those who are caring and wise, who constantly look out for their kids' best interests, and who lead by example in doing their best to lead a morally right life. In my view, no one would be doing their best to live a morally right life if they consciously choose to indulge in such a blatantly immoral lifestyle as "open marriage".
What meaning could there be in a mom and dad who unashamedly have sex with other people teaching their kids to be honest students and faithful friends? Certainly, no matter a parent's sexual ethics, he or she can always teach a child to be responsible and generally respectful of other people's property and feelings, etc. Pimps or mob bosses could do this (and there are probably many who do).
A parent in an open marriage who thinks himself a "good parent" because he teaches his kids honesty and diligence, and enforces curfews, etc. makes me think of the Nazi concentration camp commandant who took pride in the fact that he had zero tolerance for his guards taunting the prisoners because their job was to exterminate the prisoners, not to taunt and ridicule them. The latter takes all the goodness out of the former.
PS
Interestingly, I didn't read your comment until after I thought to write the post on the actress in an open marriage.
Hmm. Got me there. You have a valid point. I still believe imperfect couples with flaws can still be good parents. I remember growing up often hearing do as I say, not as I do. Not exactly the best advice for a child but I would imagine in the eyes of a parent struggling with his or her own problems, it was the best they could do. I don't agree with open marriage and unlike homosexuality, see it as a choice. But could someone making that choice be a good parent? You are right. (Tim loves when I say that) They may feed them, care for them, etc. but morally there would be a gap.
Just a point of clarification: I don't contest the idea that people don't choose to have a homosexual orientation, just as many heterosexual males don't choose to have a lustful, promiscuous orientation. I think the issue Christians need to be concerned with is not the orientation one is born with but how the person chooses to respond to it.
In other words, the real issue is not the way we were born, but the way we choose to respond to the way we were born. We all know this is the case with other aspects of our behavior (like angry tempers or narcissism), why would we make an exception for sexual behavior?
I know we disagree on this but I just think it's different. I understand where you are coming from but I'm just not there. As far as being born with the orientation to be lustful and or promiscuous, I'm not totally in agreement there either. Most times when men and women behave this way, I believe they are either searching for acceptance and love or they are addicted to the "high" they get with each new relationship or conquest. First, when you don't love yourself you look to others to build your self esteem and make yourself feel good. Secondly, when the fireworks and excitement of a new relationship end, some people think that is it, time to find new fireworks again and again. Doesn't work. So is that orientation, personality or psychological.
Kelly,
You speak like a true woman (and maybe show that women are of a higher constitution in the process).
I think you illustrate a stark difference in the "wiring" of men and women. When I say most men have a promiscuous orientation, I really mean orientation. In other words, the male wiring is such that he is inclined to feel sexual desire toward women (all women) he finds physically attractive. I don't mean that men are just lascivious monsters at heart, or that every man is secretly eyeing every unsuspecting woman around him--only that men naturally have a physiological gravity towards looking at women "lustfully." Nine times out of ten, when a man seeks a woman for the wrong reason, it's not an emotional but rather a physical wrong reason. This is just the natural (in Biblical terms "fleshly" or "carnal") condition of males.
And just like anything else, whether a gravitational pull towards angry outburst or greed or homosexuality, the process of becoming a mature, Christian adult centers on dying to the old self and all its orientations/inclinations and allowing God to make us new.
As for insight on the "wiring" and thought processes of women. I have none. At all. (Except that they are generally smarter than us and, perhaps, have better natural motives).
Well I will disagree slightly. Whatever made you think women don't look at men "lustfully"? If not, where would the George Clooneys of the world be? And Chippendales? I will admit that I believe men to be more visual than women. Women tend to look more at the whole package. Men prefer the package undressed. But really, we too have hormones.
Now in the words of the King in the King and I...A girl must be like a blossom
With honey for just one man.
A man must be like honey bee
And gather all he can.
To fly from blossom to blossom
A honey bee must be free,
But blossom must not ever fly
From bee to bee to bee.
Why do men lust after numerous women? Shall we ask Hugh Heffner? Better yet, why do women lust after Hugh Heffner? (eeww) My guess is power and imagined youth for Hugh and money for the girls.
Back to orientation and homosexuality, (a topic we may never agree upon) how do you feel about a truly homosexual man marrying a woman just because he is "supposed" to and therefore living a lie regardless of the effect it has on his wife, children etc.
Who ever said anyone is "supposed" to be married? According to 1 Corinthians 7 (especially vs. 38), Paul was not married and would like for others to follow in his steps.
If someone is truly wired (or "oriented") towards same sex attraction, then the only morally sound option for that person is celibacy. I know this would be very difficult for a lot of people, but the question is not what is easiest or immediately desirable, but what is right? And many Christians through the years have lived a very fulfilling celibate life, St. Paul being one of the greatest examples.
As for disagreeing with me, the most important question is what the writers of Scripture say about the issue and whether or not we disagree with them.
And doesn't the King have a change of heart in the King and I? Because the female protagonist has such an impact on him? I don't really know, I haven't seen it all, but that's really bad advice about the bees and the blossoms (Unless one is Mormon).
Thanks for the thoughts, as always.
Supposed to be married to a woman as would be expected by unsuspecting peers, parents, etc. Can't go forth and multiply if everyone is like Paul.
If "wired" to be attracted to the same sex then God made them that way. And yes, celibacy would be an option but I find it difficult to believe that God would create so many people that he expects to abstain from a loving intimate relationship. As far as scripture goes, I commented before that I question the context and type of homosexual relationships they talk about. Not sure it is as cut and dry as many read it to be considering the pagan practices and older married men "mentoring" young boys that went on by choice, not by "wiring".
The King? He dies in the end surrounded by his wives and children. He had a soft spot for Anna but never truly gave in. And of course that is bad advice about the flowers and bees, it was just his explanation of the difference between men and women in the song "Shall we Dance" Good show, you should watch the whole thing. It's got slavery too.
Kelly C.,
I think the basic problem with what you're saying about it being difficult to believe that God would create so many people who should abstain from a loving relationship is that it doesn't take into account the fallen nature of people and the world we live in.
It's safe to say that it's not God's intention that people have distorted sexual desires and then are forced (if they want to be a Christian) to abstain from fulfilling those desires, just as it was not God's intention that people are forced to suffer because of a natural-born tendency to be greedy or to be hot-tempered. Nor is it his desire that we grow old or have cancer. All these are products of a fallen, sin-tainted world; these are things Christ came to save us from.
Again, I fall back on my earlier point about the tendency to promiscuity in many men. In some cases, it may be just as hard for a married man to abstain from committing adultery (with a woman he genuinely feels love towards) as it is for some homosexual men to be celibate, but the fact that it is painful for a married man to be faithful to his wife and abstain from adultery doesn't mean we should say that in some cases adultery is OK, as long as the man and the mistress truly love each other.
You said...," but the fact that it is painful for a married man to be faithful to his wife and abstain from adultery doesn't mean we should say that in some cases adultery is OK"...and yet isn't this exactly what the church has done in the case of divorce/remarriage...?
you push the issue of homosexuality which i have not seen where Jesus even spoke to it, yet he did speak to the issue of divorce and no one stands in the pulpit and condemns it...we celebrate "second marriages"
I bring this up just to say that if you are going make a big deal about one issue as being sinful, shouldn't you be consistent and make a big deal about the ones Jesus actually addressed?
Hi. I'm not a part of Bethany, at least not any longer. But I did sort of stumble onto the website and found the blog, and out of curiosity, (and a bit of a mom thing - still have s son there)started checking it out to see what's been up.
Reading this thread has stirred up some stuff. I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be gay, not that I was not suspected of it.
And not that there had not been a short time span of wrestling with foreign "feelings" of attraction. I assume, in some sense, that these are the same feelings they used to tell us in school that it was "normal" for every teenager to experience, but in all actuality, it was nothing more than temptations. Hence the struggle, because I grew up in an age where there was a clear line drawn of it being a sin issue. (oh, and we were told then, that just because you have those feelings, it does NOT mean you are gay!!!!)
Not so the case in the world we live in. So much so, that even some of my children have take sides with the world view on this, mostly I believe, because it is easier to believe in what is seen, vs. truth. We - the church, the world, science, make up excuses and even doctrines to explain what we cannot. So now all these kids see around them is what has been allowed and accepted by the society they live in and by much of the Church. This is now their reality, while when I was a young person, we were sheltered from these things, mostly because sin hides in the dark from the light.
some years ago, I walked with a friend who was seriously physically, mentally and emotionally injured. Turned out, she walked in a very strong same sex attraction. She, like most of the world, grabbed onto the lie that she was born that way, even though, in reality, she 'knew' biblically it was sin.
Homosexuality is no less a sin than lust. And we were not created with a lust gene either. God does not create anything imperfect. To believe anything less is to not believe He is Holy and Loving. When He created man, He stood back and called it good. All sexual sin is an abomination to God and is not of His making, but is an unholy perversion from which "man" can be and needs to be delivered from. It is also a choice, albeit, because the temptations are so strong, and usually because they come at a time of vulnerability or weakness and because they have their source in the demonic realm,it's sometimes a choice that can be difficult to fight. But demonic it is, and we must choose rightly, and in doing so will have Heavenly help in the fight.
Sexual relations are to be a beautiful part of an intimate life with the one He created us to be with. As was said of Adam and Eve, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Which was reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19.
Marriage and intimacy were created in the physical as a type and shadow of the Bride's (the Church!) intended relationship with her Groom (Jesus). It is because of this that all sexual sin/ adultery; homosexuality/ incest/ impurity/ prostitution/ abuse etc etc is so loathing to God. He's coming back for a pure and spotless Bride, through His sacrificial Blood. And the intimacy doesn't even wait for His return, seeing as we are the temple for the Holy Ghost. So all sin against the body and the spirit defiles. Would highly guess that is why it is such an effective weapon that the enemy uses to attempt to disqualify God's children from walking in their destinies and callings.
The Church needs to remember and walk in Her true Identity. When she does, she will walk in power and authority and put the devil and his schemes under her feet and destroy his works. All the while walking in Love. :)
Post a Comment