Welcome to ASBO Jesus
Enjoy your stay and have your say! Cheers, Jon
Blogroll
- BigDaddyWhale
- birchmultimedia
- celtic difference
- changing worship
- dennis coburn
- frontier youth trust
- growing enthusiasm
- holy famoley
- iain cotton, sculptor
- jonny baker
- let them eat cake
- mark roques
- mindwriter
- naked pastor
- proost.co.uk
- Rainforest SOS
- reality bites
- sanctuary
- si smith
- sophia network
- stepping stones nigeria
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
no comments so far so I shall ask a question;
is homosexuality sinful or not?
I don’t think that is the right question. Try this — is homosexuality any more sinful that the other things we have embraced in the church, like gossip, judgementalism, lying, religious manipulation, greed, hatred, ignoring the poor, widows and orphans, etc…. So does embracing homosexuality really bring the church down or is it just a recognition of the fact that it is hypocritical to not embrace it when so many damaging sins are not only tolerated by Christianity, but are actually the “tools of the trade.”
Erm, not sure that’s the question either, I’m not convinced that justifying one sin* with another sin is the best line to take.
*I am not suggesting that homosexuality is a sin, I am suggesting a flaw of logic.
I have yet to visit a church that publicly “embraced” gossip, judgmentalism, lying, religious manipulation, greed, hatred, and ignoring the poor. Just because people (Christians) fail (commit these sins), must we legitimize these sins in the same way that some sectors of the Church have legitimized homosexuality? Or are you arguing that we already have legitimized them (“tools of the trade”)?
But then again, I live in the Bible Belt.
…well we could always divide the c/e over gossip (or “bearing false witness” if anyone is unclear about what I mean)
…that could clear plenty of space for folks to find Christ
Perhaps. But who is going to argue that gossip is acceptable?
There is a dvd addressing this issue and it is lead by this guy of the name Dan Kimball. I forgot what the real title of the dvd, but it specifically addresses the issue on whether the church today is homophobic or not.
Perhaps you all could go google him or something haha
cheers.
usually the people doing it!
(cross posted, apologies)
What now?
marcus:
I think nowadays, Churches are getting more and more homophobia-phobia.
Uh, that’s not accurate, I should write, more and more Churches are getting homophobia-phobia.
two marcus’ in one post, could be confusing!
In response to No.2 – I was not posing my question as the right one (whatever a right question is?) I simply wanted to ask that question.
Interesting comments about other sins in that people would not argue for the legitimacy of gossip or hatred or any other number of things because to do so would be to go against the teaching of the Bible.
So I ask the question again (but with an addition) is homosexuality a sin in the eyes of God? Not is it any more sinful but is it sinful?
It’s a sin in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian God.
No. Homosexuality is part of a spectrum of human sexuality – which I imagine was created by God.
Homosexual sex is extremely difficult to condemn through using scripture because of the cultural gulf between 2000 plus years ago and now. For example – what definition of homosexual do we use compared to Biblical times? Are we talking about the same thing? Not very likely when ancient times had a much more power based (and misogynistic) understanding of all sexual relationships.
Unless we’re willing to really grapple with the fact that we all interpret Scripture, and to do our best in that, with as much imformation and learning as possible then we’ll continue to offer trite answers to questions and completely confuse those looking in on Christian communities.
Ive just had a very ROUGH day with ‘churchy’ business..
This has brought tears of laughter to my eyes!! Thankyou. I do love the assumption of ‘pink’ and homosexuality though, and I dont mean an ASBO assumption.
seriously should we be arsed with peoples sexuality? I have just dealt with an issue in the Church that has an impact that will affect the ‘church’ in a BIGGER way than someones sexual preference ever will but hey WHO am I.
If pink is the contribution gay vicars will make, I hope to see more of them!
The gay thing is really boring now. I just wish churchy people would get over it. I mean, most people would accept that the minor details of your married, heterosexual vicar are not particularly healthy conversation fodder for the average pew punter so why the interest in the activities of homosexual clergy? But then if he decides to do a sermon season inspired by the songs of the Pet Shop Boys and Donna Summer, complaints might be justifiable…
I have tried to wrestle a definitive answer, looking at the bible both in a spiritual and historical capacity. Here is where I currently find myself in this issue:
I know that any sex outside marriage is against the wishes of God (therefore a sin) and that goes for heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, metrosexual, etc… and that marriage is defined (by the bible) as being the union between a man and a woman. Therefore homosexual sex is no less, or more, sinful than any other sexual, or any, sin.
Now, does this mean that I think gays should not be allowed in the church, or that I hate them? No, I love them, as I love all people who fall short of the glory of God… which is every single human who ever and will ever exist (with one obvious exception).
From here I keep finding myself challenged that is “it is not my place to judge” and that the spirit will convict the individual of any sin, it is my place to “love my neighbour as myself”. So I believe that I must accept them as human beings seeking the same saviour that I am and I should not stand in their way.
Its not an easy issue especially since it does seem that we as a society (especially the church) seem to be losing the ability to calmly and logical discuss sensitive and important matter without it descending into hate or spite.
As I read down the comments I became very disappointed in how quickly everyone hedge on the issue and changed it into a nuanced debate of gossip vs homosexuality and other such things. The question is still there however, is homosexuality a sin? Yes or No, everyone must eventually come to a straight answer on this question if theology and discussion is ever going to move forward. That said I love that when the question was re-stated two definitive answers in complete disagreement came out.
Ingrid: Yes the differences in culture are vastly different but at the same time surprisingly similar. A very good book is N.T. Wright’s Homosexuality and the New Testament… also I realize the cultural differences are there but why do you think we are so selective about using them? My initial thought is that its because they fit into our own cultural framework that we want in our current context?
I was interested as to how long it would take for someone to answer definitively one way or the other.
I find it sad that all too often when someone says yes homosexuality is a sin they can be labeled as those who hate homosexuals, I agree with Lurch that all people are to be loved whether they are homosexual or not. I do hold however that there is sufficient evidence in the Biblical texts to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is sinful. As for the cultural differences I think that is a weak argument for trying to state that homosexuality was something different then to what it is now.
Ok this is a hot potato but here’s how I see it, there are a couple of major issues at work here (and indeed in many, many issues in Church history where ethics, theology and practice are being called into question). The first is this:
A)What is our primary source of moral framework? Is it the Bible or is it culture? Basically do we allow the Bible (and Christian tradition to a certain extent) to shape what we believe or do we allow the dominant views of our culture to shape our reading of the Bible?
The next major issue is: (B) Is sexuality genetic (i.e. God has made us that way) or is it a consequence of other factors such as upbringing and choice?
The Third major issue is: (C) Is one sin worst than another (and if so what does this mean)?
The fourth issue is: (D) Is it acceptable for someone who is actively participating in a sin (and teaching others that it isn’t a sin and is unwilling to be challenged and repent) to be in a position of leadership?
And of course there’s the issue (E) of how we as the church treat those who are, in this case, homosexual?
So onto my responses to these issues;
A) My thoughts on this are that the Bible should always be the source of our moral/spiritual framework for life (of course we need to be aware of context and our own cultural specs), there are many times where a Biblical worldview has gone against the cultural norm and it has been for the better of society (take for example Wilberforce’s fight against slavery). On the converse there a number of areas where culture has been allowed to rewrite the bible and look at some of the evil that has come out of that (prosperity gospel = materialistic culture rewriting biblical precepts).
(B) When I was at Uni one of my colleagues wrote his dissertation on whether homosexuality should be acceptable in Church and what the churches response should be to homosexuals (he has family who are homosexual and was open to either conclusions) During his research he discovered that was no independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence for homosexuality being genetic. Furthermore he found that homosexuality is damaging to the human body, as homosexual sex causes serious damage to the bowel and muscles in that area. So from his research (and I haven’t found any errors in that part of it from my own study) shows that homosexuality is not genetic and is physically harmful. Anyway, if a propensity to commit violent crime or become and alcoholic was found to be genetic, would that make them right? (I’m not comparing homosexuality to violent crime or alcoholism, just pointing out that genetics don’t make something right…
C)Is one sin worse than another? Yes! Now here me correctly on this one… All sin separates us from a Holy God and on that aspect it is all equal, however its what sins do TO US that makes one worse than another. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 6:18, sexual sin harms us spiritually more than any other sins according to Paul, I’d risk it and say that it is because sexuality is a big part of our identity and so sinful actions in this area have a greater affect on our spiritual health.
D) Can someone who is actively living in sin be a Christian leader? No, there is a huge difference between struggling with sin (which we all do) and choosing to live in sin and teach that its okay. If a Christian leader is a serial liar and is not trying to change, or having an affair, or teaching a false doctrine like the prosperity gospel, they should be removed from their position until they make a move to change!
E) So how should the church treat someone who is homosexual? well this is the most difficult one. On this aspect I find Philip Yancey’s chapter “Grace Healed Eyes” in “Whats so amazing about Grace” to be of huge help. In this chapter Yancey talks about his friendship with Mel White a homosexual activist for the MCC. Yancey, who disagrees with homosexuality, talks about his friendship with Mel and how, though he disagrees with him, he still loves him. Yancey also talks about people such as Tony Campolo, Dr Koop (US Surgeon General), and Ed Dobson, all of whom disagree with homosexuality, but don’t let that get in the way of loving and serving them.
Hate and persecution is never the right way, but then neither is the type of ‘tolerance’ that says, “do whatever you like”
Lurch – Yep i’m resonating with a lot of what you’re saying there. Especially your last point. Given that we are supposed to be a community based on love and considering others better than ourselves, the fact that we sometimes operate out of hate and prejudice is a sign of something very deeply wrong.
Marcus i think the question is maybe unhelpful rather than wrong… why do you want an answer to that question?
When thinking and talking about this and other similar (pastoral) issues i find questions such as “how should i act towards gay people that i meet? how do i honour God in those meetings?” or “what can you tell me to deepen my understanding of this issue?” or “what should i say to people who use the church’s percieved homophobia as an excuse for not engaging with God?” much more helpful. This is because they are questions which are much more likely to help me grow and at the same time much less likely to make other people feel despised and rejected.
Ryan: “everyone must eventually come to a straight answer on this question if theology and discussion is ever going to move forward”
Really? You mean that i have to boil an incredibly complex issue down to a single yes/no statement when frankly, the honest answer would be “i don’t know”, before i can discuss the nature of God or the person of Jesus, the importance of justice, love, community, what in light of all that i should invest my time and money and passion in – i can’t do any of that until i pass judgement on OTHER PEOPLE’s sexual desires and/or practices!?! [/facetious, sorry] [/rant]
Also pop quiz (and this was a real curveball the first time someone pointed this out to me) what two things do the Jewish apostles tell the gentile believers to abstain from regardless of the cultural disconnect? Acts 21:25.
Seems like everyone missed my point.
Okay, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin so I accept that. What I don’t get is that gossip is practiced in the fellowship hall and on the prayer chain, greed is preached by the name it and claim it crowd, tithes go to pay salaries and rent instead of helping the poor — and we are focusing on homosexuality??? I can have gossips sit beside me in the pews, or even preaching to me from the pulpit (which I have) but somehow being gay is worse? That is what I don’t get, the elevation of one sin above another, which is what we do when we have the big brouhaha about homosexuality. Now, if every single sin were preached against and confronted on a regular basis I guess I could at least stomach a focus on homosexuality, but the truth is that much sin goes into the creation of that which we call church. People are often manipulated (financially and psychologically), gossiped about so that they can be “kept in line,” lied about and/or shunned when they step on the wrong toes or, heaven forbid, decide to go to another church. I just see the focus on this one thing as a big distraction. So much easier to focus on the homosexuals so we won’t have to look in the mirror at ourselves. You wanna be gay and love Jesus, awesome, — personally I struggle with gossip and anger, which are pretty darned evil. No one ever kicked me out over those and it never kept me out of leadership because there is a real double standard out there. Now maybe some churches are different, but that was my point. I accept what the bible says, but I am all for fairness. The crap I do is in there too and no one is calling for an expulsion of all slanderers from the pulpit, or all racists, or all the guys who look at the women in the front row with lust in their eyes.
Disagree with me if you want, but to me it’s just that simple. I think all the sinners should be kicked out of church, it would make the world a better place
and every Christian could spend their two hours a week ministering to those in need instead of sitting on cushions feeling good about not being homosexuals…..
I hate pink
My guess is is that my lesbian friends are not in any danger of bowel damage due to their homosexual sex.
This is the danger I was trying to point out – its essentially about definitions (not culture but we can’t seperate our understandings from our own culture). Why is homosexual sex automatically thought to be anal – not just homophobic but sexist. When we talk about homosexuality what are we talking about? What are the Biblical writers talking about? This is illustrated by Dr Nick who makes such a fundamental mistake and equates homosexual sex with just one male sexual act.
Robb shame on you: hate the tint, not the colour
“I think all the sinners should be kicked out of church, it would make the world a better place”
Please, how can letting all these savages out there make the world a better place? We should keep them within the four walls!
“…tithes go to pay salaries and rent instead of helping the poor…”
Urm, who said that tithes are mainly meant to help the poor? And I’m assuming you’re either giving your tithe to the poor, or perhaps forking extra 10% for them, or more?
“Now, if every single sin were preached against and confronted on a regular basis I guess I could at least stomach a focus on homosexuality…”
You sure they didn’t? Or you’re just exceptionally attentive whenever you heard this one being preached?
“This is illustrated by Dr Nick who makes such a fundamental mistake and equates homosexual sex with just one male sexual act.”
I think you made a fundamental mistake in assuming “one given example” as “the only example in existence.”
“Why is homosexual sex automatically thought to be anal…”
Sigh. Which part of the word “example” you do not understand? I guess if one wants to provide a basis for an argument, one has to provide ALL available examples that one can find in this world. Interesting.
Sorry if I seem exceptionally passionate about this topic. It’s not the topic that got me heated up, but the fallacious way people present their arguments.
Don’t worry, I’ll be attacking the way the homonegatives’ way of argument soon, just to be fair.
Zefi, you are looking at tithes according to church tradition, not according to what the bible actually says about it. Common mistake, one taught from the pulpit at that — and very falacious. The tithe was reserved for the Levites (of which there are NONE now) because they were not given an inheritance and therefore could not earn a living other than by serving the Lord, and that was by birth, not by choice of profession. The offering of the first fruits was actually to be taken into Jerusalem, sold and the profits used to eat a feast before the Lord, it is not to support church buildings or salaries. There was a temple tax, however, to be used to keep the temple up, and it was a very small yearly tax, not ten percent of your income. I tithe to no church, but I do give to the poor, the displaced and the abused. The NT says nothing about the continuance of a tithe (which was resered for Jews) but ONLY about giving generously to those in need. When the council met to decide what part of the laws to pass on to the gentiles, the tithe certainly was not listed. The fact that it continues is pure business.
And you weren’t in church with me, so your judgment about what I was and was not hearing is just a wee bit unfair, don’t you think?
And please don’t lump in my comments willy nilly with everyone else’s, that seems a bit falacious.
So if I am being fallacious, that is, presenting something I do not believe in, please provide proof. As you do not know my heart, it was really a ridiculous thing to say about me.
And I never said I was “homopositive” I just don’t see it as any worse than a multitude of other sins. Perhaps you do not understand my position, is that why you so easily judge it?
I imagine that 1st century Pharisees and Saducees all made the same comment … “Some how the church just isn’t the same since ‘Jesus’ took over.”
Isn’t the church meant to be God’s people (which is every last one of us and isn’t it His?
Zefi – Bit puzzled as to why you feel the need for patronising sarcasm but anyway…
“Furthermore he found that homosexuality is damaging to the human body, as homosexual sex causes serious damage to the bowel and muscles in that area”.
This isn’t written as an example – sounds pretty much like a sweeping statement to me.
“Isn’t the church meant to be God’s people (which is every last one of us and isn’t it His?”
What would ever give you an idea like that, the church exists purely for our benefit, with our rules, and our wisdom guiding it.
… of course that may be where we have gone wrong
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hi all.
Some thoughts rolling around in my head on the issue.
Is homosexuality as an orientation wrong, or would it solely the behavior itself? Assuming for the sake of the discussion that homosexuality behavior is wrong, wouldn’t the orientation fall into the category of a temptation rather than a sin? If one is attracted to someone of the same sex would that be more of a sin than being attracted to someone that is not your spouse, or is someone else’s spouse, or simply someone you are not married to? Is an alcoholic that is tempted to drink sinning if he does not drink? Is a married man attracted to woman that is not his wife sinning? Is a homosexual that is attracted to someone of the same sex sinning? I’m not talking about active lust that is entertained and cultivated. I’m talking simple attraction.
Is an absence of evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality proof of no link? Maybe there is no link, but heck we just mapped the genome a few years ago and we certainly don’t fully understand it yet.
What about surgically corrected psuedohermaphrodites (infants born with characteristics of both genders)? When they get older and choose an orientation that is different than there physical characteristics will we have to do a genetic test to determine if they are sinning or not?
I don’t know that it makes sense to equate homosexual practice with anal sex and then say it’s bad for the participants, hence homosexuality is wrong. Heterosexual couples occasionally engage in it. And it does nothing to address lesbian sexual behavior. I willing to bet that there are active male homosexuals that find anal sex disgusting and refuse to participate in it.
Finally, I don’t know that treating the Bible as Scripture, and consequently authoritative, equals labeling homosexual practice as wrong. The biblical documents do not specifically label slavery as wrong, but I believe it is. The documents do not say that women should have rights equal to men, but I believe they should. In fact the New Testament says they should remain quiet and wear head coverings in church.
Additionally in Titus Paul make racist statements against Cretans that I find offensive and disagree with. One of the Psalms extols the virtues of smashing children’s heads against rocks (Psalm 137, if I remember rightly).
I don’t see the Bible as a rule book. It is a story of God relating to man and beginning to redeem the world. I see it as a story that is still happening and I’m a part of it. God worked through his people, the body of Christ, to end slavery, and we can find whispers of this in the New Testament, but no specific statements. The same goes for women’s rights, and now how homosexuals are treated.
Ok, hopefully I have not been to indelicate or offensive, as I am occasionally prone to be. If so, I apologize and will attempt to use better cognitive filters next time.
Peace all.
maybe it is wrong of me to stir this subject up again.
i do it because i see homophobia as wrong, i do it because homosexuality is not a sin… and i do it because i find many areas of the church to take a stance which is so far from christ-like it makes me want to vomit all over them.
to be homosexual does not mean necessarily to engage in any sexual act at all. that is not what defines homosexuality. homosexuality is to find yourself attracted to others of the same sex. not your doing, just the way it is… whether or not it is genetic is not the point.
and… why must it be that one’s sexuality takes someone further from god? that’s simply untrue… coming to terms with your sexuality and learning how to be you is just the very thing that brings us closer to god.
so…
1.let’s stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin and face up to what it really is.
2.let’s do away with the notion that having anal sex is what defines a persons sexuality.
3.i hate the “hate the sin, love the sinner model”… it’s bollocks. it is, however, a great way of judging people.
4.this cartoon takes the piss out of the daft assumptions we make. let’s give up our crap assumptions and live in truth and love instead. it’ll be far more edifying for everyone.
i am genuinely sorry if this cartoon stirs up shit for those who are homosexual. i am not wanting to make the situation worse. it’s just that i get very, very angry indeed over the treatment of some by what often seems like a bullying majority of ‘correct thinking’ heterosexuals.
Linus: Sorry I should put more definition there… To me as long as you are engaging in the conversation and attempting to come to resolution (a process that may never be completed) then in saying “I don’t know” you are giving a straight answer. More what I dislike is to see issues like this come up only to have people deflect away from the core of the issue or initial questioning.
Jon, I don’t want to seem mean or condescending, but your definition of “truth” about homosexuality (#1) is really just opinion, same as mine.
I wish that I had a definitive answer, but I don’t. No one seems to, on either side, or even in the middle. All I have is opinion, and it has changed greatly over the years, so much so that my head is still spinning.
I think the problem is that we are all just clueless but most of us think we have the right answer. Maybe if we didn’t feel the need to be right we actually could love on each other and just not even care.
We really just need to leave each other alone and be edifying as we walk closer to God. We are all journeying, hopefully, in the same direction. Maybe if we all gave up having to know the answers and just embraced each other as people, with all that that entails, we could acutally be without spot or blemish because our love would cover up each other’s weaknesses and draw from each other’s strengths.
It would have been nice if Jesus had said something definative, but He didn’t. He did say that the Father desired mercy, He did eat with everyone regardless of labels. There were a lot of things He didn’t say, or at least didn’t get written down. Damn first century stenographers!
This is one of the problems with internet forum/blog type discussions, people can use easily do things such as seize on a grammatical error and use it to disregard a whole point. Zefi is right, I was using that as an example of the biological incompatibility of homosexuality (male homosexual acts if you must be that specific and/or PC), maybe phrased it wrong, but thats what I used “Furthermore” to show.
Just as an aside; Tyler Dawn, the right of a Christian worker to receive support for ministry (but never to abuse it) is addressed in both 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and also in Philippians. In most churches tithing is a language for expressing the support a congregation gives to the ministry of that church community (most of the churches I have been to use as much as they can for ministry and outreach, but buildings do cost money to run!)
@jonbirch: Let me first say that I ask the following questions in an attitude of genuine interest borne from my inbuilt desire to learn and openness as I want to understand more through discourse (I tend to look at things very logically)…
1 – You have stated that homosexuality is not a sin, I have seen countless posts/blogs/etc saying that ANY sexual immorality hetro/homo/etc is a sin. Is it that homosexuality is not the sin, but rather the act itself constituting an extra-marital intercourse and un-biblical? If you could expand on how you came to this conclusion I would be gratefully appreciated.
2 – I have to agree
3 – I can see where you are coming from, I just googled it and found out that the quote is from Ghandi. Certainly gives me something to chew on.
4 – Again, I agree, we are called to live in a way that brings Heaven to earth in this time.
I would hope that I do not come across as someone who is a “‘correct thinking’ heterosexual”, but rather someone who is on a path that is not easy and only want to know more, grow more, and become more who he is meant to be.
Many thanks for providing a place where such discussions can happen.
pink rocks.
oh, and by the way, it’s only recently that gayness and pink have been associated together, during the Roman occupation of Israel, gay relationships were just treated with warmth and tenderness, it was common for Gay men to have male lovers, but they didn’t get any pink badges or Doc M’s.
thats one thing cleared up, the other point is, since homosexual relationships were so common, why didn’t Jesus give us his views? he had plenty to say about pious religious people, i wonder if he just wasn’t worried, he seems to be much more concerned with how we treat each other, – ie, equal, non-judgmental, with celebration, than commenting on the love and tenderness we held towards our dearest, i do really seriously wonder if certain groups have grossly misread a very few lines in scripture.
can i recommend the “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, for a description of the sexual behaviour i feel is powerfully condemned in scripture, marked by a lack of trust, empathy and a disregard for the well being of the participants.
Dr Nick – perhaps you can give more examples then of how “homosexuality is damaging to the human body”. Ta
I too get annoyed, I get annoyed that people have this assumption that if you disagree with people acting on homosexual desires (can I make it 110% clear, its the action not the temptation I disagree with) are automatically hate-filled pharisees who would crucify Jesus as soon as look at him.
Beleive it or not there are plenty of people who disagree with homosexual acts who are loving, kind, generous people who genuinely love God. We are not all murderous idiots.
I hate the fact people assume that to hold a high view of scripture and morality is to be a pharisee, is to be unable to care for the poor or justice or any of those things, is to hate God.
I hate it that people automatically assume that when I say I disagree with homosexuality, then it means thats all I care about. That is simply not true, I have dedicated my life to loving people, to serving the poor, to standing up for the broken. But you know what, I believe in true compassion, which sometimes challenges people and stands against that which is wrong, so shoot me.
Why is it that people ignore Jesus teachings about teaching the right things AND living the right way, why does it have to be one or the other???? Likewise Paul’s thoughts on having a right doctrine AND a right life??
You know what on issues like this I spend time studying scripture and reading and thinking and discussing and asking God to show me if I’m wrong and I’m open to Him saying so. SO why the hell do you get to judge that I am a hate filled hypocrite who doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together??
Jon, you have some great ideas and a fantastic gift, but on this subject I simply cannot agree with you, therefore this is the last I will say on it.
Well, apart from starting by saying ‘PINK!!! Argh!’
I’m glad a few folk have pulled out their favourite verses as well as agreeing that the bible is the foundation of what, as christians, we should think about moral issues.
The historic note is that whilst I was a single divorcee I attended a church that was asking for topic suggestions – somewhat paranoicaly I asked the ‘team’ to do ‘sex without the humbug’ mostly to see if they’d beat up on divorcees – after they went away and the reader eventualy came back to the subject in an evening service I was as shocked as he was by his conclusions [if this sounds sexist it's because he's a guy]…
I have kept a copy of the notes from that one through the years…
Going back to 1 Corinthians 6 vs 9 which is amid the list of sexual no-nos – we have in the NIV version – ‘male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders’ when ‘boy prostitutes nor men who use them’ is closer to the meaning…
Accordingly other passages of this ilk also suffer from what I would call a prejudicial translation – apparently from Paul’s lists of sexual no-nos we find abusive sex between folk of different power – ie a prostitute and her client is exactly the same as how Paul looked at the issue as a whole regardless of gender or orientation… that therefore sex between two consenting adults in love has the green light.
Before I was married the first time around and was a young christian I remember hearing the same stuff being said against divorcees (hence my question) but now there are quite a few of us and folk have had to find another ‘target’ which is tragic but then the question is going to be ‘Who Next?’ when we are forced to get over our own preconceptions.
I do sympathise with folk who genuinely believe that active homosexuality is sinful because we have, through the centuries, been taught that. To those of more liberal bent [including myself here, belatedly] I think that ramming this issue down folks throats and calling those who disagree names is just as bad.
It’s a sin, too. The problem is how do we get to have a frank debate in such a way that we are confident in being able to express, in pain and angst, what we think because when it comes to loaded subjects like this we get rather strange – a false positive was achieved by a guy who had the topic on abortion on the Clever Computer or Human because the subject was so sensitive he just stuck to the facts to be labeled ‘clever computer’…
I love the pink gravestones! Now THAT would signal real acceptance
I wish we could get over this problem; I reckon our offspring’s grandkids will look back at us and wonder whatever we thought we were doing, much as we look back at the follies of our forbears who thought dancing, film-going, picnics on sundays, etc were sinful
I wish those with homosexual orientation could get over their paranoia too (I do realise it’s often understandable though) – and preach or converse about the things that matter without the pressing need to bring the homosexual agenda into everything. It would help so much. But all the while there’s a witch hunt I guess it won’t happen
I am utterly heterosexual and so can have close intimate friendship with a man because we both know sex is not on the agenda. I hope this might be true if my friend is homosexual too – not that i have such a friend at present. That seems to me to be where the sin lies – any activity that destroys mutuality IS sin; and this is of course true between genders also. Sex does have particular power over us to do dumb things to each other, more than gossip, greed and the rest.
I am really sad that deep same gender friendships engender suspicion and are nigh on impossible these days, as if sex is inevitable. I cite the obvious example of david and jonathan, where their love was said to be more wonderful than that of women – I yearn for a friendship like that. And david was clearly and rampantly heterosexual, it seems crazy to me to imply there was any homosexuality involved. And did anyone think morecombe and wise were having sex when they shared a bed in their comedy series?! I hope not!
I thank you Jon for bringing subjects like this up and for not shying away from the controversy over it.
I don’t think that we all have to agree on the subject and I will quite happily fight for anybody’s right to hold the belief of homosexuality being sinful or not. However I will also fight against this leading to discrimination, hate and judgement.
@james: I whole heartedly agree.
Jon, i’m interested on your thoughts on point 3 “hate the sin love the sinner”. I kind of hate the things that people get trapped into – If someone were to covert my wife’s ass (for example) (she loves donkeys)
i can hate that act of but still love the person.
Is this a wrong attitude.
I love people, I try my hardest to stop there and just love. Regardless. But i hate sin, i hate that people get trapped and i see some real hurt in people and their families because of it.
Am i looking at sin incorrectly? I have so many questions.
I just wrote loads more but then deleted it. For now this will do.
Linus No. 23 – I asked the question because I have a desire for answers and want to know what people think and why they think it. I think the other questions that you would rather ask are ones that I too would like to ask – but I can only know how to respond to those who want to make practicing homosexuality a legitimate lifestyle that is not sinful if I know whether it is sinful or not.
Homosexuality can indeed be interpreted as finding people of the same sex attractive – and I am attracted to some people of the same sex but not in a sexual way, rather in a way of admiration and respect. However the way we use the word homosexual is normally understood to include a sexual desire and it would seem from what the Bible teaches that we are not to have sexual desires on people of the same sex, certainly not to act upon such desires. But does my stance on homosexuality mean that I don’t have a real compassion for all sinners…no. My issue is when we start teaching that sin is ok and can become part of a legitimate lifestyle without any need of repentance. I am ware there are no easy answers to the question…but then who said life was going to be easy.
Yeah James!!! It’s not about being right, it’s about being love
Oh Jon, now look what you went and did! By the way, love the cartoon, though I prefer purple to pink.
A post from earlier which firefox swallowed (should have been around #17, and I’ve been out all evening, so sorry for not advancing the discussion all that mnuch).
I don’t know if this has been discussed on ASBO before, but I’m sure God differentiates between orientation and practice, and that we don’t have much choice, if any, about our orientations towards anything, let alone sexuality.
Anything beyond that is a whole lot murkier. But as a church (in the loosest possible sense) doesn’t the way we treat people matter way more than the rules?
Of course, I’m more worried about what’s going to happen once we let the women bishops in. Oh…
And, Adrian Plass made me laugh. (He has gone on record saying that it’s not particularly about homosexuality, but I’ve lost the reference for that.)
http://tinyurl.com/5uaw3z
cheers anita.
will try and respond more fully to stuff tomorrow.
dr. nick. i apologise if you thought my comments were in response to you. they weren’t. i was venting my spleen and not responding to anyone in particular. i have not and do not think of you as a homophobe or an unthinking person… quite the oppostite in fact. i have much respect for your thoughts and have often benefited from your thoughtful input. i am actually grateful to you. sorry to have come across as anything other. respect. j.
dr. nick. have just read my comment again and can see how i have picked up on one or two points you made and ranted on them. once again, no apologies for the passion, but apologies for any lack of respect shown. we clearly hold different views, but you certainly are not the unloving, uncaring sort at whom my frustration is levelled. so sorry to have said stuff that looks like i am lashing at you. i assure you i am not. again, respect.
Seems to me the church has always had a large contingent of gay clergy – it’s just now they are out of the closet. When I was at Divinity school almost all of the Episcopal seminarians (male) were gay (including the married ones) – the ones who were closeted (usually because their diocese had a don’t ask don’t tell policy) tended to be very destructive to those who had to go to school and live with them. The ones who were gay and put up the married front were very sad to watch.
I think the lot of you may be confusing homophobia (fear of gays) with heterosexism (straights believing they’re better than gays “just because”). IMO, the latter is what many (not all) Christians are guilty of.
Personally, I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin.
* The verses in Leviticus that (supposedly) condemn it all make reference to an action — a man sleeping with another man as if he were sleeping with a woman. This was part of the Holiness Code, a section of Mosaic Law, which was given to the Israelites after leaving Egypt, in order to set them apart from everyone else. According to the NT, the “Gentiles”–which, as I see it, would include all of us Christians who don’t call Israel our homeland–were and are not bound to those laws.
* The end of Romans 1 is often taken out of its full context, I find, to substantiate an anti-gay (or even anti-gay marriage) stance. In full, Paul is explaining to the Roman ecclesia what happens to people when they “turn away” from God, using terms and scenarios they would understand.
* As someone noted, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 didn’t first use the word “homosexuals” (or similar). Neither “arsenokoitai” nor “malakoi” translate to “homosexual”. The first word means “male beds” (possibly to refer to older men who had “kept” boys to use for sexual purposes); the second means “soft” (in context, “effeminate”, perhaps?). I will also note that some people, IMO, seem to forget about verse 11, where Paul states that members of the ecclesia in Corinth were like that; but, thanks to Christ’s cleansing blood, they were made pure.
I also note the term “homsexuality” did not exist until the late 1800s, and it was not used in any English translation of the Bible until half a century ago (it debuted in the Amplified version).
For Linus…
Now concerning those of the nations (“Gentiles”) who have believed, we write an epistle, deciding they are to guard themselves from idol sacrifice, besides from blood also, and what is strangled, and from prostitution. (Acts 21:25, Concordant Literal New Testament)
Other translations say “fornication” (the Latin root word is “fornicati”, which references the place where prostitutes did their business).
Have I mentioned I like pink?
Somehow the church just isn’t the same now that the Gentiles took over.
NonCharon @33 Hi. thanks for your awesome post. Made me laugh (genetic tests to determine sinfulness) and think. Everything is more complicated than it seems, isn’t it?
Shelly thanks so much for actually trying to discuss the relevant scriptures and get to grips with what they say.
yeah, i need to explain what i’m getting at with the Acts 21 thing, sorry. This passage is not in any way about homosexuality. The point i was alluding to is that here is an instruction (not to consume blood) that runs throughout scripture from Noah through the law and right into the new covenant, and yet no-one thinks twice about it, there’s no great hand-wringing about what that means in our culture, nobody discusses whether liking your steak rare is genetic or not and whether that matters, no one makes a distinction between someone’s mouth watering at a plate of black pudding over someone who actually eats it etc.
And the reason is that most of us haven’t thought about this at all, and those who have, have thought about it carefully and not jumped to quick conclusions based on a surface reading of the text. With the exception of the JWs – that’s exactly what they’ve done on this issue, imo, and they’re in a right mess because of it.
Unfortunately its also what most of us (myself included) have done on issues of sexual morality. Why the double standard? I think there are two reasons:
1 I’m unhealthily obsessed with my physical sexuality. And other people’s physical sexuality too.
2 It’s easy to have a very surface understanding of something and make sweeping statements about it when there’s no personal struggle with the issue (i really like my steak rare).
In response to Marcus @47
I think if you decide that you understand acts of homosexual intercourse to be sinful, then you should respectfully disagree with those who think they are “legitimate”, giving your carefully thought through reasons for doing so, whilst acknowledging the many other issues that you may agree on, and remembering to love and serve all and to contend together for Christ.
If you come to the opposite conclusion, substitute the word “disagree” above for “agree”
@Ryan 35 That’s cool. thanks for putting up with my sarky rant and taking it in the good humour it was intended.
Yeah can we scrap the “Hate the sin Love the sinner” thing and just replace it with “Love the person”
I turned off the computer lat night and wondered if the term “hate the in love the sinner” has it’s problems in the word sinner. I hate the sin but love the person. the use of the word sinner is patronising as well as very accusing. “hey you are a sinner, but aren’t i great i love you anyway!” But I am convinced that i am to hate sin, but to love people. I think i know where you are coming from. If people spent as much time loving as judging, church may be a different place. (comment nt posed and anyone – possibly to myself though)
yep Will i agree – thanks you put that into words really well, which i was struggling to do =]
Interesting topic as usual. Here are a few casual observations to stir things up.
If we judge things by the fruits they produce this whole homosexual debate seems to be causing a lot of hurt and division which would imply that it is not a good thing.
Ingrid (#26) without wishing to be vulgar I know of several Lesbians who engage in anal sex using a device called a stap-on (penis substitute) which does and has caused bowel damage.
John (#34) get and agree with your point about homosexuality being a sexual orientation and not an act but I think your being slightly prissy as people generally mean the act when talking about it Christian circles.
Stike’s me that Christ showed a lot of grace to people who had broken the letter of the Jewish law (Torah) in his day without denying it was the law. (e.g Women caught in adultery). So maybe we should also. Seems to depend on who you take your lead from more Christ or St. Paul.
But I agree with Dr. Nick when he says about homosexuals being in leadership “No, there is a huge difference between struggling with sin (which we all do) and choosing to live in sin and teach that its okay”.
Someone needs to tell the gays not to mix their red clothes and their white clothes together in the wash.
Dear Fellow Asboites,
just to say I wish to clarify my earlier comments, these are only about what i think of the argument put forward by some theologies regarding the practice of homosexual sex, and I did not wish to make personal comments about people experience’s or views.
i do uphold people right to have different views on this and every subject. and i realise in hindsight that my use of language, instead of being a humours attempt at debate, could be taken personally – though this was not my intention.
I do however feel if an argument is put forth, and from a Christian perspective, i have the right to challenge and try to debunk it, as this is my faith that i care very much about, and am upset by finding i feel it is distorted by certain assumptions made from a very small selection of text regarding homosexuality. i know these are quite strong words, but i do feel this – this is my faith your are talking about.
i do think it is significant, considering the prevalence of homosexual relationships at the time of Christ, that Jesus refrained from commenting about it.
i also think God created us to build relationships and communities, he made us a social creatures, who form close attachments.
in this way i think he has engraved his image within us, in that we have the capacity to empathise and care for others.
in someway i think this is also a challenge for us, to understand others, and to catch a glimpse into others who’s world is different from ours.
- to put it bluntly, i think he wants to take us on a journey that pops our own little bubble and leads us into relationship with an other, therefor i think he gives us a deep desire to relate closely to someone else, and marriage is one way to celebrate the gift of this desire.
i therefor cannot support a position of imposed sexual abstinence for gay people.
Laura, it was those cherry and champers cocktails, – try vanish.
“It would have been nice if Jesus had said something definative, but He didn’t. ”
Tyler, 36
Doesn’t this in itself speak volumes? Jesus never even touched on the subject, so why do so many people that supposedly follow Him get their knickers in a twist over it?
Jon: I’d really like to see a cartoon regarding the female clergy debate also!
“It would have been nice if Jesus had said something definative, but He didn’t.”
It would have been nice but Jesus didn’t talk about a lot of things, he never mentioned, woman ministers, stem cell research, paedophilia, abortion, war (I think… it might just be because its morning and my brain isn’t in gear). I am quite sure Jesus talked about a lot of stuff that is not recorded in four peoples accounts of his life.
I am not saying this as a dismissive statement (it may come across that way, in which case sorry, very tired) more as a point that just because Jesus didn’t say something doesn’t mean he would have been either for or against it.
Anyway, I had better leave it there this is not my best formed comment ever. Peace.
Isnt it a false premise anyway.
Surely the ‘priesthood’ is unbiblical…. we only have one High Priest and we are all priests.
So whether someone is gay, female, male, dwarf, vulcan, welsh, geordie, tall, small, fat, thin makes no difference.
The bible talks of overseer’s not priests there is a massive difference between the two.
The truth is that “The Gays took over” the church a long time ago.
Let’s face it if you live in a small town and you’re attracted to the same sex, you don’t want to get married and want to get away from the family pressure to do so. Unless you go away to university you have two choices: join the military or join the church.
The former involves getting shot at (although many gay people serve in the forces) – the latter may allow you to live in a single-sex community and be respected by the local community too.
Many religions would collapse if all the gays were to leave – the majority are doing a damn fine job too.
I invited a friend to join in with this discussion, and here are his comments in reply, :-
Many thanks for your email.
I’ve had a little look at the blogg and thanks for your comments on there.
I am actually at the moment trying to fast from reading such things. The difficulty with blogs is that people can say what they want without really thinking of the pastoral and relational implications of their comments. As I am sure you can imagine, the debates on homosexuality become incredibly emotionally tiring when it is a personal reality not just an issue. As someone points out on the Courage web site – This debate has been likened to a football match between liberals and conservatives, with those of us to whom the arguments pertain forced to stand
on the sidelines and passively await the conclusion of the match. I, for one, want to cry, ‘Enough already! It is my life that you’re kicking the crap
out of – and I’m a person, not an issue for theological debate!’
This of course is not a criticism of you for being engaged in such discussions, its just that bloggers need to realise that having to engage with the constant discussions are draining – and it only takes a comment like the one that seems to equate homosexuality with anal sex to really get fed up. I am no hard line gay rights activist, but what I think needs to be said loud and clear is that, whilst there may be Biblical and traditional grounds for discussing what kinds of sexual activity may or may not be appropriate, there is no Biblical mandate for preventing two people of the same sex from loving each other and indeed sharing their lives together. I am certainly not someone who wants to try to prove that David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi or Jesus and John had a sexual relationship – but the Biblical truth is that these relationships were special, and their covenants recorded in history. The texts all show an emotional and physical bond – something that may well be of interest to those who find the imagery of Jesus as lover difficult. Its interesting that the love stories that are written about most profusely in scripture are Solomon’s relationship with his concubine, Jonathan’s love for David, and Ruth’s love for Naomi. None of these big love stories represent are modern view of heterosexual marriage.
We talk badly about homosexuality because we live in an over sexed society which has crept its way into the church in many different ways.Gay and straight secular culture alike need the healing presence of the Gospel – instead, what people so often find when they encounter the church is the same obsession with sex and sexuality – its just that one is more occupied with doing it, and the other is more occupied with talking about it. The sad thing is that someone who is looking for true companionship and belonging could well find love in the former than the latter.
Subo, I’m quite happy for you to post these comments if you think they may help under an anonymous friend.
“It would have been nice but Jesus didn’t talk about a lot of things, he never mentioned, woman ministers, stem cell research, paedophilia, abortion, war (I think… it might just be because its morning and my brain isn’t in gear). I am quite sure Jesus talked about a lot of stuff that is not recorded in four peoples accounts of his life.”
Fair point. (Pretty sure he must have mentioned war at some point though, surely?).
But what I am trying to say is that maybe Jesus thought there were more pressing issues for us to think about. He spoke first and foremost about loving one another. I’m sure we can all agree on that.
I think there are only 12 verses in the whole bible that speak of homosexual sex. (Possibly even, some of which were translated incorrectly? And even so, some of which cancelled out by the new covenant.) There are hundreds of verses about love. And the urgency to witness to fellow our mankind. What does that say?
We should be reaching out to the gay community. Not condemning them and judging them. The message that the church gives out to the gay people of this country is horrifying.
Well said Subo’s anonymous friend!
This cartoon takes the piss out of the daft assumptions we make.
I think this raises far more interesting questions rather than rehashing the same old battle lines.
Perception is a big one here isn’t it. I have friends who are gay/bi*. But some people who annoy the hell out of me are gay/bi. What is annoying is that if I say (for example) that Nadia from Big Brother annoyed the hell out of me, I am labelled homophobic [real example of a real accusation from a colleague]. It was done in a manner by which she could have been screaming paedophile, terrorist or racist at me in the pub. It is a key word that is effectively like pulling an ace out of the sleeve and winning the game of top trumps. Who is going to make the most outrageous claim?
The other thing that it raises is stereotyping. Where stereotyping becomes a problem is when people conform to stereotype. I will give an example. A farmers boy in my year 8 class declared “all asians are bad drivers”. I pointed out that my uncles car was cleaved in two when he ran into the back of a raised plough at night with no lights on – therefore all farmers are bad drivers. The conversation continued until we agreed that people are people and you get bad drivers from all walks of life and with a multitude of skin colours. Yousaf pipes up “but all asians are bad drivers”.
I can’t help if that is what you are going to give me to work with Yousaf.
If anyone is interested in reading some well thought out theology on sexuality I highly recommend James Alison “On Being Liked“.
As a final point, the tradition as witness to by the biblical books has a changing morality throughout time as we come to a better understanding of God and his love for us. We can’t just whip a verse like “By the rivers of Babylon… happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” straight out of the context of a disorientated psalm of lament in the context of the babylonian exile, and use it to discount any other type of text in the bible. To say that the psalm is decreeing violence against babies is ridiculous. The psalmist is calling for the eye for eye justice that someone who has been horrifically wronged usually does. In the same way we cannot treat the Bible as one book and state that each verse was written with no context – otherwise you are all screwed because most of you clip the hair on the sides of your head**. The sooner we actually get some propper biblical scholarship into our churches and stop thinking of the book as one book but actually collection of individual books, ‘a Bible’ if you will, the sooner we will be able to have informed debates about this and any other topic.
*I can’t believe I wrote this. I had no idea that I was doing it at the time. In hindsight it perfectly illustrates my point.
**But we don’t live under the law… yady yada… heard it all before.
I agree, well said anonymous friend.
One of the troublesome things about this particular debate is that it really does get in the way of people coming to church – and getting to know God (not that one can only know God by going to church). I think that it’s v sad. I think there are many straight people who cannot understand the church’s anti-gay stance, and so wouldn’t touch the church (and maybe God?) with a barge pole.
I have also found it v difficult in the past wanting to take gay non christian friends to church, and not feeling comfortable as I never knew when someone was going to say that being gay is wrong (or that just the act is wrong – not really sure that the distinction helps actually). One time, a friend had already decided that Jesus was maybe worth following, but found themselves unable to go back to church, after the homosexulity is wrong statement.
So really what I’m saying is SURELY there are more important things in life, and faith, like loving people.
If anyone is interested in hearing from and engaging with your actual gay people on the issue of how it is to e in church, and how the church can move forward there will be an interesting panel session by the OuterSpace group at Greenbelt this year. I think it’s important to remember that this is not just a theological point scoring excercise, but it is about real people with real feelings. And who are we to chuck people out of church (or make it hard for them to remain without actually chucking them out) when it’s up to God, not us to do the judging. We are called to love.
Oh this issue really makes me cross – can you tell?
Well put Sophie, that’s what I was trying to say but you’ve stated it more eloquently
I so wish I could go to Greenbelt but unfortunately it always clashes with not only my churches annual weekend away, but also.. Manchester Pride…
DrNick (22). The Bible is not our source of moral guidance. We have a moral sense in us as humans which is probably largely cultural. That is why we are able to judge the Bible and decide which parts we think are morally good (and which we take as guidance) and which not.
In Genesis 19, God seems to be rewarding Lot for his moral rectitude by saving him from the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Yet Lot’s willingness to submit his two daughters to the hands of a depraved mob (who were actually craving fornication with the angels who had just turned up) does not chime with our sense of right & wrong now. Our ability to judge this passage and say “that’s not morally right” demonstrates that our morals must come from elsewhere than the Bible. How else can we say “I will take Matt 22 v39 as guidance, but not Gen 19 v8″?
Because culture changes, we now judge parts of the Bible differently than even our very recent ancestors did. And so the contents of our little paper pick’n'mix bag changes. Things that have been written by Christians in this very thread would have been almost unthinkable in a Christian discussion only one generation ago.
The Bible has not changed. But our morals have changed. Hmmm. Are we growing more sinful, or are we continually refining our understanding of ourselves as humans and the society in which we live?
I should say that I think the panel I mentioned above will have a range of people and views.
Here is a link to the blurb about it:
http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/festival/2008/lineup/event/2415
I think we’re all missing the most important point here: As we are in the middle of Ordinary Time, there is absolutely no excuse for wearing pink vestments. They are only allowed on the Third or Forth Sunday of Advent (as an alternative to purple) and on the Sunday of Joy at the impending birth of Jesus.
Subo/Anonymous Friend (68): Thank you for your calm and wise words. As you say, it is SO easy to forget, in the heat of debate, that we are talking about Real People (like us!) who at best may resent being objectified in this manner (however unintentionally) and at worst may be caused damage that may never heal. I know at least one case where this has happened, and yes, sadly it was between Christians.
Much has been said already on the subject here, so I will not add to it – you all say it so much better than I could. I am not well-versed enough in biblical scholarship or what being homosexual (of either gender) is really about to be fit to comment properly. All I will say is that I’ve seen a little of the hurt and anger caused by intolerant or thoughtless words and actions against, or in the presence of, gay people and it breaks my heart. But I can also hear the anger, fear and yes, sometimes love (on occasions perhaps misplaced) from those who find themselves unable to accept homosexuality (tendency or practice) in the light of their understanding of God. I do not always agree with the latter group, but as Dr Nick says, NOT everyone who sees things differently is “a hate filled hypocrite who doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together”. I am grateful to ALL those who grapple thoughtfully, prayerfully with this issue and its implications.
On a different note:
Jon – cakes bigger than gravestones! Who cares what colour they are ….
Sophie – hope to meet you at Greenbelt.
Janetp, that’d be great!
Damnit Ruth why didn’t I think of that??!!??
On a different note, I am creating a photobook of my time in Uganda. Is it wrong that I just included a pic of me the Mrs and Hery Luke Orombi?
Every so often it strikes me as highly amusing that for one who sees engaging in homosexual acts as sin I have a couple homosexyally, or bisexually, inclined relatives, and several homosexual friends and acquaintences – and all the more amusingly, my wife’s ex-husband among them!!!
There’s two ways the text in this cartoon may be taken – leaving out the quotations emphasising “the gays” it might be seen as something more generalized along the lines of
“Somehow the church just isn’t the same since a group of single-issue militant activists with an agenda started taking over”.
There are a number of factions which can fall into that.
Throughout history the church at both denominational and congregational scales has been seriously misguided by individuals and groups with narrowly focused personal desires and a thirst for power.
Hi Forrest: Interesting point.
I wondered whether the term “the gays” might be taken in the more recent, slangy, sense in the UK of ‘effeminate’ (and possibly ‘idiots’). The wording then opens up a whole new can of worms …..
You mean like this janetp?
forrest – good point – “the gays” does remind me of Mark Driscoll’s call machismo Christians – as he says, he cannot be led by anyone he can beat up.
One white elephant here is that both extremists have hijacked to the discussion to the point where you cannot have a sane and reasoned discussion around what it means to be a sexual human and a Christian. On the right, you have those who believe if sex isn’t missionary and you’re married, then it’s a no-no. I would love to see this group do a bible study on say the Song of Songs as they tend to be anti-sex period.
On the left, you have the “it’s my body and I’ll do as I please” – these people often have a need to act out sexually as though the rest of us at a church function want to hear the details of their sex life. I’ve even had people working in the church justify promiscuity to me on the grounds that “no one gets hurt.” If you object to their acting out behavior and question, then you’re called names like prude and homophobe.
In this climate, how can we possibly discuss homosexuality without having the battle lines drawn to the point where dialogue is lost in the white noise debate? But what if we took St. Francis’ command to preach always and when necessary use words.
For example, I heard a Southern Baptist preacher speak a number of years ago – this was back when AIDS was seen as a gay disease. He admitted he had very strong negative feelings about gay but realized this was in direct conflict with Jesus’ command of universal love. So, he started getting involved in an AIDS ministry and it changed his life. Now, I doubt he’ll ever march in a gay pride parade but by being the church to the other, he was transformed.
I find the whole ‘gay’ clergy issue a bit confusing. Is it not more of an issue in the American episcopal set up? I had always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that a fair proportion of clergy were gay, anyway. I felt it was more controversial in that some were now, as we used to say round here in terms of heterosexual co-habitees, openly ‘living over the brush’ with their ‘partners’ – I use this term in the modern sense rather than the more traditional business sense.
On a linguistic note, as Janetp rightly points out, we are currently in a state of semantic flux. The word ‘gay’ is now widely used by young people to mean ‘rubbish’ or ‘crap’ as in:
Travel agent: “If you cancel, you will lose your £100 deposit.”
Young person: “That’s gay, that is!”
This does, indeed, muddy the waters…so to speak.
Robb: Hahaha!
Yes, something like that …
Becky, Carol: Good to have your customary words of wisdom added to the debate.
“I had always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that a fair proportion of clergy were gay, anyway.”
absolutely… and as someone else said, mostly doing a fine job.
thanks for that becky.
doctor ruth… brilliant!
robb… great movie, great quote!
jf’s point on moral guidance is a more than fair point. that is why, whatever the morality of the day, our job is to love.
“get and agree with your point about homosexuality being a sexual orientation and not an act but I think your being slightly prissy as people generally mean the act when talking about it Christian circles.”
then they should think more carefully before they speak.
will t… yep, that’s what i meant. nail on head.
“Somehow the church just isn’t the same now that the Gentiles took over.” nice one.
anita… shocking pink is one of my favorite colours.
“It’s not about being right, it’s about being love “… yes.
noncharon. welcome, and thank you for the thoughtful input.
dennis. glad you found a bit of relief. all the best.
jason… hmmm… it’s a sin in the eyes of some judeo-christians. where do homosexuals worship in the bible belt then? there must be plenty of gay christians in that neck of the woods, even if many find that hard to take.
janetp… re. carole and becky… couldn’t agree more… and while you’re complimenting others, many thanks for the tone you always bring to a debate no matter what the subject. most edifying.
Why did no one mention this before??!!??
No one said that there would be marks awarded for tone! If I’d known I wouldn’t have constantly lowered it
Thanks, Jon. Glad you find it helpful.
Robb:
To somewhat belatedly come to the ‘rescue’ of that old nut -
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I find this a good thing to remember when I’m having problems with someone as it reminds me that I’m a sinner and then it gives me hope that they might love me!
Or is this a radical re-working too far?
Nice Jon. LOL
I will tell y’all this, after a brief encounter of experimentation two and a half decades back, this thing is understandable to me: not much room to be critical, eh.
Let’s use political inclination terms to describe this: I’m Libertarian for the most part, Left leaning liberal on a few things, Conservative right wing on some others.
Extremist activism on either wing really ruffles my ranting feathers, GRRRRRRRRRRR!
You know how the healthist way to eat is “a balanced diet in moderation”?
That’s true of other things too.
This business of “you’ve done that sin, so you’re a worse person than we are since WE haven’t done THAT.”
I have this quite pleasing mental image of a locomotive falling out of the sky on the speaker’s head.
My wife’s ex is homosexual and a convicted pedophile – but hey, he’s still a product of God’s creation, the father of my stepchildren, and I care how he is.
You know that verse about “the sins of the fathers . . .”? His father molested him. The actions of my wife’s ex are a logical result of the causes.
One of the ex’s nephews is in prison for passing on “the sins of the fathers”. He’s marriage family, and God’s family, and I care.
Dammit, Christians, look, actually LOOK at the people Jesus loved and “go ye forth and do likewise”.
Reverend Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church
What YOU are doing is sin.
Allow me to clear up any misunderstandings, Westboro Baptist Church is sinning.
In it’s body’s entirety.
Period, end of sentence.
Kathy says I’m part cat – and, ya know, I really want to hiss, spit, and then slash something right now.
85. Carol – At the risk of riding roughshod over US Episcopal history, there’s been a history of bishops behaving badly since the post-Revolutionary War when the church had to go to Scotland for the first American Bishop as obviously England wasn’t about to send us a bishop.
I trace this current church crisis back to Bishop Pike – a forward thinking bishop viewed as either a visionary or a heretic – at some point in the biblical ballgame, he renounced the Nicene Creed and eventually died in the Israeli desert with his much younger second wife by his side. The Episcopal Church’s was unable to handle this crisis – he was eventually ‘forced to resign” but never defrocked or given some much needed pastoral care. Pike was a mentor to Bishop Spong, who continued Pike’s mantle to do as he pleased as well as blowing off the Nicene Creed, a doctrine both men took vows to uphold. (There is a movement among some to reclaim Pike’s work but I find these efforts to be outdated as what was radical in the ’50s seems very much out of date – his work doesn’t have the transcendental quality of say CS Lewis.)
Following on the heels of this, you had the battle for women’s ordination – now the 1979 General Convention was set to approve the cannons that would allow women to be ordained. But a select group of radicals couldn’t wait and several ordinations were held in the ’70s that were deemed as illegal by the conservatives. Thus the battle lines were drawn that culminated in the consecration of Barbara Harris as the first female bishop in the Anglican communion – that was when the conservative groups you see wrecking havoc began forming. (The groups had a point in that if one examined Harris’ qualifications she was pretty radical – a lesbian who studied for the exams on her own without having gone to seminary – yes, there would have been hell to pay with the first female bishop but the controversy would have been lessened had a more traditional candidate been chosen).
Around this time Bishop Spong ordained Ted Williams, the first openly gay priest. He defrocked Williams shortly thereafter after Williams made comments that Mother Teresa should get laid, monogamy is not natural and was found to be sleeping around at seminary. This fracas gave the conservatives some legitimate ammo – this man shouldn’t have been a priest period regardless of his sexual ordination.
Bishops have been ordaining gay priests with the congregation’s knowledge for some time – we all knew about Rev. So and So and his or her “friend” but we didn’t talk about their private life in the same way we didn’t discuss married priests’ private lives.
Now you have the issue of “gay marriage.” The civil law here in the US is changing – one can actually get married in some states with other states scheduled to follow suit. And I am aware of priests who are willing to perform a subsequent blessing on these legal marriages. But right now, the Anglican communion is too divided to push this particular issue any further at this juncture – right now the US Episcopal Church is in the doghouse as they’ve failed to address any of the concerns raised in the Windsor Report. My prediction is they will get some kind of a spiritual spanking – the good news is that in this crisis, the church is broken enough that they are willing to listen to the UK Anglican emerging voices – there’s been some signs of hope over the past year that are very encouraging here.
I am not letting the conservatives off the hook by any means – just noting how they are baited over the years by the radical left – both bunches of bishops behave badly. (On a side note, we’ve had a major infusion of evangelical voices joining the Episcopal church as they are attracted to the liturgy not to mention the fact that the Episcopal Church is seen especially in the Southern states as being the church of the monied class. So, when say a Baptist wants to rise in the social ranks, they often join the Episcopal church. This presents another tricky dilemma as these folks are often clueless re: Episcopal polity).
Thanks Becky. You know, the comforting thing from all that controversy is that it is nothing new. And yet Christ’s Church, though it may limp along a bit from time to time, is still here 2000 years on. I have a feeling that, in the words of Julian of Norwich,”all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”
Haha i like the pink. I wouldn’t mind church being a bit more pink! heh. Maybe the other-than-gay-men would have something to learn from gay men? When it comes to feelings, emotions, etc… That’s what this ‘toon made me think anyway. What THE PINK spoke to me =) PS. have not read any single one of those 95 comments before mine!
pps. sorry if anyone feels i am stereotyping (either side of men
)
thanks stephanie.
Ohh wow now I’ve read most of the comments here..
subo @ 39 – Kite Runner the movie is one of my favourites, I thought it was awesome.
Regarding the hate sinner love the person Paul Wright got this awesome song “love more, judge less”
Jon : respects for allowing discussion and debate, that there is room also for disagreeing for us as christians, on this thing among other ones, not too often is there space for discussion but you are more given readymade answers for everything. I love discussion, not always ready answers.
And I agree you’ve got great blog though I may not always agree with everything!
I was slightly gendered in my earlier comment.. But I think the ‘toon hinted on that as well.. I loved the assumption of the pink!
Peace ‘n out – I am now.
I have nothing to add. I just want to be post #100
this is gaudete sunday gone bad. laetare sunday over the top.
and no, homosexuality, with or without intercourse, is not a sin. but now that there are same-sex unions, intercourse outside of those unions might be a sin, depending on what the agreements are within each relationship.
sin isn’t about the rules. it’s about the relationships.
respect, laura.
interesting, scott.
http://www.fitnrg.com is a calorie counting website that lets you track your workouts, activities, diet and weight, and has a large community of fitness minded members.
Fitnrg, are you saying that those pink outfits make those guys look fat??
Gosh, doncha love mindless spam?
I’ve read down all the comments and don’t think anyone has mentioned this story on BBC News: Scans see ‘gay brain differences’
I’m currently reading “A Generous Orthodoxy” by Brian McLaren. I wonder if it is also time for a generous theology and a generous interpretation of scripture?
After all, if you want to make the anti-women and anti-gay argument you do have to go looking through scripture to find your texts, yet if you want to make the grace, forgiveness, mercy and love argument you don’t have to look very hard at all.
i like what you’re saying chris.
The problem with things like news article Chris is that people find the results they want to see. Similar studies can be quoted in the opposite direction. This is the same problem with the theological argument. People can trawl through the bible in either direction to find the text that support a preconceived personal possition.