Does Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality Apply Today?

In my re-visitation of the topic of homosexuality, I decided to re-read Victor Paul Furnish's chapter on homosexuality in his book The Moral Teaching of Paul.(1) What resulted was another revision of my thinking on the issue, to include even more nuances. I found this passage particularly challenging, in which Furnish talks about the presuppositions of Paul and the first century mind:

First, it was commonly presupposed that all human beings are erotically attracted to the opposite sex. . . . [It was also] commonly presupposed that all homoerotic sex is against nature . . . because it violates the male's superior and dominant role in relation to the female. The reasoning was that a man who, like a woman, submits to penetration by another male is surrendering his manliness. . . . And sex between females was denounced because imitating the male's role amounted to a challenge of male superiority. . . . [It] was widely viewed as undermining the patriarchal and hierarchical structures of the political order and of society as a whole.

Finally, it was commonly presupposed that all homoerotic sex, consensual or not, is the wild raging of inordinate passions and lusts, the wanton indulgence of one's sexual appetite. . . . None of these presuppositions, and none of the stereotypes that went with them, has stood the test of time. [Because of more] than a century of research in the biological, social, and behavioral sciences . . . , the ancient presuppositions about sex and gender have been rendered obsolete.(2)

This understanding is supported by examples of ancient literature that Furnish provides. Philo said of male homosexual activity that it "forces the male type of nature to debase and convert itself into the feminine form, just to indulge a polluted and accursed passion."(3) He elsewhere described it by saying that men who engage in homoerotic activity "emasculate their bodies" because they "submit to play the part of the women."(4) With regard to female homosexual activity, Furnish provided a quote from Pseudo-Phocylides, who said, "let not women imitate the sexual role of men."(5)

We have to take into account the social constructs under which Paul operated, which included an assumption that natural attraction is towards one's opposite sex, that the proper order of society includes men acquiring women and women coming under men, and that homosexual behavior is a perversion of the natural order.

Because of these presuppositions, homosexual activity was considered perversion from a spirit of perversion, depravity from a spirit of depravity. I am inclined to deny that this idea applies to homosexuality as seen in our culture. Today, there are many people who have never had an attraction to the opposite sex but have only ever been attracted to their own sex. These people often seek a faithful and loving union with one person of their own sex. This is not the result of wild, untamed lust, but merely people following their own seemingly natural attractions.

Could it be that this particular teaching of Scripture does not perfectly represent God's opinion of homosexuality today? Could it be that homosexual activity, which was once thought to be wholly unclean, should now no longer be thought of as such, just like the Gentiles in the early church? After all, the person considered unclean in the story of the good Samaritan was the one who represented Christ. 

These are not easy questions to answer.

For more on this issue, see my blog, "Is Homosexuality Sinful?" (here)

Notes:
(1) Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009).
(2) Ibid., 90-91.
(3) Quoted in Ibid., 68.
(4) Quoted in Ibid., 69.
(5) Quoted in Ibid., 68.

Maybe we deserve persecution

Christianity on a massive scale has embodied a message of alienation. I don’t think Christians throughout America are being persecuted; but if we are, might we deserve it?

If I’m going to be persecuted, I want it to be because I minister Christ’s message of reconciliation to the world.

I don’t want to be persecuted because I demand my right to alienate people.

Christians, stop dehumanizing homosexuals! Stop dehumanizing people!

Jesus gave us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18) and entrusted to us the message of reconciliation (v.19). He did not give us the ministry of reconciliation and entrust to us the message of alienation!

Do for others what Jesus did for you. Love so as to inspire transformation.

Don't you realize that you have not only alienated most homosexuals, pushing them so far away from the church, along with many of their supporters, but now helpless children are suffering because of it?

Go on WorldVision.org. Flip through the pictures of the children that don't have sponsors, and then tell me your self-righteous stance on homosexuality is worth it.

"Whoever receives one child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matt. 18:5-6

"When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gay and lesbian people helping to provide that aid, something’s very, very wrong." - Rachel Held Evans

I say, when Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gay and lesbian people helping to provide that aid, then maybe we deserve to be persecuted.
 

Reflections on Coming Out and Walking Away from Christianity

My friend Cory recently came out to his friends and family, something I'm ashamed to say I did not see coming. With this, he announced that he no longer considers himself a Christian, which is something I did see coming. When I asked people recently what makes them doubt Christianity, Cory sent me this, which is posted here with his permission. Cory is a very dear friend of mine, and I am glad I know him a little better now. What follows are his reflections after honestly wrestling with Christianity and with his sexual orientation. His words offer something to all of us.
__________

Let me begin by clarifying the subjectivity of what’s to follow. It seems silly to have to clarify such a thing because the only way we can know and experience anything is subjectively, but I know some of the things I am going to say may sound like semi-sweeping claims that will definitely ruffle some feathers. Therefore, I want you to understand that I am speaking from what I have seen, heard, and experienced up to this point in my life. The fact that you may disagree with some opinions is your right and subjective circumstance, but the fact that you cannot relate (or refuse to) does not make things any less real or important. That being said, here we go.

My life growing up in the church has never been marked by any drastic events or circumstances like some stories you’ve heard. My parents have never wanted anything but the best for me and raised me in the best way they knew possible, and I am deeply grateful for everything they taught me and it is ultimately because of them that I value many of the things I do today. I had a great group of friends and leaders at my church. I also had the privilege of being part of what you might call the “in” crowd of kids whose families I liked to compare to “dynasties” within our church. Suffice to say, most everyone knew me or knew my last name. I played in the high school worship band for 3 years, went to camps, was a leader at camps, and went on one mission trip. I was definitely your typical church kid.

Of course, I had my ups and downs faith-wise during high school, and I went to Mars Hill Church (lead by the notorious Mark Driscoll) for a little over 3 years as well. The music there was (and still is) really good and there’s no denying Driscoll’s oratory talent. Although I never got actively involved at MH, I eagerly attended every Sunday and greatly enjoyed what I understood as strong, unswerving, Biblical teaching. Transitioning into college and still coming out of a sort of religious stupor of not going to church, I decided to leave church out altogether during my freshmen year. I dabbled in partying and the like and generally enjoyed meeting new people and learning new things. However, I chose to start attending church again sophomore year, this time a very small one made up of young couples and college students. The church also happened to be part of the church planting network started by Mars Hill, so the teaching and atmosphere felt very much the same except 1/50 of the size. I began leading worship again and attending weekly small group meetings and found myself back in full church-swing.

But towards the end of sophomore year, I had a sudden, startling realization from reading Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. The controversial theology in his book aside, the thing that got to me was the extreme lack of questioning in the church I was attending and my experience with Christianity in general. Bell’s book, more than anything else, suggests the simple of question of “how do you know?” So many ideas such as inerrancy, predestination, truth, faith, etc, were all taken at face value, and I never met someone at this church or Mars Hill who was willing to ask basic, obvious questions. The real deal breaker for me was the Calvinism, specifically predestination, present in my church and Mars Hill. This piece would be oh so much longer if I wanted to go down the long and twisted path of my deep seated (I’ll admit) hatred and loathing for such doctrine openly espoused by those such as Driscoll and John Piper.

Ultimately though, I had a major problem with what Lutheran theologian and sociologist Peter Berger calls a “lack of epistemological modesty.” For those of you who don’t know, epistemology is the study of knowledge. Basically, how do we know what we know? Christians claim they know from the Bible, but knowing in itself has never been certain. What I came to realize is that what most Christians mean by “I believe” isn’t really a belief at all. It’s a truth claim, which in philosophical and scientific terms, is extremely bold and tricky. I would say that claiming to know the truth itself is impossible in this reality, but that’s a whole other philosophical conversation. The root of the issue for me lies in how the majority of the Christians that I know treat the Bible and so many other doctrines, theologies, morals, etc, as if there is no denying their authenticity.

In reality, as I said at the beginning, subjectivity is at the heart of all these matters. You may believe that objective truth exists, but your belief that it exists and what exactly it is is subjective. The fact that so many different groups within Christianity alone drastically differ in so many ways is proof of the subjectivity that bind people to certain groups and ideologies over others. Within your own group, it’s easy to look out from the inside and wonder how others can’t recognize their faults. I am as guilty of this as the next Christian too. As a result, it’s easy for the organized church and its teachings to treat the world as objective and ignore the literal billions of unique lives out there. It’s easy to view the world over as just masses of sinners needing salvation, but when you start to look at each individual, there is so much history. Good, bad, hurt, tragedy, all kinds of shit. With an objective world-view, you lose the individual, and everything becomes a mass of symbolism and ideology rather than human beings who deserve personal, careful attention.

All these things have been especially true for me. All through high school, I knew in the back of my mind that I was gay. I recognized I had this attraction, but refused to acknowledge or think about it. There was just no way in hell it would work for me to take it seriously or come out when I was still at my old church, a part of an all-guys small group, leading worship, and going to Mars Hill. Of course, back then I still thought the whole thing was wrong, a sin, etc. I almost thought maybe this was just some temporary thing that would go away eventually somehow. Going away to college and distancing myself from all of that made my orientation even more apparent to me, but I still chose to ignore it.

Finally, after graduating in June of 2013, I went home for a week and saw lots of old friends. Being around them and knowing I thought differently about so many things, religious and otherwise, made things so frustrating. With almost every friend I met up with, I wanted to just unload everything I thought now onto them. On top of that, I was becoming more and more uncomfortable basically living a lie any time the question of girlfriends and such was brought up. At the end of my stay at home, I almost told my parents then and there, but decided to wait. A couple weeks later I told my oldest brother first, and then from there I let each of my family members know. It was the most awkward thing I have ever done.

Thankfully, no one responded in anger, as is the case with many stories I’ve heard of people coming from Christian families. My parents were definitely shocked and saddened though. The main thing I want them and all my friends to understand is that I am still the same person. This doesn’t mean that I am going to become flamboyant all of a sudden. Heck, after telling one of my friends, he responded later by saying “you’re one of the manliest people I know!” This is just how I am, and I’m still no different.

Now many Christians, including many I grew up with, would respond to that by saying something along the lines of “but you don’t have to be that way” or “God can help you not live that lifestyle” or whatever. If I believed the same things, I could try to not live the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means), but I’d like the Christians who’d say that to truly consider what that means. It’s easy for straight people to say it, but imagine if you weren’t allowed or encouraged to be with the kind of person you’re naturally attracted to? Is it possible for you to forget ideology for a moment and actually imagine what that would be like? If you wanted to be honest with this idea, you’d be single for the rest of your life and not be allowed something that so many other people gladly celebrate.

In all honesty, I think that is a bullshit answer to something that you don’t understand and will never be able to so don’t put on an air of acting like you understand and know that it’s hard, etc., because you don’t. I used to think that I was destined to be single before when I didn’t find myself attracted to women. I’m a naturally independent person, so this idea didn’t bother me too much at first. But now that I’ve accepted this part of me and am perfectly fine with it, I’m really interested in and excited at the prospect of having such a relationship with someone.

You can argue all day about whether or not people like me can be born this way or develop an orientation.  All I know is that this is how I am. You can say that “well I’m naturally prideful” or “jealous” or “vain” or whatever “and that’s my ‘struggle’ just as being attracted to men is yours,” and I will once again call bullshit. You have these categories and ideologies of right and wrong that you attempt to fit around everything, but carefully consider orientation with me for a second. While I realize that the theology of this idea has some grey area and is not the strict dichotomy that I create here, but I think it still lends greater perspective and complexity to the issue.

If God is the God of strict Calvinism and predestination (aka determining everything we do before we do it), then God predestined me to be gay (this is also assuming that people can be gay from birth in the first place which I realize some people still believe to be an impossibility, but that issue aside because I don’t think there’s even a remotely solid Biblical argument to support that in the first place). I didn’t have a choice in the matter and this is just how I am. Basically, I was screwed from the start. On the other hand, if God is not the God of predestination and does not necessarily control everything, then I am gay just because that’s what happened. God left it up to the random selection of biology, a mutated gene or whatever. But this idea is hardly any less troubling than the predestination option because I am left with the explanation of “welp, this is just how the cards were dealt, sorry!”

Either way, I am left in a Christian society dominated by the idea that homosexuality is wrong and not having a clear theological answer for how I ended up this way. I could try to deny this part of myself and live a life that others and their God think is right, but that would be forcing myself to believe in something (the Bible, doctrines, etc) that I have strong logical and philosophical problems with. It would be forcing myself to believe (putting aside the fact that I do not consider my orientation to be a “belief” or “choice”) that objective, ultimate truth is knowable in this world, and that is something I cannot do. Why? I’ll give you nearly 7 billion reasons why.

If there is one, most important thing that this whole coming out process has taught me it is that you do not know people as well as you think. No one knew that I was gay up until this point in my life, and that is a huge part of someone. It shouldn’t define anyone, never the less it means that many of my friends who find out are going to be shocked because they thought they knew me so well.  As a result, I now try to look at everyone I know as supremely unique individuals with complex histories and events that have made them who they are today, and that is all they know, all they can know. In the same way, I am only what I have experienced and my knowledge is limited to that. This does not mean that people can’t change or don’t need to change, far from it, but it does mean that we, as individuals, are extremely limited in our ability to make objective claims about anything.

Which brings me back around to my biggest problem with the churches I have attended up to this point in my life and the type of Christianity I have encountered, and that is a lack of epistemological modesty and humility. Church leaders like Driscoll and many others insist on the full-proof, Biblical, God-given authority of what they say and act like it is fact. Its historical accuracy aside, there is no way to know if the Bible is actually the word of God. There is no way to know so many things. You may say, “but that’s why you have to have faith!” Have faith? In what? That you’re right and everyone else is wrong? This sounds more like a way of ignoring all the things that could threaten what you currently believe and leave you feeling less sure than you’d prefer. (Granted, everyone, religious or not, chooses to think thousands of different ways about everything, and to do so requires varying levels of arrogance and ignorance.)

For me, I choose to be what you might call an agnostic (but it’s more complicated than that) and accept ambiguity and uncertainty, and not because I am afraid to commit to any particular belief or simply don’t want to, but because I value people too much. I want to respect and understand people too much to label them Christian, non-Christian, atheist, Muslim, gay, straight, whatever. As reality stands now and our ability to understand anything beyond it, others are the most real thing we can know. I still believe God exists, but as to how God thinks everything should be or what should not be, that is ultimately speculation. The person standing in front of you, however, is not speculation. They are real and their issues, interests, needs, joys, etc, are real and all deserve to be understood. I am real and deserve to be understood and not labeled as “gay,” “church drop-out,” or “non-believer.” That is the difference between being subjective and objective.

Is Homosexuality Sinful?

Does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin?

There are 5 references relevant to this discussion: Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Tim. 1:10; 1 Cor. 6:9; and Rom. 1:26–27. I will briefly go over each of these and then try to establish a conclusion.

Lev. 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

For Jacob Milgrom, it is quite clear what these verses are saying: "the Bible allows for no exceptions; all acts of sodomy are prohibited."(1) Victor Paul Furnish, on the other hand, raises some questions:

No consideration is given to what the circumstances or character of a male same-sex relationship might be. Is it consensual? Has one party, perhaps an adult male, forced himself on the other, perhaps a boy? Has one party purchased the sexual favors of the other? Nor is consideration given to whether the relationship is good or just or loving.(2)

Terence Fretheim observes that people in that time had

developed a habit of sexually abusing strangers who came into town to demonstrate who was in charge. If such violence against strangers is the concern that led to the laws in Leviticus, this would help explain why the punishment--death--for such behavior (Leviticus 20: 13) was so severe. It may also help explain why only male-male behaviors are forbidden.(3) 

Furnish, however, suggests that the phrasing of the verses implies that "male same-sex intercourse violates the honor of both partners; the penetrated male dishonors himself by submitting as only a female should submit, and the penetrating male dishonors himself by dominating another male."(4)

I think Fretheim's view is valid, but as we can see it is complicated by the specific wording of the verses. However, cultural context is key to understanding these verses. If the only form of homosexuality known to the ancient Hebrews was of an oppressive kind, would the wording be different? To me, there is no clear choice between Fretheim's view and that of Furnish.

One's conclusion here is also complicated by the New Testament's transformation of a lot of Hebrew Bible laws. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an example of a teaching that was nullified by the truth of Christ. It should also be considered that Gentiles were among those deemed unclean in the ancient Hebrew ideology as well. In Acts, the Christian community has to learn that those who were once thought to be unclean are no longer to be regarded as such. Could homosexuality be a similar case? For a clearer understanding, we must look elsewhere. 

1 Tim. 1:9-10: the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient . . . the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality . . .

1 Cor. 6:9: the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God . . . neither the sexually immoral . . . nor male prostitutes, nor men who practice homosexuality.

I am discussing these verses together because they use the same Greek word: arsenokoitai. Gordon Fee provides that this word is "a compound of ‘male’ and . . . [a] vulgar slang for ‘intercourse’" and is rarely used in the literature of the time.(5) "What is not certain," he says, "is whether ‘male’ is subject (= ‘males who have intercourse’; for male prostitutes of all kinds) or object (= ‘intercourse with males’; therefore male homosexual)."(6) Rubin Scroggs and John Boswell believe the former to be the more probable.(7) Thus, they conclude that this word does not refer to homosexual behavior, but male prostitution, specifically (at least for Scroggs) the prostitution of young boys.(8)

1 Cor. 6:9 uses another word, however, that is relevant here: malakoi. Fee states that this word most likely refers to "the younger, ‘passive’ partner in a pederastic relationship—the most common form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world."(9) He states further that it is difficult to put a finger on what exactly the word is supposed to mean in this context, but he believes 'male prostitute' is the best guess.(10) Furnish recognizes this as a possibility, stating that we could "take malakoi as a reference to ‘male prostitutes’ (e.g., NRSV) and arsenokoitai as a reference to males who pay to have sex with them. But it is equally possible, and probably better, to take the words as referring, respectively, to the ‘receptive’ and ‘aggressive’ males in any homoerotic encounter."(11)

As far as these verses are concerned, it is not clear whether homosexuality is forbidden or if they are referring to male prostitution. Therefore, our conclusion cannot be made here and we must now venture to the most significant reference to homosexuality in Scripture.

Rom. 1:26–27: women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Douglas Moo provides that, "Paul generally uses the word ‘nature’ to describe the way things are by reason of their intrinsic state or birth, and in these cases there is no clear reference to divine intention."(12) However, he adds that,

In keeping with the biblical and Jewish worldview, the heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced to God’s creative intent. Sexual sins that are ‘against nature’ are also, then, against God, and it is this close association that makes it probable that Paul’s appeal to ‘nature’ in this verse includes appeal to God’s created order. Confirmation can be found in the context.

Thus, when Paul says that same-sex relations are contrary to nature, he is saying that they are contrary to the way God intended things to be. James D. G. Dunn echoes this understanding, stating that Paul’s use of nature meant, "to live in harmony with the natural order and its divine rationality."(13) Joseph Fitmzyer agrees, saying that Paul’s understanding of homosexuality is that it "is a way in which human beings refuse to acknowledge the manifestation of God’s activity in creation," because ‘nature’ refers to "the order that is manifest in God’s creation or . . . the order seen in the function of sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of children."(14)

Furnish thinks this reading is the most accurate considering the context. He states that Paul "apparently found same-sex intercourse to be an especially apt illustration of the moral confusion to which idolatry leads: when the creature has been exchanged for the Creator (v. 23) and the truth about God has been exchanged for a lie (v. 25), who can be surprised that ‘natural intercourse’ will be exchanged for ‘unnatural’ (vv. 26-27)?"(15)

On the other end, Scroggs believes that Paul here is referring to pederasty and that the example of homosexuality in Paul’s day bears no resemblance to "the model aspired to by the gay community today."(16) He suggests that the word ‘unnatural’ could have been chosen because of the apparent injustice in pederasty: "Perhaps he was impressed by the lack of mutuality, the physical and emotional humiliation suffered by youths who were forced into slavery or who accepted the degradation of the prostitute."(17)

However, Scroggs’ reading is not likely. Dunn states that, "Paul’s indictment seems to include all kinds of homosexual practice."(18) Fitzmyer agrees, stating that, "Paul is clearly referring here to the conduct of active male homosexual persons and is merely echoing the OT abomination of such homosexual activity."(19)

Application

After thoroughly reviewing these passages, I must conclude that the teaching of Scripture is that homosexuality is not what God intended for humanity, and so I am compelled to lean towards that understanding. While I resist making an unwavering, concrete stance on this issue, I will continue to [hesitantly] recognize homosexuality as a diversion from God's created order, because that is what Scripture teaches.

In any case, we have seen that these verses are not as clear as they are made out to be, and this issue in Scripture is a very minor one compared to others. At the very least, practicing homosexuality or believing that homosexuality isn't sinful are not damnable. Scripture shows us that God is used to stooping to humanity's level, accommodating for the sake of the relationship. God knows better than anyone what all people go through, and, empathetic towards us, his grace abounds and can and will cover a multitude of sin and deception for all of us. As Richard Hays says,

Can a soldier be a Christian? Probably so, but my understanding of the gospel requires me to urge that person to renounce the way of violence and to follow Jesus in the way of costly refusal of violence as a means to justice. . . . Just as there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe in just war theory, so there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe that same-sex erotic activity is consonant with God's will.(20)

Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:25), but that doesn't mean all people who accumulate wealth and indulge in lavish living should be alienated from the Christian community and are banned from the kingdom of heaven. "All things are possible with God," Jesus said (v.27).

That being said, I do think gay Christians need to be open to the possibility that homosexual activity is sinful. As hard as thought would be to come to terms with, at the end of the day Christianity is a commitment to selflessness. God’s nature is revealed in Christ’s kenosis, his self-emptying:

    Though he was in the form of God,
    he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    but made himself nothing,
    taking the form of a bond-servant,
    being born in the likeness of men.
    And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death,
    even death on a cross!
    Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name
    Phil. 2:6–9

This is the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and since Christianity is about engaging their embrace and participating with them, we are called to be of the same nature (v. 5). We must be self-emptying and self-sacrificing. We must demean our own desires. This does not mean that we should never pursue things that we desire, but we should never let our desires lead us, for that is idolatry

It would be sinful for me to pursue another woman after committing myself to my wife, no matter what my desires told me to do. Woody Allen said, "The heart wants what it wants." This is true, but as Christians we are called not to be bound to what our hearts wants, and we all have things in our inherent nature that we must deny for the sake of the kingdom of God.

So how should Christians approach this issue?

First of all, Christians must approach it with empathy. I cannot imagine how hard it would be if someone told me that my attraction to my wife is sinful and I need to either change my sexual orientation or commit to celibacy. We have to recognize that most homosexuals have had an attraction to their own sex for as long as they can remember. We have to imagine being in their position and we have to come to understand how hard it would be for them to embrace self-denial and celibacy.

I think part of the problem is our social construct of a reproductive temporality, in which it is basically assumed that getting married and starting a family is just what one does in life. This mindset is heavily engrained in the modern church, but it is not Scriptural. Many of the Bible's key players, including Paul, didn't get married and have families, and as Hays says, "1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 25-40, commends celibacy as an option for everyone."(21) Henri Nouwen, a devout Christian who struggled with homosexuality all his life, even believed that celibacy is a gift.(22)

Sexuality and reproduction in our culture are raised to a level of importance that is not shared by Scripture. Part of dealing with the church's approach to homosexuality will be shedding our expectations that women will become wives and mothers and men will become husbands and fathers. Due to this, celibacy in our culture is dominantly viewed as strange. Being single when over 30 years old is considered a problem, as "it is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). A culture that sees celibacy as strange or against God's will cannot expect gay people to embrace celibacy, for celibacy in our culture is in itself alienating (for example, a single person hanging out with a couple is a "third wheel"). So, we offer two options to homosexuals: be outside the church and be alienated by it as the people of the church condemn you for your sin, or be inside the church and experience alienation because of your celibacy.

We must shed our family/reproductive social construct, with our expectations for people to grow up, get married and have kids. Removing this obstacle will take some of the pressure off of those who are attracted to their own sex (as well as others who cannot or don't want to get married and start a family), as they are essentially trapped in a queer temporality (in which one cannot reproduce). If we are to encourage celibacy for homosexuals, we need to create an environment in which celibacy is not so unusual, and we need to stop discouraging celibacy in general.

Thirdly, we need to stop focusing on standing against homosexuals in the gay marriage debate (I have written on this several times; the collection of my thoughts on the matter can be found here).

Also essential is that if we do regard homosexual activity as sinful, we should not self-righteously condemn it over and above other sins, especially if we aren’t willing to condemn our own sins in the same manner, and also because the Bible condemns many other sins much more than homosexual behavior (selfish accumulation of wealth, for example).

Just read Romans 2:1. Immediately after describing the sinful state of humanity, where the passage about homosexuality resides, Paul says, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." It is a horrendous tragedy what many homosexuals have been put through because of certain Christians.

Another vital step is to lovingly embracing homosexuals with open arms. If we say homosexual activity is sinful, we still can't pressure homosexuals to change immediately. We should encourage them to walk with the Lord, and then trust God to help them along the way. The way of Jesus is a mustard seed transformation from the inside out. We shouldn't give homosexuals an ultimatum ("change or leave"), and we shouldn't expect to "love the gay out of them." Most Christian homosexuals will struggle with homosexuality their entire lives.

Hays suggests that it might help if one thought of homosexuality the way one thinks of alcoholism:

a considerable body of evidence suggests that some people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism. Once exposed to alcohol, they experience an attraction so powerful that it can be counteracted only by careful counseling, community support, and total abstinence.(23)

But most important is that we should ask Jesus how to approach them. Let Jesus and his example determine the way you embrace homosexuals. If he wants to use you as an instrument in the transformation of a homosexual, then he will make it known to you. Otherwise, as far as Christian homosexuals are concerned, know that we are all in this Christian walk together, and remember your own sins as you walk with them.

UPDATE: I have recently developed further reflections on this issue; please read my new blog "Does Paul's Teaching on Homosexuality Apply Today?" (click here)

For further reading, I highly recommend the follow chapters:
Victor Paul Furnish, “Homosexuality?” in The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 55–93.
Richard B. Hays, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins: New York, 1996), 379-406.

Notes:
(1) Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, Vol. 3A of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright, and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1566.
(2) Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 62.
(3) Terence Fretheim, 2001, "The Old Testament and Homosexuality: What is God doing?" The Lutheran, p. 54.
(4) Furnish, 63.
(5) Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 244.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 107, and John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 345.
(8) Scroggs, 116.
(9) Fee, 243. Scroggs states, “There was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which would come to mind”—that is, pederasty. See p. 116. This, however, is not true. As Fee notes, it was simply the most common.
(10) Fee, 244.
(11) Furnish, 80.
(12) Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 115.
(13) James. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Vol. 38A of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1982), 64, emphasis mine.
(14) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright, and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 276, 286.
(15) Furnish, 87.
(16) Scroggs, 109.
(17) Ibid., 117.
(18) Dunn, 65.
(19) Fitzmyer, 288.
(20) Richard B. Hays, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins: New York, 1996), 401.
(21) Ibid.
(22) See Michael Ford, The Wounded Prophet: A Portrait of Henri J.M. Nouwen (Doubleday: New York, 1999), 141.
(23) Hays, "Homosexuality," 398.

Blessed are the Persecuted: Responding to Skeptics

After posting the previous blog (here), I received the same objection from several people. Thus, I would like to respond to it formally.

I stated that if it really came down to persecution of Christians or persecution of homosexuals, it would be the most Christ-like response for we Christians to choose our own.

The main objection I got goes something like this:

By standing against homosexuality, we are not persecuting them, but are rather declaring God’s truth, that they are sinning. Furthermore, we must be the responsible citizens who are going to stand up and fight for truth. It has nothing to do with persecution.

(If I could state it better, let me know and I’ll alter my wording)

You may not think it is persecution, but it is persecution in the eyes of homosexuals and of millions of others.

Sure, you could say that we are supposed to present the truth and they can call it what they like, but you’d be missing the point of ministry, and missing the point of God’s truth.

Would a good minister disregard how he/she comes across to those he/she is ministering to?

Paul knew the importance of presenting the Gospel in a way in which his audience could understand and appreciate (Acts 17:16–34).

Furthermore, Christ came to save sinners with his love, not to condemn them into following him.

I was watching a documentary about homosexuality and the church, and in it there was a real story of a Christian mother who found out her daughter was a lesbian. The mother was devastated and told the daughter that, though she would never stop loving her, she could never accept that and would always hate it about her (like “love the sinner, hate the sin”). This mother, in her eyes, was just telling her daughter God’s truth.

A few months later, her daughter committed suicide.
When I got to that part of the story, I couldn't help but cry. And I know Jesus also cried.

We have to learn how to better minister to homosexuals. We have to learn that the way so many Christians adamantly stand against homosexuality makes homosexuals feel persecuted.

When we put up our signs that say “Homosexuality is an abomination,” we are, in their eyes, persecuting them. Doing this will not only cause many to reject God completely, but it can and does make people feel horrible.

This is not at all what Christ looked like.

Not only did Jesus dine with sinners, but they were drawn to him! There was something about him they wanted to pursue.

This drove the Pharisees crazy, because they sought to be moral guardians. They were the ones standing against others because of their sin.

Christ knew how ineffective and unloving this was. Christ was someone who stood with sinners, not against them. 

Furthermore, Paul said, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside of the Church?” (1 Cor. 5:12).

If it isn’t our business to judge the sins of those who are outside the Church, why are we making it our business?

Christianity shouldn't inspire someone to commit suicide.
Christianity should be marked by a salvific, transforming love that inspires people to become disciples of the beautiful Christ.
For that to happen, we need to get rid of our moral guardian mindsets and stop making it our business to judge the sins of others.

Our job is to love sinners like Christ, and love is patient and kind, not jealous, not boastful, not proud, not self-seeking, not easily angered.
Love does not delight in evil, and nor does love keep a record of sins.
Rather, Love rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres; and it never fails.

We should be focusing more on practicing these qualities towards sinners than trying to make their sins illegal (especially if we’re not willing to make our own sins illegal).

Blessed are the Persecuted: A brief note on Christians and Gay Marriage

"God will judge us not on how much we endured, but on how much we could love"

- Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ

A large number of Conservative Christians today believe that if gay marriage is legalized, it will be the beginning of the end of Christian liberty.
It will lead to persecution of Christians, including the prohibition of saying that homosexuality is a sin.
Though I doubt that it will be anywhere near that drastic, let’s say they’re correct and it will be.

If I had to choose between being persecuted as a Christian, or finding out about another homosexual committing suicide because of persecution, I would choose my own persecution!

If it really came down to our persecution or theirs, it would be the most Christ-like response to choose ours.

Though Christ was equal to God in nature, he emptied himself completely, made himself nothing, became a human servant, and then became obedient to death. And for this he was exalted. (Phil. 2:6-11)

We should seek to be like Christ (v.5).
We should be self-emptying, self-sacrificing, and other-focused.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition” (v.3). The Greek word for ‘selfish ambition’ denotes one who demands his own rights.
“Let your benevolence be evident to all!” (4:5). The Greek word for ‘benevolence’ denotes one who does not care about his own rights.

Rather than demanding our own rights, we should forget about ourselves and focus on the rights and interests and needs of others (2:3-4).
In our lives, we should look like Christ dying on the cross to transform people with infinite, salvific love.
Even if that means sacrificing our religious liberty and accepting persecution!

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when people persecute you and insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you on account of me.
Rejoice and be glad! Your reward in Heaven is great, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” - Matt. 5:10-12

Stop! In the Name of Love! A Christian Response to Gay Marriage

Ever since President Obama officially came out in favor of gay marriage, the topic has gone viral. I have seen a lot of articles recently about homosexuality from a lot of different places, including many Christian sources that have said that it is not against Scripture's teaching.

The purpose of this post is not to argue for or against it. My purpose is to answer this question: What should be the church's response to homosexuals and to gay marriage?

My position in this matter can be summed up by saying that I don't think the church's message can be "Stop gays!" and "Love gays!" at the same time.

We must choose one. Why? Because if the church is loudly trying to stop homosexuals from doing what they want to do, it is going to create a divide between the two.
There cannot be a divide between the church and sinners.

Now let me clarify. I think Christians themselves can be against gay marriage--that is their right.
[I understand that it does not work this, but] if it came down to a vote in which the nation would decide whether or not to grant homosexuals the privilege to get married, Christians should be able to vote against it. And I am not saying they shouldn't. I am speaking of the church as a whole.

If whole churches--or large groups of Christians representing Christ--attended a rally against homosexuality, it would destroy the opportunity they have to minister to the homosexuals at hand.
The LGBT community needs to become aware of the fact that Christ loves them with a love that is beyond understanding and he so desires to be in relationship with them.

They cannot be opened up to that realization when those representing Christ are emphatically standing against them.

The church in this situation should be trying to win their hearts for Christ. The church should be trying to reveal to them the love of Christ.

That being said, I do understand the importance of living a pure, Christ-like life. Do I think homosexuality is sinful? Yes I do. But sanctification begins with Christ's love. As it has been said by many, God loves all of us just the way we are, but so much that he won't let us stay this way. It is our job to introduce the lost to that love. "They will know we are Christians by our love!"

We do not win their hearts with a law that says they cannot get married. And we definitely don't win their hearts by standing against them so adamantly!

What is our focus? Winning hearts for Christ? Or imposing our moral values on a whole nation?

What is more important: stopping gays from getting married or captivating them with the love of Christ?

We have to choose which message we will give to our nation. And, as ambassadors for Christ, we must prefer to show them God's love.
That is what Christ would do.
That is what Christ did.

Was Christ interested in establishing laws based on his moral standards?
Or was he interested in revealing his love to the lost?

Don't you think he would dine with homosexuals?
If you don't, you need to read the gospels again.

Was Christ interested in convicting the unbelieving sinner of his sin?
Or was he interested in transforming hearts with his unconditional love?

He wanted all people to follow him, regardless of the sinful state in which they lived.
And he never once required someone to change before  following him.
He fed thousands before preaching to them. He met their needs and then taught them the truth.
It's useless to try and convince someone he is sinning when he doesn't believe in the Bible.
It is only after we win his heart for Christ that we can convict him. At that point, not only will he recognize his sinful nature, but he will desire God's will for his life.

The church's message should be 

"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters;
and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost." - (Isa. 55:1)

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt. 11:28)

Church, Stop! In the name of love, and LOVE in the name of Christ!
You must stop breaking the hearts of the lost with your messages of separation and discrimination, and you must begin to captivate their hearts with Christ's love.
In our actions toward homosexuals, we should look like Christ dying on the cross to transform their lives.
Then--and only then--can we bring them the message "Stop! In the name of love, and live in the name of Christ!"

Christianity, Politics, and King Josiah's Reform

In ancient Israel, King Josiah initiated his famous religious reform as the collapse of Assyria assured freedom for Judah. Around this time, in 622 B.C.E., the temple law book was found. The finding of the law book gave direction to the King's reform. C. Hassell Bullock observes that the "early years of religious reform were marked by renewed hope for Judah, and the discovery of the scroll of the law in 622/21 reinforced and abetted the renewal."(1) This reform did a lot of good for Judah, but, as John Bright observes, it "produced no profound change in the national character."(2)

The prophet Jeremiah accepted his prophetic call the same year the temple law book was found. It is not clear what exactly Jeremiah thought about the reform, but the best explanation I have found is from Bright. He concludes that, though he did not participate in the reform, Jeremiah was in favor of it. However, Jeremiah did not formulate his opinion concerning the spiritual state of Israel merely on the fact that an official reform initiated by the king was taking place. Indeed, that would never satisfy Jeremiah. He would only be satisfied by “a sincere and heartfelt repentance, an inner change in the national character, a wholesale turning on the part of the people to loyal obedience to Yahweh—and this the reform did not produce.”(3)

King Josiah's reform was a good thing, but the people of Israel needed more than a legislative reform. They had sin written on their hearts (Jer. 17:1). No law of man could change that. The reform they needed could only be initiated by God. They needed Him to heal their incurable wound (30:17) and create in them new hearts with His law written inside (31:33).

So many Christians today want King Josiah's reform more than the reform of which the prophets spoke.

Our nation needs more than legislature imposing Christian moral values on all people. Our nation needs more than a law that says homosexuals cannot get married. Our nation needs more than a monument of the Ten Commandments in every school in the country.

The people in our nation need a thorough reform of the soul. They need God to change them from the inside out. They need the gospel. They need the love of Christ to be expressed to them in the deepest way.

Christians today are too busy fighting for moral laws, getting offended by what people do and say, and kicking & screaming every time people make a move away from Christianity.

Why do people move away from Christianity?
Intolerance? Narrow-mindedness? Hypocrisy? Rejection? A lack of love?

Surely none of them would leave because of an exposure to too much love!

Even if Christians could claim power over our nation and establish moral laws that line up with Christianity, would it even be a good idea?
Can you give me a situation in church history when it was a good idea?

How about Calvin's Geneva? Under Calvin, the city council decided that Servetus deserved to die for denying the doctrine of the trinity.
How about Zwingli? He and the city council sentenced thousands upon thousands of Anabaptists to death by drowning simply because they believed that infant baptism isn't biblical.
How about the Roman Catholic Church? Need I say more about it?

Maybe power isn't what Christianity should be fighting for.

Instead of asking how we can help put Christianity in power, maybe we should ask how we can love people.
We need to change this nation from the inside out, not from the outside in with laws establishing our Christian values.
In our country, we should look like Jesus dying on the cross to transform lives.
We should not look like a bunch of angry citizens fighting to "re-establish" a "Christian nation".

The Greek word used for ministry is διακονίᾳ (diakonia) and it means “waiting a table.” It also carries the meaning, “‘discharge of service’ in genuine love”—service being “all significant activity for the edification of the community."(4) Christ is the bread of life (Jn. 6:35) and the Word of God (1:1). Ministry is the act of serving the Word of God to the world. We are to be waiters and waitresses serving the bread of life to our tables—our communities. How do we do that? LOVE  
The world will know we are Christians by our love! (John 13:35)

Notes:

(1) C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 192. 

(2) John Bright, Jeremiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), XXVII

(3) Ibid., XCIV.

(4) Herman W. Beyer, “διακονία,” in Vol. 2 of TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub Co, 1964), 87–88.