Being Gay and Christian...is this possible?

[ghendricks63]

[I hope this isn't a duplicate. I thought I had posted it, but it didn't how up.]


I'd like to look at Rom 1 again. I've seen, here and elsewhere, a claim that Paul was only speaking of heterosexuals.

First, the passage isn't about homosexuality. It's about idolatry. Hence Paul doesn't speak very explicitly about homosexuality. He just takes it for granted that we see something negative about it. That's one thing that leaves the passage open for multiple interpretations.

Second, it looks to me like he's speaking of the culture as a whole. Because they don't believe in God, pagans are subject to all kind of sinful and abusive behavior. This is one of them (but the one he seems most upset about). From the point of view of pure logic, he could say what he did even if he thought there were a few people who are naturally homosexual.

But since he isn't talking specifically about homosexuality, we have to read between the lines. And when you move from an unnaturally legalistic reading to seeing what the passage says about his assumptions, his statement sure doesn't sound to me someone who thinks homosexuality is OK as long as it involves people who are naturally homosexual. To the contrary, I believe he takes it for granted that natural relations are heterosexual and anything else is contrary to God's design.

For me the real problem is that we're trying to push Paul to speak on issues he didn't speak about. He isn't speaking about homosexuality. He's speaking about paganism. But he does refer to it as an obvious evil. In principle, we don't know what he would say if confronted with Christians who are living an otherwise ordinary Christian life, but with gay sex. It's a situation I'd say he had never thought about.

When the evidence is unclear, it becomes more important than usual to approach the issue objectively, with good judgement. I think the usual interpretation is compromised by the obvious bias of most of the people making it. I would be more sympathetic to someone who says "while Paul isn't speaking directly about homosexuality, his comments are sufficiently negative that we have to assume he thinks it's wrong." However when people treat it as a sin much more serious than ones that are mentioned much more clearly, and deny that there's any ambiguity, I think it's clear that we have influences at work other than sola Scriptura. Now good arguments are accepted even from people who are wrongly motivated. But when it comes down to a matter of judgement, it becomes more relevant whether someone shows signs of good judgement.

Aside from irrational components, it is clear that differences in Scriptural interpretation are a key here. If you think God guarantees every word, with no room for the authors to be writing from the perspective of their culture, you'll follow any verbal hint of an answer. In that case, it's natural that you would say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you are willing to make allowance for the cultural context of the discussion, you'll be more open. Of course everyone takes the second point of view on a lot of issues, which is why I find the so-called literal interpretation so hard to take. (Few people get as hot under the collar about women with short hair – 1 Cor 11:12 – as gays.)

I've seen some comments that I'm not clear on my stand. Sorry, I'm trying to look at Paul's position, taking full account of grays. I understand that on this issue people tend to look only at whether someone agrees or disagrees with them, regardless of what they are saying. I don't consider that a good sign. But to be clear: I think one's conclusion about Rom 1 will be controlled by one's Scriptural interpretation. If one believes in context-free interpretation, one will come away saying the God condemns homosexuality. If one doesn't, one will come away seeing room for the Church to make its own judgement. I believe in the long run that this judgement will be based on whether or not gay Christians live lives that are otherwise similar to heterosexual Christians. If it turns out that -- unless you reject the possibility from the outset -- many gays have relationships that show the grace of Christ in the same way that heterosexual couples do, then I think the Church will come to accept it. If it turns out that there are problems with gay relationships such that they are never truly equivalent to heterosexual ones, then I think in the end acceptance of homosexual sex will remain limited to a few Christians. I can't be any clearer than this without violating the rules of CF.

You make a lot of good points, many of which I even agree with.

Remember that here on the liberal forum you have much more freedom to discuss this issue than in most other forums.

 

[hedrick]

You make a lot of good points, many of which I even agree with.

Remember that here on the liberal forum you have much more freedom to discuss this issue than in most other forums.

Perhaps, but the rules say you can can't defend homosexuality (it's part of the definition of "promoting") in any forum. In appropriate forums you can defend atheism, but not this. That's one of my pieces of evidence for the thesis that attitudes towards homosexuality are not just a result of one's approach to Biblical exegesis, but have a significant emotional component (on both sides, I should note).

In another site, a member told the story of a Russian Orthodox church in which the priest sort of inadvertently married a gay couple. The church was bulldozed the next week, and the priest laicized. The marriage so desecrated the Church that nothing else could be done. The surprisingly thing to me is that other participants in the group thought this was a perfectly acceptable (if expensive) reaction.

Survey results suggest that the next generation, even among kids of evangelicals, are growing up without this strong reaction. I think that's what will eventually decide the issue. Once people can look at the NT evidence the same way they would treat any other topic in the NT, while they may quite reasonably still think it's a bad idea, I don't think we'll have the concept of unrepentant gays being incapable of salvation, nor this strong rhetoric about churches that accept it having rejected the Gospel. Conservatives read survey results too. The realization of the direction things are going may be part of what is driving the hysteria.

 

[meliagaunt]

Survey results suggest that the next generation, even among kids of evangelicals, are growing up without this strong reaction. I think that's what will eventually decide the issue.

Here's hoping. That's certainly what I see among young people - many of them can't see what the fuss is about.

 

[Catherineanne]

I hear this statement made fairly often, but I don't understand it.

I am sorry to hear that.

Perhaps a little elucidation will help. Women in ancient times were not free to wander around and explore different sexualities, as they are today. Therefore, the chances are that the question simply did not arise. Even if the odd pair of ladies here or there did explore such issues, they certainly wouldn't have let the men know about it.

Men, on the other hand; well, that is another story. The Hellens had a particularly distasteful (to us) approach to male sexuality; pederasty, and the chances are that whatever is condemned in the Bible is going to be along those lines. Generally speaking both Jews and Romans condemned the Greek practice as unacceptable, and it is this condemnation that we see reflected in the Bible.

Greek women did not engage in gay behaviour because they were locked up at home. Roman women had more freedom, but still nowhere near the same as the men, and Jewish women ditto. Neither Romans nor Jews would condemn their own behaviour, only that of what they regarded as a more degenerate society.

We see the same thing today. Generally speaking, heterosexuals are far happier leaping onto the abomination bandwagon in relation to homosexuality, than in relation to spousal abuse, marital rape, etc. I doubt if God is fooled by us pointing to those who differ from us, and screaming, 'Sin!!'

 

[hedrick]

Women in ancient times were not free to wander around and explore different sexualities, as they are today.

Sure, I understand that. What I don't understand is how you could think that the Bible prohibits homosexuality for males but says nothing for females, when the nearest thing we have to a real statement about homosexuality is Rom 1, and that talks about both males and females. Rom 1:26 and the middle phrase in 1:27. Certainly the OT says nothing about Lesbianism, but it's hard to see how the OT passages are definitive for Christians anyway.

Yes, I agree that given the context of Rom 1, Paul is most likely reacting to homosexuality as he knew it from Greco-Roman culture. On the other hand, it's pretty likely that he would have worded that section differently if he knew gay Christians whose relationships he thought were acceptable. (My assumption is that it was a lack of acquaintance with gay Christians that is the primary issue.)

 

[Catherineanne]

What I don't understand is how you could think that the Bible prohibits homosexuality for males but says nothing for females, when the nearest thing we have to a real statement about homosexuality is Rom 1, and that talks about both males and females.

Where did I say the Bible prohibits homosexuality? The Bible says nothing whatever about homosexuality.

What I said is that where there is a comment it is about man:man, (and that nothing whatever is said about woman:woman). That is not the same thing.

Rom 1:26 and the middle phrase in 1:27. Certainly the OT says nothing about Lesbianism, but it's hard to see how the OT passages are definitive for Christians anyway.

Yes, I agree that given the context of Rom 1, Paul is most likely reacting to homosexuality as he knew it from Greco-Roman culture. On the other hand, it's pretty likely that he would have worded that section differently if he knew gay Christians whose relationships he thought were acceptable. (My assumption is that it was a lack of acquaintance with gay Christians that is the primary issue.)

Using the term 'homosexual' in a Biblical context is anchronistic. There was no homosexuality as we understand it in ancient times. There were man who engaged in same sex activity, but they would not have regarded themselves, or been regarded by Paul, as a distinct category.

I suspect that to Paul, a married man who engages in illicit sexual behaviour is included in the category of fornicator, whether he does so with a man or a woman. Both are equally condemned, and he does not need to create a special category. But that is just my interpretation; the Bible does not spell this out very clearly.

There appear to be several layers of misinformation in this issue. First the application of the anchronistic term 'homosexual' to certain Bible verses, and secondly the extension of that term to include female as well as male behaviour. And the conclusion from that, that the Bible, and by extension, God himself, utterly condemns what we understand as lesbian or gay relations. He may, or he may not. The Bible does not really make it all that clear, because the concept of gay as we understand it is not present in ancient times. There may have been situations where two men lived together in committed relationships, but they would not have called themselves by a particular name, nor have been recognised as distinct from the people around them.

 

[paintedgoldfish]

I want to thank you all for contributing to the answer to my question.
What I have come to realize, largely through the CF forums, that the diversity among Christians is limitless. It seems that every issue is a matter of debate among Christians of all beliefs. It is surprising to me the topics that start heated debates.

For me, it hard to know who is right and who is not. So, it seems like I am left with the decision as to what am I going to believe? What will be my approach in living for Jesus?
I have definately decided to remain in my current relationship. I will continue to seek God and to live for him the best way I can. But, I am not going to worry myself frantic with guilt for it either. This is me. This is what I have to offer to God. I have nothing else. I hope he accepts me for who I am and who he made me to be.
If the gender of the person I love is a disqualification for eternal life, I will let Him be the judge of me and I will accept His righteous judgement.

I pray that he have mercy on me while I fumble my way through this life.

 

[Biker Angel]

I want to thank you all for contributing to the answer to my question.
What I have come to realize, largely through the CF forums, that the diversity among Christians is limitless. It seems that every issue is a matter of debate among Christians of all beliefs. It is surprising to me the topics that start heated debates.

For me, it hard to know who is right and who is not. So, it seems like I am left with the decision as to what am I going to believe? What will be my approach in living for Jesus?
I have definately decided to remain in my current relationship. I will continue to seek God and to live for him the best way I can. But, I am not going to worry myself frantic with guilt for it either. This is me. This is what I have to offer to God. I have nothing else. I hope he accepts me for who I am and who he made me to be.
If the gender of the person I love is a disqualification for eternal life, I will let Him be the judge of me and I will accept His righteous judgement.

I pray that he have mercy on me while I fumble my way through this life.

God loves us sister goldfish no matter what we do. God bless you.

 

[drjdmcwilliams]

Because you have asked for what the Bible says about homosexuality, rather than for human opinions, I will cite what the Bible says on this sensitive subject. Please don't kill the mailman.

Jesus said, in Matthew 5:
"17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Further, Jesus says, in John 14:15, "15If ye love me, keep my commandments." Jesus takes personal ownership of the Ten Commandments, and related commands for sexual purity.

Thus, even if Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality during his earthly ministry, he clearly upheld the Bible's prior teachings on sexuality. Those teachings say that homosexual sex acts are not a part of God's will. The Bible, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:30. Arguing that Jesus was "silent" about homosexuality isn't the whole truth, in the context of his above statements from Matthew 5 and John 14. That's kind of like saying that Jesus was "silent" about rape, when he clearly upheld specific, unchanging standards for human behavior, which condemned rape.

Additionally, the New Testament has several Scriptures that are clearly against homosexual sex acts. 1 Corinthians 6 says, "9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." But there is good news for you in the next verse, "11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

In other words, the Bible acknowledges that there were people in the early church who had engaged in homosexual sex acts -- both "gay" and "lesbian" acts -- and the Bible says that God's grace was and is just as available to such people as it is to anyone else. God says that people who have had homosexual sex can repent and be saved on the same terms as people who have engaged in other acts that God speaks against.

Both gay and straight sinners who turn from sinful acts will be "washed," and "sanctified," and "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." But people who ignore God's word or twist it to fit personal wants will gradually chase away God's Spirit and will become "fools" and "reprobate." The Bible, Romans 1:20-32. That's what God's word says. (Romans was written by the apostle Paul, whom Jesus appointed as one of his spokesmen. The Bible, Acts 9; Acts 13:9; 2 Peter 3:15.)

God can give you grace and salvation if you make him more important than your sexuality, but if you make your sexual wants more important than God and his revealed will, then you'll lose your ability to hear his voice. That's what God's Word says. I can't change it. Please don't kill the mailman.

And on the subject of alleged "errors" in the Scriptures, numerous studies of ancient texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls and others) have confirmed that the Bible we read today is essentially the same as the one that the apostles read. So-called "transmission errors" are vastly exaggerated. Check out the book "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot for honest information on that subject. Yes, the exact language of Bible translations and interpretations has varied from year to year, but people have always been able to go back and consult ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts to see what God actually told the ancient prophets and apostles.


Thank you, Paintedgoldfish for your question. May God guide you in your decisionmaking. Sexuality is a tough subject for everyone, both gay and straight, these days, and although God's standards are high, God's grace and power to help us are endless.

I will keep you in prayer.

On a related subject, please check out my book series on Christian sexuality, which explores the topic through a dramatization of Mary Magdalene's life. Volume one of the series is called "Escape of the 'Sinful Woman': How Mary Magdalene Escaped Sexual Hangups and Habits from Abuse and How You Can Too!" It should be available on Amazon.com later this week. Also, if you're in the Nashville area, I'm autographing copies at the Comix City Too store on Gallatin Pike North in Madison, Tennessee, on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., 1 p.m. and 6 p.m.

May God bless your search for his will regarding your sex life.

 

[hedrick]

What I said is that where there is a comment it is about man:man, (and that nothing whatever is said about woman:woman). That is not the same thing.

Other than this statement, this posting is defending where I'm not attacking.

I still ask, why is not Rom 1:26-27, however we choose to apply it, a comment on female:female?

 

[paintedgoldfish]

Drwilliams
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my question.

The only thing that I would like to say is that my relationship with my wife is not all about the sexual act. Our relationship is like most other partnerships in that we share our lives and responsibilities. We have joined together and accomplish our daily tasks like budget, chores and raising my son.
I think a lot of people focus on the sexual act and use it to define the relationship. We are a couple, like so many others, who simply want to build our lives together. We need eachother.
It is this aspect of our relationship that I resist loosing. I love my wife and I treasure the relationship that we have built. Even though, sex is an aspect of my adult life, it certainly doesn't define it.
I will look for your book when it comes out. It sounds interesting.

 

[hedrick]

Drwilliams
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my question.

The only thing that I would like to say is that my relationship with my wife is not all about the sexual act. Our relationship is like most other partnerships in that we share our lives and responsibilities. We have joined together and accomplish our daily tasks like budget, chores and raising my son.
I think a lot of people focus on the sexual act and use it to define the relationship. We are a couple, like so many others, who simply want to build our lives together. We need eachother.
It is this aspect of our relationship that I resist loosing. I love my wife and I treasure the relationship that we have built. Even though, sex is an aspect of my adult life, it certainly doesn't define it.
I will look for your book when it comes out. It sounds interesting.

My guess on this is that it's going to take a couple of generations in which Christians get to know folks like you. Currently, most Christians seem to believe that homosexual relationships are a result of sexual urges overcoming people's commitment to Christianity. After all, if the Biblical position is as clear as they think, what other explanation could there be? I think over time contact with real gay couples will undermine that view.

Conservative Christians aren't heartless. Quite the contrary. There are lots of accounts of people changing their views on homosexual relationships due to experience with actual gay people. So I think there's hope for most Protestants. (Catholics are a harder case, I think.) But it's going to make an uncomfortable couple of decades, I'm afraid.

Hang in there. I think you'll find that most Christians are more welcoming on a personal basis than their ideological commitments might dictate.

 

[Jase]

Other than this statement, this posting is defending where I'm not attacking.

I still ask, why is not Rom 1:26-27, however we choose to apply it, a comment on female:female?

Romans 1 has very little to do with sexual relationships of any kind. That wasn't Paul's primary point. Those verses are based on the philosophy of Plato regarding unbridled passion. It was the return to paganism that those men and women were doing that caused Paul to criticize them. His audience was also heterosexual, and for their hedonistic, pagan ways, they were allowed to do that which was not normal for them as heterosexuals - to be with each other.

 

[Jase]

Commandments, and related commands for sexual purity.

Thus, even if Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality during his earthly ministry, he clearly upheld the Bible's prior teachings on sexuality.

But the bible doesn't teach against homosexuality.

Those teachings say that homosexual sex acts are not a part of God's will. The Bible, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:30.

Both of these verses condemn pagan prostitution in the temples of the Caananites, not modern day homosexuality. The English is not nearly as clear as the Hebrew. This was well known in ancient times, and was even verified by Philo, a contemporary of Paul who likened Paul's arguments in the NT to the Mosaic laws ban on temple prostitutes.

Arguing that Jesus was "silent" about homosexuality isn't the whole truth, in the context of his above statements from Matthew 5 and John 14. That's kind of like saying that Jesus was "silent" about rape, when he clearly upheld specific, unchanging standards for human behavior, which condemned rape.

Jesus is most certainly silent on the issue as nothing in Torah law ever condemns consensual modern day same-sex relationships (and the Torah doesn't condemn lesbians at all).

Additionally, the New Testament has several Scriptures that are clearly against homosexual sex acts. 1 Corinthians 6 says, "9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." But there is good news for you in the next verse, "11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Homosexuals does not exist in that verse in any Bible written before 1958. It was added by conservative bible translators in that year to attack gay people. It's a glaring error because Paul's original word, Arsenokoites, refers strictly to a man (it's a singular word), never to women, and yet homosexual includes both. In addition, in 35 A.D. Philo stated that verse was condeming pagan prostitution and compared it to Mosaic laws prohibition on paganism as well. During the entire reformation, that verse actually condemned masturbators. That was the meaning that Martin Luther understood it as, and some Greek dictionaries still translate it that way.

That verse has never in Biblical history up until 1958 condemned homosexuality.

And on the subject of alleged "errors" in the Scriptures, numerous studies of ancient texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls and others) have confirmed that the Bible we read today is essentially the same as the one that the apostles read. So-called "transmission errors" are vastly exaggerated. Check out the book "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot for honest information on that subject. Yes, the exact language of Bible translations and interpretations has varied from year to year, but people have always been able to go back and consult ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts to see what God actually told the ancient prophets and apostles.

This is all very inaccurate. Oxford Scholars have already determined based on the earliest manuscripts that the New Testament alone has had some 20,000 corrections from the originals. Some verses don't exist in the original (for example, when Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). That doesn't exist in the originals.

Not to mention, most of the early church fathers flat out admitted they personally witnessed people altering and changing scripture in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. Some did it accidently and added errors unintentionally, others did it deliberately to push an agenda.

No manuscript since the originals (and we can't prove them) has been unaltered or nearly perfect. There were deliberate mistakes made by the copyists, translators, and correctors.

 

[theWaris1]

How you don't mind me putting in my two cents though I'm not a liberal. I suppose you got all of the scriptural verses out of the way. I watched a metropolitan Homosexual church on TV a few times and it was so very dry... the spirit seemed quenched. I don't believe one can live in this lifestyle and be truly spirit filled and certainly not in a position to teach or preach the word with conviction. That is my opinion from observations.

A talked a gay friend who i worked with into attending the church I went to at the time and his Mother was a member. He did attend and felt convicted about his lifestyle. He never returned.

 

[Jase]

How you don't mind me putting in my two cents though I'm not a liberal. I suppose you got all of the scriptural verses out of the way. I watched a metropolitan Homosexual church on TV a few times and it was so very dry... the spirit seemed quenched. I don't believe one can live in this lifestyle and be truly spirit filled and certainly not in a position to teach or preach the word with conviction. That is my opinion from observations.

A talked a gay friend who i worked with into attending the church I went to at the time and his Mother was a member. He did attend and felt convicted about his lifestyle. He never returned.

Yes, a gay person in most conservative churches would be treated pretty horribly. I wouldn't call that convinction by God, I'd call it forced guilt by those who abuse the Bible to attack people they don't like.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

How you don't mind me putting in my two cents though I'm not a liberal. I suppose you got all of the scriptural verses out of the way. I watched a metropolitan Homosexual church on TV a few times and it was so very dry... the spirit seemed quenched. I don't believe one can live in this lifestyle and be truly spirit filled and certainly not in a position to teach or preach the word with conviction. That is my opinion from observations.

A talked a gay friend who i worked with into attending the church I went to at the time and his Mother was a member. He did attend and felt convicted about his lifestyle. He never returned.

Speaking as a gay man, I must disagree. Though not "out" about it in my home church, I do not hide it either.

I am part of the praise band for our morning services. I help with the childrens' Vacation Bible School each year. I help arrange, setup, and run anything and everything I can at our church - to the point most people don't even realize what I do, they just expect to see me there. I volunteer for every single thing I can.
Why? Because that is what I feel called to do. I wasn't gifted with being able to preach, I wasn't gifted with being able to step up and be a focal point for God. What did I get? Time. And love. And I give them as much as I possibly can. [VBS is this week! Yay! ]

I also, though a little softly, talk to people around campus when I am there. I am very open about my religious beliefs. I talk to, and even try to bring other people to, the evangelists that visit (nice folks) campus.

I love God. And don't want to miss an opportunity to do what He calls me to do.


Seeing a church on TV is about as close to seeing the spirit as standing in a room with no window and saying you can't see the sun. In neither case are you able to see it, but does that mean it isn't there?

 

[theWaris1]

Yes, a gay person in most conservative churches would be treated pretty horribly. I wouldn't call that convinction by God, I'd call it forced guilt by those who abuse the Bible to attack people they don't like.

No one attacked my coworker. He felt convicted in his spirit and it don't matter what you call it.

 

[theWaris1]

Seeing a church on TV is about as close to seeing the spirit as standing in a room with no window and saying you can't see the sun. In neither case are you able to see it, but does that mean it isn't there?

Imo they appeared to be trying to do something they knew was wrong. There was no joy there. none

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Imo they appeared to be trying to do something they knew was wrong. There was no joy there. none

Sadly, I have been to conservative [baptist] churches that were rather stifled and stiff when it came to allowing the spirit to move, that doesn't mean anything. A lot of churches, especially larger scale, televised churches are that way to me, so I can't really understand it.

Personally I always liked the small town, old-school church atmosphere - lots of "Amen"s and "Hallelujah"s and such heard (if not loudly) throughout the group. But they don't usually have quite as upbeat of music. Always tradeoffs. haha