Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[cabrown]

For the first time in my life, I am personally aquainted with a number of openly gay and lesbian individuals, many of which are religious. I find almost all of them as sincere and heartfelt in their spiritual zeal as any other Christian, but it seems to me the Bible is explicity clear that homosexuality in any form is a sin. Can christianity embrace and accept gays and lesbians? I am not sure what my opinion is myself?

 

[transientlife]

As far as I have learned, all sins are equal, therefore homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other. So if homosexuals can't be considered Christians, I don't know who else would be either since we are all not without sin! Homosexuals have the unfortunate stigma to bear since their sin is a bit more obvious (most times) than many others, I think. It is sad that a lot of people (not exclusively Christian either) can't seem to see the person for the sin, ya know?

 

[cabrown]

There's an obvious difference, though: gays and lesbians don't accept it as a sin. Its akin to a adulterer or a child abuser who not only flant their behavior, but defend and identify with it. If homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are unrepentent sinners. Can you be a true Christian while rejecting Christian commandments? That's the question.

 

[transientlife]

Ahhh I gotcha now. I see the reason for your quandry! Repentant or not, perhaps it wouldn't matter? I don't necessarily agree with your analogies though. Homosexuality doesn't not necessarily hurt anyone, it is a consensual relationship...adultery does hurt others (the wife or husband of the adulterer and any children they may have) and so does child abuse (I doubt I have to elaborate here!). Not that it makes a difference, just sayin' : smile :

 

[Rocinante]

I have concluded that there is nothing sinful about homosexual relationships that are either marriages, civil unions or simply living together in a committed and monogamous way until marriage becomes available.

I was questioning the whole "Christian" attitude toward homosexuals and decided to do a study.

My goal was to read every Biblical scripture that seemed to relate to homosexuality........

The one thing I would do differently was that I would read it strictly and steadfastly from the point of view of......

1. A gay man in a committed and monogamous lifetime union with another gay man.

and

2. A lesbian in the same type of relationship with another lesbian.

The revelation that came from this was startling in its power.

One can find NO condemnation in any of the Bible mentions of homosexuality.

All references are to promiscuous behavior, including prostitution and rape.

Now, of course, there is the single Leviticus reference that may or may not refer to sex with the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes.

That ref (which comes in two places in Leviticus, listing offense and penalty) if it were to be used as a condemnation of ALL homosexuality......would have two problems....

1. It stands alone.

and

2. It does not mention lesbians.

So I do not find it compelling as a blanket condemnation.

Now, there is one remaining argument. One could (and many do) also argue that there is a grand pattern of only male/female sexual relationships that is present throughout the Bible and from this alone we should come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

I acknowledge that argument.......I just see it as FAR from conclusive, because chaste, monogamous homosexual relationships probably were simply NOT MENTIONED because they were rare and also........similar to today......people shy away from discussing them at all.......out of weakness and fear.

In addition, some argue that logic and common sense show us that men's and women's bodies were physically constructed to have sex with each other and make babies.....so a man with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong from a purely functional standpoint.

An argument that becomes problematic when those who use it engage in heterosexual oral sex or other forms of pleasure that do not follow that strict "physically appropriate and functional" pattern and, as a side note, do not produce babies.

And, last of all, Ezekiel (Chapter 16) is quite clear in announcing that the sin of Sodom was gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor........why announce such a thing unless the homosexual rape and promiscuity mentioned elsewhere were minor things compared to the horrible offenses of gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor?

Most people still think of a Sodomite as a homosexual.

How unjust.

According to Ezekiel, a Sodomite would be someone who lived well while neglecting and oppressing the poor.

So do most conservative Americans qualify?

 

[Polycarp1]

For the first time in my life, I am personally aquainted with a number of openly gay and lesbian individuals, many of which are religious. I find almost all of them as sincere and heartfelt in their spiritual zeal as any other Christian, but it seems to me the Bible is explicity clear that homosexuality in any form is a sin. Can christianity embrace and accept gays and lesbians? I am not sure what my opinion is myself?

Well, first, according to Scripture and Christian doctrine, we're all sinners -- whose sins have been redeemed, whose salvation assured, whose justification provided for, by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. From Christ's teaching, there are a lot worse sins than homosexuality -- many of them unrepentantly engaged in by many of the folks who denounce homosexuality. So my sense is that if the Church is comprised of only those without sin, then Jesus is awfully lonely there (even if the Catholics are right and His Mother is there with Him.) But if it's comprised of sinners who are saved through His grace -- then I fail to see how sexual orientation is a deciding factor in who He saves. John 3:16 does not say "For God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son, that all heterosexuals who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Second point is what you mean by "homosexuality." There's a man in Wake Forest, about 25 miles from me, who is engaged in an "ex-gay" ministry with a difference. He believes that gay sex is sinful, like the majority of Christians -- but he himself is gay, and recognizes the difference between orientation and act. And he believes that he must remain celibate, and depend on the Lord's strength for the will power to do so. And he has found in his life in Christ something that gives him joy and more than makes up for the sexual frustration, and that's what he's sharing with those he ministers to.

The typical gay person, by openly admitting that he or she is gay, is not saying that he or she is wilfully engaging in gay sex at every possible opportunity -- he or she is saying that what he or she discovered about him/herself at some point around puberty is that he or she has an inherent orientation to be attracted to some people of the same sex, in much the same way as a typical 12/13-year-old finds the same to be true about him/herself and the opposite sex. And that this orientation is not chosen and for all practical purposes unchangeable.

Now, compare and contrast this to that straight 13-year-old. He or she gets sexually aroused by the opposite sex, recognizes that to act on that at the present time is a sin, feels some guilt over having that sexuality, understands the difference between having a healthy God-given sex drive and preoccupation and obsession over sex, and eventually works through those feelings to a mature Christian attitude about sex.

My own church teaches that sexuality is a gift from God, a natural part of who you are, which ideally is exercised in one of two roles: celibacy, or within a lifelong monogamous relationship covenanted before God -- i.e., a marriage. Adolescence and courtship are natural concomitants of that, and God, who created mankind such that 15-year-olds feel sexual desire and are not yet old enough to marry, does not count it a sin for a 15-year-old to feel sexual desire. And certainly an engaged couple ought to be feeling desire for each other, and looking forward to the wedding night.

But, if you will, note that the previous definition did not specify heterosexuality. The traditional and majority opinion in Christianity would specify marriage as one man and one woman, and I would not be permitted to say otherwise in the CO areas of this board. But my own church, with a few other denominations and a minority in a number of other churches, holds that a lifelong covenanted monogamous relationship between two gay people is within the bounds of what God must have intended.

Please do not bother denouncing the above view and "proving" to me from Scripture that God thinks otherwise, if that is what you hold to be true. As a loyal member of my church and a person committed to seek and serve Christ in all persons and treat all persons with dignity and respect, I follow the teachings of my own church. You are privileged to do the same, including in disagreement with me on this issue -- but I ask the same respect for myself and my church's teachings that I would extend to you and yours.

But there's one final point that absolutely needs to be made here. We are not called to go out and condemn sinners, but to show them Christ's love and lead them to Him, to have them enter into repentance and newness of life in Him. Jesus's commands are quite clear and explicit on this. There are any number of people who understand this to involve "speaking the truth in love" -- and if that is truly their intent, I agree with them -- in a way that points out the sins of a brother or sister, in overt love of them, to assist them in repenting of their sins. I see singularly little of this attitude expressed in the homosexual debates that plague this board. I don't care whether or not you agree with my church that homosexual sex within a gay marriage is excluded from the condemnation in scripture of gay sex for gratification of lust, or hold that gay sex and the lust for it are sinful in all times and places: what you are called to do is to love everyone, old or young, black or white, gay or straight, Christian, pagan, or atheist, penitent or stiff-necked, as your neighbor, as your brother or sister, for the salvation of whom Jesus Christ gave up His life, and received it back from God in order that they and we might have new life in Him.

If God judged me for my sins, I'd be a smudge of brimstone right now. But He loved me enough to grant me His grace and save me, and is in the process of making me over inside into His image. If you're honest with yourself, you'll say the same about yourself. And we're told that he will count what we do towards others as done toward Him, and that we will be judged by the measure with which we judge. As I hope for mercy, compassion, love, and forgiveness, so must I extend them to all.

 

[cabrown]

One can find NO condemnation in any of the Bible mentions of homosexuality.

Thankyou for your insight. You had some interesting point I hadn't thought about.

I must disagree with you about scripture references, though. The scriptures are replete with verses about sexual immorality: which we must agree applies to hetero and homosexuals. Also homosexuality was clearly a key in the destruction of Sodom, and a reading of the story of Lot will show that the city proposed effectively a gang rape of Lot's guests. The scriptures are always ephymistic about the issue, but it is clearly there. The term sodomite historically and scripturally refers specifically to homosexuality.

Gen. 19: 5 bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Lev. 18: 22 (Lev. 20: 13) Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . it is abomination.
Deut. 23: 17 there shall be no . . . sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Isa. 3: 9 (2 Ne. 13: 9) declare their sin as Sodom.
Rom. 1: 27 men . . . burned in their lust one toward another.
1 Cor. 6: 9 nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
1 Tim. 1: 10 them that defile themselves with mankind.
Jude 1: 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha . . . going after strange flesh.

See also Gen. 13: 13; Gen. 18: 20; Isa. 3: 9; Ezek. 16: 50; 2 Tim. 3: 3; 2 Pet. 2: 10.

Your response, though, gets to my original question. The gay lobby would like us to integrate the lifestyle into our beliefs and society, and in almost every arena they have succeeded. Should Christianity adapt with the times, or stick to historical and doctrinal tradition? And if we oppose gay marriage (a historically religious instituion), what are our grounds? We may not accept it in our faith, but do have the right to downcry the beliefs of another and their religious tradition. Would we be right in classifying a religion that accepts open homosexuality as non-Christian? That is definately unorthodox in anyone's book.

 

[Tangnefedd]

For the first time in my life, I am personally aquainted with a number of openly gay and lesbian individuals, many of which are religious. I find almost all of them as sincere and heartfelt in their spiritual zeal as any other Christian, but it seems to me the Bible is explicity clear that homosexuality in any form is a sin. Can christianity embrace and accept gays and lesbians? I am not sure what my opinion is myself?

Of course homosexuals can be Christians, it is the folk who condemn them out of hand who are behaving in a less than Christian fashion!

 

[mpshiel]

Homosexuals as Christians? Never! No, no no no no no, yes.

I fail to see why this issue continues to come up when we still haven't resolved the age old conflict of 'Can left handers be Christian?'

I think Polycarp puts it very eloquantly. Most Christians like to look at the issue simply because they have never faced it. I mean that in the same way Christians might talk about "laying down a life for a brother" but not many are sitting in death camps. A homosexual has to decide, on a very personal level, what the truth is for themselves. They are not callous or ignorant of the scriptures, but rather they are facing the scriptures from the inside rather than the outside.

As a interesting note, I was talking to a Prespyterian/United Pastor (I know I can't spell), last night and he said that when they decided to put up officially outside thier church that they were "Open and Affirming" - they thought there would be a flood of gays and lesbians. Actually, that didn't happen but instead 16 members of the congregation "came out." I suggested that he might want to use the words "gay friendly" or similar instead because only someone "in the know" would have a clue that "Open and Affirming" meant that Christians who were homosexuals were welcome.

Right now he is trying to figure out a way to have homosexual couples "blessing ceremonies" without getting disbarred or defrocked or whatever it is called. (oh he also worked to desegregate the congregation from when he came 10 years ago).

 

[cabrown]

And that this orientation is not chosen and for all practical purposes unchangeable.

That was a great response, and in almost every regard I agree with you. I am not asking if we should go out and attack gay rights. I am wondering for my personal belief system whether I can accept homosexuality as on par with God's gospel. I am in no way advocating hate or intolerance.

One other thing though. I work right now as a research scientist, and it has amazed me how quickly the biological theory of sexuality has pervaded society, based almost completely on propoganda and not on scientific discovery. Whatever someone tries to tell you, there is no proof in either direction that homosexuality is an inborn trait. There is not even very convincing evidence to make that assumption. This is a hobby horse of mine, and I have searched the literature. I am not saying it is or isn't, but it's strange to me the so many people accept that as fact without any scientific basis. In my opinion, sexual orientation is based on experiential conditioning entirely. Oddly enough, the research hasn't really focused there. And really, this is the key issue. If this IS an inborn quality, I could never under good conscious call a homosexual a sinner, anymore than I could call a black man or a blind man a sinner. But this is a behavior, not a quality, and we choose our behaviors.

 

[razzelflabben]

There's an obvious difference, though: gays and lesbians don't accept it as a sin. Its akin to a adulterer or a child abuser who not only flant their behavior, but defend and identify with it. If homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are unrepentent sinners. Can you be a true Christian while rejecting Christian commandments? That's the question.

How much of thier unrepentant aditudes are because the church is teaching them that they are not allowed to be homosexuals, let me explain. What we like of dislike is not the sin, it is how we behave toward the thing that makes it a sin. A man for example who is attracted to women, cancontinue to like women without sinning. When however they lust after that woman, it becomes a sin. for the homosexual, scripture (at least to my knowlege) does not say that homosexuality is wrong, but rather the practise of homosexuallity that is wrong. According to scripture, all sexual imorality is sin against self and requires one to learn self control. We tell the heterosexual person, refrain from immoral acts and you are not sinning. We tell the homosexual individual, change who you are are you are sinning. Is it not more scripturally sound to teach the homosexual to refrain from immoral acts than to tell them they are a bad person? If this was taught, how many homosexuals would see the Christ of the bible rather the the christ so many churches want to make Him.

 

[Rocinante]

Cabrown said:

Gen. 19: 5 bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Roz sez: This refers to rape.

Lev. 18: 22 (Lev. 20: 13) Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . it is abomination.

Roz sez: Male Temple Prostitutes.

Deut. 23: 17 there shall be no . . . sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Roz sez: Male Temple Prostitutes.

Isa. 3: 9 (2 Ne. 13: 9) declare their sin as Sodom.

Roz sez: Rape.

Rom. 1: 27 men . . . burned in their lust one toward another.

Roz sez: Promiscuity and Idolatry and Temple Prostitution.

1 Cor. 6: 9 nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Roz sez: Pederasty.

1 Tim. 1: 10 them that defile themselves with mankind.

Roz sez: Pederasty.

Jude 1: 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha . . . going after strange flesh.

Roz sez: Rape .... same old Sodom story again. And review the end of my post again and note Ezekiel 16:48 which specifies the primary sin of Sodom as neglect of the poor.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have concluded that there is nothing sinful about homosexual relationships that are either marriages, civil unions or simply living together in a committed and monogamous way until marriage becomes available.

I was questioning the whole "Christian" attitude toward homosexuals and decided to do a study.

My goal was to read every Biblical scripture that seemed to relate to homosexuality........

The one thing I would do differently was that I would read it strictly and steadfastly from the point of view of......

1. A gay man in a committed and monogamous lifetime union with another gay man.

and

2. A lesbian in the same type of relationship with another lesbian.

The revelation that came from this was startling in its power.

One can find NO condemnation in any of the Bible mentions of homosexuality.

All references are to promiscuous behavior, including prostitution and rape.

Now, of course, there is the single Leviticus reference that may or may not refer to sex with the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes.

That ref (which comes in two places in Leviticus, listing offense and penalty) if it were to be used as a condemnation of ALL homosexuality......would have two problems....

1. It stands alone.

and

2. It does not mention lesbians.

So I do not find it compelling as a blanket condemnation.

Now, there is one remaining argument. One could (and many do) also argue that there is a grand pattern of only male/female sexual relationships that is present throughout the Bible and from this alone we should come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

I acknowledge that argument.......I just see it as FAR from conclusive, because chaste, monogamous homosexual relationships probably were simply NOT MENTIONED because they were rare and also........similar to today......people shy away from discussing them at all.......out of weakness and fear.

In addition, some argue that logic and common sense show us that men's and women's bodies were physically constructed to have sex with each other and make babies.....so a man with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong from a purely functional standpoint.

An argument that becomes problematic when those who use it engage in heterosexual oral sex or other forms of pleasure that do not follow that strict "physically appropriate and functional" pattern and, as a side note, do not produce babies.

And, last of all, Ezekiel (Chapter 16) is quite clear in announcing that the sin of Sodom was gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor........why announce such a thing unless the homosexual rape and promiscuity mentioned elsewhere were minor things compared to the horrible offenses of gluttony, love of wealth and neglect of the poor?

Most people still think of a Sodomite as a homosexual.

How unjust.

According to Ezekiel, a Sodomite would be someone who lived well while neglecting and oppressing the poor.

So do most conservative Americans qualify?

Unfortunately the answer to your last question is yes.

I have some serious questions about your study and was wondering if you still had some notes and reference, cross references to share.

 

[Polycarp1]

You know, I've seen a lot of popular literature on "the cause(s) of homosexuality" -- and a little of the technical literature, though I don't have the training to evaluate it. But it occurs to me that it's nearly moot to ask whether it's genetic, congenital (the "hormonal flood" theory I'm sure you've seen), or the product of early-childhood experience (the popular theory when I was in college 35 years ago) -- the point in common for all of them is that it's something inculcated by one means or another prior to the person exercising any choice over his or her life. I know of no competent scientist who holds that homosexual orientation is a free choice. Obviously whether one chooses to act on it in any given circumstance or at all, like any other moral choice one makes, is in fact a choice -- but the underlying orientation certainly appears to be not.

As for your basic question -- I think everyone has "besetting sins" -- things in his or her life that come between him and her and a total commitment to following God. My wife and I have spent many years exploring with each other the things that make us fall short of what he would have us be. You're not called on to "accept homosexuality" -- you're called on to accept homosexual people, along with fat people, skinny people, old people, young people, placid people, angry people, rich people, poor people, -- they're all people God loved enough to save and to call to Himself. Just like us. And His command to us is not to evaluate their sinfulness, but to love them as He does.

 

[razzelflabben]

Cabrown said:
Roz sez: This refers to rape.


Roz sez: Male Temple Prostitutes.


Roz sez: Male Temple Prostitutes.


Roz sez: Rape.


Roz sez: Promiscuity and Idolatry and Temple Prostitution.


Roz sez: Pederasty.


Roz sez: Pederasty.


Roz sez: Rape .... same old Sodom story again. And review the end of my post again and note Ezekiel 16:48 which specifies the primary sin of Sodom as neglect of the poor.

It is important when we study the scriptures to try to see things form God's point of view rather than a given side. In other words, to study the scriptures from the standpoint of how a homosexual would study it, allows for justifications of what is written in the Word. The same is true if I study the scriptures from the standpoint of someone who believes homosexuality to be wrong, I am tempted to justify my own prejeduce. When we study the scripture to seek truth, we must purpose our hearts and minds to see what God intends for us, thus we at least have a chance at seeing truth without the justifications.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

For the first time in my life, I am personally aquainted with a number of openly gay and lesbian individuals, many of which are religious. I find almost all of them as sincere and heartfelt in their spiritual zeal as any other Christian, but it seems to me the Bible is explicity clear that homosexuality in any form is a sin. Can christianity embrace and accept gays and lesbians? I am not sure what my opinion is myself?

The Bible is clear that certain homosexual acts in certain situations are sinful, but making this into a universal prohibition is not clear.

 

[Polycarp1]

The Bible is clear that certain homosexual acts in certain situations are sinful, but making this into a universal prohibition is not clear.

Well said!

 

[traingosorry]

God keeps His grace ' on tap' why shouldn't we?

Hate the sin but LOVE the sinner.

 

[seebs]

There's an obvious difference, though: gays and lesbians don't accept it as a sin. Its akin to a adulterer or a child abuser who not only flant their behavior, but defend and identify with it. If homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are unrepentent sinners. Can you be a true Christian while rejecting Christian commandments? That's the question.

Three things:

1. Some gays and lesbians do consider homosexual sex a sin.
2. Almost everyone distinguishes between homosexuality and homosexual activity.
3. Consider the case of slavers, who didn't accept slavery as a sin. Or, for that matter, consider the number of people who have denied other "obvious" teachings...

It seems most likely to me that the world contains many people who don't agree on interpretations, but are Christians anyway.

 

[Rocinante]

It is important when we study the scriptures to try to see things form God's point of view rather than a given side. In other words, to study the scriptures from the standpoint of how a homosexual would study it, allows for justifications of what is written in the Word. The same is true if I study the scriptures from the standpoint of someone who believes homosexuality to be wrong, I am tempted to justify my own prejeduce. When we study the scripture to seek truth, we must purpose our hearts and minds to see what God intends for us, thus we at least have a chance at seeing truth without the justifications.

Roz sez:

Yes, I agree that this is an important distinction.

The prejudice against homosexuals accounts for people rushing to judge that ALL homosexuality is wrong based on the prior noted (and other) Bible verses.

Problem is......that's the ONLY way it was traditionally studied.

So, if you do a study absent the prejudice.......all of a sudden you realize that all the references are to rape, prostitution and promiscuity (or combinations thereof).

All of which have nothing to do with chaste, monogamous, committed homosexual relationships.