liberal approaches to homosexuality and transgender

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps disability wasn't the right term to use. I've changed the post to speak of it as an exception.

Each of us is an exception and each of us is a neighbor and has neighbors not like us.

 

[FireDragon76]

On homosexuality: there are surely prohibitions of same-gender sex (though the OT prohibition is probably only for males).The OT prohibition is part of a code for which maintaining boundaries is important. Hence prohibition against mixing fabrics. In general Christians don’t follow the rules from this code.

We do a disservice when we read Leviticus as ethical or moral guidelines in an uncritical manner. Ethics in the modern sense was very far from these writers minds. The boundaries are part of a cultic system that no longer can have the same meaning from a Christian perspective:

Leviticus, Gay Sex, and Christianity (I) - Under the Sun

Christians have had OT holiness codes creep back into religion before. In the East it was not uncommon, at times, to tell menstruating women they could not go into a church or receive the sacraments. Christians also have had prohibitions against eunuchs or disabled people being priests, for similar reasons. That's not to justify the practice, merely to explain that old modes of thinking die hard.

It's completely understandable to me that Christians haven't understood this issue very well until the last couple of decades. Christians don't know everything and they are products of their culture the same as everybody else. That blog I linked to has alot of criticisms of the Christendom and Faith-as-knowledge paradigms of Christianity that would delve into this issue more:

Three Pillars of the Old Order: Part One - Scripture as Divine Revelation - Under the Sun

It’s quite clear that he wasn’t responding to Christians who are attracted only to people of the same gender, and are interested in following normal Christian standards in their relationship. He was talking about Roman orgies.

The more telling issue for me is how in chapter 2, he shows that people that follow the Law are no better. So holding people to a particular Old Testament legal standard doesn't measure up, either, with Paul's Gospel. Even though Paul could not fully imagine how his preaching would ever apply to something like LGBT issues in a positive way, that doesn't necessarily limit what God can say to us through the Bible in our historical context.

Christianity is not a moral code or a moral mode of life, it's a relationship to God through Christ based on faith alone. In response we should love God and our neighbor, but how that love is concretely realized is going to be different for every individual. One thing is for sure, it's going to respect who they are as a person, it's not going to insist that peoples real, actual differences are erased to conform to an abstraction of human nature.

 

[baryogenesis]

There is a world of difference between a committed, long-term, loving relationship vs. a "reprobate" deliberately giving up their "natural" desires for desires that are "unnatural" to themselves. Reprobates are those who hate God and want nothing to do with righteousness. To assume that a same-sex couple is reprobate -- purely on the evidence that they are a same-sex couple -- is not at all what is taught in Scripture. With the possible exception of one passage in the OT, there is nowhere in Scripture that ever even mentions a long-term, committed, loving relationship between two people of the same sex. (And that possible exception is the story of David and Johnathan, which I only bring up not to claim they were lovers, no, but that this is the closest thing the Scriptures come to an example of a non-casual, non-idolatrous, non-reprobate description of same-sex relations of any kind.)

Also, reprobates -- haters of God and righteousness -- do not pray to God, or strive to follow His will, or His teachings, or seek God out at all, etc. If you see a same-sex couple who claim to be Christian or Jewish, and who do not behave as if they hate God and try to spite Him through exchanging their natural desires for desires that are unnatural to them, then you are making a category error in assuming they are condemned by God for their relationship with each other. To their own Master will they stand or fall; and (Romans 14:4) they will stand, regardless of whatever you -- merely another servant -- believe.

When I see the Church today, particularly those who consider themselves Fundamentalists and/or Conservatives, I see so many examples of the breathtaking arrogance (c.f. Romans 11:33-36) of those who believe they know the mind of God, and therefore can do little else but point their fingers at others exactly like the "Accuser" does! Whose side are you on? Why is Satan even described as "the Accuser?" What business do those who are saved in Christ have in imitating or following the Accuser's example in any way? (Serious question!)

 

[Anto9us]

a non-casual, non-idolatrous, non-reprobate description of same-sex relations of any kind.)

Ruth and Naomi -- daughter-in-law to mother-in-law, might be one more example -- we even have wedding vows today based on what Ruth said to Naomi

David and Jonathan might be THE big example, curious wording by Saul that David has "become a son-in-law a second time" when marrying Michal

 

[hedrick]

Ruth and Naomi -- daughter-in-law to mother-in-law, might be one more example -- we even have wedding vows today based on what Ruth said to Naomi

David and Jonathan might be THE big example, curious wording by Saul that David has "become a son-in-law a second time" when marrying Michal

The Bible doesn't describe who has sexual relations, not even for heterosexual pairs. So we can only guess. The other possible case is the Centurion and his "boy." But there's no way to prove any of these examples.

 

[Anto9us]

The Bible doesn't describe who has sexual relations, not even for heterosexual pairs.

That is true -- and what is mentioned of Mary and Joseph -- is not agreed on by all Christians.

When it said "they had no relations until after Jesus was born" -- well to me, that is like:

"nobody got into the guacomole dip until hedrick and baryogenesis got to the party" -- with a logical inference (to me) that partiers got into the guacamole dip at that point

But Catholics view things differently...

The Centurion and his boy - i don't remember that one

But King Saul, when he married off Michal to David - said 'today you have become a son-in-law to me for the second time' (paraphrasing), which, no, doesn't say that Jonathan and David were lovers; just that Saul considered David a son-in-law already because he and Jonathan were so close

J. Townsley has written up a bunch of stuff about the differences between temple-prostitute same-sex relations and how they are not at all what the non-idolatrous relationships could have been, but I don't know where to find his stuff anymore.

 

[hedrick]

The Centurion and his boy - i don't remember that one

The Gay Centurion Jesus met and blessed in Matthew 8 and Luke 7.

But all this shows is that pais could have that meaning, not that it does in that case. The case is also ethically difficult. In ancient culture, a distinction was made between the passive and active role. The passive role was considered unacceptable for free adults. That means that the relationships we today would consider OK were not approved: relationships between equals. That certainly doesn't mean that they never happened. But the Centurion's boy, if this is true, would probably have been a younger servant, a situation which I would consider unacceptable.

The two OT relationships (if true) wouldn't have this issue.

 

[Anto9us]

thx for the info hedrick

yeah, the Jeramy Townsley material that i had printed out in a notebook does mention Centurion and boy - I forgot all about it...

possibility

 

[FireDragon76]

In the end I don't even think debating biblical stories is helpful since the real issue is that conservative evangelicals isolate themselves from the lives of LGBT people and they use religion to live out life in existential bad faith.

What we really must address is the place of the Law in the Christian's life, and the understanding that Christianity is not moralism. Unfortunately, both Protestant liberalism and fundamentalist traditionally agreed that moralism was the last thing that Christianity had to offer the world to keep their privileged place in society. This infatuation with moralism and purity is what prevents Christians from having authentic encounters with LGBT persons as persons first.

Fortunately for the world, God's mission in the world is not constrained by human institutions. But I doubt Christianity will survive in its current form in the US, retaining its privileged place in our culture. Aside from a minority of religious groups, the Church has been wrong about civil rights issues in the 20th century. People aren't going to forget that or wave that aside.

 

[baryogenesis]

But I doubt Christianity will survive in its current form in the US, retaining its privileged place in our culture.

The Faith is not monolithic, and we believers have differrent ways of approaching a given issue. As God intended, evidently.

It seems a good time for Christ to clear out the money-changers from the Temple again. It seems a good time to remind so many that we cannot serve two masters, God and money, as the more we love one we will come to hate the other. The basics of the faith have had this covered for a long time. The believers cannot clean themsleves from the corruption of worldly politics soon enough for all our sakes.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are probably right that the percentages for sexual orientation have never changed. However, that does not mean that many were involved in relationships back them.

Yes, it does. Not as many on the internet back then, but more in person.

 

[SkyWriting]

On homosexuality: there are surely prohibitions of same-gender sex (though the OT prohibition is probably only for males).

......outside of marriage.....which was the only option.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, it does. Not as many on the internet back then, but more in person.

Indeed. It just wasn't talked about in "polite society" except perhaps through euphemisms.

 

[SkyWriting]

Indeed. It just wasn't talked about in "polite society" except perhaps through euphemisms.

Likely no different from today.

 

[Pope66]

This thread is intended as a reference for a discussion elsewhere. This is the only forum in CF where I can describe why liberal Christians accept homosexuality and transgender identity.

There have been other threads, particularly on transgender identity, that I’d like to point to. But I haven’t been able to find them, and I’ve tried.

My position is that neither is discussed in Scripture, but that when combined with Paul's teaching on celibacy and Jesus' that we shouldn't obey the Law when it interferes with human welfare, Scripture mandates us to accept gay marriage.

On homosexuality: there are surely prohibitions of same-gender sex (though the OT prohibition is probably only for males).The OT prohibition is part of a code for which maintaining boundaries is important. Hence prohibition against mixing fabrics. In general Christians don’t follow the rules from this code.

The only substantial treatment in the NT is Rom 1. But in Rom 1, Paul is talking about idolatry. He says that idolatry results in corrupted morals, and disordered sexual relationships. His description of same-gender sex follows exactly the 1st Cent Jewish stereotypes (documented by Gagnon), which see same-gender sex as something that people turn to when they’ve gotten bored with normal sex. Hence his comment about exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural.

It’s quite clear that he wasn’t responding to Christians who are attracted only to people of the same gender, and are interested in following normal Christian standards in their relationship. He was talking about Roman orgies. But in my view Paul likely assumed that all same-gender sex was the result of debauchery. That’s what the Jewish culture out of which he came seems to have assumed. But it's not clear how relevant this is. For people who want to follow the letter, it's not about Paul's personal views, but what is in Scripture, and what's in Scripture is condemnation of pagans heterosexuals who after being sated on heterosexual sex, turned to same-gender sex. 1 Cor 6:9 also deals with this as something pagan: Note that 1 Cor 6:9 speaks of what his converts used to be. He doesn't want them to fall back into their old behavior. So it's reasonable to assume that 1 Cor 6:9 is a brief reference to what Rom 1 talks about in more detail.

Homosexuality is certainly an exception to how sex is described in the Bible. In both Genesis and Jesus' treatment of it see marriage between a man and a woman as normal. But that doesn't mean that exceptions are forbidden. Except in sexual areas, Christians generally have no problems making allowance to help people with exceptional conditions live as good a life as possible. In this context that would mean having relations with others of the same gender that otherwise meet the standards for Christian relationships. I don’t think demanding celibacy is an approach we’d take in any other area. (Imagine prohibiting wheelchairs because God made legs and any other mode of transportation is immoral.) Paul recognized that there’s a calling to celibacy, and people without that calling risk falling into worse behaviors if they try it.

My position is that Paul didn't deal with people for whom male-female relationships don't work. (Probably he didn't realize that such people exist, but that's not relevant in this discussion.) After all, the point of Rom 1 wasn't to think carefully about sexual ethics. The point was idolatry. He was just using an example that everyone in 1st Cent Jewish culture would have agreed with. I think the overall teachings of both Jesus and Paul suggest that if presented with the situation of 21st Cent gay Christians, he would not have lumped them together with the pagans he was condemning in Rom 1.

This thread contains references with more detailed treatments of the issue, including my view of Paul's concept of "natural": Can anyone give me some names of LGBT-affirming christian theologians,philosophers?. You will note that there are pro-gay treatments that I do not recommend, because they make Paul say things that he evidently didn’t say.

----------------

I’m not an expert in transgender identity. I’ve read actual experts, but I find it hard to cite any one specific reference. It does seem clear that there are people that have problems with their sexual identity, and that these problems are serious enough to justify treatment. Many reports suggest that transition helps. (I had an employee go through transition, and the results seem to have been good.) It’s also not a cure-all. Suicide rates still remain higher among people who have transitioned. Personally I’d suggest it as a last resort. But the problem seems real, and I have no problem with people who adopt some or all of a sexual identity opposite to their physical gender to deal with it. I can’t quite understand why many Christians judge these people.

I really don’t see a Biblical issue here. There are plenty of cases where for good reasons we change people from how God made them. We treat birth defects. We amputate parts of the body when survival is at risk. God ordained suffering for childbirth as a punishment, but we deal with it with pain killers or anesthesia. As far as I can see there’s no rational reason why we use legalistic approaches on this one issue.

Here’s an article that discusses the problems that lead to people living as transgender: Opinion | How Changeable Is Gender?. This article is fairly moderate. It points out that gender reassignment isn’t perfect, though the article doesn’t cite the evidence that it often helps. The Wikipedia article Gender dysphoria - Wikipedia is a reasonable summary, and does cite that evidence. (It perhaps isn’t quite skeptical enough, which is why I cited both.)

I remind people reading this that this posting is in the Liberal forum. It is a violation of the SOP of this group to condemn gays or trangenders, or Christians who advocate for them.

Thank you for the message. I would have to state that even when Jesus states if a man looks at lust with a woman, he already committed adultery, just as if a man looks at lustfully at another man. For me, I not to judge people here, and only God can judge us as he knows our hearts and motives. God does speak to peoples hearts, and even the Lord disciplines us, even so, he loves us all. As Christians, the holy spirit guides us on our day to day lives.

It is a messy world, and been so since the fall of Man. It is a hurting world and as Christians, we are meant to reach out to the hurting, even the gay people out there. The church should be open to all including gay couples. Of course, it is up to the church on who to decide on who is members as Churches are like a private organisation and who they are allowed to marry, yet gay people should be welcomed to church.

 

[redleghunter]

As I posted in the other thread and this one was used as a reference. I posted the following.

We must look at how God established relationships between Him and His Imago Dei creation—us. And how God established relationships between man and woman.

The original created order is from God. What transpired after the Fall are the wicked machinations of fallen sinful mankind.

Jesus emphasized the created order, the design of God in Matthew 19. Folks here have already posted the verses. But Jesus affirmed the one man one woman union as being from the beginning (Genesis 2:24)

Anything outside of that union to include divorce, homosexual relations and out of marriage sex is fornication. Which means illicit sex.

God made everything “Good.” Another way to concretely say that is everything was functional according to God’s design.

When mankind fell by the disobedience of Adam, things became dysfunctional and not only sexual sins.

If we ignore what God revealed of His created order accepting fallen rationalizations, we will continue trying to convince ourselves what God “really meant” when in fact He was crystal clear “In the Beginning.”

 

[hedrick]

We must look at how God established relationships between Him and His Imago Dei creation—us. And how God established relationships between man and woman.

I agree. However there are plenty of things in this world that don't quite fit the ideal. People are born with or develop all sorts of conditions that require accommodiation if they're to live the best life possible. Christians understand this everywhere except with sex, Christians consider it a good thing to make allowances for people who have differences, and let them comply with the intent of creation, even if they do so differently. There's nothing in Jesus' teachings to suggest that sexuality is the one area where accommodating differences should be prohibited.

I think by now we know that for most gay people, trying to pretend that they're not gay is a really bad idea. (This is the liberal group, so we can skip the ideological attempt to deny the reality or implications of sexual orientation.) So I think it's well within the authority Christ left the Church to say that relationships that comply with the ideal, except for the genders involved, are a good accommodation.

Not all gay people are interested in a Christian marriage. But for those who are, I think it's something we should encourage and support. Aside from the dangers Paul noted with being unmarried, there are health risks for promiscuous behavior. These are much more serious for gays than others. In my view, anything we can do to promote faithful relationships, including the protection of marriage or an equivalent relationship, is in some ways more important for gays than others.

 

[redleghunter]

I agree. However there are plenty of things in this world that don't quite fit the ideal. People are born with or develop all sorts of conditions that require accommodiation if they're to live the best life possible. Christians understand this everywhere except with sex, Christians consider it a good thing to make allowances for people who have differences, and let them comply with the intent of creation, even if they do so differently. There's nothing in Jesus' teachings to suggest that sexuality is the one area where accommodating differences should be prohibited.

Someone needing an artificial leg to walk compared to a homosexual couple needing a Christian marriage?

 

[hedrick]

Someone needing an artificial leg to walk compared to a homosexual couple needing a Christian marriage?

Yes. They are both accommodations due to differences from the ideal of creation. They're not the same, obviously. Some gay people will likely be insulted at the implication that it's a handicap. In an idea world it wouldn't be. In principle same-sex relationships can reflect God's intention as well as opposite-sex relationships. In the real world, however, enough people experience negative consequences that I think in the world today, being gay is for many people a handicap. At any rate, they are both departures from the description given in Genesis and the Gospels.

Of course those of us who don't believe in inerrancy might prefer to take the view that the authors of Scripture didn't know what sexual orientation is, and had no reason to write descriptions of marriage that take it into account.

 

[bekkilyn]

Jesus stated that there would be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven and that we would be as the angels. Paul wrote that there is no male or female in Christ Jesus.

If the purpose of marriage is solely to produce children, I could understand why there would be restrictions on homosexual marriage (and men spilling their seed on the ground) because it would be in opposition to the sole purpose of marriage, and so most in the current-day west would be getting married for all the wrong reasons, i.e. love.

However, if marriage is more to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church, then the gender of the humans involved shouldn't make any difference because when it gets down to who and what a person is, there is no gender distinction when living into the reality of God's kingdom. We are all one flesh in Christ. The "male" and "female" represent all of humankind originating from the "Adam", whether it be the first (perhaps genderless) Adam formed from the clay, or the second Adam who is Christ.