The TE position on Homosexuality?

[theIdi0t]

I've noticed that a number of TEs here consider themselves "conservative", and I was curious to understand what the TE's position on homosexuality is, since it seems that TEs do promote an understanding of scripture based on cultural context.

Do TEs typically see Paul admonishment of homosexuality, as something that should be understood by its cultural context, by assuming that Paul is focusing on the sexual immorality of his time, and not on what many today consider loving relationships among many gay and lesbian individuals?

Or should Paul, and other parts of the Bible that oppose homosexuality, be seen as a timeless law, relevant today as it was yesterday?

I'm also curious to hear the TE's take on the science of homosexuality. Do they buy that homosexuality has a strong biological component, that infers that it is not a choice, or do they find this evidence to be too shaky to make such inferences?

I realize my question is not "origin" related, but I could not find a way to ask such a question to an isolated community of Christians, who do accept science, and a post-modern understanding of scripture.

I hope to here your thoughts.

 

[crawfish]

I think there is ample evidence to support the genetic predisposition of homosexuality. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that there is also an external component as well. In other words, I believe that homosexuality is a combination of both nature and nurture, in varying degrees of each depending on the individual.

I'm also of the opinion that for Christianity, it doesn't matter one whit whether it's inborn or learned. We are "born" with a myriad number of predispositions; sexual, personality, aggressiveness; we are expected to become new people when we accept God's grace. We are expected to give up our natures and become new creatures of God.

Yes, I believe homosexual behavior is a sin. I believe the bible is quite clear on this. I also believe it's not a bigger sin than any other, and people who happen to be homosexuals have every bit the access to God's grace as the rest of us.

I hope this answers your question, although I'm only speaking for myself.

 

[theIdi0t]

I'm also of the opinion that for Christianity, it doesn't matter one whit whether it's inborn or learned. We are "born" with a myriad number of predispositions; sexual, personality, aggressiveness; we are expected to become new people when we accept God's grace. We are expected to give up our natures and become new creatures of God.

Do you believe the mechanisms for predisposition to homosexuality, are equal to the mechanisms that govern the predisposition to heterosexuality?

In other words do you believe that some one who is biologically homosexual, is not much different that one who is biologically heterosexual?

Or in another take, would you consider the flight of a homosexual to heterosexuality, is equally as biologically difficult as heterosexual to homosexual flight?

If so, are we saying that homosexuals must take this flight, or at least take the flight to celibacy, to be a "believer"--inherit the kingdom of God, as Paul would say?

Do, you also assume that Paul had this understanding of the biological components of sexual identity, when he wrote of his opposition to homosexuality to the churches in the Epistles?

I'm not seeking to start a debate, I'm just trying to understand the position, and how it is justified among TEs.

 

[Mallon]

Evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution) is a theological position on evolution, and evolution alone. Subscribing to evolutionary creationism does not dictate what one must believe about other aspects of life, so there is no single "TE position on homosexuality".

But for what it is worth, I believe the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. And like crawfish, I believe there is a genetic predisposition to such (though not solely).

 

[Jase]

A big problem this issue brings up is, if there is a genetic predisposition ( which I believe there is), why does God choose to condemn a large group of humans to be despised and destined to a life of being permanently alone without offering any solace or help on the matter.

 

[crawfish]

A big problem this issue brings up is, if there is a genetic predisposition ( which I believe there is), why does God choose to condemn a large group of humans to be despised and destined to a life of being permanently alone without offering any solace or help on the matter.

That question is much bigger than homosexuality. We are predisposed to a great number of things. Two people are exposed to identical bad situations growing up, one turns exceptionally violent and the other doesn't. One man has a huge libido and monogamy is something very difficult for him to live with; another with a smaller libido has no problems whatsoever.

We are all given internal struggles. God doesn't judge us on our outward appearance, good works or surface spirituality; he judges our hearts. This is the one thing that distinguishes ourselves from "pure" evolutionists: we believe that we are greater than our physical selves, that we have to ability to overcome our genetic predispositions and become a new person.

 

[crawfish]

Do you believe the mechanisms for predisposition to homosexuality, are equal to the mechanisms that govern the predisposition to heterosexuality?

In other words do you believe that some one who is biologically homosexual, is not much different that one who is biologically heterosexual?

Equal to? No. More a corruption of the natural (or preferred) state of being, in much the same way as a birth defect or mental disability.

Or in another take, would you consider the flight of a homosexual to heterosexuality, is equally as biologically difficult as heterosexual to homosexual flight?

Yes. I'm not one who thinks that most homosexuals can be "cured"...they will always carry that particular disposition with them.

If so, are we saying that homosexuals must take this flight, or at least take the flight to celibacy, to be a "believer"--inherit the kingdom of God, as Paul would say?

We are all fallen people. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. We all have our own personal demons to fight, and we'll fail every now and then in that struggle. God's grace supersedes those failures; he knows what is truly in our hearts.

Falling and accepting are two different things, however. If I have issues with greed and decide that rather than struggle with that sin I'll embrace it, then my heart is with mammon and not God. I am living a slave to sin.

Do, you also assume that Paul had this understanding of the biological components of sexual identity, when he wrote of his opposition to homosexuality to the churches in the Epistles?

Of course not. However, he was speaking to lifestyles...the man who openly bragged about sleeping with his own mother? Not what was in people's hearts to be judged by God. Where the disposition comes from is meaningless in this context.

I'm not seeking to start a debate, I'm just trying to understand the position, and how it is justified among TEs.

Thanks for posting! I'm all for livening up the debate in this quiet forum. Again, there is no consensus among TE's on this issue, I'd wager, only our commitment to science and facts that force us to see the issue as realistically as possible.

 

[Jase]

That question is much bigger than homosexuality. We are predisposed to a great number of things. Two people are exposed to identical bad situations growing up, one turns exceptionally violent and the other doesn't. One man has a huge libido and monogamy is something very difficult for him to live with; another with a smaller libido has no problems whatsoever.

We are all given internal struggles. God doesn't judge us on our outward appearance, good works or surface spirituality; he judges our hearts. This is the one thing that distinguishes ourselves from "pure" evolutionists: we believe that we are greater than our physical selves, that we have to ability to overcome our genetic predispositions and become a new person.

I guess I'm not one who is too optimistic about people's ability to overcome predispositions like that. God doesn't seem too willing to help with those issues.

 

[crawfish]

I guess I'm not one who is too optimistic about people's ability to overcome predispositions like that. God doesn't seem too willing to help with those issues.

Perhaps "overcome" is too strong a word. I think the key is God's grace which is more powerful than any sin.

 

[Jase]

Perhaps "overcome" is too strong a word. I think the key is God's grace which is more powerful than any sin.

What good is it if it doesn't help?

 

[gluadys]

I guess I'm not one who is too optimistic about people's ability to overcome predispositions like that. God doesn't seem too willing to help with those issues.

And maybe because that is not what is required. As stated, a position on TE does not imply a position on homosexuality.

And I am one of the radical minority who holds that homosexual behaviour may not be sinful in every circumstance.

I think we would all agree that the question is one of behaviour, not genetic predisposition. It is clear that genetic disposition does not dictate behaviour for those who have a disposition toward homosexual attraction often engage in heterosexual behaviour and vice versa.

So the question posed is whether those with a certain genetic predisposition are required to observe a certain line of behaviour.

To some extent, this is true of everyone. We all agree that a heterosexual disposition does not make every heterosexual act legitimate. We require observance of the bonds of marriage and within that the bonds of kindness and love. (A marriage licence is not a licence to rape your wife, for example. A married woman still has the right to say "no".)

And we would all agree that any sexual act that is sinful if done in a heterosexual context is also wrong in a homosexual context: i.e. rape, fornication, pederasty, prostitution.

That leaves the only item of controversy. What about a homosexual relation that, if it were heterosexual, would be a legitimate expression of sexual love?

I don't find any description of homosexuality in scripture that covers this situation, and I am reluctant to argue from silence.

And I have met too many Christians who are homosexual, some celibate, some in relationships, to think there is any easy answer. Some have become close friends and colleagues and I honestly cannot say that their sexual lives have any detrimental effect on their Christian life and witness.

Celibacy seems to be an answer for some. But the attitude of the churches on this is a bit hypocritical, for it does not actually require celibacy. It only requires no homosexual relationship. The homosexual who marries and has heterosexual relationships with his/her spouse is not castigated.

But is s/he not living a lie? What is admirable about a sexual relationship built on a false foundation? What is honest, or good or pure about loving one person while marrying and having sexual relations with another?

It hasn't been easy for me to come to these conclusions. I led such a sheltered life in my childhood that I didn't eve know there was such a thing as homosexuality until I was in my late teens. And at first, I fully accepted the traditional condemnation of it.

But it does make a difference when one meets real people for whom it is a real question. It took me over 10 years of soul-searching and study of the scriptures to change my mind, with lots of half-way compromise positions before getting to where I am today, but I can no longer say that every homosexual relationship is sinful. Specifically, I do not think scripture gives a clear answer on the homosexual relationship that is an analog to heterosexual marriage.

 

[Jase]

And maybe because that is not what is required. As stated, a position on TE does not imply a position on homosexuality.

I agree a TE position has no bearing on one's position about homosexuality directly, but TE's tend to be less fundamentalist, and therefore less condemning of people who are. There is a huge discussion on this issue in the Apologetics forum, and the hate spewed by some of the fundamentalists is really disturbing.

What did you mean by that may not be what is required? Are you referring to God helping on the issue?

 

[gluadys]

What did you mean by that may not be what is required? Are you referring to God helping on the issue?

You expressed some doubt that God is helpful in overcoming a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behaviour. (I would agree that a homosexual attraction is not "curable").

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that. In the Catholic church priests take a vow of celibacy, and often have to struggle against their natural sexual urges in order to keep their vows. If God's grace can assist them, I believe it can also assist the homosexual who believes s/he is required to remain celibate.

But what I was getting at is that perhaps God's call is not to overcome homosexual attraction or to remain celibate, but to get out of the box created by the assumption that every homosexual act is sinful. Maybe, for some individuals at least, the call is to accept both the fact that one is genetically disposed toward same-sex attraction and accept an actual relationship with a partner as long as it complies with the other facets expected in such a relationship (commitment to faithful monogamy). And be thankful for the love God has brought into one's life.

I am personally aware of three such homosexual relationships among my Christian friends.

I know that this is going against a long and wide-spread, firmly entrenched interpretation of scripture. Maybe you are right, that being TE prepares one for such radical re-interpretations. Although in my case, the awareness of radical re-interpretations came first and was applied initially to questions of social justice (which led to what is "justice" for homosexuals) and TE did not become a significant part of my theology until later.

I would also agree with my more conservative colleagues, that an argument from genetic predisposition is irrelevant. If every homosexual relationship is sinful, it is still sinful regardless of genetic predisposition. The same argument holds here as with alcoholism. It would seem that some reactions to alcohol are genetically influenced so that some people are more readily inclined to alcoholism than others.

That does not excuse alcoholism. It means one must govern one's relationship to alcoholic beverages accordingly. Just as diabetics must govern their relationship to carbohydrates within the parameters of their defective digestive system.

 

[Jase]

You expressed some doubt that God is helpful in overcoming a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behaviour. (I would agree that a homosexual attraction is not "curable").

You would think God would be capable of "curing" these types of problems.

That does not excuse alcoholism. It means one must govern one's relationship to alcoholic beverages accordingly. Just as diabetics must govern their relationship to carbohydrates within the parameters of their defective digestive system.

True, but there is a big difference between having to refrain from alcohol or sugar, and being denied what most would consider the most important need in human existence forever - love and companionship. Take it from someone who is fated to be alone forever for other reasons out of my control. It is a pain I wouldn't wish on Hitler, and is the #1 reason I'm having trouble believing in God. It's far easier to tell people to deal with what they are born with when you don't actually have to deal with it.

 

[gluadys]

True, but there is a big difference between having to refrain from alcohol or sugar, and being denied what most would consider the most important need in human existence forever - love and companionship. Take it from someone who is fated to be alone forever for other reasons out of my control. It is a pain I wouldn't wish on Hitler, and is the #1 reason I'm having trouble believing in God. It's far easier to tell people to deal with what they are born with when you don't actually have to deal with it.

Amen and Amen. I agree wholeheartedly. That is one of the reasons I changed my own position on homosexuality.

What made the difference in the end was that I concluded from studying how Jesus inter-related with people, that people are fundamentally much more important than doctrine. And I could find no reason other than doctrine to inflict such pain on homosexuals.

I think often of your distress and will keep you in my prayers. I do hope you will find a resolution soon.

 

[shernren]

The comments that have already been made are excellent. I would just add a few of my own thoughts.

1. Even conservatives themselves regularly modulate Paul's messages by taking them to refer to contemporary culture. A classic example is Paul's commands regarding the hair in 1 Cor 11. How many churches require women to wear veils, and forbid that their men wear long hair? How many conservative women at home remember to cover their heads before they pray? And yet Paul connects head covering in this passage with nothing less than the headship of Christ and the glory of God, and I would gladly advocate what he commanded - if only I could figure out what he was trying to say! So even for conservatives the difficult issue of translating Biblical imperatives from one culture to another cannot be avoided.

2. A genetic predisposition is simply another factor a person cannot control. Person A is a homosexual; scientists suggest that it's because he has a different version of a particular gene. Person B is a homosexual; psychologists suggest that it's because he was regularly sexually abused by his father since young for many years (to give an extreme example; this is probably true only for a drastic minority of homosexuals). Why might person B be sinful and person A not? After all, person B has no more control over how he was brought up than person A has over his genes. Neither of them choose to be homosexual; both of them can choose how and to what extent they wish to fulfill their homosexual desires.

3. There are worse things in the world than homosexuality. I personally think that the only reason homosexuality is so widely bandied about is because Christians so desperately ignore their sins that they subconsciously need to project them onto someone, or something. Homosexuals make a convenient scapegoat. "I thank thee, Lord, that I am not a homosexual, or an abortionist, or an evolutionist." So much hatred for homosexuality is so unjustified. What about pride or greed or envy or wrath? Why not condemn the proud who would take authority before condemning the homosexuals who would marry? For all their sinfulness, at least homosexual acts may still be founded in love, whatever comes of them.

 

[Citanul]

I wonder - would there be any point in asking YECs their views on homosexuality? I suspect that virtually all of them will be against it, but it would be interesting to see if there are any who aren't, yet still hold on to a literal account of creation.

 

[crawfish]

You would think God would be capable of "curing" these types of problems.

You know, I really wish He would. I'm lightly autistic, and growing up was a particularly painful time for a young, socially awkward kid who doesn't act the way that society dictates for "normal" people. I felt alone and alienated most of my childhood. I often wondered why God was torturing me, why he bothered even creating me if my life was going to be so tough. God helped me through that, though - not by curing me, but by giving me the strength through parents and my church family to learn to deal with my differences. Being different doesn't bother me as much as an adult; but I'm definitely not "cured". I'm just a socially awkward, quiet adult who's learned to be confident in the strengths God gave me.

It's tough seeing my oldest son, very much like me, going through the same things.

 

[shernren]

I wonder - would there be any point in asking YECs their views on homosexuality? I suspect that virtually all of them will be against it, but it would be interesting to see if there are any who aren't, yet still hold on to a literal account of creation.

No, I don't think so. And why would they be so interested in making homosexuality a metric of how much bad evolution has done to the world? I bet that for every homosexual who is homosexual specifically because s/he thinks that religion has come around and endorsed it, there are at least ten boring middle-class Christians whose little bit of radicalism involves laughing smugly at deluded evolutionists - all the while never budging from their destructive consumerist lifestyle.

 

[theIdi0t]

Thanks for posting! I'm all for livening up the debate in this quiet forum. Again, there is no consensus among TE's on this issue, I'd wager, only our commitment to science and facts that force us to see the issue as realistically as possible.

I apologize if I sounded as if I was generalizing, but my post was directed at TEs, who felt homosexuality is wrong.

I can see, why it would is easier for a YEC, to take the opposing position on homosexuality than a TE. Perhaps, you can see why this would be so?

I think it is not correct to say that the only thing TEs agree on is origin, we will also find similarity in our way of viewing the Word. A TE who would not assume that Samson killed 1000 Philistines with a donkeys jaw bone, would be one example, and that a TE would agree, as you have, that Paul would not have an understanding of the science of "sexual identity", which of course a YEC would say is false, and Paul knew yesterday as today, and tomorrow.

Earlier you used examples, of promiscuity, and etc, to speak of a struggle with a demon. But I'm not speaking of a homosexual lifestyle, which we would also oppose for heterosexuals, but of a homosexual lifestyle, that we would support for heterosexuals as well.

I'm sure you might be able to see, that Paul's attack on the homosexual lifestyle, was not different to the lifestyle he opposed for heterosexual couples. His opposition would not be to monogamous, loving, homosexual relationships, because he would not be able to foresee such an event, in his time. He is addressing particular issues of the Churches, where the lifestyle of his brand of homosexuality, is no different than what a believer would oppose for a heterosexual, and a homosexual lifestyle (regardless of where one stands on the debate) today.

How can we say of the homosexual that he has to fight his biological demon of his disposition, when we ourselves don't have to fight this demon? Why should he be in opposition to a lifestyle, that we accept for ourselves?

I don't think it's fair to say that somehow since we are "TEs" that our position on homosexuality is no different than that of YECs, because I'm sure we will find big disparity in the position of homosexuality among our two camps. Of course to say that every TE should or does take a particular position is foolish, but to assume that TEs are inclined to move as a whole to accept certain positions is not--at least i think so. The reason being that we understand that writers of the bible, are absent of scientific understanding, and another being we are more willing to see scripture in a different light, when the science is a bit more full.

Allow me to rephrase: a "TE" position is sort of a gateway, to accepting homosexuality at a latter date.

I know that those who take the opposing view on homosexuality, will disagree with this statement, but I'm not saying that any individual here who opposes homosexuality today, will accept it tomorrow, but I feel it is reasonable to assume that latter generations of TE will.

I'm sure if we were to seek out Christians who do support gay rights, you will find a correlation in there Origin of Life view, because both positions do arise from an understanding of science. I think the current TE position is only limited by the positions of yesterday, but once someone shakes himself off of those restraints then things change.

I apologize, if I have come off a bit controversial in my opinions, but I find it much easier here, to have a fair conversation about the subject, than anywhere else on this forum, even if some may find it a bit abrasive, and I hope this is only so because of the subject matter, and not of what I say.

(I also wanted to say, that I do appreciate the friendly conversation from both sides of the issue, it's quite a rare feat, for such a subject. And as someone mentioned, it gets quite ugly in other areas of this forum.)