Readers,
I received an email requesting that I post something on being gay in the Churches of Christ. I’ve split the email into 8 parts, to fit my answers more closely to the reader’s questions and because his poignant email raises several important issues that merit careful thought and a comprehensive response.
I thought at first of responding privately, but the letter asks for a post, and I’ve come to think that’s the right response. After all, as the writer says, most of our churches have gay members. Most churches have homosexual members who’ve chosen to be single and chaste, surrendering their sexuality to Jesus.
But few would be willing to admit their struggles to the congregation. And this says much about how much further we have to go to truly be like Jesus.
I invite my readers to join in with any other words of encouragement you think appropriate. I make no claim to expertise on this topic.
Jay,
I stumbled upon your blog this evening [identifying information omitted]. I have been reading for over an hour and could go on reading. I really like your insights and your style of writing.
I’d like to ask you if you would at some point write on the topic of homosexuality in the churches of Christ. I think the church has its head buried in the sand by not dealing with the issue. Undoubtedly there are gay people in the church. Usually they’re in the singles class, but of course more and more married men have been caught in gay relationships.
Dear ____,
I’m flattered and humbled that you chose me, of all people, to ask about how to deal with being a gay Christian in the Churches of Christ.
Let me begin by saying I have no training at all in counseling — and it shows. My skills, such as they are, are in theology, that is, in interpreting God’s written word. And so forgive me for answering in theological terms.
But before getting to the theology, it’s critical that you realize that you’re accepted and loved by Jesus for who you are. Even though I conclude that homosexual actions are sinful, being a homosexual — having homosexual urges — is not. God never condemns us for how we are made.
(Psa 103:11-14) For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; 12 as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; 14 for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.
In other words, God knows that we are all made less-than-perfectly and treats us accordingly, that is, with compassion and mercy.
I’m working on a series based on some of the writings of N. T. Wright, an Anglican bishop and likely the most important Christian theologian living today. I’m a Wright fan, because he’s conservative, in the sense of taking the Bible’s words and authority very seriously. But he’s unorthodox in being willing to provide answers contrary to accepted views.
I thought he would be particularly appropriate to quote because the Anglican/Episcopalian Church has wrestled with the Biblical treatment of gays, and Wright was part of the committee that sought to find a means of dealing with the impact of the ordination of gay bishop Gene Robinson.
Here’s how he explains the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality from an interview publishing in the National Catholic Reporter [paragraphing is modified to facilitate reading on a blog]:
NCR: There are two inter-related questions concerning the current crisis within Anglicanism. The first is a moral analysis of homosexuality, the second how one understands ecclesial communion. Let’s start with the first point. One locus for the debate over homosexuality is Romans 1:26-28. How do you understand what Paul is saying?
Wright: I’ve written quite extensively about Romans in various places, particularly my commentary in the New Interpreter’s Bible, and anything that I say should be filled in with what’s there. The main thing to realize about Romans 1:26 and following is that it isn’t just a side swipe out of the blue.
Paul’s argument at that point is grounded in the narrative of Genesis 1, 2 and 3. As often, he’s referring to it obliquely, but it’s there under the text. He’s drawing on it at various stages. He sees the point about being human as being to reflect God’s image, which he says in a number of places in his writings. He clearly sees that in Genesis 1 it is male plus female who are made in the image of God.
He chooses the practice of homosexuality, not as a random feature of “look, they do all sorts of wicked things.” His point is that when people in a society are part of an idolatrous system — not necessarily that they individually are specifically committing acts of idolatry, but when the society as a whole worships that which is not the true God — then its image-bearingness begins to deconstruct. An obvious sign of that for Paul, granted Genesis 1, is the breakup of male-female relations and the turning off in other directions.
Then it’s important to see how that is stitched into the argument that he mounts later on in the letter about how humankind is restored. When in chapter four he talks about Abraham, he talks about Abraham specifically did the things which in chapter one that human beings did not. In chapter one, they refused to know God, to honor God as God, to acknowledge God’s power and deity, and all the rest of it. This is the end of Romans 4. The result of Abraham acknowledging God and God’s power, recognizing that God had the power to do what he promised and giving God glory, which is the exact opposite word-by-word of what he said in chapter one, is that Abraham and Sarah were able to conceive children even in their old age.
It’s a specific reversal, the coming back together of male plus female, and then the being fruitful, which is the command of Genesis 1: “Be fruitful and multiply.” This is why he can talk in Romans 5 of how in Christ, who has fulfilled the promises to Abraham, what God wanted to do through Adam has been put back on the rails.
Can you draw a straight line between what Paul understood by “homosexuality” and how we understand it?
Not a straight line, because there is no one understanding today of what constitutes homosexuality. There are many different analyses.
As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do.
In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it’s already there in Plato.
The idea that in Paul’s today it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever … of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.
Indeed, in the modern world that isn’t an invention of the 20th century either. If you read the recent literature, for example Graham Robb’s book Strangers, which is an account of homosexual love in the 19th century, it offers an interesting account of all kinds of different expressions and awarenesses and phenomena. I think we have been conned by Michel Foucault into thinking that this is all a new phenomena.
So the attempt to get around Paul’s language on homosexuality by suggesting that its cultural referent was different than ours doesn’t work?
At any point in Paul, whether it’s justification by faith or Christology or anything else, you have to say, of course this is culturally conditioned. He’s speaking first century Greek, for goodness’ sake. Of course you have to understand it in its context.
But when you do that, it turns out to be a rich and many-sided thing. You cannot simply say, as some people have done, that in the first century homosexuality had to do with cult prostitution, and we’re not talking about that, therefore it’s something different. This simply won’t work.
So yes, it is impossible to say, we’re reading this in context and that makes it different. What can you still say, of course, and many people do, is that, “Paul says x and I say y.” That’s an option that many in the church take on many issues. When we actually find out what Paul said, some say, “Fine, and I disagree with him.” That raises all kinds of other issues about how the authority of scripture actually works in the church, and at what point the authority structure of scripture-tradition-reason actually kicks in.
Can a Christian morality rooted in scripture approve of homosexuality?
The word “homosexuality” is an abstract noun. What in the Anglican Church we’ve tried to do is restrict the debate to the practice of homosexual relations.
Of course, many people claim to be “rooted” in scripture in a variety of ways. But if a church is actually determined to be faithful to scripture, then not only at that point but at several others — for instance, some of our economic practices — we would need to take a long, hard look and say, maybe we’re getting this wrong.
So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?
Correct. That is consonant with what I’ve said and written elsewhere.
I apologize for the long quotation, but Wright’s analysis is important, I think, because so many have tried, based on the theories he addresses, to argue out of the Biblical teaching that homosexual acts are sin .
I should add that Wright’s conclusions match my own, arrived at independently, reached from a gospel-based hermeneutic, as I explain here, which is part of this series on hermeneutics.
Whenever Jesus or Paul is asked a question dealing with sexuality or marriage, they refer back to Genesis 1-2 as describing the ideal and the curse in Genesis 3 as the fallen state of man. And then they call on their audience to return to the ideal of a one woman/one man marriage.
But both Jesus and Paul teach that a disciple may remain single, as did both Jesus and Paul, and both teach that in some ways being single is preferable to being married. There is certainly no sin in remaining single. After all, as Paul explains in 1 Cor 7, being single allows one to be a better servant of Christ.
(1 Cor 7:32-35) I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world –how he can please his wife — 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
Last month, I dealt with the issue of homosexuality because of the concerns of a co-worker. I posted about it on my blog on March 13 (http://adisciplesthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/03/qu…) and on March 22 (http://adisciplesthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/03/co…). If my posts can help with this issue, feel free to use them. If they do not help, feel free to ignore them. I realize that this is not merely a theoretical question. People really are struggling with this.
Josh,
I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying that lust (straight or gay) is a sin, then I agree. However, I think what Jay was trying to get at (and Wright in the excerpt) is the state of being gay. While everyone has control over how they act on their sexuality, they don't necessarily have control over the nature of their sexuality. I think what is being addressed is whether or not people choose same-sex attraction; and the answer is no. Why would anyone want to have an impulse that alienates them from God, the church, friends and family, and sets them up to be ostracized by society?
Furthermore, all of the hard data indicates that “changing” orientation is a mostly futile effort. There are many gay believers who go through years of therapy, pray constantly for change, and yet still experience same-sex attraction. Consequently, the churches that are willing to even acknowledge this are focusing their efforts on helping gays to manage their behavior rather than change the desire for the behavior.
It sounds as though you are suggesting that gays are somehow more prone to lust than straight people; and there is no evidence for such an assertion. As with straight people, only the individual knows what is in his/her heart.
Jay, if I misunderstood you, I am sure that you will correct me and accept my apologies. Likewise Josh, if I misunderstood you, please let me know.
To Josh –
Nice post with many good scriptures referenced but I don't see any reference to homosexuality in any of them. I see a lot of your theory and opinions, which you are entitled to, of course.
In examining your first paragraph, you state "that I don’t see anything directly stated or implied in the Bible that we are supposed to analyze each and every type of sin and use human wisdom and philosophy to come up with a special program to help fight it". Are you saying that you think having a support group like Divorce Recovery or alcohol/addiction support groups, such as Celebrate Recovery, should not exist since we are not supposed to have a "program" for every different sin? God forbid (no he didn't) that we should help fellow Christians with whatever sin or issue they are facing in their lives.
Or is it because we are talking about homosexuality, which no-one in the church of Christ even acknowledges the potential existence of within their church body? Unless you have a very small congregation in a small town with membership made up of mostly elderly married couples, the issue does exist for someone in your church. Someone that suffers in secret, knowing that it is a taboo subject and that there is no-one in the church to talk to about it.
In examining the scriptures that you provided, starting with "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2 Cor 10:5)"
Yes, we are to focus on obedience to Christ – agreed. Is it possible to do that 100% of the time without stumbling or sinning? No.
Next, "for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies". I dont' see homosexuality addressed in this verse. I see evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, lying and blasphemy". Fornication is sex between to unmarried people. Does fornication include being attracted to the same sex? No, it does not, just as fornication does not include being attracted to the opposite sex.
Psalm 119:104 “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Another great verse that has nothing to do with homosexuality. I hate every false way myself.
hate the things that God hates, i.e. sin. (Rev 2:6) actually says "You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." What did the Nicolaitans do wrong? I have no idea. When I search on the word Nicolaitans, it doesn't appear anywhere else that I can find.
2 Peter 1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust". I have read what you think this verse means. To me, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
“that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15) And again, 1 Pet 4:1-3 “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:” Yes, we are to live like Christ, for Christ and not to sin. That is the obvious goal of being a Christian. Do we do it perfectly? Only one did.
I agree that every sin is equal, yet we don't seem to act as though we do. Does anyone approach the obese person to offer counseling on their overeating? Obesity could fall into these categories mentioned in the verse above – (revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.
When an obese person comes in the door, how many people condemn that person because of their horrible sin? How many judge in quiet and think to themselves, "oh he/she is going to hell for being so fat and if he doesn't repent and lose that weight, he's doomed. He must worship food…." No, I dont think so. Nobody is going to think twice about it. Nobody is going to shy away because they dont know what to say. Noone is going to walk up to that person and tell them they're going to hell for being so fat because it is one that is ignored. It doesn't count because it is so prevalent in society..
What about the gay couple who walk in the door (obviously they know nothing about the church of Christ if they do). How many people are going to condemn them and instantly judge them as doomed to hell? Suppose the gay couple has never had any religious background and decide they want to find out more about Christ and make the unfortunate mistake of walking into a church of Christ. Will they be made to feel welcome? Will they want to come back and hear more? No, they wont because I know how they will be treated. Most will try to avoid them because they dont know what to do or say. Someone else might walk up to them and flat out tell them they are going to hell. Few will introduce themselves and welcome them. Doubtful if they'll come back.
And it's doubtful that the gay person who grew up in the church of Christ suffering with same sex attraction will stay either. They will not be accepted or they will be tired of being condemned or they will become tired of living a lie. But that person doesn't get tired of Jesus Christ and considers himself a Christian. That person might be trying to live a good Christian life and is not out having anonymous sex with other guys. As he gets older and doesn't get married and people start talking about him behind his back and assuming that he must be gay, even though he has never shown any evidence of living a gay lifestyle, and making fun of him behind his back because he is still in the Singles class and approaching 40…will he keep coming? Probably not.
Thanks for reading my thoughts on your post. I apologize that they are so lengthy.
To Terry,
I read the post on your blog about homosexuality. There is one thing I would like to say about it. The assumption that everyone likes to make is that Sodom/Gomorrah were destroyed because of their homosexuality, as you stated. I find that to be an incorrect statement for the following reasons…
The first time Sodom was mentioned in the Bible is in Gen 10:19, "and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha."
The second reference is in Gen 13:10 "(This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.)
The third reference is in Gen 13:12 "while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom."
The fourth reference is in Gen 13:13 "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." The men of Sodom were wicked….for what reason does God consider them wicked. Maybe it's because they were thieves and murderers. Or maybe it's because of their attitude toward God. Maybe they were all obese….doesn't say because they were homosexual.
Gen 14:1 "Amraphel king of Shinar, [a] Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goiim 2 went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah…"
Gen 14:8 more about the war…the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah…marched out and drew up their battle lines"
Gen 14:10 "Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits, and when the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some of the men fell into them and the rest fled to the hills."
Gen 14:11 "The four kings seized all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food; then they went away"
Gen 14: 12 "They also carried off Abram's nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom."
Gen 14:17 "after Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh"
Gen 14:21-22 " The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself. But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath".
Gen 18:16-17 "When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" Time has passed between Gen 14 to Gen 18 and a lot has happened. How much time I have no idea. Maybe someone can tell me. but here we see that God is making his plan.
Gen 18:20 "Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Here is where people make another assumption that their sin that is so grievous must be homosexuality. So far that has not been mentioned.
Gen 18:21-23 "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?"
Next are the passages where Abraham is asking God to spare the city if a certain number of righteous men can be found. It doesn't say if a certain number of heterosexual men can be found.
Next is chapter 19 which I am sure you have read, particularly starting with verse 5, "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof. "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
This is the only reference to sexual contact between two men and it is in the context of wicked men of Sodom wanting to rape other men. This was the sin. Does it talk about two gay committed men or women in a monogamous relationship having consensual sex behind closed doors in the privacy of their own house? No, it does not. I know you are not going to agree with me on this, which is OK. And I will certainly consider whatever you have to say about it. But consider this, if you read all the verses about Sodom up to this point, nowhere does it say that the city was being destroyed because of homosexuality. It says there are few righteous men and they are committing great, grievous sin. Grievous sin can include many things…
Next, Deuteronomy 29:23 says the Lord overthrew S & G because of his fierce anger.
There are several mentions of S & G until we get to Ezekiel chapter 16 which tells us why Sodom was destroyed. Ezekiel 16:48-49 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Why was Sodom destroyed? It's clear. It was destroyed due to arrogance, obesity, lack of concern for others, not helping the poor and needy, being haughty (disdainfully proud; snobbish; scornfully arrogant; supercilious, lofty or noble; exalted.), and doing detestable things. Nowhere does it say Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.
We know one of the detestable things that went on was male on male rape (bet it wasn't the only detestable thing they did). Did you notice it doesn't even say if the men in Sodom who wanted to do the raping were homosexual or not? They were about to rape other men but all kinds of depravity went on and still goes on today. It is not unconceivable that they were bi-sexual, homosexual, or straight men with wives at home who wanted to degrade and shame the visitors. It was an act of violence, not an act of sexual desire.
Suppose I am wrong and you are right and that S&G were destroyed for homosexuality. What does Jesus say in Matthew 10:11-15? He says,"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
To me Jesus is saying that if his 12 disciples are not welcomed and not listened to by the people, those people will face an even harsher judgment than that given to S&G. Apparently Jesus thought that not welcoming his disciples and listening to his word was worse than male on male rape and the other sins mentioned in Ezekiel 16.
If you made it this far, thanks once again for reading my post and I apologize for the lengthiness of it.
Jay, I’m not sure that you answered the question. It seemed to me the question was why the church doesn’t deal with homosexuality any differently than it deals with others sins, and I would say the answer is that I don’t see anything directly stated or implied in the Bible that we are supposed to analyze each and every type of sin and use human wisdom and philosophy to come up with a special program to help fight it. The Bible tells us what things are sin, and calls us to repentance, giving us the assurance that God will not tempt us above our ability to resist the temptation.
It is for this reason (that the Bible doesn’t class homosexuality as a special type of sin to be given extra treatment by way of using philosophy to come up with some sort of manmade remedy) I find your notion that “homosexual actions are sinful, being a homosexual — having homosexual urges — is not” to be highly suspect. I don’t think that dishonesty or beating around the bush is going to help anyone deal with this sin anymore than it will with any other. What I mean is, what you are saying sounds a lot like saying that stealing your neighbor’s house is a sin, but having covetous thoughts about stealing his house is just fine. Or that killing someone is a sin, but hating them is ok. Or sleeping with your neighbor’s wife is a sin, but lusting after her is alright. We know the Bible teaches against the thoughts as well as the actions. And our goal as Christians should not be to dismiss sinful thoughts as being benign because “they’re just thought,” but rather our goal should be “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2 Cor 10:5) Regardless of what the sin is, we can’t be satisfied with saying “I only wanted to do it, but I didn’t actually do it, but man I really wish I could do it, but I can’t, so I won’t, but man oh man I really want to.”
Whether we are talking about murder, covetousness, sexual sins, or any other type of sin, in every case the goal should be to get rid of the cause not just treat the symptoms. The physical acts are symptoms. The thoughts are the cause. Jesus says so himself, when he says “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Dealing with externals alone is impossible. This is what Catholicism tries with the vow of celibacy, but no vow will really restrain the actions so long as the heart is left undealt with, and especially so long as people make it their especial goal to let the heart off the hook. The covetous man who tells himself “I can’t steal anymore, but I sure am going to fantasize about stealing” will end up stealing again without fail, because he is fantasizing about stealing. He still esteems the sin in his heart. In order to stop doing the sin you must make your heart hate it, as David says in Psalm 119:104 “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” To cure yourself of the sin (any sin) you must view it as God does, that is, with disgust. Only when you make the sin disgusting to you in your heart, will you conquer it. We must make ourselves hate the things that God hates, i.e. sin. (Rev 2:6)
When Peter says in 2 Peter 1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” I think part of his admonition is that we ought to think of ourselves as gods (not in a literal sense obviously, see John 10:34) and thereby cease to esteem what the world esteems and its lusts, but rather keep in mind that “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15) And again, 1 Pet 4:1-3 “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:” In other words, keeping Christ’s death on our behalf in view we ought to reject our own lusts and the lusts of others (for we wasted enough time in fulfilling the lusts of the Gentiles in the past, he says) and we ought to live to please God. It is only in putting on this sort of mind that we will be able to beat any sin, including heresy.
Anonymous,
Thanks for reading my post. I don't think we disagree as much as you may expect. As you may have noticed, I mentioned Ezekiel 16. In fact, it was the only passage quoted in my post. I was pointing out that although most people believe Sodom was destroyed simply because of the homosexual activity of its citizens. Sodom committed many sins. It was in a very self-centered society.
This is where we may disagree: Homosexual (or bi-sexual) activity is a sin. It may not be justified by pointing out that other sins are just as bad or worse. One aspect of sexual morality is that it is confined to marriage between a man and woman. Jude 7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire" (NIV).
Please reconsider trying to justify homosexual activity. It is one sin among many, but it is still a sin. It needs to be turned from, not defended. It can lead to hell, as Jude indicated. But it can also be forgiven, as Paul indicated (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Thanks again for your response.
Anonymous,
I should have mentioned that you made a thoughtful point about gluttony being one of the sins of Sodom. If you saw my belly, you would know that it is a sin that I struggle against. I am not trying to justify it, but I am not always successful in my struggles against gluttony. I trust in God's forgiveness as I struggle, and I believe that I am living in God's grace. If I were not fighting against it, I would be resisting God's life-changing grace in my life. In a similar way, I know of homosexuals who are fighting against their sexual temptations. They may not always be successful, either. However, they are trusting in God's forgiveness and seeking to honor God even though they fail sometimes. They are not resisting God's grace, but they are struggling to learn to say "no" to their temptations. I want to encourage them to keep up the fight.
"However, I think what Jay was trying to get at (and Wright in the excerpt) is the state of being gay. While everyone has control over how they act on their sexuality, they don’t necessarily have control over the nature of their sexuality." (odgie)
By that argument necrophiliacs were born being attracted to corpses and pedaphiles were born being attracted to toddlers and those lusts are just fine as long as they are kept hidden in the heart. I find such a notion both reprehensible and unscriptural. Sounds like specialized pre-programmed-sin-robot-Calvinism to me. And it contradicts scripture plainly on many counts. I'd say more but I'm on a pocketpc and typing this stylus is tiring.
Anonymous says "Next, 'for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies'. I dont’ see homosexuality addressed in this verse. I see evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, lying and blasphemy'. Fornication is sex between to unmarried people. Does fornication include being attracted to the same sex? No, it does not, just as fornication does not include being attracted to the opposite sex."
First, in the King James version (which I was quoting), fornication does not simply mean relations between two unmarried people (as it has come to mean in modern usage), but rather it means any sexual act forbidden by God. Hence newer translations render that Greek word porneia as "sexual immorality." Secondly, you will notice also that Jesus is referring to the thoughts specifically. You say that fornication does not include the lust for fornication. But here it does, because he says (I'm using the NIV this time) "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." Out of the heart come what? Evil thoughts. Not just evil deeds, but evil thoughts. It is evil to think about sexual immorality just as it is evil to do it.
Next, being fat is not a sin. Gluttony is a sin, but all fat is not gluttony. All homosexuality, however, is sexually immoral, just as all pedphilia is sexual immoral, all incest is sexually immoral, all necrophilia is sexually immoral, all adultery is sexually immoral.
Anonymous says "When an obese person comes in the door, how many people condemn that person because of their horrible sin?….What about the gay couple who walk in the door (obviously they know nothing about the church of Christ if they do). How many people are going to condemn them and instantly judge them as doomed to hell?"
Anyone who walks in the door or doesn't walk in the door is going to hell unless they beleive the gospel, repent of their sins, confess their belief in Christ, and are baptized into Christ and then live as a Christian. This argument that if a fat person walks in the door nobody will judge that they are going to hell for gluttony is a spurious argument. Whether anyone judges that they will go to hell for gluttony or not (as they might not even be guilty of gluttony per the above) nevertheless it will be recognized that if they are not a faithful Christian they are going to hell simply because "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and the only way to avoid that sending you to hell is to be a faithful Christian. But I suppose you are referring to two homosexuals walking in the door holding hands and kissing and making a public display and such. What homosexual in America doesn't know that most churches are opposed to homosexuality? You might as well as how many people will condemn the drug dealer who walks in the church waving weed in front of your face and asking if you want to buy some. Or perhaps the murderer who comes in the door shooting the place up.
Anonymous says "In examining the scriptures that you provided, starting with 'bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;' (2 Cor 10:5) Yes, we are to focus on obedience to Christ – agreed. Is it possible to do that 100% of the time without stumbling or sinning? No." Are one of those people who always assumes everyone is condemning them for not being perfect? Did I say that if you fail one time to bring your thoughts in captivity to the obedience of Christ that you are irreparably damned to hell and there's no way to change it because its all over now? No, I did not say any such thing, did I? Please calm down and read what it actually being said. I said the goal is to bring every thought into captivity. And why did I say this? Well, beyond the fact that Scripture asserts it, I said it because Jay was denying it. Jay was saying that sinful thoughts are ok so long as you don't act on them, but that's not what the Bible says. Don't take everyone's statements out of context and work yourself into a frenzy. The fact that Christians can miss the mark is why the Bible says "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7-9) If a Christian fails to keep all his or her thoughts in obedience to Christ, he or she repents, that is, the whole life of the Christian is one of constant repentance (i.e. walking in the light) and trying to the best of one's ability to think and do what it is right–yes thought is included "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Phil 4:8)
Anonymous says "And it’s doubtful that the gay person who grew up in the church of Christ suffering with same sex attraction will stay either. They will not be accepted or they will be tired of being condemned or they will become tired of living a lie."
How is living without acting on sinful impulses living a lie? What about the thief who grew up in the church suffering with the urge to steal? Or the murderer with the urge to murder? Will he be living a lie by not giving into his murderous impulses and killing everyone? This stuff is just so silly.
As to the long-winded spiel on Sodom and Gommorah, the fact that Sodom was overthrown for homosexuality comes more from the New Testament's assertion of that fact than from anything in the Old Testament. Jude 1:7 says "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." They gave themselves over to having sexual desires for flesh that was strange or contrary to the nature of their nature to lust after. That's the reason the New Testament gives for the overthrow of Sodom. Yes, Sodom also had general injustice in it, etc. but that's not the reason that Jude assigns. And as to the fact that homosexuality is a sin, the Law speaking to men says in Leviticus 18:22 (NASB) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Just as when the same Law forbids other sexual acts, the desire is sinful as well, as Jesus says in the quote above "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."
James says,
The logic is desire –> conception –> sin –> death
Desire is not sin. Nor does it always produce sin, no more that sin always produces death.
As Barclay writes in his commentary on this passage,
Jay
Thanks for your last post. It's very insightful.
Josh,
I've read enough of this blog since I responded to your post last night to know what type of responses you make. That is why I only skimmed through some of your latest post and will not be taking the time to read the whole thing or make another response. I couldn't care less what you think. My purpose in reaching out to Jay was not to have a religious debate with someone who is not going to ever consider anyone else's opinion or who belittles someone else's legitimate issue. I don't want to hear anymore rants & raves about going to hell and the King James version of the the Bible. Growing up in this church I have been told and made to feel from the pulpit and elsewhere that I'm going to hell my whole life. I've had more than enough of that. From your responses to me and other's on the blog, my opinion is you are the type of "Christian" that drives people right out the door. Sorry if this sounds rude, but you seem to be very direct in your responses and I'm a direct person myself.
Terry,
Thanks for your response to my post. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying on your blog. I don't necessarily disagree that homosexuaity is a sin. I don't know that I think it is either. I'm kind of in a searching mode. I'm in recovery for my alcohol addiction so I finally have to face the big issue in my life that I have been denying, which is part of my addiction. I cannot recover without coming clean and facing everything, whether I want to or not. I wanted to hear from other's from my religious heritage about why this is never addressed in the church, except for the occasional hell, fire, and damnation sermon. I don't' know if this is the right place for that but this is where I am for the moment. I appreciate Jay addressing it on his blog and your insights as well.
Dear Anonymous,
I pray that you find a congregation of Christians where you can confess your struggles without fear of humiliation. I sympathize with your concerns, because of my own sexual struggles. While not homosexual in nature, they are intensely humiliating. I weep before God as I struggle with them. In a time of less maturity, I pondered self-mutilation, praying that maybe Jesus meant "cutting off the offensive parts" literally.
I offer this encouragement, though it may seem back-handed: Evil continues because God's people do not speak up. Allowing fear and suspicion of our Christian family to prevent us from "boldly approaching the throne of grace" and "confessing our sins one to another" allows two things to continue:
1) we leave others less brave than ourselves cowering hopelessly in the shadows. What if our example of bravery and freedom in Christ, our honest public confession, is the catalyst they need, and God "laid out that work beforehand for us to walk in"?
2) we withhold potential blessings from our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Spirit has secretly shaped the hearts of our siblings more than we may realize; many of them are bubbling over inside with compassion, but they just don't know it yet.
Please know that as I wrestle with prayer over my own brokenness tonight, I will be lifting holy hands in prayer for my anonymous brother who strives to honor God in his brokenness as well.
in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, Kentucky
Josh writes:
"By that argument necrophiliacs were born being attracted to corpses and pedaphiles were born being attracted to toddlers and those lusts are just fine as long as they are kept hidden in the heart."
Where does Down's Syndrome come from?
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?
Birth defects?
The HARD FACT that birth defects exist demands that some defects are mental, and that some cause evil desires.
Yes, we are to strive to take every thought captive. Not to strive to do so is the sin; not the thought itself.
Jesus does not say that lusting after a woman is in itself sinful. We are broken image-bearers with dehumanizing habits of treating one another (by nature [long-established pattern] we are children of wrath). It is "looking toward a woman TO DESIRE her" that is heart adultery. You can't commit adultery by accident, or Jacob would have been an adulterer.
respectfully,
nick gill
Frankfort, KY
Impressive post, Nick.
But I'm not entirely sure that admitting his nature to the congregation is the right move. It should be. It really should. But the congregation would need to be prepared. Moreover, most churches are entirely incapable of keeping a secret — especially one of a sexual nature. (I speak from brutal experience. People love to talk.)
On the other hand, I entirely agree with the need for Anonymous to have a circle of friends — within the church — with whom he can be entirely honest. None of us was meant to carry our burdens alone.
Further thoughts along these lines to come.
Re lust:
What man has not desired his fiancée sexually? Wouldn't that make all engaged couples fornicators? Or shouldn't we rather congratulate those who remain chaste while waiting?
The sin is not the lusting but fulfilling the lust. This passage doesn't promise an end to lust, just the ability to overcome it.
Nick
Thank you for your post. It was very meaningful to me. Thank you for your prayers. I will include you in mine tonight. I don't know your situation but I would like to tell you about Celebrate Recovery. You might already know about it. I belong to a Celebrate Recovery group in my city and I am one of the few men in the group that is there for alcoholism. About 80% of the guys in that group are struggling with sexual and pornography addictions. It's a place where you can go and share your struggles/issues without fear of ridicule and shame. I say that but I only talk about my addiction issue. I haven't got up the nerve to talk about my other problem in a room full of married men.
I could not possibly admit this to the entire church. I find it an embarrassing topic to discuss. It took me months to even get up the nerve to talk about it to my therapist. I think I could tell one our ministers but I am ashamed and embarrassed. I am not happy having this sexual orientation. I am not out and proud. One thing I would like to clarify is I have never actually had a sexual relationship with a guy. I have dated girls in high school, college and as an adult. Everytime I had a girlfriend I would then be able to convince myself that I wasn't attracted to men. I was also drowning myself in alcohol, which is a great escape. God has lead me to recovery to overcome alcoholism. It is only by the grace of God that I'm even still alive considering the things I've done.
I cannot sweep this under the rug any longer. Nor do I want to spend the rest of my life alone. I no longer date women because it is deceitful to the woman. I wont marry one in order to pretend to have a normal life. I don't have it in myself to do that to someone. And I don't believe God made me this way to then condemn me and send me to hell for being what he created. If homosexuality is a sin, why did God make me this way? What am I supposed to do? I dont want to be lonely all my life. There have to be other people who are trying to deal with this in our churches (of Christ).
Dear Anonymous Brother,
I am sobbing as I read your posts. I am moved by your courage to confront this issue. We are all broken, we NEED our Savior. God can use you to his glory. I cannot pretend to offer any wisdom or guidance, but I can offer my prayers. I will pray that God's purpose and will for you will be revealed.
I have heard believers pray for the Lord to come quickly. I didn't always understand this prayer. As I learn more and more about our humaness, I understand the reason for this plea. Lord come quickly.
"By that argument necrophiliacs were born being attracted to corpses and pedaphiles were born being attracted to toddlers and those lusts are just fine as long as they are kept hidden in the heart. I find such a notion both reprehensible and unscriptural. Sounds like specialized pre-programmed-sin-robot-Calvinism to me. And it contradicts scripture plainly on many counts. I’d say more but I’m on a pocketpc and typing this stylus is tiring." (Josh)
When did I say that such lusts (natural or otherwise) were fine? I never said lust was fine. You are confusing attraction with lust. And the calvinism remark is a cheap shot. What I did say (and what others have said even better) is that everyone has a different struggle of one kind or another. Let's boil it down to a simple question: Would you actually indict a homosexual believer who practiced abstinence?
"If homosexuality is a sin, why did God make me this way?" (Anonymous)
The answer is that it is a sin and he didn't make you that way, not initially anyway. The cause of desires for things like this is plainly given in Romans 1:25 that men love and worship created things more than God and in verse 28, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" — In your past somewhere, you loved created things more than God and you did not like to retain God in your knowledge, so he gave you over to debase thinking, and I would assume that it was so that someday you might realize the horrible depths that putting him out of mind have brought you to and thus you would repent. Now is that time. Repent and turn to God and be cleansed. Stop making excuses or saying you were born that way and stop trying to excuse evil thoughts as being ok because "they're just thoughts." Turn to God in a totally broken and contrite Spirit acknowledging that such thoughts are sin. Until you acknowledge that it is a sin, you cannot be forgiven because God does not allow men to judge him but he judges all men and whatsoever the Law saith (on this sin and others) it saith that all mouths may be stopped before God. (Rom 3:19)
I want to commend Jay and anonymous
(especially) for opening this issue here, so that the Light who is Love may shine on it and in His time resolve this and all of our issues. I do not struggle with homosexual desire, but do struggle against and with unholy heterosexual desire/actions. However, I have been blessed to know believers who have and do struggle with homosexual desire/actions. One in particular was one of my best friends and most committed Christians I have ever known.
We do really stink at offering compassion to those whom we do not understand. That is a product of the control we desire to take from God. That control is often religion and religion runs rampant in the churches of Christ.
We are all dead, broken, and useless without Jesus. Why must we pick on ailments that we do not (or maybe we do) have?… in order to take the focus off of our own planks (sin)? Why did Adam accuse Eve? He was chicken of God's attention to his sin. Why does the church pick on homosexuals? We love to take the control of who is "wrong or right" from God, or at least borrow that power from Him from time to time. The thing is, the more time we devote to finding out who is wrong, the less diligent we are at allowing God to bring our own darkness into His light. So we memorize much scripture, and grow very little.
Is is any wonder that the forbidden fruit was from the tree of knowledge of GOOD and evil? The knowledge of good can be used by Satan (or church members) just as eloquently as knowledge of evil for Satan's own purposes.
As to the matter of obesity…, we don't ridicule those people because too many of our leaders (ourselves) struggle with that issue. It;s not politically correct (even for those who claim not to be politically correct) to address this issue unless it is in the context of a joke that we laugh off and disregard in our hearts.
Celebrate Recovery – I have been to a couple of meetings (though none yet in our fellowship). I am interested for more information from those in our own heritage as to how things work with this program. I applaud the spirit of it and hope that we can adopt it or one similar in the near future.
Please pray that I am more open and discerning toward all the hurting people of this world. I long to see us all embrace under the cover of Jesus' righteousness and truely be His body here.
I believe that until the church behaves as she is called to toward homosexuals and be willing to embrace them as they admit and confess their brokenness, WE will corporately be under judgement like Sodom moreso than the broken homosexuals of the world. We know Jesus, they don't. We will be held to the standard we judge by.
How much more will we be judged if those homosexuals we reject and ostracize are believers in our same Saviour. That proves we are clueless as to what Yeshuah was even here for.
Celebrate Recovery is an awesome 12 step recovery program for Christians. It's basically AA or SA, whatever, only it's for people who believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Higher Power. It's for those who want to apply the Bible to the 12 steps and their addiction issue. I highly recommend it. It doesn't have to be at a c of C, as the program works the same way everywhere. The one I go to is not a c of C. The only thing is if instrumental music bothers you during the devotional time, you might feel uncomfortable. People with all kinds of hurts and hangups go. There are alcoholics, sexaholics, marijuana and cocaine addicts, and codependency recovery. There's about 15 or so men in my group and i would say 70% are there for sex and/or pornography issues & addictions. I hope that you will be able to find a place that works for you.
Seems that I'm running late for this discussion. No worries though, I'm usually behind schedule. I'm glad to find the topic being discussed and would like to add my belated support to Jay, Ogdie and Anonymous. There is validity to much of what you've said and I believe the biggest distinction missed in the opposing arguments lies between concealing lustful desire in your heart and temptation. Much of the preceding debate focused on action vs. orientation. I know, I know…"orientation" is a scary, liberalized word now…but applicable. There is no sin in being tempted. On this we should all agree as we hold the Christ to be sinless and He was tempted (as we are). I believe the process of desire->death was outlined above, reaching for desire when temptation besets you is the first deadly step without regard to the nature of your sin. Indeed, "all have fallen short". Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone". Don't lose sight of the grace He offers. I look forward to the rest of the posts in this series.
Grace and peace,
evan,
Glad to have you commenting on the blog.
"And I don’t believe God made me this way to then condemn me and send me to hell for being what he created. If homosexuality is a sin, why did God make me this way? What am I supposed to do? I dont want to be lonely all my life. There have to be other people who are trying to deal with this in our churches (of Christ)."
Wow. I am in the same boat Anonymous. I wish I had discovered this blog long ago. I am a celibate homosexual, divorced with two grown sons. If I revealed this in my c of C, I feel certain I would be sent packing. I completely relate to your posts and wish I could find others like you who understand. I have been a Christian for 35 years, and have rarely shared my heart with another human soul. I am very active in my church, and fear being dropped like a hot potato if this ever leaked out. My work could be in jeopardy, too, if my orientation were ever revealed.
Thanks for this string, Jay. I will eagerly read on to see if any other Christians out there have insight for one who is bumbling through life, with prayer, as best he can.
Recently our youth group had a 3 week series on Gay rights. In my studies I've come across two books I think anyone who is interested in this topic and wants to have a better understanding of its impact to gays and non-gays alike. They are:
Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin
Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would by Chad W. Thompson
Both take a great deal of time to respect the complexity of both the Bible and the development of sexuality. I found them to be fantastic reads.
I keep thinking of the scripture that says that God is able both to make you will and to do his will. We will always fail if we try to force ourselves to will differently. God is able to create in us a new heart, according to the scriptures as I understand them. Also, I read a conversation with an ex-lesbian who seems to believe that God can and does change one’s desires. I don’t rememeber her name, but she has a magazine called “Venus”.
Thank you Kyle for posting the two titles. I am always looking for fresh insight into this thorny issue.
Anonymous mentioned something about obesity, and how few would condemn or reject them coming into the church. (I mentioned a comparison between homosexuality and left-handedness on another thread,) but I believe the comparison with obesity may be more apt. Studies show over and over that obesity is not simply a behavioral problem, but it a complex web of issues–many of them genetic. I think homosexuality is like that. Even though I am not actively engaged in homosexual behavior, still I know in my mind and heart and gut that I am gay.
I can remember moments as a very small child that seem to point to my becoming gay, although I don't believe a small child is gay any more than I think he is straight. Small children are not intended to be sexual. And on a related note:
Somewhere on one of these threads it has been posited that the majority of gay men were introduced to homosexual acts in youth by someone older. I would like to assert that this is not my experience at all. I remember no inappropriate sexual conduct with me by anyone older. I played doctor with the girl next door at about age 7 and with a neighbor boy down the street about the same time. I also remember playing doctor with a male schoolmate in 4th grade. While these incidents surely do not even qualify as sexual experiences, my first homosexual experiences at about age 14 were with someone my own age. Might Jay have any follow-up on this issue?
Anonymous 2,
You are probably thinking of this post: http://oneinjesus.info/2008/04/20/letter-to-a-gay…
It contains a link to a post by Patrick Mead where he discusses the biological roots of homosexuality in men. He says, "Also, like it or not, over 80% of homosexual men say that an older male introduced them to homosexual behavior before they became an adolescent."
But there's much more to the post than that, and I commend Patrick's post to all the readers. He writes with a level of expertise that I can't match.
I'm not really qualified to comment on the origins of homosexuality — the nature vs. nurture argument. Patrick, however, is. He has degrees in Linguistics, Criminal Justice, Psychology, Counseling, and Immunology. (Not all of those are relevant to the subject at hand, of course.)
I'm confident Patrick would be glad to respond to any questions you have over at his blog.
I read the book, Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would, as mentioned above. It is a lightweight read, but interesting. The author claims to be ex-gay, but hints in several places that he never quite put his homosexual desires to practice. If this is the case, he surely does NOT know what overcoming a lifetime of struggle is all about. (I am speaking as a middle aged man who has been struggling since age 14.)
I am currently halfway through Love is an Orientation, and it is quite gut wrenching in its scope. Author Marin certainly challenges gays and Christians to push the envelope in dealing with one another. I have to say, he puts much of the onus on Christians, with the supposition that it is their (our) jobs to attract others to Christ.
Although I am 8+ years celibate, I still grieve at the loss of such an integral part of my human identity. I still wonder that the Lord would place such a thorn in the flesh of so many millions. (I understand the argument that being gay isn't as devastating as being born without limbs or profoundly handicapped in some way. But these conditions do not have the moral judgments attached to them that being gay has.)
I have read and reread Patrick's blog post that you mentioned. It is informative and well written. Thank you.
I was born in 1955. I was raped and abused and tortured from 1955 until 1965. I wasn't able to remember these things until I was 47 years old. The reason these memories were suppressed so long is because God does not put more on us than we can handle. Who did these things is best kept to myself as some became wonderful Christians. Time and conscience is more of Gods' realm and not mine own. I can only imagine the horror My tormentors went through on Their death beds. I pray God surrounds them with His Love. I have faith that He will. How does a little boy report that He was raped? Does any child of 2 years old have a frame of reference? As far as I knew everyone was raped and abused all the time. I remember in the 6th grade when I was outed by a bully. I remember in the 7th grade being tormented by many fists. I have been covered in spittle and hated all my life. I never had any desire to engage in homo-sexuality although I do remember that around 1965 when the raping ended that I missed it. In fact I remember that the last few years of it that I actually enjoyed it. I think that is partly why I forgot it. The shame of having enjoyed it. I assure You I did not enjoy it when I was a year old. I remember having my nose smashed on the coffee table a couple of times. I remember watching the second hand on the clock at church to see how long I could hold my breath. I exercised my lungs so I wouldnt die whenever my face was forced into the couch. I have noticed in my life that there are people who think I am a Homo-sexual because I guess I look like one. In the 6th grade I was accosted by a guy for looking queer. The truth is that I cannot help the way my face looks. Recently, I went to a church and before the services began when everyone is shaking hands and being friendly I shook a mans hand and He smiled at Me, I smiled back at Him and He winced in obvious pain as if I had stabbed him with a dagger. My face is an abomination. I do not go to meet with the saints or the christians anymore. I feel like my appearance…which I cannot control is not conducive to proper worship. I feel like a Queer even though I am not. Children may be influenced negatively by my face and I couldn't bear to ever harm a child. So, to all You guys that are struggling with Your problems know that God Loves all His Children. I wonder what it means to struggle with Christ without the gate. In Christian Love,
one who understands
Perry,
I have said a prayer for you. May God bless you richly.
>>"…As he gets older and doesn’t get married and people start talking about him behind his back and assuming that he must be gay, even though he has never shown any evidence of living a gay lifestyle, and making fun of him behind his back because he is still in the Singles class and approaching 40…will he keep coming? Probably not."
Well, as a straight, single male in the church and "in the singles class and approaching 40", let me inform you that the above comment has me (and I'm sure others like me), absolutely mortified. I had no idea my dear brothers and sisters in Christ were making fun about me behind my back like that. Apparently, you have first-hand knowledge that such defamation occurs regularly.
Let me educate such people on something. We who are “single and pushing 40” often are so because we haven’t rushed to get married like a lot of people in the church because, per the scriptures, we believe divorce is wrong in God’s eyes. If we had rushed into marriage, undoubtedly many of us would now be divorced like so many others and, although we’d then be in a worse situation, ironically, we would not be as looked down upon as we are when we are still single after all this time simply because we were serious about finding a good Christian mate and weren’t blessed in finding one. Consider yourselves blessed and pray that your marriage lasts rather than looking at older, never-married singles with a jaundiced eye.
Fortunately, singles of any age don't need anyone's approval but the Lord's. We hurt enough over feeling we've "missed the boat" and not having been blessed by the Lord in this regard, but to have the brethren we love as family add insult to injury like this is simply cruel.
Fortunately, I have the intestinal fortitude to press on to the goal in spite of this. Unfortunately, others may not. May I suggest reviewing Matthew 12:36 or possibly Mark 9:42? As the old saying goes, if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all.
As for the debates throughout this site, if I interpreted the scriptures as many here do, I wouldn't even bother with Christianity. If the NT commands that some here are arguing were only cultural were truly so, then it could also be argued that *all* of it is only cultural and we really aren't bound by *any* of it now. After all, we’re *2000 years* removed from all of it, folks! If you want to now disregard everything you consider to have been only “cultural” in the NT, go ahead and tear out those “cultural” sections from your bible. What other passages of scripture do you want to tear out while you’re at it? Go ahead and tear those portions out too. When you’re through, you may just find that there’s nothing left.
Dan,
To which commands are you referring? Are you still talking about divorce? Or are you talking about head coverings, foot-washing, etc.
BTW, I am 33yrs and single. Downsides and upsides. The biggest downside is that I don't have enough responsibility–so as a man, that leaves me feeling unfulfilled. But I trust God has a plan for me–and it may or may not be what i am expecting! So I try to enjoy the ride!
I wouldn't worry about the comment about how people talk about the 40yr old single guy. Because the fact is, whether we like it or not, people rarely think of anyone other than themselves. Just our nature. You take a girl out and think she is looking at the mole on your forehead–she is actually thinking to herself that you are noticing gap in her teeth.
In the book "Blue Like Jazz", Miller ends the book talking about taking situations like that and just emptying your love onto the person. Although it wasn't an original thought–many years ago another told us to "love our enemies." So hard.
Dan,
Everyone teaches that some commands are cultural only. The dispute is over which ones. No one stands on the "high" ground of binding every single command.
I mean, what congregation still requires us to greet one another with a Holy Kiss? Which ones have an order of widows (1 Tim 5)? Which ones allow the evangelist to ordain elders? Which ones require a woman to cover her head (some, but not many)? How many practice the love feast?
Since we can't object to rejecting practices because the culture changed, we are forced to find a sound hermeneutic that gives a solid rule for what commands remain and what do not. And very few have a consistent hermeneutic. Rather, we defend some and object to some on an ad hoc basis, largely based on the traditions we grew up in.
I think the scriptures teach a better way — that is, I think the scriptures themselves tell us how to make that distinction, so we aren't left with personal opinion, traditions, or what our favorite preacher says.