One In Jesus

Okay, this is the last post. Really.

Where does this leave us? Well, we’ve spoken quite a lot about the sacrifices required of homosexual Christians. We need to remember that God has some demands to make on us heterosexuals, too.

I’m going to borrow from an article summarizing the position of New Directions ministries sent to me by Gary — although I’ll adapt it a hair to my own thinking. The bold text is quoted from the article. Continue reading →

I need to thank Gary for pushing me into this study and for being a good sport as we’ve disagreed on so many things — and for putting up with a massive number of comments.

Frankly, men such as Gary are rare. Few who disagree with me (and most readers) at such a fundamental level are willing to stand in and reply — often far more graciously than the commenter to whom he is replying — for so long. Gary must have posted hundreds of comments. Continue reading →

So I was sitting at home, minding my own business, reading Christopher J. H. Wright’s commentary on Deuteronomy (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) (review forthcoming) for a little relaxation when — all of a sudden — I stumbled across this passage — which seems to be a pretty good place to wind up this series. (We’re getting close to the end. Really.)

Wait … wait … I’ve gotten ahead myself. We’ll come back to Deuteronomy. First we have to review Matthew.

Here’s the question: In Matthew 19, why did Jesus choose to refer to those who choose to be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom as “eunuchs”? Continue reading →

The last book I want to consider on this question is William J. Webb’s influential Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Webb’s book is dedicated to finding a hermeneutic that will determine whether an issue is culturally bound.

For example, all Christians agree that slavery is wrong, even though the New Testament does not clearly condemn it. Well, if slavery can be wrong despite the absence of a condemnation, could homosexuality be permissible despite the absence of approval?

How do we tell? Continue reading →

Some time ago, a reader asked me to comment on the theological arguments made in Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate by Justin Lee.

Love

Lee finally turns to this key passage —

(Rom 13:8-10 ESV)  ⁸ Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.  ⁹ For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  ¹⁰ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Well, now we’ve come full circle! This takes us back to my first post of this series. Continue reading →

Some time ago, a reader asked me to comment on the theological arguments made in Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate by Justin Lee.

Lee next takes up Romans 1 —

I had always glossed over it before, but now that this passage seemed directly relevant to my future, I discovered that I had a lot of questions about it. For example, this passage made it sound like God gave people over to homosexuality as a result of their turning from Him. Did that mean that straight people had become gay when they turned from God? Was being gay a punishment for turning from God?

Lee is, of course, making the very mistake addressed by N. T. Wright in the quotations quoted in the earlier posts in this series. He is assuming that Paul is speaking of individuals and the individual histories of sinners. But Paul is speaking of the history of humanity, beginning with Genesis 1 – 3. Continue reading →

Some time ago, a reader asked me to comment on the theological arguments made in Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate by Justin Lee.

Torn is not primarily a theological work, but speaks more to the emotional and social issues of being gay while being Christian. But Lee ultimately concludes that he can engage in homosexual activity while being a committed Christian based on his reading of the scriptures. And that’s a conclusion that deserves serious investigation.

(I’ll try to avoid repeating scriptural arguments made in recent posts of this series.) Continue reading →

Stanley Hauerwas is a very influential theologian among contemporary evangelicals. His theology is rooted in the Anabaptist tradition (He’s a Neo-Anabaptist), and he’s had a huge influence on the thinking of many writers and thinkers.

He’s a professor at Duke University, a Methodist (originally), and far from a fundamentalist. He has some challenging things to say about modern Christian notions of sexuality. This is from Duke Magazine (Jan. – Feb. 2002). (I found the following thanks to “With and Against the Grain,” by Branson Parler.) Continue reading →