I’ve posted on issues of homosexuality several times in the past few weeks. It’s not one of my hobby-horses, but with Prop 8 being overturned and drafting a chapter in a book on the subject I’ve had cause to ponder the issue and the blog is the overflow of my musings.
In essence, this is where I am: biblically, there is a normative, positive indication of heterosexual relations as being God’s intention for sexual 
expression, and clear injunction against homosexual relations being so blessed.
Moreover, unlike other issues such as slavery and women’s and men’s relationships, the New Testament stands against the socially accepted norm of the day rather than reflecting / tacitly endorsing it. And, unlike other issues such as gender relations, there is no ambivalence in scripture on this issue. Thus, I am still in that traditional camp of putting homosexual practice in the category of sin.
Is that the end of the story?
I don’t think it’s the end of the story, though it’s a point that we must continue circling back on. There is still an argument to be made, but it will face an uphill battle, and I remain unconvinced that it outlines the course we should follow.
The question of how we deal with an ancient issue in a current context is convoluted. What constitutes new data? Is it significant, for example, that we have indications of genetic dispositions toward homo- or heterosexual desires?
While I don’t find the physiological or natural-disposition arguments to be all that compelling (scripture points to myriad “natural” inclinations that we are called to put to death by the power of the Spirit), there is one piece of data that I think is genuinely new and demands serious consideration.
That new piece of data is that there are homosexual Christians who are striving to faithfully follow Jesus as homosexuals. 
Their sexuality is not lived as a self-conscious affront to the God of Jesus, but as part of the on-going life of faith, attempting to live a life faithfully submitted to God in all respects.
So what is the argument to be made?
In a manner analogous to Paul’s arguments for including Gentiles as Gentiles, the church might come together and determine that the presence and power of the Spirit is so manifestly present in homosexual believers as homosexual believers that we are in a position of no longer being able to say that we should require a transformation for those whom God has accepted like this.
Those of us who are not willing to acknowledge homosexual practice as a faithful expression of Christian faith should always bear in mind that biblically Paul had at best a round-about theological argument for inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles, while the conservative Judaizers had clear biblical mandate for the continuing requirement of circumcision. Both the Abraham narrative itself and some pictures of eschatological consummation in the OT indicate the need to be circumcized / Jewish in order to be part of the people of God.
Both Luke Timothy Johnson and Stephen Fowl have made arguments in favor of homosexuality using such an analogy with the inclusion of the Gentiles. While I do not think that the case has been persuasively made, and while it will need substantial church support that it does not currently enjoy now, I think it is the most viable way forward for making space for homosexual practice within the church.
While it might seem idealistic to some (o.k., I love idealism, so sue me), I would like to see a world in which even those with whom we disagree on religious issues would recognize us as their champions in a world full of others who would perpetuate injustice against them on the basis of such preferences. Can we who follow Jesus ever again attain to his standing in the community where even the consummate outsiders would come to him, knowing that he would help?
That, it seems to me, should be our goal with respect to the people of the earth. If loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength seems to stand in antithesis to loving our neighbor as ourselves, I think we have probably misunderstood the vocation to love God.
Daniel:
You have given potent voice to a very difficult topic, and I resonate with much of what you have to say. I don’t know that I agree that the Bible is entirely unequivocal on the matter, but I think your statement that making sense of an ancient problem in a contemporary context is an arduous task is indeed true, and underlies much of the difficulty. Your conclusion, however, that we need to love homosexual folk and welcome them into our congregations is spot on. Acceptance of the “other” (so that they are no longer “other”) seems to me to be the crux of Jesus’ message.
Very well said! This is one of the most balanced statements I’ve heard you, or anyone else for that matter, make on this issue.
Wow. I was balanced and/or Adam thought so. Not sure whether to ride this wave into another post or shut the blog down forever!
Daniel, I’ve been following your reflections on this issue. At the same time I’ve been re-reading Theissen’s Shadow of the Galilean since I’ve assigned it as supplementary reading for a course this fall. Last night I was struck by Theissen’s bit on Jesus healing the centurion’s orderly, who, in the narrative, Theissen proposed could have been the centurion’s lover. The small piece is worth a re-visit in light of your recurring question about being a neighbor. This part of the dialogue stuck me most: “Are you certain that the centurion was homosexual?” / “Of course not, but everyone must have their suspicions. Jesus wasn’t at all bothered. At this point I would advise more caution.” (emphasis added)
Interesting little engagement there, Chris. Thanks for drawing our attention to it!
Dr. Kirk,
First of all I commend and wholeheartedly agree with your statement “that one of the most important things that traditionalists such as myself can do is to keep asking, “What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor as myself?””
Yet, if my understanding of what you are saying is off please correct me but to me it seems like you are saying:
1. The Bible clearly says homosexual behavior is a sin.
2. Homosexual behavior is therefore a sin.
but
3. God included the Gentiles in the people of God as Gentiles.
4. Therefore the Church can included people engaged in homosexual behavior without them repenting of their sin of homosexual behavior.
If this is what you are saying (and if not please correct me), then I think there are two very substantial problems. 1. Being a Gentile is not equal with homosexual behavior. Being a Gentile is never in the sin category. 2. How could you ever call anyone to repentance of any sin? Could not this scheme be used for every sin imaginable? Why would homosexual behavior be a special case?
Hi, Daniel, you raise a good question. I am saying that points 1 & 2 are how I understand the issue right now, but that points 3 & 4 could be an alternative way to construe it. I’m not persuaded about 3 & 4 at this point, but I could conceive of the church coming to a determination that homosexuality is o.k. along those lines.
True, being a Gentile is not itself a sin, but being a “sinner” and being a Gentile were pretty much semantic equated in the Jewish understanding (see Gal 2:16ff.)
Dr. Kirk,
Thanks for the response. While I agree that “Gentile” and “sinner” would have been used by Jews interchangeably, post-conversion Paul certainly would not have. In addition, Paul’s own teaching would go right against this idea. People are consistently told to repent from sin, but Gentiles are never told to repent from being Gentiles.
Also, could you give some of your thoughts on my second question too: “How could you ever call anyone to repentance of any sin? Could not this scheme be used for every sin imaginable? Why would homosexual behavior be a special case?”
Thanks again.
The idea that Paul’s view of Gentiles changed after his conversion (probably, actually, after he started his mission work among Gentiles) is part of the point. The only way to know that scripture has been superseded by a different work of God is to witness that different work firsthand. Peter didn’t know until he got a vision and saw the Spirit fall, and even then he had continuing issues with Gentiles. Don’t underestimate either the scriptural precedent or the experience of the church itself as the reason for overruling scripture.
I understand the problem this poses for biblical authority, but do you ever still use, say, the Ten Commandments to tell people what they should or shouldn’t do? How can you still do so in light of the Spirit’s overruling of OT commands?
As the people of God we always find a way to both hold onto scripture and to live in accordance with the new place and time we find ourselves in and to leave behind those pieces of scriptural instruction that we determine for various good hermeneutical reasons to not be directly applicable to the church anymore.
Dr. Kirk,
Thanks for clarifying I think I understand your idea now. However, I must say that cannot agree. I say this as respectfully as I can, because I have greatly enjoyed and have learned from your exegetical work, but I think what you have laid out here as a possible option for the Church is not just dangerous but contrary to the teaching of the entire Bible, the Gospel and 2,000 years of Church teaching. Your examples of the inclusion of the Gentiles, and the end of Torah were God’s plan from the beginning and included in the establishment of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. However, homosexual behavior has been contrary to God’s plans from the beginning. There is no Biblical precedent or reasoning to determine an action is allowable when the Bible unequivocally calls it sin. Accepting the proposal laid out here would be rejecting God’s authority. As I said please accept this statement with my humble respect. Thanks.
Hi, Daniel, no offense taken. Remember the original post: I’m not arguing in favor of affirming homosexual practice in the church. I think that the common ground on both sides should be that it is contrary to scripture and church practice, but the lingering question is how does this relate to the gospel and how do we know?
I do think you’re underestimating the significance of so much of the OT being abrogated, and why there was a continuing push for Gentile circumcision by a conservative Jewish group in the church. You only “know” that embracing Gentiles w/out circumcision is God’s plan because that’s what the church decided in contrast to clear biblical expectation.
I also agree that recognizing homosexuality as falling into the category of sin is important. (This applies to the discussion below as well.)
You and I agree, I’m just wrestling with the question of how we deal with our 2,000 year old text in a very different world and what avenues there might be for biblically committed Christians to think through this issue afresh.
Dr. Kirk,
I think we will disagree on how the OT planned for the New Covenant, but that’s a discussion for a different day. Might I ask another question though? Why suggest a proposal, even if you are not convinced by it, that would allow people to justify their sin to themselves? That seems counterproductive to the Gospel.
There are Christians who understand themselves to be faithfully following Jesus while also being homosexual. I think that’s an important thing to consider, even if I don’t find the argument ultimately persuasive. To me, it’s part of trying to love my neighbor as myself, even if I think my neighbor is wrong about something.
Thanks for the post. I would have liked some discussion of celibacy though.
What exactly does “homosexual Christians who are striving to faithfully follow Jesus as homosexuals” mean?
Are they people who experience no attraction to the opposite sex, and are being faithful by committing to a life of celibacy? Or are they sexually active with people of the same sex, in which case their “faithfulness” is conditional, much like straight Christians who engage in promiscuity?
I’m referring to homosexual Christians who are engaged in committed life-partner relationships.
I’d say that they are taking a calculated risk that their lifestyle can be and is faithful to the God whose word says otherwise. Similarly to when I take a calculated risk that my spending enough money on my daughter’s daycare to feed a few hundred hungry children isn’t a denial of the God who commands that I take care of the widow and orphan. Except that not being a homosexual isn’t listed as the sum of godly religion the way that taking care of widows and orphans is.
Thanks for your piece here. I think it is a helpful contribution. I had hoped you would move forward into the area of action or regard. How this gets played out is not in the abstract but in ecclesiastical bodies and assemblies.
I like your point that what we are faced with today are believers who profess homosexual orientation as well as the conviction that they see homosexual practice as not antithetical to a life pursuant to the age to come. Given our context on western democracies a particular church has no power to impede their pursuit of this form of witness, the most it could do would be to excommunicate them and not allow them a particular status (member, office bearer, etc.) within that ecclesiastical group. There are also other ecclesiastical bodies that would permit them full participation in the life of their fellowship. What this affords any particular believer and the trans-denominational body of Christ itself is an opportunity for watchful waiting over this subject. How will the change of this particular element of Christian teaching impact the rest of fabric of Christian understanding? Probably only experience and time will inform us. This means that the conversation may continue for a very long time, as it has for many issues within the church.
I’ve been reading Alister McGrath’s book “Heresy” recently and have found it very helpful in understanding why the church eventual cordons off areas of thought or practices as “heresy” in time because it finds these things to unravel the foundations of Christian understanding.
Ultimately in terms of personal ethic homosexuals who profess Christ are the ones who will have to work out these issues for themselves in a more consequential way than those of us who are heteros do. Our situation of multi-denominational churches allows for a sort of freedom of experiment that makes us all responsible for ourselves and brings the consequences of our decisions and behaviors back upon ourselves.
If what we see throughout the rest of human experience is any indication I think we should expect a long and vigorous conversation with lots of surprises. One deep element of this conversation I think will be the highlighting of the broader way in which our culture view sexuality and marriage in an idolatrous light. I also expect us to realize that options and choices themselves do not equal access to the kind of meaning and fulfillment our culture associates with them.
In our context (unlike many Islamic cultures) homosexuals will be free to make their choices and congregate in the Christian assemblies of their choosing. If and how this one element impacts all the rest of the fabric of the Christian life will in fact be seen over time. It may in fact take a lot of time to see it, or perhaps not.
Thanks for hosting what I think is a productive conversation
Great thoughts, Paul. Thanks for sharing those here, and the follow-ups on your page. The broader ecclesial contexts is a crucial one to keep in mind–less than ideal in some respects, but perhaps uniquely suited to helping us take a long time to wrestle with thorny issues in others.
PS. I somehow doubt this will be your “final” thought.
Daniel,
I appreciate your reflection on this difficult issue. I also appreciate your willingness to listen to different voices and to seek to faithfully examine these perspectives in light of scripture. The frustration I have expressed comes from (at least in my estimation) from what seems to me to be a reluctance to address the critical rub of the issue. What does it mean to love the gay/lesbian neighbor…sister/brother…cousin…political opponent…etc. Let me draw what seems an analogy of how I see the problem. When a student performs poorly in a class this does not mean that the students grade is changed because of compassion. Perhaps a clearer example would be the student who appropriates the work of another without proper citation…serious academic shortcoming. To simply neglect to correct the matter becomes a failure of the professor to honor his or her obligations to the community. To simply assert we really need to take seriously loving our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters doesn’t really say much.
I suppose I’m not majoring on that point for two reasons, Luke. First, it seems to me that every homosexual person “knows” that “the church” thinks their actions are wrong. And, second, pronouncing their actions wrong seems to be the primary concern of the churches I most naturally gravitate toward (evangelical churches).
So I’m concerned now about the rest of the equation. Ok, if I do something wrong I know that I sometimes need tough love and sometimes to be corrected and have my error pointed out and addressed. But at the same time, as I am a person who is always in some amount of error I need to have my needs met, want to be free to marry whomever I set my heart on given the parameters of my faith commitments and other things, etc.
It’s these further categories of “What would you have your neighbor do to you?” reflection that I think are mostly missing in those parts of the church where homosexuality is frowned on.
This is a really intriguing line of thought. My first reaction/objection is that I still think there is a distinction between circumcision (and the rest of Jewish ceremonial law) and sexuality. The narrative of sexuality starts in the Garden, after all. That’s just my initial reaction.
Paul may have a round-about way of getting around circumcision, but at least he articulates it. Someone articulating analogous argument with homosexuality would have to not only get around contemporary “Judaizers” and the Jewish scriptures, but around Paul himself as well. I’m all ears, but the task doesn’t appear to be an easy one.
Nate, I think the important thing to remember is that Paul stood in precisely the same relationship to Moses and Isaiah that we stand in to Paul. He had to overturn the word of God because of what the Spirit was doing in order to get his point made. I’m not saying I am convinced by the argument, but there is important parallel.
Also, it’s not as though Jews were going around with the ceremonial law cordoned off in their minds as optional commands from God. Someone who wasn’t circumcised was cut off from the people of God, and it’s a command given before the giving of the Law itself. This is serious stuff.
Dan, would you explain what this statement looks like, practically speaking? “…the most viable way forward for making space for homosexual practice within the church.”
From my perspective as a woman called to ministry and having worked in the ministry of reconciliation (biblical peacemaking) for years, I cannot figure out what making “space for homosexual practice” would actually look like. From my POV, the church over centuries & for more than last millenium has excluded, minimized, degraded or ignored the female gender to favor the male. How would a church committed to embody reconciliation between God & humanity, between male & female, between human and human look any different if we’re continuing that systemic, historical, endemic favoring of gender, if “only” in private sexual practice? (And, are we thereby subscribing to the belief that what we do in private doesn’t affect who we are in front of others?)
Ann, I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand your question. Would you hit me with it again?
And also, my wife thinks it’s very important that I be called “Daniel” rather than “Dan”: If I’m Dan then I start thinking I’m the judge of all the earth, but if I’m “Daniel” I have to be humbly reminded that there is One whose judgment I will have to pass through.
Oh goodness, please accept my sincere apologies, Daniel (and Laura)! I have other friends who are “Dan”, so it’s my (unfortunate, in this case) natural default when presented with the formal name! I’ll re-school myself.
From my theological POV and work, I understand how important it is that we conform to Christ wholly – heart, spirit, mind and body. What we do not do, we cannot “know” — that is what I hear Scripture teaching. Abstract theology (study of god) doesn’t seem to be a possibility at all in Scripture because being known by God and knowing God is enacted, not simply “thought”, in lives lived by those seeking God. Thus, academic study of theology without relationship to God are incongruous…
In reconciliation work, successful mediating between 2 parties necessitates both being willing to respond to the Holy Spirit, to confess, to be humble, to forgive and let go of sin, to give grace… The parties enact dying to self and looking to the interests of the other. Otherwise, profound and enduring reconciliation isn’t possible.
The church and her members are called to be ambassadors of reconciliation. It’s certainly clear in history, as you’ve noted in previous posts about women and ministry, that the church has failed to receive and honor fully the gifts of women with men in service of God.
In just about every realm world-wide, from academia to business to church to culture, the reconciliation between men and women as seen in equal honoring of contributions and gifts just isn’t present as it should be in the reign of God. (To the contrary.) It’s amazing to me how often I’ve witnessed a 2 sided “gift” — welcome women’s contribution in a “new” area, and smother it in another. The alienation of Gen 3 seems to be profoundly deep-rooted and willful. (The welcome and smothering are done by both men & women in different spheres of influence; however, in this world, men generally have more power.)
So, when your post said, “…the most viable way forward for making space for homosexual practice within the church”, I wondered how can that be and have holistic reconciliation be the message of the church? How can reconciliation be truly seen when the truly created “other” — not just the differently behaved “other” — is not reconciled in action and life? Is the sphere of human sexuality exempted from the story of reconciliation?
I think I’m starting to follow, Ann. In terms of closing the loop on homosexuality, I do think that sexuality has to be part of the story of reconciliation. In my estimation the greatest problem confronting the church on sexuality isn’t homosexuality but how biblical sexual mores in general have fallen by the wayside in favor of baptizing the looser experiences/expressions of our culture.
The issue that homosexuals in the church is raising is whether it is, in fact, surprisingly possible that someone might be sexually reconciled and actively engaged in homosexual sex. This isn’t about sexuality being excluded from whole-life restoration, but whether it can be part of it.
Is this to your point?
I wish this were easier to explain! (It’s much easier to observe.)
A bit of background, I worked in Wall St bond markets & investment banks prior to becoming a director of a shelter for abused women & children. The alienation between men & women is profound in both fields. (I won’t digress into story telling!) My husband & I have lived in Europe & Africa. Alienation is endemic there, too, and male/female seems to evidence as the primary and most intransigent manifestation of our alienation from Godself.
Rather than focusing on the manifestation of our current condition of alienation (manifest from the fall), and wondering where we’re going, I think it’s more biblical to respond to God’s call to be new creation in Christ. We look to unbroken creation for which we refer back to pre-fall creation (specifically, IMHO, the import of the 2 creation stories in Gen 1:26-28, and Gen 2:18-25). And, we look to NT understanding of new creation…”…forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.”
If we believe biblically, that male and female are together manifestations of God’s image within creation then their holistic reconciliation seems primary to God’s story.
By holistic, I mean the perception that woman is perceived by man as fully imaging God, even though diversely from man. Her contribution is sought because there is a full-orbed appreciation of the gift of her diverse gender-specific thoughts, embodied experiences, thinking processes, approaches to reality, sexuality, ways and activities within creation.
I don’t view my friends who are active sexually as identified by their sexual practices. Primarily, they & I are human. The “other” is not the homosexual in creation; the “other” is the other gender!The taking off point for theology and the practice of the church seems to be better situated from our common humanity than from the developed sexual praxis (and regardless of how much that sexual praxis is genetic, environmental, or experiential in causation).
The brokenness of male-female relating as evidenced in abuse victims is such that many abuse victims cannot bear to relate intimately with the other gender. It is physically repugnant. It is completely understandable for those of us who’ve loved and worked with victims!
Learning to reconcile with God and one another is what the journey of the church is all about. I wouldn’t exclude our sexuality from that need to experience healing and reconciliation. Individuals’ sexual healing may proceed from the journey of a community of men and women committed to honor one another in Christ, without demeaning or excluding the other gender from our shared journey in any aspect — intellectual, spiritual, emotional, financial, & familial, for instances. Within families within that community, husband and wife learn to embody their healing fully in their relationship, parenting children (most of us parent differently, too!) and sexual care for one another.
Numerically speaking, there are far more heterosexual couples who are broken in their relationships (including mutual valuing & sexual care) for one another than who are in same-gendered relationships, for the obvious reason of population percentages.
I hope I’ve explained better. The foundation of God’s creation of male-female and the trajectory of new creation are crucial to “where we go from here,” in my view. The reconciling work of the church cannot be complete, ISTM, if male and female remain unequally valued and excluded from spheres of mutual influence – whether in the corporate body of Christ or the nuclear family of Christ.
I have a few questions:
Why does it matter that their affront is not self-conscious? A frequent topic of sermons is to help those listening discover their secret and private sins, so that those too may be purged from their lives. Should this not apply to sexual sin as well?
If you are right that the Bible does consistently convey homosexuality as one of the sexual sins, then the only way someone can be “attempting to live a life faithfully submitted to God in all respects” is if they are in part ignorant of the Bible’s teaching. Is teaching the word of God not something which is at the very core of the purpose of church?
Does this also extend to those who recognising that they are sinners, still desire to marry their close relatives or instead engage in a short term sexual relationship with a child under their care? There is some difference between accommodating sinful habits and endorsement of serious sin. The question we must ask is what is that difference, and in this case, which side do sexual sins fall on?
I’ve had a thoughts: someone who chooses to partially define their life by sin cannot be living in service to God. One important role of the church is to help us fight the sin we cannot help but do. We are told that churches should discipline those who have unrepentant sin, but that applies to us all to some extent. Perhaps the measure could be that those who define their life by unrepentant sin need church discipline.
Sorry, I used blockquote tags, but it seems they do not display any differently. Maybe you could add a css rule to indent them?
Danni, a couple thoughts:
On your second question, my experience with practicing homosexuals in the church is that their own, and often their community’s experience, has been such that they experience what they take to be divine favor as they continue to express their homosexuality. Just like you and I know that the Bible clearly says that you can’t be part of the people of God unless you’re circumcised, yet celebrate (esp. me as a guy!) the presence of people who are fully part of the people though not circumcised (including women), so too these people tend to know what the Bible says and yet for other biblical as well as sociological and/or ecclesiastical reasons continue in homosexual relationships.
What I mean by “conscious” and that making a difference is that I think in antiquity and through most of church history the idea of homosexuality being incompatible with Christian faith has been such a given that there has not been an atmosphere in which people can both embrace Christ and their homosexuality. That is happening in more churches than one could count in our day, however. Yes, secret sins are to be called out, and sex is one area where we need to be more diligent in clinging to biblical norms as far as I’m concerned. But having a self-consciously Christian community that is comprised of numerous self-consciously and practicing homosexuals is, as I see it, relatively new in the history of the church.
Two other passing comments: I think that the consensual nature of homosexual sex puts it in a different category from pedophilia, though the latter raises important questions about whether or not we can blithely say, “God wouldn’t have given me this desire if he didn’t want me to act on it.” And that’s tied to your final paragraph–I agree with you that there is too much capitulation in the church to the whims of people’s desires that they simply don’t want to fight, despite the clear fallenness of certain actions. And this is true of sexuality as much or more than many other areas.
Just like you and I know that the Bible clearly says that you can’t be part of the people of God unless you’re circumcised, yet celebrate (esp. me as a guy!) the presence of people who are fully part of the people though not circumcised (including women), so too these people tend to know what the Bible says and yet for other biblical as well as sociological and/or ecclesiastical reasons continue in homosexual relationships.
Eh? I can’t understand the logic there. Christian guys do not need to be circumcised because they have become part of the people of God through the new covenant. Should someone attempt to become part of the people of God through Abraham’s covenant then they would be under its jurisdiction and would need to be circumcised. I can’t see how that related to the topic at hand, unless you’re suggesting there is another new covenant where you can be counted in the people of God despite the desire to continue in deliberate unrepentant sin…
The main reason people continue in sin is that they love it. Let’s just pray that despite that, we will love God more, and that he will continue to be merciful and help us to hate what we should not love.
What I mean by “conscious” and that making a difference is that I think in antiquity and through most of church history the idea of homosexuality being incompatible with Christian faith has been such a given that there has not been an atmosphere in which people can both embrace Christ and their homosexuality.
I don’t really understand your position, sorry. You personally believe that homosexual sex is sin, correct? So your last sentence could also be said as “there has not been an atmosphere in which people can both embrace Christ and their sin“, but you seem to think it’s good that such an atmosphere is found in churches today? “Embracing” is a great way to put it, better than my idea of defining your life by sin. I’ll now say that anyone who unrepentantly embraces any sin, any, not just sexual, should be disciplined by their church.
Two other passing comments: I think that the consensual nature of homosexual sex puts it in a different category from pedophilia, though the latter raises important questions about whether or not we can blithely say, “God wouldn’t have given me this desire if he didn’t want me to act on it.”
Consensual paedophilia exists as well…
I think it would be dangerous to suggest that any of our desires were given to us from God! Our default position should be that for any desires God may have given us, we have long since deeply and thoroughly perverted or destroyed.
On your second question, my experience with practicing homosexuals in the church is that their own, and often their community’s experience, has been such that they experience what they take to be divine favor as they continue to express their homosexuality.
Is that the heart of the matter, experience trumping revealed message of God?
Experience trumping revealed message? Yes, like it did in the first century. That’s the parallel that could be drawn. But…
We agree, Dannii. I don’t find the argument persuasive, I’m just outlining what I think the only possible way forward would be.
I miss your reference, what are you referring to in the first century?
Circumcision. In the first century the experience of the Spirit trumped the biblical teaching about circumcision.
I would disagree and say that the experience of the Spirit only trumped incorrect interpretations of the OT’s teaching about both the spirit and circumcision. That non-circumcised gentiles received the spirit is not contrary to anything in the OT, though I can understand how the first Christians might have thought so, who, as I do, had an incomplete and often wrong understanding of the scriptures. The new covenant was made in the context of Abraham’s and the Sinai/Deuteronomic covenants, but it is still ontologically new, and not a revision of Abraham’s. The older covenants are still valid and fit for their purposes, to point to the new covenant.
But this is getting a bit too offtopic… thanks for the discussion.
This is a great conversation. I’ve been wondering if the problem for many of us is not only one of biblical/theological integrity, but also one of disturbing self-exposure. What if part of our (heterosexual Christians) discomfort is that the presence of homosexual Christians is like a mirror that reveals our own relational and sexual brokenness.
We often speak of homosexual people as “others” that stand at an unrelated distance from heterosexual people, as though heterosexuals are free from sinful expressions of sexuality. It may be that we are all on the same continuum of brokenness, some more or less broken than others, but all broken just the same.
This is not to validate homosexuality as simply another viable expression of human sexuality, but rather to propose the idea that we stand in closer relationship to the homosexual community than we are willing to recognize. Is it possible for us to begin in dialogue with homosexual Christians, not with theological/moral distance, but as broken, sinful, co-humans made in the image of God? It might change the outcome, because it might have to change us as well.