The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Right & Wrong
Post Reply
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by steve » Wed May 06, 2015 6:00 pm

The following is an email I received today, followed by my response:

Hi Steve

I'm wondering if you have any resources you could point me toward or have any insight on the issue of homosexuality and biblical authority. I have several friends that belong to a church in the Seattle area that has made a complete 180 on the issue and has accepted homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm sure you've heard many of the arguments made by those that teach such things.

Often I hear them say that the Levitical laws on homosexuality do not apply because such homosexuals are not exchanging their orientation, but are "born that way", and that the prohibitions in Paul's letters were referring to pederasty, not the "loving, monogamous relationships" that homosexuals claim to have in modern times. The issue gets so twisted by these teachers that it seems we must first go deeper to a discussion of the authority of the Bible before using scripture as a guide. I appreciate any help you may be able to give me, Steve.

Thank you and God bless you, JP

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

Hi JP,

I do not have a teaching devoted specifically to the topic. However, I would make the following responses to the Christians who seek to harmonize same-sex coupling with scripture:

1) The Bible warns Christians not to succumb to the pressures of conforming to the world's mentality (Rom.12:2), which is described as "having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Eph.4:18-19). The fact that the recent change in moral perception concerning homosexuality was led by the world, and sheepishly followed by some churches, should raise suspicions that it is not a Christian standard of morality, but a worldly one to which the church is conforming.

2) The objections to homosexual behavior in the Old Testament do not make exceptions for "loving, monogamous,” life-long unions. The laws condemn the very act of a man having sex with a man: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev.18:22). "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev.20:13). It would seem to be the act itself that is abominable in God's sight.

3) It is sometimes argued that the Levitical laws are not binding, since they also include restrictions concerning many activities (like eating shellfish) which the New Testament abrogates. However, one must distinguish between those Levitical laws that the New Testament re-enforces and those that the New Testament does not. Paul specifically wrote about the difference between dietary laws and laws of sexual conduct, saying that the former are of no concern to Christians, but that the latter reflect a permanent moral standard (1 Cor.6:13). Jesus (Matt.15:19-20) and the New Testament writers (1 Cor.5:11; 1 Thess.4:3-5; etc.) condemned fornication—even saying that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21). The Greek word for "fornication" (porneia) means any unlawful sexual act. Jesus' audience would be expected (unless instructed otherwise) to recognize which sexual acts were lawful and which were “fornication” from their knowledge of the laws given by God (in Leviticus) governing such things. By what other standard would their definition of "fornication" be informed?

4) The only sexual activity that is not condemned in scripture is that which occurs between married partners (Prov.5:15-19; Heb.13:4). The original definition of marriage (Gen.2:24) is confirmed by Jesus (Matt.19:5) and by Paul (Eph.5:31). Jesus specifically said that this involves a "male" and a "female" (Matt.19:4). God invented marriage, and reserves the right to define it. Societies (whether secular or ecclesiastical), because they did not invent marriage, do not possess the authority to redefine it. To do so is to rebel against God's design and His authority.

5) To say that some people are born with a same-sex orientation is a vacuous argument. First, because such a birth condition remains to be proven scientifically, and, second, because it is irrelevant. Some people think they have inherited alcoholism—and some certainly are born with an inherited drug addiction—but this is not an argument in favor of normalizing these activities. Most people are indisputably born heterosexual, but this provides no justification for them having sex with whomever they find sexually attractive. Christians who are not in a biblical marriage relationship must remain celibate, whether they are straight or gay. There are a larger number of unmarried straights than gays, to whom this restriction would apply.

6) It is sometimes argued that this comparison is bogus, since straight people can enter into traditional marriages, if they wish. Well, so can gay people. Many gay men have married women and fathered children. This is an option for gays and straights alike. If it is further objected that gay men generally do not find women sexually attractive, so they would not choose to enter into traditional marriages, it can be countered that there are many heterosexuals who also remain single because they never find someone who is both sexually attractive to them and otherwise available (e.g., single, mutually attracted, or willing to marry them). When my wife divorced me against my wishes, I was forced to live a celibate life for ten years—and would have had to do the same for the rest of my life, had I remained unmarried, which seemed a genuine possibility. In truth, unwanted singleness is thrust upon many people, regardless of orientation, and always involves the difficult obligation of celibacy (Matt.19:10-12).

7) The fact that some gay men manage to marry women and successfully father children with them means that this is not an impossibility for some gay men. Even if they find men more attractive to them than women, so what? Many married men find other women more attractive to them than their wives. This should not be taken by them as a mandate to forsake their wives and pursue their latest lust-interest. Christian discipleship calls men and women to exercise an often-inconvenient self-control. Churches need to be communicating that truth to those in their membership who may be sexually frustrated and compromising.

8) The church in America has compromised long ago on the Christian definition of marriage, in that we have taken a light view of divorce. This is sometimes pointed to as an argument for further compromising the Christian definition of marriage, so as to allow for same-sex coupling. However, I would see it as suggesting the opposite. If the church, by embracing unlawful divorce, has lost its moral credibility to speak on the proper meaning of marriage, instead of this being a call for further compromise, it should be viewed as a call to repentance and to the reaffirmation of biblical norms (that is, a rejection of unbiblical divorce).

9) The truth is, American Churchianity has long-since forfeited its former cultural authority by abandoning its very determination to stand for Christ against the world's drift, in general. The lordship of Christ no longer commands the conscience of the average pastor or church member—which is another way of saying that the average pastor and church member have ceased to qualify as Christians, by definition. The kingdom of God is taken from them, and given to a people who will bring forth the fruits of it.

This would be a pretty concise summary of my thinking on these issues.

Blessings!

Steve Gregg

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by Paidion » Thu May 07, 2015 12:07 pm

Steve, that was a good response.

I wish to ask one set of questions and make one set of comments (Neither the questions nor the comments were intended to address any matter relating to homosexuality)

QUESTIONS: "What God joined together, no way let a person separate"(Matt 19:6, Mark 10:9).
Under what conditions does God join together a couple? Is obtaining a legal marriage licence a sufficient condition to ensure that God has joined a couple together? If not then, in what sense is a non-Christian couple who obtains a marriage licence married? In a legal sense only? Or has God joined together the couple in this case? Can a Christian couple truly be joined together by God without their obtaining a legal marriage licence? I think of a Christian couple who, many years ago, wished to be married in a Catholic country where they were working as missionaries. At the time, that country would grant marriage licences only to Catholic couples. So the couple decided to say their marital vows in the presence of the Lord, and then considered themselves to have been joined together by God, and thus truly married. Do you agree?

COMMENTS:
You wrote:The Greek word for "fornication" (porneia) means any unlawful sexual act.
That is a common modern notion, but from its entymology, I doubt this to be the case. "Porneia" is derived from "pornā" which occurs 12 times in the New Testament. It is a feminine word and is translated in the King James Version as "harlot(s)" 8 times, and as "whore(s)" 4 times (the latter all in Revelation).

The masculine form of this word is "pornos." It occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and is translated in the King James as "whoremonger(s) 5 times, and as "fornicator(s)" 5 times. It seems that the feminine form of the word always meant "prostitute" and the masculine form always meant "consorter with prostitutes."

The word related word "porneia" occurs 25 times in the New Testament, and is translated as "fornication" in all instances in the King James. I suggest that the Greek word in the New Testament referred to sexual acts involving prostitution, and that the English translation "fornication" had the same meaning for the King James translators. Yes, I know that in our modern day, "fornication" has come to mean any sexual act outside of marriage. However the word "fornicate" has come from the Latin word "fornicare" which meant "To have intercourse with prostitutes."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by steve » Thu May 07, 2015 12:28 pm

The word porneia, according to lexicons, means much more than merely prostitution. Even in scripture, this is obvious, since a man sleeping with his father's wife (probably not for pay) is called porneia (1 Cor.5:1), as is the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7), which seems to refer to the intended homosexual rape (again, not for pay) of the angelic visitors.

The meaning of "pornā" and "pornos" need not determine the boundaries of the meaning of the similar word "porneia," even if there is a genetic relationship between these words in the Greek. It is not hard to see how a modification of a word meaning "immorality," in general, could be adopted to apply to prostitutes and their clientele, nor how a word originally referring only to prostitution could come to be used more expansively (depending upon which direction the ancestry of the words flowed). However, its meaning in scripture is not restricted to prostitution. In Ezekiel 16:34, the LXX uses porneia to refer to Israel's unfaithfulness to God, and specifically mentions that she did not charge money, like prostitutes do. She simply committed adultery.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by Paidion » Thu May 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Yes, I've been aware for some time of the word being used in the case of the man having his step-mother as recorded in I Corinthians, and also the matter in Jude 7. Doubtless these two examples support a broader meaning for "porneia" than that of prostitution.

However, I am not sure that your example from Ezekiel 16 does so. Here is an English translation of the passage from the Septuagint:
30 Why should I make a covenant with thy daughter, saith the Lord, while thou doest all these things, the works of a harlot? and thou hast gone a-whoring in a threefold degree with thy daughters.
31 Thou hast built a house of harlotry in every top of a way, and hast set up thine high place in every street; and thou didst become as a harlot gathering hires.
32 An adulteress resembles thee, taking rewards of her husband.
33 She has even given rewards to all that went a-whoring after her, and thou hast given rewards to all thy lovers, yea, thou didst load them with rewards, that they should come to thee from every side for thy fornication.
34 And there has happened in thee perverseness in thy fornication beyond other women, and they have committed fornication with thee, in that thou givest hires over and above, and hires were not given to thee; and thus perverseness happened in thee.
35 ¶ Therefore, harlot, hear the word of the Lord:
36 Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast poured forth thy money, therefore thy shame shall be discovered in thy harlotry with thy lovers, and with regard to all the imaginations of thine iniquities, and for the blood of thy children which thou hast given to them.
37 Therefore, behold, I will gather all thy lovers with whom thou hast consorted, and all whom thou hast loved, with all whom thou didst hate; and I will gather them against thee round about, and will expose thy wickedness to them, and they shall see all thy shame.
38 And I will be avenged on thee with the vengeance of an adulteress, and I will bring upon thee blood of fury and jealousy.
39 And I will deliver thee into their hands, and they shall break down thy house of harlotry, and destroy thine high place; and they shall strip thee of thy garments, and shall take thy proud ornaments, and leave thee naked and bare.
This sounds like prostitution to me.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by morbo3000 » Tue May 12, 2015 10:51 pm

This is a question of hermeneutics. I, and others like me, approach the Bible in a much different manner than Steve and others do. But that doesn't make us less biblical. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. But I take the Bible very seriously.

Illustration:
I'm an absent-minded, big idea, head in my clouds guy. My wife is more detailed. If we both remember a recent event differently, because she has her head screwed on straighter, she is more likely right. She usually gets the memory high ground and I usually lose the debate and she is proven to have remembered correctly. However, there are times when I'm certain I remember it correctly, and need to vigorously disagree, in spite of the fact that she is usually right. And in these rare moments I actually did remember the event correctly.

Fundamentalism, like my wife, almost always wins, or thinks it wins, the argument of being the most biblical. But that doesn't mean that they get to capture the "biblical" high ground. And it also doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes, being the most biblical can be the least Christian.

Steve accurately summarized the fundamentalist approach to the Bible on the subject. But fundamentalism is not the only opinion. You can find very serious scholars, and very serious pastors who believe differently. Who also believe in the lordship of Jesus. And take a high view of sexual ethics. Who are prayerful. Who labor over the Word. Throwing Ephesians around that people who disagree with you fundamentally as "having their understanding darkened.. and their hearts blinded," is nothing more than a scripturally veiled ad hominem argument. Because who can argue? If you disagree with me on a scriptural issue, the logical conclusion must be, that I'm so deluded, I don't even know it. Argument ended.

Rachel Held Evans recently said "I'm beginning to suspect that "rejects evangelicalism" is code for "accepts LGBT people as whole & human without change." I believe that's an accurate assessment of the religious landscape on this issue. But we have not rejected our faith. We have not rejected the bible. And we have not rejected Jesus. We simply disagree.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

dizerner

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by dizerner » Tue May 12, 2015 11:52 pm

Fundamentalism, like your wife, might seem the most faithful to.

Any sin in the Bible you think you can't rewrite? Can Jesus' death for sins be non-literal? Are all sinners, or does that hurt our self-image too much?
being the most biblical can be the least Christian.
I absolutely cannot fathom that statement. The Words of Scripture gave me a new birth and reveal the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Like the Pharisees we can misapply Scripture, but that's not really biblical now, is it?
But I take the Bible very seriously.
What does that really mean, though. If I don't believe it, can I really say I'm taking it seriously? Didn't Jesus say something about calling him Lord, but not doing what he said? As if people might do that? Is saying "I believe Jesus and the Bible" some guarantee of doing the right thing? I could end up fitting that in with any world religion or belief I want to. According to Scripture there will be people in hell who said "I believe Jesus and the Bible." Not really a comforting guide to truth.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by steve » Wed May 13, 2015 12:54 am

Hi morbo3000,

I share with you, and others like you, a genuine sympathy for those who feel themselves to be necessarily gay, and also to be excluded from the church's definition of marriage. Where we seem to differ might be in our definition of Christianity. To many, being a Christian means, simply, believing that Jesus taught a better way for the world—the way of kindness, nonviolence, unconditional acceptance, and the renunciation of making moral judgments about others.

If this reflected the actual teachings of Christ, then I would have to agree with those who believe the best thing we can do for hurting people is to give them a shoulder to cry on and a place at our hospitable table. I can think of a few things Jesus said that, taken in isolation, might be interpreted that way. However, I assume that everything Jesus said was something that defined His viewpoints. Jesus' words are the best possible guides for any of who might wish to understand how prodigals who have strayed ought to right their course, and to be reunited with their Father, on His gracious terms. If Jesus took the trouble to teach something, and the apostles took the trouble to propagate His teachings in writing, I consider myself unqualified to pick and choose among the statements of Jesus, accepting those that I regard as true and worthwhile, as opposed to those that can be discarded as no longer palatable to modern hearers. I suspect that a great number of His sayings were never palatable to any hearers in any age.

Jesus did not regard sinners merely as broken people requiring sympathy. He regarded them as sick people requiring a cure (as opposed to the Pharisees, who saw sinners as lawbreakers to be condemned). He referred to Himself as a physician to the sick (Matt.9:12-13), which suggests that He saw Himself as bringing the remedy for what ails the sinner. Since all are sinners, all equally need His remedy.

It is plain that Jesus felt that sinners' great disease was the putting of themselves and their own interests first, rather than God's. God made us (both body and phyche) to function along certain lines which are harmonious with His designs. He did not make us to be independent monads, each following his own dreams and blazing his own trails. The fact that "we have gone, every one his own way," is likened to sheep having gone astray (Isa.53:6, quoted in 1 Peter 2:25). As foolish sheep seeking to escape the guidance and protection of their shepherd, or as prodigal children, departing from the wise counsel of their parents in the pursuit of short-term gratification, all people have failed to conform to God's patterns and have made self-interest, self-satisfaction, and self-esteem the primary values by which to guide their benighted lives.

Because Jesus saw this as man's malady, He saw the cure as beginning when a person will "deny himself, take up his cross, and follow [Jesus]." To deny self comes first, because self is God's chief rival in my life. Nothing can be brought back into proper order until that idol is expelled. The reason following Jesus feels like carrying a cross is only that our own instincts and desires have become so estranged from God's wise pattern as to cut right against our grain, as the bearing of a cross would do.

Since sinful self-interest is man's fatal disease, Jesus told people to whom He had shown great compassion to "sin no more, lest some worse thing come upon you" (John 5:14; cf., 8:11). To direct people away from every pattern of life that is in conflict with God's design is to show true compassion, just as when a doctor tells a chain-smoker with cancer that she must quit smoking. The patient does not like the counsel that the physician gives her, but there has to be someone who sees the truth objectively enough to communicate it to the persons destroying themselves by their wrong-headed course of life. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end of it is the way of death.

A true Christian is nothing else but a true disciple of Jesus (that is the definition of "Christian", according to Acts 11:26). A true disciple is one who continues in Christ's teaching (John 8:31). If following Jesus' words is what makes a person a disciple (that is, a Christian), and if being a Christian is the best of all possible things to be, then we do people a service to encourage them to follow the teaching of Jesus completely. If one says, "But this cannot be perfectly done!" this is true. However, one who is a real Christian is determined to follow Jesus' words, albeit acknowledging personal failures due to weakness. There is mercy for the fallen who are nonetheless determined to follow Christ as their Lord (like Peter, despite his denials). There is no mercy promised to those who have no determination to be reconciled to God according to God's plan revealed by Christ.

There will always be human temperaments which are too squeamish to cross the will of a person whose sins are ruining his/her life, and keeping that person in the same sick state of alienation from God. These people are the enablers among us, who care more about favoring their own sensitivities than giving the sick person the distasteful medicine that will save the life of the sinner.

In my original post, I sought to correctly represent what Jesus taught about marriage and fornication. You said this was merely a matter of my interpretation. It is true that my comments do reflect the way I interpret the words of Jesus. Perhaps there is a better way to interpret them that I have not seen. You did not present an alternative interpretation of them. Your choosing not to do so may indicate one of several possibilities:

1) There is no alternative way of interpreting them that would prove faithful to the text and the proper application of hermeneutical principles; or

2) You think the scriptures irrelevant because you do not think that the record of Jesus' words is a reliable record, and you reserve the right to reject any scriptures that do not agree with your own subjective opinion of what Christ would or would not approve; or

3) You don't really care what Jesus may or may not have said about such matters, but you rely more on a subjective sense of what you think the "spirit of Christ" may be leading you to conclude.

I am at a loss to know which of these (or, if there is another) describes your way of reaching decisions about Christian conduct and values. It would be helpful to hear from you the basis of your convictions, and what you personally think it means to be a "Christian."

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by Singalphile » Thu May 14, 2015 11:43 am

(First: It should go without saying that no one anywhere is displeasing or dishonoring God by just "being". We all have unwelcome desires, I - a young-ish, male bachelor - know.)
We have not rejected the bible. And we have not rejected Jesus. We simply disagree.
Issues like this (regarding moral behavior) present a difficulty.

Imo, God cares little about our opinions about most of what we now call "doctrine". There are a few facts that must be affirmed by anyone who should be considered a Christian (list), but the witness is primarily in our behaviors and attitudes. You are all aware of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) and God's intent to conform us to Christ's likeness to do good works as righteous service to God.

But this topic has nothing to do with "doctrine" (as we usually define it). It has to do with behavior.

There are certainly behaviors or activities unmentioned in Scripture, and Paul leaves room for differing opinion (Rom 14, 1 Cor 7:25). We should not judge or be unkind or legalistic about such things.

But it does not seem like same-sex intercourse can be considered one of those "up in the air" behaviors any more than greed, envy, or unkindness can be. The Law and Paul are rather explicit, without being pornographic, regarding same-sex behavior, and there are other implications from Christ against such behavior, and there is nothing in Scripture that implies approval of such activity.

We do not need to divide over theological opinions (provided a person is not divisive or quarrelsome), but we must judge immorality within the Church (1 Cor 5).

So, where do we put this disagreement about "those who practice such things" or "give hearty approval to those who practice them?"

That is the difficulty, and it seems like the Church needs to address it.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality

Post by morbo3000 » Sat May 16, 2015 12:04 am

I said: "being the most biblical can be the least Christian."
Dizerner said: I absolutely cannot fathom that statement. The Words of Scripture gave me a new birth and reveal the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The atrocities done in the name of the Bible are innumerable. Throughout history, people have latched found apocalypticism, racism, sectarianism, and elitism in the Bible, and used those beliefs as the foundation for persecuting others.

There is nothing Christ-ian about that.

When scripture, as you said, gives "new birth and reveals the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," it is serving the ministry of Jesus found in the gospels. But when it is used to justify misogyny and slavery, it fails.
Like the Pharisees we can misapply Scripture, but that's not really biblical now, is it?
That's the nub, really. It all comes down to hermeneutics.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”