“Wittenberg” playwright David Davalos linked to a Luther picture at a blog named Chaos and Old Night by an LCMS seminarian John Fraiser. Looking at his blog, I came across a provocative post entitled Does Your Church Encourage Homosexuality?. He cites the ways that can happen, including this:
Suppose that you belong to a Silently Condemning Church. It is common knowledge that the church doesn’t approve of homosexuality but it is rarely talked about. If someone was to admit to being a homosexual or if someone who struggles with homosexuality were to begin attending the church they would ostracize this person. He/she would not be welcome at the church and some members would prompt the pastor to have a talk with this person and let him/her know that he/she should leave the church. The pastor perhaps tells the person that what he/she is doing is sin and that they should stop having feelings toward members of the same sex. Ultimately (and rather quickly) the pastor makes known to this person (explicitly or implicitly) that he/she does not belong in this church.
In this scenario, what has the church communicated to this person about his/her homosexuality? In effect, it has said: The church has nothing to offer you. The church is not for people who struggle with your sin. We leave you to your sin. A homosexual is what you are and must be, but what you are is wrong and we offer no help with it. Furthermore, Jesus Christ can’t help you. He only helps normal people who sin but you are beyond the pale.
Fraiser’s solution? Treat homosexuals like any other sinner.
{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds reasonable to me. We don't expel repentant heterosexual fornicator, or child who disrespects his/her parents, or gambler, or liar, or witch, or etc… Of course, if they are unrepentant, that's a different thing. Forgiveness is forgiveness; but if you reject it, you're on your own.
I never understood the distinction people often make between being an unrepentant homosexual vs. an unrepentant adulterer, drunkard, etc. Paul does not seem to talk that way in his epistles.
I think that people also use "homosexuality" in many different meanings; a person who struggles with having thoughts or inclinations toward the person of the same sex, a person who acts upon said thoughts and struggles with, and the person that embraces that choice and has no regard for what God says about it.
Thanks for pointing this out. In his post, John Frasier makes this excellent point, << The third reason that churches treat people this way is that homosexuality is often viewed as a person’s greatest identity-determining factor in a way that other sins are not. Someone who is angry doesn’t call him/herself “an angry” the way someone who is involved in homosexuality considers him/herself “a homosexual.” An angry person doesn’t associate him/herself in groups of angry people. Even heterosexuality isn’t treated as one’s primary identity marker the way homosexuality is. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals often think of homosexuality as what is most important about someone who practices homosexuality. The church has bought into this view of homosexuality as well, and so it presents a challenge to treating someone as having an identity in Christ that is greater than his/her struggle with homosexuality. >>
We are so complex. We are each sinners and "sinnees" (victims of the sins of others). Suppose that, in his sexual curiosity, a boy or young man stumbles across some homosexual pornography, or fornicates (or is sexually molested) in a homosexual manner, and he discovers that he is aroused by or got pleasure from the experience. Perhaps he feels that he'd like more of that pleasure. Our culture then tells him loud and long that he IS "a homosexual," that this is his over-arching identity. Many believe it. It seems to me that challenging this lie must be part of the challenge we face as we seek to proclaim the law and the gospel in our day.
Jesus says in Matthew 12:31, "“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men."
Where a person persists in their sin, regardless of what it the sin is, there cannot be faith present. One of the problems the church faces is, quite frankly, with those who think that they are Christians and yet live in unrepentance. Such folks are living an illusion and must be brought again to repentance, but that can only be done by God Himself through His word of Law and Gospel.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Unfortunately, the way the Religious Right for years has used gays as their whipping boy to gather millions of fundraising dollars, why on earth would any gay person want to come anywhere near a conservative Christian church to be
"ministered to"?
This is a timely topic in my world, as I have a coffee chat schedualed with an old friend who has recently "come out". She was married for 22 yrs, a marginal Catholic (but still a history of faith) and became involved with a women. I want to encourage her in her faith. I want to proclaim that she is not outside the love of Christ…but I struggle with the tone of the conversation. I want to clearly say this does not please God, but that in her "broken" world, God is there. (now divorced, life is a mess-& she is no longer actively homosexual). At the same time I want to confront her sin, my own sin of gluttony is obvious. I struggle daily with weight issues that also do not please God. From the churches point of view, these two struggles seem related. Any feedback?
I suspect, given the complex social situation surrounding the topic of homosexuality, that it is unlikely that openly gay people are going to find a home in a conservative church in America., unless something extraordinary happens. I think there has to be another way found to address the complexities of outreach to gays. One solution that I read about years ago was in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where a Baptist (if my memory serves me at all) pastor and congregation began an outreach to people suffering from AIDS. This necessarily involved the gay community, and the congregation had to undergo quite a bit of training in order to focus their attention on serving these men as neutrally as they would serve a homeless person or anyone else who was suffering, but "outside of the box" . I'm not going to say that it caused radical changes in either people's behavior or their orientation, but eventually, gay men started showing up in the pews of this church, and hearing the gospel.
I just came from an apologetics conference at the Fort Wayne seminary over the weekend, and one of the speakers–Craig Parton–reminded his audience that we Christians tend to get sidetracked easily into areas that aren't going to encourage outsiders to be curious about Jesus Christ. His example was Creationism, but it could apply to this topic as well. He said something interesting: something like, "Once people have heard and responded to the gospel, a lot of things get sorted out." We might try to keep that advice in mind as we think about outreach to gays.
Treating homosexuals like any other sinner is completely sensible as far as it goes, but I think this is a symptom of a deeper problem with how we treat sinners.
In my experience, churches usually only condemn or preach against sins that either everyone commits or nobody commits. They'll occasionally mention specific sins like murder, adultery, and other sins that they don't think anyone at their church would ever commit. They'll also go on and on about generic sins such as not loving God with our whole hearts, or about "stealing time" from employers by not giving your whole effort, and sins of that nature. However, I've almost never heard condemnation of wives' failures to submit to their husbands, or of gossip, or pornography, or fornication. We seem to focus on sin as either a collective guilt, or something that "those people" do. Both become very spiritually unhealthy when one does not have the additional conception of oneself as a uniquely sinful individual (just as that conception becomes very unhealthy if it's missing one of the other two).
When a homosexual enters a congregation they just don't fit either category. When it happens, liberal churches tend to just ignore homosexual sin because it's suddenly a category that only applies to some. Conservative churches, on the other hand, recognize that it ought to be preached against, so they make their congregations fit the mold by making sure it's a sin that nobody there commits. This whole issue is, perhaps, a good opportunity to reevaluate the way in which sinners are treated.
How will they hear the Gospel if we slam the church door in their face? It would be hypocritical to seek to minister to them and yet bar them from entering our sanctuaries. God help us to remember that we were once lost in our sin, which was every bit as offensive to God as anything any homosexual could do.
Sandi. Listen. Be her friend. Why do you want to confront her? sense of duty? you think she has not heard THAT message? On the other hand, how many people have told her simply to trust in Jesus? If someone told you "I know JUST how you feel about your sin of gluttony, I struggle with being a child molester" how would that make you feel? Sometimes messages are sent beyond what we intend when we point out the sins of others, no matter how politely. Listen. Be the friend God sent you into her life to be. Make her laugh. What attracts you to people as friends. Be that. IF you must, talk about how you came to know you were a heterosexual, and what moral challenges that has posed for you. I am saying talk apples vs apples with her. If you can´t talk about your own struggles with your sexual sins, then maybe let God put someone into her life who is better equipped to do that. It might not be your job.
CRB, without knowing you, I DO know one thing for sure about you: You actively persist in sinning. Often you willfully sin. You consciously and unconsciously sin against God daily in thought, word and deed, you sin against God by what you consciously and unconsciously do and also by what you neglect to do or avoid doing. You do not love God with your whole heart CRB. You know you do that and yet you persist in it.
Sometimes you sin, and in your pride do not recognize your sin and admit it, but rather insist that you are not at fault.
A question for you: were you to die in the middle of such a moment of unrepentance, could you be saved? are you a christian? how can you be certain that you have not sinned against the Holy Spirit?
and how do I know this to be true about you? because these things are all true about me. and because saint John says that if we say that we are without sin (present tense), we are liars and the truth is not in us. ie: this is proof positive that we are not christians.
To say that you persist in sinning, and to say that you are repentant as God requires you to be …….
I'm not sure. We are talking of the category of sexual sins. While there is no gradation when it comes to judgement, some sins are more entangling than others, and some are public in the sense they give offense. Sexual sin falls in this group.
Of course Lust is first and foremost but the physical act is a big problem. A person that struggles with adultery, say having a mistress needs to stop, now. Same with pre-marital sex. I see homosexuality in this category. Even more interesting is how to deal with pornography since it lacks the publicity of an affair. The struggle is there against lust, but the physical action as such must stop. Most all fail in this regards somewhere along the way, but a constant repeated acting out of the particular lust should be strongly opposed, or as Paul say "flee!" from these sins.
So we should treat all sinners as the same under the Law and the Gospel, but at the same time there is a tension that some sins, due to their danger and often public nature must be vigorously decried, not simply homosexuality – but sexual sins of all stripes.
larry . I have always been a homosexual. I knew what I was long , long before I knew that there were others like me or before I knew that there was a label for what I was. It was not about sex. I was not struggling with sexual urges and feelings. I did not have sex in thought, word or deed for the first qtr century of my existence. I was still a homo. My story is extremely typical among homosexuals in the church.
I know that one mr Gagnon, NAARTH and other groups say that the issue is one of misplaced identity. Most draw heavily on freudian ideas of too much(?!) love from mom or a distant dad. They are simply ignorant and wrong. period.
Christians sinfully (8th commandment) point to the sodom and gomorrah story and romans one as definition and picture of homosexuality. This is ignorance in the purest form.
Homos raised in church believe this IS what homosexuality is, and know that
this is not what their life or character looks like. Imagine. When they discover that there are many other homos like them, and that they were lied to, they leave the church and become radicalized (throw out baby AND bath water), or try to stay in the church and are thown out ("you aren´t being ashamed or repentant enough").
When someone patiently trys to point out that the sodom and gomorrah story and romans one reflects the life of virtually NO homosexual they know, they are meant with hostility. "you are a revisionist"" you are pushing a "homosexual agenda". This happens even if someone does maintain that the biblical prohibitions against sexual immorallity do fully apply also to homosexuals. Why IS this so I have to ask? it looks like a sort of blind hate. If it looks like that for me as a christian who is a homo, how much more for non christians, even those who are not homo, but will see the church as hateful and not hear the gospel as a result….
This is a big problem because Jesus can only be found in the Bible and in church.
econ jeff: are you saved by the quality, quantity, or timeliness of your repentance and faith? If so you are on. your. own.
Evangelicals often seem to say that we are saved by or faith and repentance. they turn faith and repentance into inward qualities (worked by the holy spirit) which save us.
this is good roman catholic doctrine: we are saved by what christ did on the cross, which in turn enables the holy spirit to make changes within us in the form of faith, repentance and good works. whoever says that those spirit-worked faith repentance and good works are not also necessary for salvation, in addition to what Christ did on the cross, are anathematized.
"I think that people also use "homosexuality" in many different meanings." The problem with this is that homosexuals would not identify themselves as being homosexual for anything you said here. so we can conclude there is a failure to communicate here that is not being recognized.
if you stopped having sex, or even stopped having an urge for sex with the opposite gender, you would STILL be heterosexual. sexuality is about alot of things. sex is only one of those things.
Sandi:
I don't know everything about your friend's situation, or yours, but I tend to agree with fws to this extent. You say she is no longer actively homosexual. At that point I don't think that it is imperitive for you to force her to "confront" a sin that she is not actively committing. If you simply are her friend, as fws suggests, the subject of Christ's love for her in the midst of a mess that is of her own making will surely come up, and you can share the gospel with her. If you are a good enough friend, she MAY (i.e. possibly, could be, perhaps, but NOT necessarily) want to share her fellings and reasons about what led her to the place she is now. If that happens, I think you have to be truthful about the law as well as the gospel. But if I were a betting man I would wager a lot that she already knows everything you could tell her about the law. In many ways she is little different from any other person who allowed an extramarital romance to lead her to betray her spouse and family. When that course ends in misery, the people who got themselves into it usually know why.
bingo. homosexuals see the church portraying them as all being child molesters, sexual predators (ala romans chapter 1), rapists (sodom and gomorrah) , and utterly lacking in any sense of moral judgement in favor of being consumed 24/7 with a desire to have sex with any man they see.
This would look Iike me assuming that the life of every heterosexual I run into looks exactly like sex in the city, larry flynt, hugh heffner, and that all heterosexual men regard and treat all their relations with women like the women are whores and prostitutes. I would say things like" heteros would be more persuasive if they would tone down the the activism for their lifestyle as seen in titty bars, hustler and playboy magazine.
But hey we are all sinners! I can understand the sins that heteros commit in their marriages and divorces, it is , after all, surely no worse than child molestation or beastiality.
Even to non-christians , who are not homosexuals, this looks sorta twisted…. I hope you all can see what I am trying to say here….
Luther said, "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent' He called for the entire of believers to be one of repentance." __Whatever the sin(s) we repent of they are forgiven for Christ's sake. By the power of the Holy Spirit working that forgiveness, we strive to overcome those sins. __When we would say, "I know that Jesus died for my sins, but I still *intend* to live in this manner without repentance," what does that say about such a claim and does that not indicate that there is not true faith?
"The trouble is that many contemporary homosexuals are involved in a militant movement to recognize homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality including the crucial institution of marriage. "
The trouble is that many contemporary heterosexuals are involved in a militant movement to recognize hedonism as integral and natural to heterosexuality, including the crucial institution of marriage.
One would never guess that this is so from the emphasis on homosexuality.
Note peter that
1) the catholic church does NOT say that homosexuality, per se, is a sin, is intrinsically disordered, or is a depravity..
2) it does not condemn all homosexual acts.
3) it DOES condemn those homosexual acts that are homosexual sex acts as intrinsically disordered and depraved.
4) the church also condemns any other sex outside of marriage as intrinsically disordered and depraved as it also does any sex that is separated from its procreative purpose (eg sex with condoms).
fws:
This may be off the original topic, but how do you know that you were always homosexual? And how did you know that before you reached puberty (you didn't mention that today, but I seem to remember you saying that you knew this when you were a small child)? I guess I wonder how aware young children are of their sexuality at all. I'm not denying that you were so aware, but I am curious as to how you knew.
dear brother CRB. I would most heartily agree with the good Dr Luther here. I would also heartily disagree that you have properly unpacked what Dr Luther meant in the quote you produced. not even close dear brother!
You are saying (I take the liberty of restating here):
You are forgiven of whatever sins IF you have repented of them. Your repentence must be sincere.
Repentence means that you must fully recognize each and every sinful thought word and deed AS sin.
application:
if you, for example suffer from the sin of pride, but do not successfully recognize that sin as the sin that it, in fact,is, then… well you do not have true faith and you have committed the unforgiveable sin against the holy spirit.
application:
calvinists, who do not recognize that some of their teaching are false doctrine and so are sinful, are showing that they are not really christians and we are duty bound to tell them they will not be saved until and unless they repent.
Frank: "..4) the church also condemns any other sex outside of marriage as intrinsically disordered and depraved as it also does any sex that is separated from its procreative purpose (eg sex with condoms)…"
Bingo. The ole beam in the eye.
Frank, how do you minister to homosexuals?
So what the Roman Catholic church says overrides what the Holy Scriptures say?
great post.
alot of christians see homosexual sin as being some sort of "super sin". they would disagree with you. and why would they not. if homosexuality looks and feels like and is acted out like the sodom and gomorrah story and romans one, how could one even contemplate being near such persons. it would be like welcoming a child molester to monitor a kindergarten class. apart from right or wrong, it would be a scary idea.
Frank, the Catholic Church and most other orthodox Christians regard homosexuality as a disorder of nature and a grave sin only when acted out. This church and, again, most orthodox Christians strictly require that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
While militant homosexuals are involved in a well organized movement to gain acceptance for homosexual behavior including marriage, I'm unaware of any such heterosexual movement for, say, fornication and adultery. It is true that the sexual revolution has lowered sexual standards generally. Orthodox Christians regard all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman to be sinful.
As to the Catholic Church's position on any homosexual acts what could be more clear than the following: Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
something like, "Once people have heard and responded to the gospel, a lot of things get sorted out."
Indeed. I avoided going back to church for YEARS thinking that it would be best to first "sort out" my life. I returned to church trusting in exactly what you said. not even calculating that things would get sorted out, but knowing that I could no longer be away from Jesus, who can only be found in church among other sinners who may or may not be hateful or bigoted or whatever. They look exactly like me. God does have a sense of humor. recognizing that helps alot.
I am also convinced Bruce, that most Lutherans, even most pastors, have been infected with the evangelical view of faith and repentance being requirements for salvation similar to the way RC christians view good works. This becomes rather obvious when they answer the question "can a homo be saved?"
the second problem is that christians insist that the sodom and gomorrah story and romans one is the definition and accurate picture of homosexuality. The refuse to consider that a rejection of this exegesis is not revisionism or disbelief in scriptures.
because of these two errors of false doctrine, there can be no meaningful evangelism ever for gays. there will always be a radical disconnect and cognitive dissonance.
I am saying that the church needs to correct their doctrine in order to reach homosexuals with the Law and Gospel. The problem is a doctrinal one. And that problem is on the part Lutherans who identify as confessional Lutherans.
fws: I'm not sure I get you. My salvation is not my doing; I am saved by God's grace and nothing else. Jesus has atoned for my sins and has paid for them in full. Since Jesus' atonement is universal, however, I am responsible for my damnation. Works are the fruits of faith. If that's RC doctrine, good for them. It's more in line with Lutheran teach, though.
"If someone was to admit to being a homosexual or if someone who struggles with homosexuality were to begin attending the church they would ostracize this person" — this statement, from the original post, is wrong. We all struggle with sin, and the church needs to be opened to all of us. It is our accountability to the Body of Christ which enables us, in His grace, to overcome the flesh. Ryan, in an above post, is right that sexual sins are different than other sins, because, as Paul says, they are sins against our own body. Giving ourselves over to sexual lusts and thoughts entangles us ever deeper, the more we do so. But how many Christians sit in our pews each Sunday who are living with their girlfriend/boyfriend, enslaved by pornography, or otherwise sexually addicted, either as a hetero or homosexual? These are all sins equal in God's eyes. We don't much practice Biblical church discipline anymore, to our detriment, but the key is the struggle. Those believers who desire to overcome their sin, regardless of its nature, should be welcome in the body, and those who love their sin, after going through a process of church discipline, should not be welcome. No matter the sin.
Churches should heartily welcome homosexual people who, acknowledge homosexual behavior as a sin and sincerely struggle against it.
The Catholic catechism balances this nicely with the following sections:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
The trouble is that many contemporary homosexuals are involved in a militant movement to recognize homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality including the crucial institution of marriage.
You're on your own with Romans One, Frank. I'm sorry, but you can't call the historic teaching of the church "false doctrine" and expect anyone in the church to believe you. I haven't read any comments by you on this subject which would lead me to change my mind. I suggest that your wanting to give "an accurate picture" of homosexuality according to your own perspective may have you leaning pretty hard against the plain meaning of the text. But I'm sure you could give me ten thousand words about this contra my opinion. Spare the list, please, but if you can refer me to a cogent argument against those passages referring to homosexual behavior as such, fire away.
Is the problem that they equate homosexuality and sin? Would the solution be to no longer "classify" it as sin?
Frank, the Catholic Church and most other orthodox Christians regard homosexuality as a disorder of nature and a grave sin only when acted out. This church and, again, most orthodox Christians strictly require that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
While militant homosexuals are involved in a well organized movement to gain acceptance for homosexual behavior including marriage, I'm unaware of any such heterosexual movement for, say, fornication and adultery. It is true that the sexual revolution has lowered sexual standards generally. Orthodox Christians regard all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman to be sinful.
As to the Catholic Church's position on any homosexual acts, what could be more clear than the following: Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
I need to amend this. God calls us through the Word and Sacrament. I have no idea why some are not saved, I only know that I am saved by faith in Jesus, which is itself a gift from God. Good works are a sign of true faith; if I have no works, my faith is dead. So in a sense they are necessary, but they only exist after the fact, and are not a precondition for salvation. If I am anathema, so be it.
1) the words homosexual and gay were coined at about the same time at the turn of the last century to refer to something. The accepted content of these words has evolved rapidly. 120+/- is hardly historic.
2 )if you believe that romans chapter one defines "homosexuality" you must believe the following is true about my history Bruce and what is ALL an INTRINSIC part of my character as a homosexual:
(v21ff) I practiced coarse idolatry, I willfully worshipped and served human images, beasts and created things instead of the creator. I thought I was being smart to do this.
(v27) Because of this idololatry, God abandoned me, allowing me to leave a natural passion and desire for women that I had, and leaving me to live a life that is centered in being consumed by predatory sexual desire for all other men. This is what you mean by my lifestyle when you say "gay lifestyle". but wait there is much much more that defines who I am and my lifestyle:
3) You MUST be believe, as an article of faith, that BECAUSE I am a homo, I am, BY DEFINITION, filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; a gossip, ( v30) a Backbiter, hater of God, despiteful, proud, a boaster, an inventor of evil thing, disobedient to my parents, (v31) Without understanding, can´t keep promises, I lack natural affection, implacable, and finally , you must confess as an article of faith , that you believe that I am unmerciful. that I (v32) knowing the judgment of God, and that I am worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
4) To summarize, as a homosexual I , along with ALL other homosexuals (remember this is definitional) lack even a modicum of moral judgement in any form whatsoever and on any moral topic.
You must believe that every single one of these things is intrinsically what defines me as a homosexual, and that , even though you know me and don´t see those things in me, you must believe that that is really how I should be described.
5) by the way the sodom and gomorrah story ALSO "traditionally " has been taught to be about "sodomy" and homosexuality. For you to avoid being a "revisionist" you must then believe the Holy Scriptures would command you to place me in that crowd wanting to rape those angels. You must do so, if this text also defines my homosexuality.
You are telling me that I am on my own. I know you are limiting that comment to my understanding of scripture. But now it does appear that I should understand your comment in a much broader sense.
Thanks for your honesty Bruce.
great question John 18:18:
Fact: the words homosexual and gay are about 100 years old. they came to refer to men who are attracted to other men at about the same time. The answer to your question hinges on what someone means by those words.
Do I need to be accused of being unscriptural because I chose to define a word that appears nowhere in scripture according to what can be objectively observed about homosexuals? If I say that the prohibitions against sexual immorality in the bible are all true for every human, and that ANY sex outside of marriage, including gay sex, is sin, then what sin exactly am I trying to redefine out of existence here?
IF "homosexual/gay" means narrowly and only sexual acts or thoughts, then homosexual/gay=sin. Period. But in that case, what is being said by insisting (!) on using this as a noun and not simply say sex outside of marriage is sin? Note that there is no sex act homos do that alot of married christian couples do not also do. So the undebatable part is who you have sex with (unmarried, same gender) the other part, the form of the sex act , is in fact debatable is it not? anal, oral sex, mutual masturbation…
IF "homosexual/gay/homosexuality" is used ontologically, and may or may not include sexual acts (ie: there are many heteros and homos who are not sexually active but they are STILL hetero or homo…), then yes, that would be the start of a solution.
The only solution for sin is Jesus. whether or not someone sins sexually they are still going to hell without Jesus because they still sin. Homos and heteros are in the exact same boat. There is not a separate law or gospel for homos.
Frank:
I think you have figured out that most of us here are used to thinking of "homosexuality" as an act someone can commit. Accordingly, many of us routinely say things like "homosexuality is always a sin". You, however, routinely use the word :homosexual" to mean an identity that a person has and (I think) cannot lose. You have often said that you knew you "were" gay before you were old enough to be thinking of sexual activity.
I don't think most of the people here who condemn "homosexuality" are condemning it in the sense that you use that word. That is they are condemning same sex sexual activity, they are not declaring that someone who is inclined as you are (or as you might put it "is" as you are) is intrinsicly evil or depraved in a way that is somehow worse than everyone else.
Thanks, FWS. May God bless you. But what do you think about Fraiser's comment? << The third reason that churches treat people this way is that homosexuality is often viewed as a person’s greatest identity-determining factor in a way that other sins are not. Someone who is angry doesn’t call him/herself “an angry” the way someone who is involved in homosexuality considers him/herself “a homosexual.” An angry person doesn’t associate him/herself in groups of angry people. Even heterosexuality isn’t treated as one’s primary identity marker the way homosexuality is. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals often think of homosexuality as what is most important about someone who practices homosexuality. The church has bought into this view of homosexuality as well, and so it presents a challenge to treating someone as having an identity in Christ that is greater than his/her struggle with homosexuality. >>
The reason I bring this up is that I think a lot of people here legitimately struggle with how to preach the law as we read it and still convey the love of the gospel. Many of us really DO love our homosexual brothers and sisters. You are so right in saying that there is only one gospel for us all. And we want all people to understand that, including homosexuals. But there is also only one law, and we didn't write it. And so many people these days don't want to hear it. So we strive to find ways to preach it without descending into the sin of pride (i.e. "at least I"M not as depraved as THOSE people…"). Be patient with us, ok.
1) The first unhelpful thing I see here is a category error, and so, gramatical confusion. I don´t call someone "an angry" because the word "angry" is a transitory condition based on a behavioral condition much like the labels "alcoholic" or "drug addict". angry is not an intransitory ontological condition as in "african american" or "albino" or "homosexual" that is true about a person INDEPENDENT of their actions. Yes. Independent of their actions.
You are heterosexual whether you are celebate or not. whether you actively entertain the thought of having sex with someone of the opposite sex or not.
2)Similarly, identifcation as gay is not based in sexual activity. The existence or nature of one´s sexual activity may, or may not be, a consequence of being gay.
IF what I say faithfully reflects reality ( ie possesses the virtue of being true) , then it would be UNtrue and therefore slander to say that homosexuality=sin. One could and still SHOULD say that sex between any two unmarried people, and so by definition any two people of the same gender is sin. Men who are in prison and who are not homosexuals have sex with each other, therefore just because it is two men getting it on does not make that sex "homosexual" sex. Accurate use of words matters. It matters alot here especially.
3)The over-identifying angle is most loudly advocated by a man named Gagnon. What he writes is a misdirection, and so is unhelpful for the following reasons:
What he has to say about over-identification is only generally true. It is not uniquely or especially true about homosexuals. He is too narrow in his analysis: I AM a concert pianist. If I lose my hands and with them my identity, I have over-identified. Identifying as a white-supremacist is over-identification. This is not a hallmark error of homos. At the same time, he is too broad:
4)There IS a way to identify as both a christian and also as a concert pianist, or white, or homo that is not disfunctional, sinful or out of balance. He errs in making things as either/or. I trust in Jesus. I am christian. I also happen to be gay. The problem/immorality with acknowledging this reality is what exactly?
Gagnon deals with the word "homosexual" ontologically, which grammatically is right. But he does so to challenge whether it is moral or reasonable to regard "homosexual" as even a category that exists. Grammar/word definition=moral choice. How odd.
1) Kerner, I am increasingly convinced that this is simply not true for most christians. I am not sure that they have even begun to parse things as carefully as you have.
Why are people here "used to thinking that" homosexuality is an act? It is because they have been told the lie that the sodom and gomorrah story and romans one has ALWAYS been understood by christians to be where to find the biblical definition for the word "homosexual/homosexuality".
2) read my response to my good friend Bruce Gee to get a flavor for what it looks like to be on the receiving end of this. As a christian, I need to be patient. I am patient. I see people as sinning profoundly who assume that sodom, gomorah and romans one describes the "lifestyle" of a typical gay man or lesbian. Strong words these, but people are dying in their sins because of this ignorance. such christians DO push homosexuals away from the one thing that they need: Jesus.
At the same time, I love them as my christian brothers all the same. I hope that someday they repentof this error and so become more useful in the kingdom. and less destructive. I´m not in the least surprised that non christian gays , and their friends and families are deeply offended.
3) Let me personalize: It is an absurd caracature of my life to assume that my life resembles romans one or the sodom and gomorrah story.
Be clear that to deny that homosexuality is a sin is NOT to deny that same gender sex IS sin or that I am not a sinner who needs Jesus to save me.
1) I love them.
"Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put on airs, it is not snobbish. Love is never rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. There is no limit to love's forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to endure. There are in the end three things that last: faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love."
Some of us think it is ok to not be this way when someone is breaking God´s laws. But God let´s wheat and tares grow togeather till the end. the mistake is that we see us as wheat and "them" as tares, I think the line between wheat and tare often cuts right though the middle of each of us. I point them to Jesus and trust that he WILL sort out lives filled with the most impossible chaos.
2) I do not try to separate the wheat from the tares. Jesus tells me that is not my job. Thank God he lets me off the hook there!
Yeah, I know some of you are probably thinking that I , in practice, let gays off the hook morally because what they do is out of love. No need to put love in quotes there is there really? Love is the fulfillment of the law. So no I don´t do that.
3) Now about that sex part….. the only part most of you really seem to care about and that you reduce gays to in a most de-humanizing way…..
I follow st paul carefully here. Paul says that celebacy is better than marriage even. He says that celebacy is rare and it is a gift. He indicates pretty strongly that it is not something that one can attain by force of willpower because those same creative and powerful words at the beginning "be fruitful and multiply" that drive salmon up rivers to spawn and die, also drive most 16 year olds to distraction. So st paul says that it is better to get married than to burn with hormones and so end up in hell.
4) so what is there here that I can use to advise a 16 year old gay man or lesbian, for whom the idea of having sex with the opposite gender is fully as appealing as the idea would be to you of being gushy romantic over another guy Bruce? Marriage to the opposite gender would be sinful in this case.
I urge every effort to be celebate. If that is simply not possible, I urge finding one other person and trying to be faithful to that one other person. Be clear that I am not encouraging those youth to take that path. I am saying, I will not cast you out if that is what you do.
5) Do I think this is a right or moral choice? no. Do I urge people to be repentant over this state of affairs? yes. What would YOU advise? Would you suggest telling a starry eyed 16 year old " look, you can NEVER have an intimate adult relationship ever, and you should simply accept the fact that you will be alone forever"? Do you think that would work? or would that person more likely say " I can´t do that, so I guess I have to chose between Jesus and the church and having a life." consider that probably 2-10% of youth in any church are silently and secretly dealing with this. most all silently leave the church, those who get honest are usually driven out. Some like me, come back.
The church seems to be in a similar dilema when dealing with divorced persons who want to remarry. the bible forbids them to remarry. I am most open to suggestions brother Gee!
absolutely not CRB. great point. I think the Roman Catholic position leans a little too heavily on Saint Thomas Aquinas´natural law theories. these are just that, theories based on the tripod of reason, scripture and tradition.
as a Lutheran christian I see St Thomas A elevating reason to be the master rather than the servant of scripture too much. and tradition is a useful guide never to be discarded out of hand, but again, church councils have erred, but the scriptures never have. so mother church and her traditions is only a faithful guide when she is completely faithful to scriptures.
"While militant homosexuals are involved in a well organized movement to gain acceptance for homosexual behavior including marriage, I'm unaware of any such heterosexual movement for, say, fornication and adultery."
"It is often most difficult to see what is under one´s nose in plain sight" George orwell.
I would say the porn industry, and the soft porn (sic!) industry represented by playboy, penthouse and hustler would prove you amply wrong. In addition it seems that all the advertising that sell beer and makita power tools using barely clad women are so omnipresent that you seem oblivious to the moral implications of "women-as-object".
Indeed. Men tend to "object-ify" objects of their desire. I think what twists men about "gay pride" parades is to see the male form object-ified in exactly the SAME way as women are now in literally numbing omnipresence, but seeing women objectified seems so "natural" doesn´t it?
"Frank, the Catholic Church and most other orthodox Christians regard homosexuality as a disorder of nature and a grave sin only when acted out. "
I don´t see this as a true state of affairs here. "acted out" means what. If it ONLY means sex, then fine. that is right. but then why not just say sex between two men is sinful, or better yet ANY sex outside of marriage?
why the insistence on using ontological subject noun that even the roman church considers a non transitory condition that exists independent of acts or actions? answer: because homosexuality is perceived as sinful and wrong beyond the contemplation of sex acts.
1) the problem here Don is one of matching words properly to the actual thing those words attempt to describe and to do so with the intent to be accurate and honest.
I am suggesting that the word "homosexual" as understood by the majority of society today, does not describe something that is "inherently" (by it´s very nature) sinful. The most common usage of that word today is NOT to narrowly name sex acts between two men or two women. Not even christians are consistent in usage. Christians in fact are quite undisciplined in using the subject noun "homosexual/homosexuality" when what they really mean is more narrowly two guys getting it on.
2) Why not in that case say what they REALLY mean and say sex between two men. even "gay sex " would not always be accurate, because men in prison and other places have sex with each other,and yet that is not homosexual sex by the current majority definition, even among those of us, like me, who DO feel, whatever label you put on it, that it is still wrong. To the contrary, the word "homosexual" is pretty universally defined nowadays as someting like being african american, albino, white anything else you can think of that is a condition that exists INDEPENDENT of what that individual does.
3) I can argue that you do not need to abandon in any way the idea that any sex outside of marriage is sin, deviant and unnatural to observe that this view is true because it reflects reality. Further, and MOST importantly, there is nothing in this observation that is contrary to ANY passage of Holy Scripture.
Now that african american or white can chose to be a racist just as a gay man can chose to have an adult sexual relationship. or not. This can be seen as a consequence of being white or black, but not a necessary or predictable consequence.
4) On the other hand, being labeled a gossip,. alcoholic, drug addict or whatever are all dependent on acts and actions. these acts and actions might seem nearly indelible, but this is "intrinsically" a different, "non-ontological" (ie having to do with a quality in one´s existence that exists independent of action or choice).
It is important to avoid this category error I think, so as not to call sin, non-sin, and to avoid calling non-sin a sin and to so avoid greaving one of Jesus "little ones" and face a judgement.
1) Dear brother Kerner:
the english tutor for the last chinese emporor in the movie "the last emporor" is made to say:
a gentleman says what he means and means what he says. Without proper grammar and a dictionary, a man can do neither."
Why is it that some in the church insist on a definition of the word "homosexual" that results in a bizarre cognitive dissonance when dialoging with the rest of the known world. many insist that the AMA, ABA, APA, ect are all engaged in an unholy plot to negate sin by cleverly redefining it. They further insist, as aggressively as is possible, that to "cave in " here is the equivalent of a moral surrender along the lines of what the ELCA has done.
22) english tutor cont´d…
wouldn´t it be saner to accept the definition of a word according to the current majority usage and then do moral battle using THAT definition as a settled matter? at least one would not be talking only to the choir but would be engaging the rest of the known world.
NO ONE (except for a few very vocal fringe conservative christians who insist militantly so), that the word "homosexual/homosexuality" fits in the same category as the words alcoholic, drug addict, gossip, which labels are predicated on seeming intractable behavioral issues.
33) english tutor cont´d…
most everyone considers that the content and meaning of the word "homosexual/homosexuality" better places it in the ontological category, along with racial categories, albinoism, etc. which categories exist INDEPENDENTLY of behavior even though the categories may or do influence behavior in moral ways and also in ways that are morally neutral. One´s heterosexuality for example presents with it a set of moral choices and other choices that fall outside the category of morality.
Frank, you and I have had this conversation before. I agree that it is the act of homosexuality, and not the status of being a homosexual, which is the sin. I think I parsed that correctly in my comment, and I stand by it, with the exception that I would change "a homosexual" in line 1 to "an active homosexual".
the Lutheran church near our own more conservative one has a recently admitted gay pastor. he swears he doesn't give into his homosexuality, doesn't act on it.
If he really isn't giving into the inclination, how could someone turn away from him? He has sinful leanings..we all do. Still, one wonders how parents of boys at that church could really trust him, children being more easy to hit on, so to speak.
The good thing, I guess, is they don't have to worry about the girls? (just a little humor there, VERY little, I'll admit!)
I understand your problem here, Frank. You need to modify the homosexual part with something else, so that it is "homosexual and…". See, I'm in the same boat. I need to modify my "gossip" problem with something–say, maliciousness–so that I am excused of my gossip problem. Are you seriously suggesting that St. Paul is describing all of these sin attributes in one person? If so, then you are saying that he is describing maybe one person who ever lived. Instead of this list pointing to Everyman, it points to No Man. It renders it meaningless. You know, I had a neighbor once who had maybe 75% of the atrtributes of this list, but he's got a GET OUT OF JAIL card according to Frank's Rules, because he does not, by definition, partake of the entire list. If every sin modifies every sin, we've all got GOOJ cards.
It is instructive that your exegesis naturally leads you to the unkindness of thanking me for my honesty.
Bruce Gee said:
I suggest that your wanting to give “an accurate picture” of homosexuality according to your own perspective may have you leaning pretty hard against the plain meaning of the text. Spare the list, please, but if you can refer me to a cogent argument against those passages referring to homosexual behavior as such, fire away.
done!
Look at that text, Bruce. Wherever it says “they” and you think “they” refers to me as a homosexual, feel free to insert the words “frank sonnek”.
I would encourage everyone here to do this in fact and then get back to me and let me know what you learned about what homosexuality looks like and so what you MUST assume I look like, character-wise IF this chapter IS about defining what is homosexuality.
I am sorry if I offended you Bruce.
Frank, I know you’re struggling with your sexual orientation as a gay man and that you are convinced that you have some biblical support for this orientation.
I should suggest that you read the article Homosexuality: Rebellion Against God
A scholar of Paul explains how the great Apostle understood–and decried–homosexuality. by Richard B. Hays, a highly regarded New Testament scholar at Duke.
The article makes clear that Paul viewed homosexual behavior as evidence that human beings are indeed in rebellion against their creator. He writes in summary of the article:
The genius of Paul’s analysis lies in his refusal to posit a catalog of sins as the cause of human alienation from God. Instead, he delves to the root: all other depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the creature against the Creator (1:24-31). In order to make his accusation stick, Paul has to claim that these human beings are actually in rebellion against God, not merely ignorant of him. The way in which the argument is framed here is crucial: ignorance is the consequence of humanity’s primal rebellion. Because human beings did not acknowledge God, “they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.” The passage is not merely a polemical denunciation of selected pagan vices; it is a diagnosis of the human condition. The diseased behavior detailed in verses 24-31 is symptomatic of the one sickness of humanity as a whole. Because they have turned away from God, “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.” The aim of Romans 1 is not to teach a code of sexual ethics; nor is the passage a warning of God’s judgment against those who are guilty of particular sins. Rather, Paul is offering a diagnosis of the disordered human condition: he adduces the fact of widespread homosexual behavior as evidence that human beings are indeed in rebellion against their creator. Homosexuality, then, is not a provocation of “the wrath of God” (Rom. 1:18); rather, it is a consequence of God’s decision to “give up” rebellious creatures to follow their own futile thinking and desires.
Richard Hays begins the article with a discussion with Gary, his best friend during Yale undergraduate years, a gay Christian man who was dying of AIDS and who had come to question certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists.
Those of us on this blog who oppose homosexual behavior do so with a heavy heart, knowing that friends and maybe relatives are afflicted with the difficult burden of homosexual orientation.
dear brother Peter:
terms:
by “homosexual behavior” do you very narrowly and intentially define that as two homosexuals having sex with each other or do you mean more than that when you say “homosexual behavior”?
do you mean by “sexual orientation” something like a sex drive or a desire to have sex?
do you very narrowly define a “homosexual and the word homosexuality to very very narrowly and carefully be defined as ” as someone who persists in having or seriously entertains the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender, or does the word “homosexual/homosexuality” have a broader content for you dear peter?
why would oppposing homosexual behavior leave you with a heavy heart?
Please trust that none of these questions are meant to bait you or trick you.
thank you.
#74 peter
one more question: you are saying that the “they” referred to in romans one is what identifiable group of people if not homosexuals,OR are you saying that that “they” is referencing homosexual individuals?
#71 zinLA… eeeeek!
can anyone respond to this post, or do I need to say something?
#70 don
“the act of homosexuality.”
Yeah we talked, so why do I STILL feel you are talking in some sort of secret code?
are you saying “act of homosexuality” =
a)sodomy, which is practiced by alot of christian married couples along with oral sex.
b) sex between two men or two women, which is practiced in prisons everywhere by men and women who would be loath to identify themselves as homosexual.
c) exclusively meaning sex between two self identifying homosexuals?
d) all of the above?
e) some of the above?
why not just say any sex outside of holy matrimony is sinful? would some sin become undefined as sin if we just did this without reference to homosexuals. serious question for you Don. I hope you answer me.
is there any information added by singling out homosexuals here don? please take my question as a sincere one?
#70 don
homosexual vs active homosexual.
should i assume that a homosexual is an celebate homosexual and an active homosexual is having sex regularly?
in that case, could you please tell me how you are defining that word “homosexual”?
thank you brother don in advance for your patience with my questions.
if the answers seem obvious to you, trust that they are sincerely not to me.
FW, you’re playing word games here. While you don’t respond to the points that others make, you raise rhetorical questions without making your own points clear.
What exactly are you trying to say? Debating you is like punching a tar baby.
#80 peter leavitt.
to ask you to define your terms is not
a)a rhetorical question,
b)a game, or
c)debating.
Posts #78 and #79 are quite clear, polite, sincere and transparent.
I think a polite and direct answer would not be all that difficult, complicated or unreasonable.