Theologically Right and Relationally Wrong

This past weekend we continued our series on Life's Toughest Questions.  We let the people of Community submit questions on our website and create the series.  It has been a truly great series so far! 

This week the question was, "What does God have to say about homosexuality?" That is a tough question.  I don't think it's nearly as tough a theological question as it is a relationally tough question.  The research amongst 16-29 year-olds who don't go to church in the best-seller UnChristian concluded, “When you identify yourself as a Christian to a friend, neighbor, or business associate, you might as well have tattooed on your arm: anti-homosexual, gay-hater, homophobic.” That tells me that the church of Jesus has too often been theologically right and relationally wrong.  

My biggest concern going into this weekend is that we would sound like we had all the answers but had no interest in trying to serve and love people who are a part of the gay and lesbian community.  Over and over again in scripture and in the person of Jesus it is clear that God wants to be not just morally right or theologically right, but also relationally right.  And if the church of Jesus wants to see God's Dream accomplished on this planet we can no longer be theologically right and relationally wrong.

Comments

[Pearl Gannon]

I thought that you approached the topic very well. I was mesmerized by what you were saying. I was also taking it from a different perspective, not related to the topic, but it was all-in-all wonderful. Awesome job!

[Rich Kirkpatrick]

Hi Dave. I think I like how Dallas Willard, I think, says sin comes from our contempt of people. Morality is about people, I suppose, not just right answers. Thanks for reminding people of this.

[Debbie]

The message is always awesome, but this one was one of the best (the ones that are closest to home usually are!) Additionally a fine example of speaking the truth in love. If anyone has ever wondered how that looked, this was it. I'd be curious to know how it was presented in Kids' City since it would be a good tool for the ready if and when the kids come to the parents with the same question.

[Jeff]

It is tough for Christians to separate the sin and sinner enough that we can love the sinner, but not the sin. Homosexuality probably ranks at the top of that list.

However, I always get back to the truth that the Bible never carves out a particular group of people and says "This applies to everyone except........" Jesus' teaching and ministry was all inclusive.

[Desiree Guzman]

Hey Dave,
Thanks for addressing this issue. I think it's one that a lot of churches either don't talk about at all, or spend their time just condemning people. I'm certain that this issue is one that churches will be forced to wrestle with more and more. I do have a question though about the approach to interpreting what scripture has to say on the topic. I wonder if just citing Paul is really enough to be certain that scripture is clear about this issue. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:1 - 16 Paul says that women must cover their heads when they pray or they will dishonor God. He also says that men shouldn't cover their heads and that women should have long hair but men should not. Paul also says that women should keep silent in church. As a church we do not hold to these teachings of Paul. We understand that he was speaking in a particular historical and cultural context and that these words don't really apply to us. Almost no one now thinks covering or not covering a head is sin or that women speaking in church is sin. And in Ephesians Paul seems to approve of slavery when he encourages slaves to obey their masters. I don't think we would currently ask modern day slaves to just stay obedient to their masters. So my question is this: how do we know when to use the historical and cultural context to interpret how we will apply the meaning of scripture and when not to? In Paul's day there was no concept of committed, monogamous same sex relationships. The acts he is specifically addressing are in the context of prostitution, orgies, or extra marital affairs. So how can we be sure that this particular passage also applies to someone living in a committed gay relationship? This question is really about more than just homosexuality. My deeper question is what criteria can we use to know when we should be considering the way historical and cultural contexts might change how we view a passage and when we should read it at face value? Especially when Jesus doesn't address it directly. Any thoughts?

[Debbie]

I love Desiree's question and look forward to the answer. If I could expand on it ,,, even if the committed monogamous relationship is heterosexual, that relationship is to abstain from sexual activity unless within the bonds of holy matrimony and legal marriage(that is my understanding) and if not within marriage then it is considered 'extra-marital' (outside of legal marriage) and a sin also. Is that correct? If so, and if marriage between same sex partners is not considered legal, then a homosexual act, even if not specifically addressed by Jesus is still a sin because it is outside legal marriage.

[Desiree Guzman]

Hmm. That's a good point, except that there were times when Christians were not legally able to marry under certain Empires that didn't allow them to do so because of predjudice against Christians. There was also a time in our country when inter-racial marriages were illegal. So I wonder if God would have condemned those inter-racial couples to celibacy just because they couldn't get married under the unjust laws of their government. There were some churches who blessed inter-racial marriages when they were illegal and there are some churches that now bless same sex marriages. So I'm not sure that God's idea of marriage is necessarily bound by what human governments say about it.

[Desiree Guzman]

We did not present this topic in Kids' City. We answered tough questions submitted by the kids themselves, and this was not one of their submitted questions.

[Brian Jones]

Dave,

Something must be in the water man. I just started blogging about this very subject. of course you're saying it much better!

Brian Jones

[Allegra]

I have wondered why Jesus did not address homosexuality as a specific issue when he dealt with so many others. For example He did deal with the woman at the well who was not living with a man who was her husband. The woman who was to be stoned for adultery. Zaccheus who was cheating people and the Pharisees who were making burdens from the letter of the law instead of looking at the spirit. I would have thought that maybe if this issue was as big as we make it to be then God might have had Jesus address it, but I can't see anywhere that Jesus mentions homosexuality. In fact even the Greek word used for homosexuality "arsenokoitai" (I Cor 6:9) has an ambiguous meaning, it refers to a form of condemed sexual behavior but it is unknown what specifically. Many times the references of the writings we use are more about the exploitation of boys rather than in reference to a loving homosexual committed relationship. And when in Romans I:26-27 is it speaking to those in committed homosexual relationships? or those heterosexuals who choose homosexuality as a new sexual thrill? The people in that day worshipped Aphrodite and had homosexual sex in worship of that god and perhaps that is what Paul was condemning, the idolatry? I agree with Desiree that it is often difficult to understand from our current cultural context how we should interpret the bible.
But I am so happy that you decided to tackle this question, it certainly is not an easy one.

[Dave Ferguson]

Great questions:

First the larger counsel of scripture would suggest that this is not just a cultural issue. In the larger picture of Scripture which we didn't have time to go into (in a 30 minute message) it describes human sexuality as male and female, not male and male, not female and female. It states that succinctly in Genesis. And then Jesus does quote that exact passage, reiterating it in the context of the sanctity of marriage. The Genesis account has no particular cultural overtones, and Jesus does mention it, so Jesus does mention what God's intent for monogamy is: one man, one woman for life

Secondly, there are no positive references to homosexuality anywhere in Scripture and scriptures spans many cultures and times and places

Next, the passage in Romans that we referenced is not about orgies or prostitution and nothing suggests it's about infidelity. It says "natural" and "unnatural"; that is not a moral category that is ontological language. There is nothing according to God's intent and design that suggests that natural means there is any way that men with men and women with women can be natural.

In regards to slavery, there is nothing that suggests Paul approves of slavery; he just chooses not to fight that battle. And as Keller points out, it was not chattel slavery at all like we think of slavery. But Paul doesn't approve of it, he just doesn't fight it. And from a Scriptural standpoint, Jesus doesn't condemn slavery or pedophilia or lots of things that are wrong, so it is the whole counsel of Scripture that matters, not only what Jesus says.

My conclusion based on the whole of scripture is there is nothing to suggest that the referred to teachings from Romans or Genesis is meant only for that culture. On the other hand, only in our western post-theistic world is the idea of homosexual monogamy being touted as good. No other culture in the world would support that – and that would suggest that endorsing homosexual activity as morally neutral is a product of our culture.

I think this will be my last comment on this topic in this forum. If I continue in this predominately anonymous dialogue I will end up violating the very purpose of this post – striving to be theologically right, but ending up relationally wrong. So, this conversation will have to continue in person.

Thanks.

[Jeff Pessina]

Actually, Jesus did say something about homesexuality. When he referred to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Gospels. These cities (and their neighboring towns - Jer 50:40, ) were destroyed because of, apparently, an incredibly unbridled level of sexual sin - which probably was not purely homosexual in nature, but a mixed cauldron of demented behavior that had become so bad that God would no longer tolerate the continued existence of these cities. So what did Jesus say about them? He said, "I assure you that on the Judgment Day God will show more mercy to Sodom than to that town" (Lk 10:12)! And "that town" was a reference to any place that, having had the opportunity to hear the gospel and of God's love and respond to it, REFUSED it. Jesus said such would be held in greater contempt than the Sodomites. So apparently Jesus' view of the "greater sins" shows that rejecting God's Word and love is WAY up there. While I remain certain God does not condone homosexuality (or other unnatural behavior), I am just as certain that their sin is not THEE greatest sin of all, and that God took no pleasure in ending the lives of these people. Surely God's "REALLY BAD SINS" list will look different than many of ours.

In defense of the Church however, I'm not convinced that this "anti-gay" "homophobic" labeling is purely from our actions and words. Perhaps we should keep in mind that Christians are not the only people who oppose homosexual behavior? And we're also labeled by many as terribly intolerant, when nothing could be farther from the truth. There are plenty of other cultures, faiths, and non-Christians, who reject homosexual behavior... including Islam. So some percentage of this anti-gay labeling must come with the territory? The "territory" of believing and maintaining a traditional view that is increasingly unpopular.

[Desiree Guzman]

Actually, this is what the Bible says about why Sodom was destroyed:

Ezekiel 16
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Thanks for your sharing your perspective on the basis for interpreting the scripture, Dave. It was helpful to have a fuller picture. I understand that there isn't enough time in the space of a message to go through everything you'd like to say about the topic. (Though I think it's a little funny that without saying as much you are giving a nodd to the "Adam & Eve" not "Adam & Steve" line : ) I think the least we can say is that like the Evolution question we addressed the week before we tackled this topic "reasonable, thoughtful, and prayerful Christians, who take the scripture seriously, have studied this issue and come to different conclusions." When you addressed this issue a few years ago you said "it's not a salvation issue." The important thing to me is that people who have looked at it seriously (not just made an emotional decision, but really studied it) and come to a different conclusion than the one you presented can be assured that no one in our community is going to question the legitimacy of their faith because of it. I'd love to talk about it in person sometime, and again I'm very proud of the courage our teaching team has to address these issues. Even if I don't agree with everything, I have huge respect for the thought and care that goes into every message at CCC.

[Andy Vestal]

I have dealt with this topic for years and would point people to the literature of your close neighbor Stan Jones at Wheaton - see link below for short article.

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/onlinearticles/Jones1993CTIArticle.pdf

I would also have everyone to read Luke 17:1-4, for we cannot love anyone unless we know what love is and we cannot know love until we know the heart of Jesus and to know the heart of someone is to know what makes them hurt as well as what brings them joy.

If your child was running in traffic would you grab him by the arm and yank him out?

I pray for anyone dealing with this issue and I would ask you to trust God and not yourself.