Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mike Erich the Mad Theologian
- There are more things in heaven and earth then are found in your philosophy.
Pray for Our Nation's Leaders
Especially Those You Disagree With.
A Basic Principle
For Christians Living in the Real World (click here)
Blog I Follow (Though I Do Not Necessarily Agree with Them)
-
-
A Pastoral Prayer9 hours ago
-
-
-
Always for All Things2 days ago
-
-
A prayer for as you get older3 days ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dear church, hold on like never before in 202410 months ago
-
-
commentary on divine sovereignty1 year ago
-
-
Merry Christmas1 year ago
-
-
-
Did You See Last Night's Game?2 years ago
-
A New (Old) Blog2 years ago
-
-
Visit the Internet Monk Archives3 years ago
-
Racism: A Christian’s Response4 years ago
-
-
-
In the furnace of affliction4 years ago
-
FREE BOOKS!!!4 years ago
-
-
Moving On5 years ago
-
-
The Babylonian Trick5 years ago
-
A False Dichotomy8 years ago
-
-
Always Remember9 years ago
-
-
A Christian Response to Gay Marriage9 years ago
-
You forgot so include gender orientation. :)
ReplyDeleteI believe all human beings are make in the image of God and are valuable. But sexual orientation is a behavior and I do not believe all behaviors are equal. And if any behavior is simply genetic and incapable of change eliminates all genuine moral choice and responsibility. But while I do believe homosexual behavior is wrong, I do believe in should be dealt with through love and persuasion rather then self-righteousness reproach.
DeleteThe term "orientation" denotes a predisposition and not a behavior. But I do understand what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteFor Christians the issues seems to be the behavior and whether is is sinful and how the very few biblical verses on the topic should be interpreted.
To people who supposedly see the scriptures as inerrant, the OT scriptures on gay behaviors are still in effect but the ones in those same passages dealing with the behaviors towards women and slaves are not in effect.
Then there is what Paul writes in Roman 1. Some feel that Paul writes authoritatively on the behaviors of women, slaves and gays but some see his writings to be more of a reflection of cultural norms.
For me, I think that the topic is very complex. I am not dogmatic about it and think that the subject has hijacked Evangelicalism is America. Many have weighed in on it and painted gay people as sinners that are worse than the one that "real Christians" commit. This is a tragedy.
We are all sinners and I think looking down on others as worse than us is one of the most serious. I am a former and hopefully reformed porn-addict. Was what I was better or worse than a homosexual, even if you conclude as I do both are wrong. As you have undoubtedly figured out I hold to a stronger view of inerrancy then you do. But I think making the Christian message into something that is primarily a political agenda (right or left) is a mistake.
DeleteI really appreciate your transparency Mike.
DeleteI do agree with you about how the gay issue has become more of a political than theological one. I predict that (like the "sins" of divorce or interracial marriage) it will not be such a hot issue in the church in about 10 years.
I make no predictions. This one looks like it could have the seeds of a real fiasco. But we will see.
DeleteThe reason I make that prediction is the attitude towards being gay that younger people seem to have. That said, I do not see how it could ever bear the devastation on church and culture that no-fault divorce and unwed pregnancies has. The "sins" of straight people seem to hugely overshadow those of gays.
DeleteI can sympathize with you on the sins of straight people. It is always easy to point at "them" and forget the consequences of your own actions.
DeleteMy big concern with the issue of gays is there is tendency to settle for nothing less than total acceptance. And that could put people like me, who are not really interested in a fight, in a position where we cannot back down. With things like divorce, fornication and adultery (I think the condemnation of interracial marriage is dead wrong Scripturally) it is possible to shake our head, realize we live in a decadent (boy am I dinosaur for knowing that word) culture and settle for teaching our own people how to live in that context. But if we reach the point where we cannot do that as regards homosexuality it could get ugly.
"there is tendency to settle for nothing less than total acceptance"
ReplyDeleteThe same can be said of divorce, premarital sex and unwed pregnancies. The difference is that allowing gay marriage would communicate an endorsement of "commitment for life". Allowing these other things seems to be an endorsement of things that are opposed to "commitment for life".
And what does "total acceptance" look like to you? I imagine that you do not accept gay behavior now. What would change to make you accept it?
"that could put people like me, who are not really interested in a fight, in a position where we cannot back down."
Confused. What would you be forced "accept" and not be able to "back down" from? Do you think that you would be forced to attend gay weddings or be put in an uncomfortable position when asked to attend one?
I would hold that all the things on your list are wrong. I would also prefer to approach all of them based on loving persuasion rather then anger and vitriol which accomplishes nothing. But the difference is none of the other behaviors have generally and in principle been claimed to be a right that it is wrong to criticize.
DeleteWhat I am worried about is not attending a gay wedding, but churches being sued for refusing to perform such a wedding or being charged with hate crimes for saying homosexuality is wrong. It may not come to that but can already see signs leading that way,
As for what would cause me to totally accept homosexually, I would have to change my views about what the Bible teaches on the subject or my obligation to obey it. If you want to go into this we can, but you may have perceived I am not willing to change my convictions simply because they have become unpopular.
Churches sued for refusing to perform a gay wedding or being charged with a hate crime for simply saying that being gay is wrong? Seems like a direct contradiction of the first right of the Bill of Rights. I do not see that happening.
ReplyDeleteRegarding what the bible teaches. I offer the following from our Senior Pastor Adam Hamilton's interview on his newest book. I do so not to change your mind but to offer a different point of view.
I offer two different arguments regarding homosexuality in my book. In the first, I suggest that what Moses and Paul were addressing in their teachings on same-sex intimacy was very different from two human beings entering into a covenant relationship of mutual love. In the entire Old Testament we find only two expressions of same-sex intimacy: Gang rape and pagan temple prostitution. This is not at all synonymous with two people entering into a lifelong covenant relationship with one another. In the New Testament, Paul, trained in rabbinic law, seems to draw upon all of these ideas in his words about same-sex intimacy in Romans where he uses the Old Testament terms of clean and unclean and where he speaks of same-sex intimacy in connection with idolatry.
But the second argument I make is that the Bible is complex and, while influenced by God, it is not dictated by God. It reflects the humanity of the biblical authors and the times in which they lived. We’ve seen this in its teaching on slavery, on violence, on the status and role of women, and several other topics. Thus, I suggest, it is possible to be a faithful Christian who loves God and loves the scriptures and at the same time to believe that the handful of verses on same-sex intimacy are like the hundreds of passages accepting and regulating slavery or other practices we today believe do not express the heart and character of God.
Most conservatives, moderate evangelicals and progressives I know believe that the church is to love gay and lesbian people. And nearly all agree, at core the issue is not homosexuality but the Bible. God did not rewrite, edit or send down from heaven a new Bible that clarified that God was against slavery. There are over 200 verses allowing and regulating the practice in the Bible. Yet somehow Christians were able to look at those verses and ultimately conclude they did not reflect God’s will for humankind despite verses directly attributed to God that allowed for owning, selling and even beating slaves.
Conservatives often suggest homosexuality is an issue of biblical authority. I believe the Bible has authority in my life and for the church and, in the words of II Timothy 3:16, it is, “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” But I also believe that the five passages that speak to some form of same-sex intimacy do not describe God’s timeless will for humanity any more than the passages on violence, or slavery, or women describe God’s timeless will. The issue is not authority, it is our assumptions about the Bible and the way we interpret it.
I would agree that such things would be contrary to the first amendment. But I am not totally sanguine that this or any other part of the constitution will stand up to political pressure. But that is a wait and see attitude.
DeleteI do not see the issue here as "homosexuality" but the question of proper sexual ethics. The NT repeatedly puts forth the proper sexual ideal as one man and one woman for life. The fact the the specific deviation from this only occurs five times (I have not checked your number but I do not see it as the real issue) does not seem to me that relevant. Is kidnapping all right because only one verse in the Bible (at least to my memory) directly addresses it.
I agree with G. K. Chesterton who said Jesus' or Paul's sexual ethic was not a product of their time, but to high for any time. In this I will admit the OT is something of any embarrassment. It can be used to support things like divorce or polygamy (and has). I would interpret it according to Jesus' saying that these things were allowed due to the hardness of people's hearts. (This is one reason I have been reluctant to press the issue of inerrancy. It does not immediately solve all the interpretative problems. That is one reason I am not sympathetic with the mere denial of inerrancy. It seems a too a easy fix for complicated questions.) Nor do the Jewish leaders of Jesus time endorse so narrow a view. As for the Romans they were as decadent as we are if not more so. In this with all due respect I am forced to totally disagree with your pastor. The Greeks had for many years practiced homosexually between teacher and pupil. The Romans from the emperor on down indulged in it. It was not fully acceptable but was commonly practiced. The NT sexual ethic was a total intruder that cut against the grain and I would maintain it was from God.
Also to be candid I am not really that sympathetic with the idea of sexual license. I have seen the havoc it has wrecked in my life and the life of others. In this the main issue is not homosexuality. But I am not convinced it should be let off as a special exception.
I am understanding of a view that is based on a reaction to havoc in one's life. A lot of my theology has evolved from things like inerrancy because of the havoc fundamentalism once caused me. That said, I am also not in favor of sexual license. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. That is one reason that I am not opposed to allowing gay people to be married. And, as I said, I shared Adam's thoughts not to convince you but to share a different point of view.
ReplyDeleteWe all do have our backgrounds. I do not want to accuse you of advocating sexual license. But I tend to see gay marriage as making one particular form of sexual license respectable.
DeleteI know of gay couples who have been in committed and monogamous relationships for 20 years or more. Doubtful that these "need" anyone to sanction their commitments but they could use a little compassion in our laws.
DeleteI am convinced commitment is a good thing, but I am not convinced it is the only thing. (There are for instance such a thing as long term extra-martial affairs.) I just am not convinced that to deny one's sexual identity and to encourage others to do likewise is a good thing.
DeleteI know of a lot of folks who have been living together for many years simply because of laws that terminate a pension or other financial income if they remarry. I consider them, as I believe they do, married and fully committed to each other. To me, the issue is not the legality of marriage but the commitment.
ReplyDeleteI would not argue that the issue is a pure matter of legality. The cases you mention are difficult matters of conscience. My tendency is to say obey the law, but I am not in the position of not being able to put food on the table if I do. I certainly would be in favor of considering some way to revise the law. But however you come down on homosexuality, I consider the issue a moral question. Not merely a case of what the law happens to say.
Delete"But however you come down on homosexuality, I consider the issue a moral question."
ReplyDeleteThat is certainly a valid point. Many think divorce is a moral issue but it is permitted in our country. So I think that it is valid in a country such as ours to separate religious moral objections from the law.
I would be willing consider that. But I think it one thing to allow a thing (due to the hardness of people's hearts) and another to regard it as a right.
Delete"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
DeleteMy perspective on this clip from the 9th Amendment is that the right of heterosexuals to marry does not preclude a right of a homosexual to do the same. So, while I do understand the moral objection to gay marriage, I do not understand the civil objection.
I do not believe that marriage is defined by government, but is a fundamental human institution. I believe the government has some reasonable ability to regulate it but not define it.
DeleteA right implies to me a fundamental moral obligation and not just an arbitrary government decree. I believe governments recognize rights, not create them. The fact that the constitution recognizes that there are rights that are not enumerated does not prove that any particular thing is a right. To say something is a right implies that I have a legal and moral obligation not to oppose it. And therein lies my problem.
I would like to live in a society where something that resembles my understanding of Christian sexual values were accepted and practiced. But I do not think it possible to impose such an ideal on our current culture without the use of something draconian making the cure worse than the disease. And I while I would not go that far I have some sympathy with C. S. Lewis' opinion that you cannot expect people in our current culture to accept Christian sexual ethics until they accept Christianity. But I do not want to be put in a position of being required to recognize such a state of affairs as good and not asking what might bee done to change them in the long term. So while I am willing to consider allowing such practices I do not want to accept them as a right.
Always great to dialog with you about these kinds of issues Mike. I guess the core question, when I think about rights, is whether a person has the ability to change their condition. Disabled folks have rights that were really not accepted until the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. People of color and women needed laws passed to protect their rights.
ReplyDeleteSo if a person is not "born gay" then I think that you are right in saying that they do not have any rights commensurate with their sexual orientation. I guess I am not willing to say that all gays are not not born with that orientation. From your comments, it seems that you are certain that folks become gay after they are born and, as such, do not have rights commensurate with a birth condition.
You are correct in perceiving my position and my issue here goes far beyond that of homosexuality. I have a problem with maintaining any action is genetically determined, because it undermines human choice and moral responsibility. I can accept that people may have tendencies to behave it certain ways, but I believe such things can and in some cases should be overcome.
Delete"I have a problem with maintaining any action is genetically determined, because it undermines human choice and moral responsibility."
ReplyDeleteThis is true for both gay and straight people. The difference is that gay folks are required to be life-long celibates because they are, unlike straight folks, refused the right to marry.
For the reasons given I do not consider homosexual or heterosexual behavior to be genetically determined. I merely believe one behavior is right and the other is not. I do not believe homosexuals are required to be life-long celibates, because I do not believe homosexuality is genetically determined and unchangeable. I know from my own experience with pornography that strong sexual desires can be hard to change. But I do not believe it is impossible.
DeleteReminds me of the old nature vs nurture debate. You seem to come down on the nurture side - behavior is solely determined by the things that we or others nurture in us. I am not dogmatic on this like you are and think that both nature and nurture contribute to our behaviors. But in the end we do have choice and do not have to stay victims of either nature or nurture all of our lives. That said, neither addresses the issues of civil rights of gay people if nature is involved.
ReplyDeleteI do not come down absolutely dogmatically on either side of nature vs. nurture, but I do not believe either totally overrides choice. Otherwise we become automatons whose very thoughts are determined by our background (whether nature or nurture) and have no demonstrable relationship with what is true.
DeleteThat being said I find it hard to believe that something as complicated as sexual behavior is inbred. I certainly had to have it explained to me.
(I will be off on vacation the next few days. Feel free to respond, but it may be a few days before I get back to you.)
If I am really hearing you right, it is not about a choice to be gay but a choice to perform gay acts? And as your position is to not permit gay marriage then a person who has not chosen to be gay (but is gay) must stay celibate all of their life. That seems to be a violation of that gay person's right to pursue happiness.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe some basic and unchangeable nature of gayness that is somehow distinct from committing gay acts. Now the Lord when it reaches some point rebukes not only the act but the desire to do it. But the idea is ultimately to change the desire. I realize this is not always easy. There were times when I could have convinced myself that I could not help myself when it came to viewing pornography. But I do not believe the goal is celibacy, but changing homosexual actions and desires.
Delete