The Washington, D.C. based Foundry United Methodist Church has voted to oppose official UM doctrine on the incompatibility of same-sex sexual relationships and Christian sexual ethics and to allow its sanctuary to be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies and its clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. According to the church's website:
On Sunday, September 26, 2010, the members of Foundry United Methodist Church voted to allow same-gender marriages performed in its building, and to support any member of the Foundry clergy who chooses to celebrate a same-gender marriage at Foundry or elsewhere.
The vote to adopt this policy was 367 to 8. It took place at a Church Conference duly convened under the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. The vote was preceded by a four-month-long period of discernment during which the congregation spent much time considering this policy in prayer, study, discussion and congregational conversations.
The Foundry congregation believes that the consecration of committed, loving relationships is an important part of our ministry, witnessing to the joyous gifts of God’s love. As disciples of Jesus Christ living out this decision we will continue to work to deepen our faith, engage as Christian community, and transform the world through service and witness. We welcome all to join us in fulfilling this call.
This action is seen by many within and outside of the church in the same light as previous UM churches use of civil disobedience and rejection of denominational trends during the eras of slavery and segregation. Same-sex relationships are seen as the natural progression and continuation of the fight for civil rights, and therefore, proponents of the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships within the church believe that history will vindicate their actions in openly disobeying the church's teachings at the moment.
Despite being rhetorically strong, the argument that same-sex sexual relationships are equivalent to the civil rights movement is illegitimate for a number of reasons. The exclusion of persons from the church based on race is something that the New Testament specifically spoke against on multiple occasions with no counter examples or exceptions (Gal 3:28, Rom 1:16, 10:12, Col 3:11, Act 17:12, Rev 5:9, 7:4).
Thus, churches that taught that segregation was acceptable (as some churches in the Bible Belt did during the civil rights era) were in direct violation of Biblical teaching. There's a reason that the leading figures in the civil rights movement were committed Christians--they were following the teachings of Scripture and speaking out against a hypocritical stance held by many professing Christian churches.
The same cannot be said about same-sex sexual relationships, because the New Testament specifically speaks against same-sex sexual relationships on multiple occasions with no counter examples or exceptions (Rom 1:25-28, 1Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:10). In fact, as leading Biblical Sexual Ethics scholar Robert Gagnon has demonstrated, when it comes to the entire Bible's teachings on same-sex sexual relationships, "every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, poetry, and metaphor in the pages of Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations and marriage" (source).
Thus, churches that teach that same-sex sexual relationships are an acceptable form of sexual outlet stand in direct contradiction to the New Testament, as well as the historic orthodox Christian faith. This is especially ironic within the Methodist denomination, given John Wesley's high view of Scripture as the basis of all church doctrine and his insistence on holiness in all areas of life, including sexuality.
Foundry's claim to have arrived at this decision "after much prayer and deliberation" seems humble and pious, and their motives almost certainly flow from a genuine desire to love people who the church has historically shunned and (to our shame) made to feel less-than-human. The desire to love people who are the most marginalized and hurting is one that all true followers of Jesus should share and Foundry's desire in that respect is to be applauded.
However, no amount of prayer or deliberation can change the fact that, unlike issues such as slavery, segregation, women's rights or social justice, the teaching of Scripture is unanimous and unchanging when it comes to the acceptability of sex between persons of the same gender. In the last 50 years or so a handful of scholars have tried to argue that this is not the case and that Scripture does not oppose certain types of same-sex sexual relationships. Proponents of same-sex sexual relationships within the church often cite such scholarship as proof that faithful Christians can disagree on this issue and still be faithful to the teachings of Scripture. But top mainline scholars such as Gagnon and Duke Divinity's Richard Hayes (in addition to evangelical scholars within the UMC such as Ben Witherington and Thomas Oden) have shown the underlying albeit well-intentioned errors of such approaches time and time again.
The question Foundry (and ALL UM churches seeking to reach the GLBT community with the love of Jesus and the life-changing power of the Gospel!) should be seeking to answer is, "How do we remain faithful to Scripture's teaching on sexuality being acceptable only within the confines of a man-woman marriage covenant and still reach out to those who fundamentally disagree with this teaching?"
The answer to that question is not easy, neat or tidy; nor will it please everyone. But it is the question Jesus Himself answers to every person--gay, straight, or anyone in between--who seeks to follow Him: "Take up your cross, deny yourself, and follow me!"
No one is helped by attempts to "reach out in the love of Jesus" which do not convey the full force of Jesus' radical claim upon one's life even down to the most fundamental desires of one's heart. If Scripture consistently and unanimously deems something as sinful, faithful followers of Jesus cannot overturn that teaching whenever it conflicts with their own sense of what the Gospel should be. A cure that denies the disease is no cure at all.
Comments
Really well-said, as always, JM. I have to admit, I still haven't come down with sure footing on this issue, but I appreciate the way this is written with unity in mind, and not division.
I would like to point out that there are at least three places in the Bible that could be relating to same-sex relations. The first is Jonathan and David. Despite all efforts by apologists on this issue, the Bible speaks of this relationship with all the passion that it does an opposite-sex relationship. Second is the story of Ruth and Naomi. Then there was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Aside from those stories, there’s the story of the Roman Centurion who servant was sick. It was highly unlikely that a man like this would care about his servant unless there was more between them, and from what we know about the Romans, this behavior was commonplace.
But still, the greater question is this: why would you separate a group of people for any reason. To do so shows how much you misunderstand homosexuality and its place in our evolution. Christians often confuse homosexuality with “behavior,” and this is a horrible mistake… one that has caused so much pain. The only reason to have any problem with homosexuality is because of Adam and Eve… two people who never existed. Homosexuality is and was created by the Universe, and those who find themselves among this eight-to-twelve percent of the population do so not because of sin, but because that’s the way nature set it up.
Your article reveals, unfortunately, blind ignorance on the subject and a willingness to take superstition over science. That you would condemn a group of people for something that has nothing to do with them cannot be remotely Christian. Just because the Bible said so, doesn’t mean the Bible understands science, genetics, or even has a grasp on social issues. The Bible also says to stone rebellious children. Paul said in Corinthians that Christians should not marry, unless they had a problem with lust.
It sounds like the United Methodist church is trying to allow that there are things that are bigger than prejudice and dogma, and it’s ironic that they would be opposed in the name of the very man who would eventually give up his life for doing the same.
It sound like the Foundry United Methodist Church forgot to read the Bible. All they need to set them straight is to read the 24 verses in the little book of Jude which deals with evil works as the evidence of apostasy.
"It sounds like the United Methodist church is trying to allow that there are things that are bigger than prejudice and dogma, and it’s ironic that they would be opposed in the name of the very man who would eventually give up his life for doing the same."
Well said. I agree.
For a different perspective, listen to Dean Snyder's (Foundry UMC) sermon on "Is Affection Ever Wrong?" in which he looks specifically at the biblical passages that the author may be referring to in his above article. http://www.foundryumc.org/sermons/2010%20Sermons/08_022_10.html
Not that I give two hoots about what the Bible says about human rights (since I think those things are both defined by and derived from reasoning people trying to live together the best way they can) but the case for civil rights from the Bible is specious at best. The NT and OT make better cases FOR slavery and social inequality than the other way around.
Just ask these nice 19th century American slaveholders: http://www1.assumption.edu/users/lknoles/douglassproslaveryargs.html
Hugh, does your assertion that the NT and OT make better cases FOR slavery actually come from Biblical text, or does it come from these slaveowners misuse of text that you have linked to?
I encourage you to read Paul's letter to Philemon. (It's only 1 chapter). Read it, and then read the link you sent, specifically the argument about Onesimus the slave. The slaveowners defense for describing Paul's intent as nearly opposite of what Paul wrote isn't based in any sort of logical or lexical ground. (RE: Paul's encouragement to Philemon to take back Onesimus as a brother and not a slave) instead, he simply says "it's a view (that Paul didn't mean what he actually wrote) held by the generality of commentators" - ones who are most likely slaveowners themselves.
Racism and slavery was often justified in the past throught these lines:
Genesis 9:25
"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren"
and is often cited to prove that people of African descent are under a special curse from God. It is stated that in fulfillment of this curse, God intends for black people to serve whites, or at least be subservient to them.
There is also no passage in the Bible that condemns homosexuality when you don't take it out of context.
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=...
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexualit...
As an example, lets examine Leviticus
Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.
The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.
It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.
It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.
shadow_man - I think these are some good arguments you are making. Cultural influence of the time on the actual meaning of these verses is important.
So, my question would be - (and I'm asking, because I don't actually know) - did people of that time (2nd millenium BC) participate in fertility rituals that specifically included males lying with other males? I'm aware of heterosexual fertility rituals, but I'm not aware of homosexual fertility rituals - which seems to defeat the purpose, as homosexual intercourse is inherently infertile.
Yes, homosexual sex practices were used in the baal fertility rituals. Read the links i posted where historians talk more about it :)
shadow_man - FYI Some of those links don't resolve. Most of them don't talk about Baal Fertility Rituals, and the one that does just has a comment much like the one you quoted where someone just says (without reference) that Lev 18 is referring to a Baal Fertility Rite. I'm just not seeing any evidence (albeit admittedly based on some cursory googling) that males ever engaged in sex with other males as a *fertility* ritual. Again, it doesn't logically follow that people would engage in a non-fertile act to encourage fertility from Baal. Perhaps providing a 3rd party historical reference...one that doesn't have either a positive (or negative) bias towards homosexuality.
Again, you need to read all of the historical resources within those links. There is much evidence here:
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=...
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexualit...
And a wealth of info here
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
Also, maybe bring up the Romans interpretation will further show this.
Letters from the Apostle Paul Romans 1:26-27
If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.
Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.
Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.
The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.
Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-li...
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
I think your article is brave, fantastic and brings out everything it should.
Those who fool themselves by reading stuff into verses about Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi being same sex relationships are having the wool pulled over their eyes by Satan himself. These were innocent, loving friendships. I know many friends who are tighter with that friend than family and even spouses.
Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, and yada yada yada groups who believe this have been bamboozled by false science, heavy-handed GLBT lobbying, and political correctness.
Still, Christians are supposed to love everyone. But we should get the chance to voice our opinions in loving manners. What God says not to do is for our own good.
Anonymous (if that is your real name), there is nothing brave about promoting homophobia and bigotry. Secondly, I’d you show me one shred of evidence that Satan exists, and I consider that it’s possible that I’m having the wool pulled over my eyes. In the mean time, I have science on my side, which means that the fool is the one making the accusation. If they were innocent, loving relationships, then why does the Bible present it otherwise?
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26
The whole story of Jonathan and David is riddled with sexual context.
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." 1 Samuel 18:1,3
And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:
1 Samuel 18:4
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"
1 Samuel 20:30
This accusation is linked to sexual context and is only used in that context in the Bible.
Far from home, her family entirely deceased, Naomi decides to go back home to Israel. Ruth, the wife of one of Naomi's deceased sons will not take Naomi's advice and go look for a new husband. Ruth responds, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I
will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."
If that’s not a marriage proposal, then I don’t know what is.
That you would dismisses legitimate organizations whose sole purpose is to understand those thing from a scientific perspective… in other words, to know the TRUTH about them is telling about your own ignorance. It’s sad that rather than choosing light, choosing truth, you’ve chosen dogma and hate. Which brings me to your last comment:
“Still, Christians are supposed to love everyone.”
Love does not cower from the truth. Love does not separate people. Love does not adhere to dogma while destroying the lives of others. Not one thing in this post sounded like love. And it’s profoundly troubling when people start mistaking bigotry for love.
Well look at this, more claims without evidence to back theirselves up :) Sorry that facts disprove the anti-gay arguments.
It's funny how there are so many translations of the verses used as defacto biblical denunciations of homosexuality. Some tanslations (mainly ones made in the past decade or so) explicitly say "homosexuality". Go back 50 years and most translations say Sodom!tes. Go back several hundreds of years and you'll find translations that say "abusers of men". I think its worth noting that all three have DRAMATICALLY different connotations. I sometimes feel people who translate bibles now-a-days can spin certain verses to back up their own beliefs. Do you know who translated your bible? Can you trust that it IS the word of God? One thing is certain. God is love. AND two men who want to proclaim there love by obtaining a civil marriage is neither a Sodom!te "Bring them out to us, that we may know them" or an abuser of man. It all is confusing at best. I just figured it was worth mentioning. Remember, God is love. And love is inclusive, not exclusive. Thank you Methodist church. :0)
"Remember, God is love. And love is inclusive, not exclusive."
Jesus sure seemed to waste a lot of time then because He often spoke of people being excluded from the Kingdom of God on the basis of unrepentant sin.
Shadow_man (*wink wink*), thanks for presenting links to revisionist approaches. I encourage people to read them and then read other credible Biblical scholars (such as Richard Hayes, who I mentioned in the article) and then draw their own conclusions.
Ben, you reject belief in the Gospel and Scripture in general...what makes you think your comments about how churches should and shouldn't maintain doctrinal faithfulness to Scripture carry any weight? This would be like me telling Hindus what they should believe about interpreting the Vedas.
Anon: You bring up a very good point.
As an example, let us look at the Corinthians interpretation done by anti-gays, and show why it is simply absurd.
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.
Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.
Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.
First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.
Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)
Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.
Hi JMSmith,
I don’t “reject” a belief in the gospel per se. I, in fact, believe in the “premise” of the gospel. The man Jesus somehow had this amazing connection with the Universe; so much so that to him he used the term Abba: A extremely intimate term. To have that kind of a connection is something that I would welcome. Jesus was profoundly enlightened—those who wrote of him were not. What I reject is your interpretation of the gospel. The Bible clearly does not speak against homosexuality as you believe it does. The texts are specious, and there’s no concept of homosexuality in the Bible as there is now. They ancients really didn’t give it a lot of thought. One has only to read the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Jonathan and David and similar writings to see that they didn’t distinguish.
I do believe that your belief is based on a faulty premise, and out of that premise you’re criticizing your own organization. There’s nothing wrong with calling your leadership into account when they misbehave, but your leadership has shown that they’re willing to put their faulty beliefs aside and step into the scientific era, and they are putting the Bible in that perspective. Thank God.
I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to believe, but I would presume to tell you that what you believe is based on a faulty premise. I know this because science can back me up. I know this because of the preponderance of evidence that continues to stack against you on this subject. And this is my real point. If you believe in God, you’ve got to believe that God is not afraid of truth. In fact, God would know the truth from the beginning, and therefore God would be perfectly okay with us as a species stepping into a new understanding of truth as it presents itself. That’s what I do not understand about most of Christianity. It’s okay to believe what you want, but at least make sure that there’s some scientific backing to it. Otherwise, they’re just beliefs, and faulty ones.
As most reasonable people do, when presented with information that challenges what they already think they know, they look at facts, they study science, and then they adjust their thoughts. They don’t just hunker down in their own ideas because that’s what they want to believe. You will always lose if you try and adjust the facts to your own beliefs. Reality always wins.
I read your posts because I’m genuinely interested in your perspective, and for the most part I find it enriching. However, there’s science and there’s dogma. I’m just talking about why I think it’s important that beliefs must be based in reality, not the other way around.
JM Smith - yes, unrepentant sin. Exactly. My point was that more recent translations twist and refine words to more clearly represent what they feel that sin is...
Except that it is not a sin and there is credible evidence backing that notion up.
M - I think Gagnon is wrong on this on pretty much all fronts. I also find it dangerous ground to speak so surely of that which God does or does not "endorse." Using this Bible this way has led to all sorts of abuse - slavery being just one of them.
While I'm not sure yet if Foundry is doing the best thing, I don't think they are going against God. Perhaps conservative Christians, but the two aren't the same.
As one of the resources, this site references Robert Gagnon, prolific anti-gay, evangelical Christian author.
Most of his information is either out of context, or he makes assumptions. For example, he points out a lot of passages on heterosexual marriages mentioned in the Bible, and assumes that since they talk about heterosexual marriages, all homosexual marriages are condemned. That is not only an assumption, but a wrong one at that, since the Bible never specifically condemns homosexual marriages. That alone makes you ponder the validity of his book.
One of his arguments on gay marriage that proves this:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/GagnonGayMarriage1.php
In this article, he states a lot of things without providing any evidence and things that clearly show his anti-gay stance. He tries to associate it with irrelevant things, such as incest and polygamy, and claims gay marriage "a contradiction of terms"
He then tries to cite scripture and pulls out verses that talk about heterosexual relationships and marriages. Again, none of those verses condemn homosexual relationships and he is making another blind assumption.
Then scrolling down, he calls homosexual desire "sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception" and makes statements that are clearly not supported by any valid psychological, medical, or scientific organization.
This proves that he is not only highly anti-gay, but a lot of his information lacks evidence, makes assumptions, and is contrary to actual science/psychology. That immediately should send red light signals on his interpretations of the Bible in his book.
Shadow_man, if there were no such thing as the LXX, the argument that "no one really knows WHAT Paul was talking about when he coined this term!" might stand up to scrutiny.
Lol, trying to change my words now. Paul had the common word for it, and if he was condemning it, he woulda used it. It goes along with all the mass evidence proving that homosexuality is not a sin.
Here's an excellent scholarly overview, from a UM perspective, of Shadow_man's line of argument with sources noted in case anyone would like to follow up rather than taking anyone's word for it:
http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
Thank you for this resouce, JM. I found it to be very helpful.
Upon checking out that source, it is very clear of the inaccuracy of it :) It does the same thing a lot of anti-gay's do, and that's focus on a few lines rather than the whole bible, which is called taking verses out of context :)
As for arsen, we see that all uses of it here (once again i mention we look at the Bible as a whole, and not focus on what we want to see)
# not define the meaning of arsenokoites.
# Paul, I Timothy 1:10. This is the second historical use of the word. Paul does not define the meaning of arsenokoites.
# Sibylline Oracle 2:70-78. The context is stealing, falsely accusing and murder. The meaning is not defined.
# Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians. Ignatius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.
# Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. Polycarp quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Acts of John 36. The context is robber, defrauder, thief but no definition is provided. Arsenokoithj is translated sodomite here, which indicates a shrine prostitute.
“36 Thou that rejoicest in gold and delightest thyself with ivory and jewels, when night falleth, canst thou behold what thou lovest? thou that art vanquished by soft raiment, and then leavest life, will those things profit thee in the place whither thou goest? And let the murderer know that the condign punishment is laid up for him twofold after his departure hence. Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite [shrine prostitute], thief...” Acts of John, 36.
# Define arsenokoites. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.11. Clement twice quotes I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Aristides, Apology, 13. Aristides, a Christian preacher, delivered his Apology around AD 125. The context is interspecies rape or pederasty, Greek gods killing, committing adultery and arsenokoitia with humans.
# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Dialogue With Heraclides 10.1-12 & On Jeremiah 20.3.33. Origin quotes I Corinthians 6:9 and comments on the verse without providing a definition.
The Temple of Apollo at Corinth was built around 510 BC.
# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 14:10. Origin uses the word without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Commentary on I Corinthians 27.58. Origin mentions arsenokoitai, without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Origin, Exposition on Proverbs 7.74. The context is lusts contrary to nature, which indicates nonprocreative heterosexual sex. Historically, the phrase contrary to nature refers to nonprocreative sexual activity between men and women, not homosexuality.
# Define arsenokoites. Porphyrius Phil. Against the Christians, 88.13. The context is adultery, drunkenness, theft, witchcraft but the arsenokoit stem is not defined.
# Define arsenokoites. Hippolytus, AD 170-236, Refutation of All Heresies. The context is the serpent in the garden of Eden, sodomizing-raping Eve and Adam.
This usage gives no basis for concluding that arsenokoites refers to homosexuality. Naas is the serpent, from the word Naas, referring to the Naasseni, the people who call themselves Gnostics.
“Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural [meaning nonprocreative or interspecies] intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.”
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book V, Chapter 21. This Link will open in a new page.
# Define arsenokoites. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Against the Galilaeans. Claudius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition of the word.
# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius - Preparation of the Gospel, 6:10. Eusebius uses the word in reference to pederasty or rape. The text does not indicate homosexuality as we understand it today - a faithful, noncultic partnership between two men of equal status.
# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, 6.23. Eusebius uses the word in a warning against adultery, followed by the phrase, against nature (indicating nonprocreative sex). Eusebius provides no definition of the word.
# Define arsenokoites. Epiphanius, AD 310-403. Two references, both of which quote I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Athanasius, AD 296-373. Athanasius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Basilius, AD 329-379. Five times Basil quotes Paul’s use of the arsenokoit stem without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. John Chrysostom, AD 347-407. Twenty times Chrysostom quotes I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 or makes allusion to those verses without providing a definition.
# Define arsenokoites. Pseudo-Macarius, mid-fourth-early fifth century, Sermon 49:5-6. As used by Pseudo-Macarius, the word refers to interspecies sex, the attempted rape of angels in Sodom, not homosexuality.
# Define arsenokoites. Theodoretus, AD 393-457. Theodoretus uses the word four times, once in a vice list and in quotations from I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.
It becomes very clear that homosexuality is not the condemned act when we examine this as a whole.
=)
In my ethics course at Duke I wrote a paper titled Homosexuality: God's Gift to the Church. You can find it on my blog here: http://chadholtz.net/2009/08/07/homosexuality-the-clobber-verses/
In that essay I deal with each of the 6 passages of Scripture that supposedly condemn same-sex relationships as well as offer some philosophical/historical and theological considerations.
Very nice read. Looking at both sides, it is very clear that the anti-gay side lacks much evidence for their views, whereas the pro-gay side has numerous evidence
JMSmith – I attend Foundry United Methodist Church. I attended the church conference on Sunday September 26, which followed a four-month “Summer of Discernment.” Your comment “The question Foundry … should be seeking to answer is, How do we remain faithful to Scripture's teaching on sexuality being acceptable only within the confines of a man-woman marriage covenant and still reach out to those who fundamentally disagree with this teaching?" is shocking and horrible.
You are dismissing the very long, complete, and at times painful process my church went through in order to answer our questions of who and how to minister. Foundry United Methodist Church has a long history of ministering to the community as “true” Christians. Your discount of this work suggests to me that you do not really seek to follow Christ and instead seek to follow those who enjoy inflicting pain on innocent young people - just like the four teen agers who committed suicide recently across our country. These teens committed suicide because they were relentlessly harassed at their schools for being gay. The harassers take stock in comments from people like you.
If you believe that Jesus would sit back and justify the suicide of these young people because the bible said they were created to be sinners – then you have nothing to say to the congregation of Foundry. Perhaps one Sunday, if you are lucky, you will find yourself in Washington DC and attend Foundry and find “true” followers of Christ.
DWGRI wrote: "If you believe that Jesus would sit back and justify the suicide of these young people because the bible said they were created to be sinners"
Where did you get this from? I don't see anywhere in this article or any other examiner article written by this author that even remotely espouses this idea.
Your post seems to suggest that you see only two extremes to this issue: 1- People who hate gays and want to persecute them in the name of Jesus, and 2- people who want to fully support and condone same-sex marriages within the Church in the name of Jesus.
There are those of us who believe that same-sex marriage is not in line with Biblical teaching, and therefore would not condone it, but fully believe that homosexual people are fully loved by God and should not be shut out of the church simply for being gay.
I'm willing to admit I *may* be wrong. But as of right now, based on t the study I've done (and again, I'm willing to let this be a lifelong study, not one that is forever closed never again to be looked at) I do not believe that homosexual *practice* is in line with Biblical teaching. However, I fully reject any notion that people who *are* homosexual should be shunned, persecuted, or treated in any way less dignified than any other of God's children.
That's what was being said. How do we show true love, without eschewing what we believe is Biblical teaching? I'm not sure how that is shocking and horrible.
Mark B, Thank you for commenting on my post. “Where do I get this from?” The anti-gay “National Organization of Marriage” who clearly paints a picture that it is bad for children know about gay marriage.
One example from their website: “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
This statement is meant to frighten voters into believing there is something wrong with children knowing about gay people.
Science has long accepted that being gay is not a choice – and that sexual orientation change efforts do not work. Children, who are born gay, and their straight classmates are taught that there is something wrong with you if you are gay. This stigma has lead to a substantial amount of gay bashing both in school and in the American community as a whole.
Too many times in the last month we have heard the tragic news that yet another teenager has taken his own life after relentless antigay bullying. A 13 year old in Texas. An 18 year old in New Jersey. Another 13 year old in California. A 15 year old in Indiana. And in Ohio, an 11 year old had his arm broken because he dared to join the cheerleading squad. Studies repeatedly show that LGBT youth attempt suicide at four times the rate of their heterosexual peers, and bullying plays a significant role in that. Where is the outrage from the Christian community when it comes to this type of bully behavior and its consequence?
Others have posted a significant number of links to Biblical teachings about homosexuality – I am sure you now have enough for now. The question is how can you “fully reject any notion that people who *are* homosexual should be shunned, persecuted, or treated in any way less dignified than any other of God's children” when you believe gay people should not be allowed to get married. If you believe, like the Catholic Church, that gay people should just be celibate - you are denying gay people their sexuality and therefore treating them in a less dignified way - teaching innocent children who were born gay to hate themselves.
"If you believe, like the Catholic Church, that gay people should just be celibate - you are denying gay people their sexuality and therefore treating them in a less dignified way - teaching innocent children who were born gay to hate themselves."
That's a fair point. However, I'd like to point out a few things. I don't think gay people should be banned from being married - at least not on a governmental level. I just don't think the Church should condone it. That aside...
Yyu are correct in that in my belief that within the Church homosexuals should be celibate, does deny them some of the rights they want to have. There's no way for me to make it sound any other way. But if I could make a comparison, and one I understand isn't completely apples to apples, but it's the closest I can come.
What about heterosexuals that struggle with lust? Many heterosexuals I know struggle with the sin of lust. It's something we were born with. Some of us would go so far as to say that it's part of us and it's who we are. But as Christians we don't give in to it, or more realistically, we don't flagrantly commit the sin of lust and reject that we need to repent of it.
Now, please understand that I am not suggesting that the heterosexual Christian's struggle with lust is as difficult as the homosexual Christian's struggle with celibacy even remotely on the same level, especially considering that the heterosexual has a viable sexual outlet within the confines of marriage, and the heterosexual Christian hasn't experienced centuries of persecution for their orientation. I recognize that.
But on a certain level, it's similar. I realize that there is a huge debate on whether or not homosexual practice is a sin. And if one believes it is, then then only recourse is to abstain from that sin. So I don't think asking a homosexual to abstain from the sin of homosexual marriage or intercourse is any less degrading than expecting a heterosexual to abstain from lust or extra-marital affairs.
Thank you for this amicable discussion.
My name is Lara and I am also a member of Foundry (sorry I don't want to create a new log in.) Though I appreciate the intellectual dialogue that at times seems to be happening here. I think the point is that this issue affects real people, real hearts and real families. In the District of Columbia, where same sex marriage is now legal and can provide real benefits to same sex couples/families. This discussion has moved from theoretical and is now a reality. So with this change in context, Foundry was faced with this new decision. We have approached this issue with prayer, humility, much reading of scripture, and many late night discussions. We've read and addressed within our own hearts the scriptures mentioned above. We've gone to the original Greek text. We've taken culture and context of the times into account. We're not revisionists, but we are Christians seeking to do right in a world that is not right. The end result you know about from the article, but I want to be clear that we are moving forward in a place of love.
As someone who was raised Southern Baptist, I do actually feel this is a continuation of the civil rights movement. In my home town church, women are still not able to fully participate in the life of the church. We are allowed to feed the poor and teach chidren, but not speak of scripture as equals in the church. There are scriptures in the Bible that speak to this (both against and for) while many churches are now allowing for female ministers. Women go to seminary now. This is an evolution of thought that took some churches and people to be leaders on, similar to what Foundry is doing now. So despite the scriptures quoted in the article, I know from my own experiences as a Christian woman that this feels exactly the same to me at least in the sense of civil rights.
So, I ask that we move forward in this discussion with love. Where it is legal for same sex couples to get married, shouldn't we as a loving Christian community allow for all of our brothers and sisters to come to Christ and participate in all of the Holy Sacraments? One of these, being the sacrament of marriage...
One last slightly off topic comment, as a hetersexual single female I am amazed by the loving and long term relationships these same sex couples at my church have. I wish that I could have love like this in my life. They are a wonderful example for me. If you could know these amazing people, I really think you might change your mind. They are awesome...
Wow! Thank you Lara for sharing! I myself have been tansformed by witnessing loving, long term same-sex relationships first hand. It is easy to deny someone the same rights as you when you demonize them, berate them, and make them less than you from afar. It's also easy to sit back and skew 3 or 4 verses to your veiwpoint, from a bible that contains over 30,000 verses, to justify that hatred. It has been done for millenia, not just against gay people. It's encouraging to see that a church is taking the necessary steps to right wrongs too long perpetuated against a set of people who just want to live normal lives. Again, thank you Lara.
Nice read :) I wish there were more religions people like yourself. As time goes, our civil rights movement will prevail in the end. One thing that history has taught us, discrimination never wins out in the end.
Let no one (and no Book of Discipline) separate us from the Love of God . . . the author fails to note that Foundry asserts that its action is consistent with the constitution of the United Methodist Church, unlike the provisions in the Book of Discipline which discriminates against LGBT persons. The UM church has been wrong on slavery, wrong on race, and wrong on women and , now, wrong on homosexuality. Fortunately, the church has however belatedly always come around on these issues. I'm confident that Christ will prevail and that the UM Church will change its positions to one of enlightenment and love. Foundry's action last Sunday is a powerful symbol . . . and the vote of 367-8 is an exceptional beacon of light. Interestingly, the demographic of the vote remained constant among men, women, young, older, long-term members, new members, and given, the overwhelmingly positive vote, among gay and straight. I pray that we will have a continuing, civil dialogue throughout the church, focusing always on being true Disciples of Christ..
I've just posted an essay on my blog that I wrote for my Methodism course last year. This idea of separating "being" a homosexual and "practicing" homosexual is no different from our hangups in 1956 over "being" a woman" and "practicing" as a woman.
http://chadholtz.net/2010/10/01/the-problem-of-being-women-and-homosexua...
peace,
Chad
Thanks for posting that, Chad. I only was able to skim it, but it looks like it will definitely be worth reading more in detail.
The UM Book of Discipline states that the practice o homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Interesting choice of words as it does not appear to be incompatible with the teachings of Christ. If the church refused to marry all of those whose actions are incompatible with the teachings of Christ . . . who would our clergy marry?
It seems to me that disagreements on the history, validity and interpretation of doctrine is inherent to the idea of sectarian religion. Thus, I don't see any reason to criticize either side of this argument on any of those grounds (and especially since Methodism was itself founded on the basis of an agenda of doctrinal reform).
I think rather that the meaningful issue here is that this congregation has realized that the position of the larger United Methodist communion is discriminatory, plain and simple, and I applaud them for being willing to stand up against what is plainly an irrational and hateful doctrine.
In many ways, this issue is akin to the doctrines that led various major christian denominations to promote the idea of a flat earth and geocentrism, and the day is not too far off in the future when those who cling to equally prmitive stereotypes of gay people will find themselves similarly pushed to the fringe of our society.
The simple fact is that both the objective evidence and the experience of many people contradict what the bible (and its pundits) have to say on the issue. Too many people have gay family and friends whose upstanding lives stand as evidence in stark contradiction to the primitive and frankly ignorant dogmas that would paint all gay people as inherently evil.
TTFN,
Blackout
nice post,thanks for sharing! BTW,check out my new android 4.0 tablet http://www.newfreeshipping.com
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!