What a great conversation, Joe. This issue remains a 'flashpoint' in the culture wars, and a kind of barometer for spiritual/theological/generational differences these days. It's not just dividing culture, but historic denominations and churches.

How to relate? Responses to this question hurt so many people coming from so many places. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people feel marginalized, sidelined, and un-loved. Those who hold to (what they see as) 'traditional morality' often feel just as unloved, like they're the last minority that it's okay to openly mock and ridicule...this must be the 'curse of political correctness' that I hear a person or two responding to in this thread.

I grew up in quite the politically/theologically conservative home. It was a great home, very loving and supportive. And I had pretty much the default fundamentalist/evangelical cultural opinion of homosexual persons, which on it's most charitable days was a variation of "God loves you just the way you are, but He loves you too much to let you stay there."

All of this was strongly challenged a few years ago when a friend and mentor of mine, 30 years my senior, began reexamining his own rather entrenched views on the matter. This author and traveling minister had, in the space of one month, two church elder friends of his and one on-fire-for-God missionary niece come out of the closet! These weren't 'backslidden' people, but rather people in the prime of their spiritual lives dealing with this at time confusing orientation. My friend didn't know what to do with this, so he took it to Father in prayer for a season. In the meantime, it was like a whole new world was opened up to him: LGBT Christians, confused about their sexuality, trying counseling, nonmarried celibacy, 'deliverance' sessions and more to make their orientation conform to their theological beliefs - with a 0% success rate. People whom Jesus had delivered from many other addictions, problems, and hang-ups in life...what to do about this apparently immovable object?

My friend didn't come to any hard-and-fast conclusions regarding the 'meta' of 'right' or 'wrong' in this case. He simply decided what we *all* need abundant grace to make it, and that he'd make himself available to LGBT Christians (and non) in a ministry capacity. It was then that the invitations started rolling in. Evangelical and charismatic gay and lesbian congregations all over the country began getting wind of this preacher of grace who was not offended by what he didn't understand, who longed to hear a message - not about how their sexual orientation was 'okay' - they were adults who would wrestle with God on that one on their own - but someone who would treat them like beloved human beings and share the riches of Christ. I wouldn't be shocked if there are a plethora of MyChurch members who wrestle with questions of orientation and once again sink in despair at it being treated like a 'topic.'

With this said, what follows is not an attempt to change anyone's mind about the sinfulness or blessedness of homosexual orientation and practice. We all have our perspectives, and they change like glaciers, not ice cubes. Rather, I want to lay out in as concise a manner as possible my own readings, prayer, and reflection in this these past few years, showing essentially four different options people of faith have in this regard. I'm pretty sure we all fall into one of these four understandings. My goal in showing them in a descriptive, matter-of-fact manner is to humanize all four perspectives, so that we don't demonize one another.

By way of a quick prelude: I will not be handling any Old Testament passages that describe or seem to describe homosexual activity as an 'abomination.' That is because these very same passages (as God Hates Shrimp humorously points out) describe many other things as 'abominations,' our English translations belying the fact that this word simply denotes that which is cultically unacceptable to the ritual purity of set-apart Israel. So I will exclusively look at the three New Testament passages, which all happen to be by Paul (Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality in the Gospels). I'm not even going to go into Paul's passages in-depth, but they're the ones in I Corinthians 6, Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The four options, as I've seen them, is as follows:

1.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and this *does* matter

2.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and this *doesn't* matter

3.) Paul *isn't* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and that *does* matter

4.) Paul *isn't* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and it *doesn't* matter


1.) This is the standard view in most evangelical churches as well as the official Roman Catholic and East Orthodox perspective. In essence, our English translations of 'homosexual' in the NT are to be trusted and affirmed as addressing precisely the same kind of homosexual orientation and activity as we see today among monogamous and non-married homosexual persons. Because Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, we should see this as prescriptive for moral and Godly living today, teaching it accordingly.

2.) Paul is talking about contemporary homosexual orientation/action, but it's up to us, the Church, to decide whether this is binding for today. Now lest you think this is an option only for hippie-dippy liberal revisionists, think again: The church *always* interprets Scripture for today. The evangelical church, for instance, decided that was Jesus told one guy (Nicodemus) about being 'born again' was binding on all people everywhere, whereas what he told another guy (the rich young ruler) about selling all possessions and giving them to the poor was virtually never applicable! We've also decided that Peter's admonition of women not to wear braids or jewelry because of sinful pride was culturally-conditioned and temporary, as is Paul's admonition of women to wear head-coverings, even though he seems to appeal to some pretty cosmic and universal principles for doing so. In the same manner, some good Christian people (and churches) conclude that Paul was simply mistaken about homosexual orientation & practice, or that his teaching was culturally-appropriate for his era but actually harmful and contrary to the Gospel for ours. We the Church are always 'binding an loosing' interpretations of our Holy Writ...an awesome and wonderful responsibility.

3.) Many biblical scholars puzzle over the actual meaning of arsenokoitai, the Greek word Paul used which is translated from King James on as 'homosexuals.' (See explanation) In short, many think that Paul is writing about pedastry - man-boy love - and temple prostitution where otherwise 'straight' people become 'gay for a day' (only not really) to engage in debasing pagan rituals. So Paul is in fact, according to this perspective, writing about the primacy of love and consideration, and against harmful idolatry. 2,000 years of translation later and we lose sight of context and original intent. Most sociologists agree that contemporary loving, monogamous homosexual orientation didn't even exist until relatively contemporary times...therefore we are dealing with, strictly speaking, an 'extra-biblical' phenomenon that should, perhaps, be looked at through a different lens than seemingly 'obvious' passages in Scripture. We should instead appeal to Jesus and Paul's clear teaching on love, freedom and liberty of conscience, while upholding healthy Christian standards of monogamy and sexuality that we'd encourage anyone of *any* orientation to keep as best as possible.

4.) Number 4 is a bit of a non-sequitur, as I think you can see. : )

My personal .02: I think it's possible to hold any of these four (really three) perspectives with love and integrity, shining Christ's life into everyone we meet. I also think it's possible to hold any of these with pride, fear, and hostility, using them as battering rams to force those who disagree into feeling marginalized, sinful, and 'less than.'  One of the things I've appreciated about certain trends emerging expressions of faith is that people who hold to all three of the above (and yes, there are plenty of 'emergers' who hold to #1) can peacefully coexist and even encourage one another. Thank you, Joe, for your continuing desire to make MyChurch.org a spiritually hospitable place for everyone.

your brother,

Mike

Joe, I appreciate your courage and the seeking spirit with which you posted this. And on the public blog too...you are da man!

The Bible uses very clear language, which the VAST majority of Christian teachers, commentators, and practitioners have not contradicted or sought to rationalize or explain away, regarding the practice(s) of homosexuality. This clear language is the basis for many position statements in the Church on this issue.

I agree w/Voice in that I don't think Christ would turn anyone away who genuinely seeks him. But this seeking never leaves a person in the same state or condition in which they first came to Christ. To insist that the clear language of scripture on this issue is wrong, misinterpreted, irrelevant, etc., or to otherwise rationalize the admonishments of scripture away, is to persist in a state of rebellion. (For example, no priest would be tolerated who insisted on reporting to church drunk every Sunday.)

So I would suggest that churches who state that they are open to everyone be considered for acceptance (assuming they meet all the other criteria for acceptance), but I do not think it is in the best interests of MyChurch (or the Body in general) to embrace those churches who advocate for a lifestyle that is contrary to scripture. This is inviting division in the Body, in my opinion.

Speaking as a "gay Christian" (btw, I donot like the term, I am no more that than I am a "white Christian, or a southern Christian), its just an element of who I am. Our main focus as created beings should be on the Christian part of the statement. There are certain core beliefs that one cannot deny and still be a Christian (God is four Persons,for example). However I don't think that simply because a church welcomes gay members should be the criteria that one uses to deny admission to MyChurch.

Malleus - I posted in a post you were in as well, and I wouldn't be surprised that maybe I'll get flak as I am a blonde-haired blue eyed caucasian American male...and don't have to worry about being in a societal/demographic minority usually...lol

But any church that highlights ANY aspect of their identity above CHRIST is wrong - it's agenda then.

I don't think any church should SHUN a gay person, but I need to reference Cindy Lou said above you there...and I said in that other post.

Practicing homosexual acts (i.e. intercourse) is a sin.  EVEN if you wanted to justify it by the context/era of the writing in the Bible, it'd still fall into the 'sin' category because of the same reason it's a sin for me to have sex with a woman outside of my marriage.

Now, that's the slippery slope of 'why isn't the marriage legal between same sexes?"  I am not going there right now... 

It's a sin if you had sex with a woman you weren't married to, OR a man, for that matter.

Now, like I said in that other post, TOO many churches put an emphasis on homosexual ACTS as some sort of exceptional sin, when it's just ANOTHER ONE OF MANY THINGS that are done in our human, sinful nature.

Any one sin that is committed makes us 'imperfect' and separates us from God.  if we die in that sin, we spend eternity separated. 

I think you nailed it when you said "it's just an element of who I am".  Well, an element of who I am is that I have a very bad temper and have busted holes into walls when angry in the past.  Another aspect of me is that I've hated people, lusted after women, stolen, lied, coveted, and all sorts of OTHER sinful things. 

Sinful nature is an aspect of me and every other human being. 

Now, I have GOOD aspects too, but just because something is a self-professed ASPECT of who we are doesn't mean we should keep it, right?  It can still be a sin.

Here's the hyperbole - if I had a TUMOR in my chest, I'd have it removed, whether it's a PART of me or not.  Who knows, maybe it was a second brain that was going to help me cure diseases and end world hunger...but maybe (and given the evidence) not.  So I remove it from my existence.  It's gonna be tough, and it's gonna require something MORE than me...but 72 years here on this rock with a concave chest is worth the assurance of knowing I'm going to have eternity with the Lord.

  Yeah, yeah, I know a little over the top...

The grey area for many (and I hope for you) lies in the 'what if it's a committed, for-all-intents married type of relationship' question and problem...but you must admit that no matter how much you want to skew numbers and statistics, the 'homosexual' lifestyle is not usually about commitment.

I know from a fact from gay friends that many of them are promiscuous, and they know of others that are even MORE SO...it's just an aspect of an 'aspect' that is, at it's core, defined by participating in a sexual act.

That's why there's such a thing as bathhouses out there...I doubt many people go there looking for a life partner. 

If I'm a competitive eater, I'm guessing I probably not on the best diet...why?  Because I'm identified with that ACT. 

Jesus would have accepted, been friends with, hung out with homosexuals...just like he did whores, tax collectors, gruff fisherman, and others.  But he told them to turn from those acts.

If anyone turned away a gay person from their church, it would be the same as turning away an ex-con, an alcoholic, wife-beater, or the less 'obvious', someone of a certain race, someone that didn't believe yet, that sorta thing.  So mychurch is doing the right thing here, I believe.  If the agenda overshadows Christ it should be red-flagged.  That's why Westboro Baptist isn't on here  ;)

That all being said, I would love to hear how you deal with it, where the evidence/justifications come from for you, and how it 'works'. 

God Bless 

Md's point, as well as mine, is that the criteria for acceptance as a "church" here on mychurch, should be well-defined according to the basics. The Nicene Creed is a good "basic" test because it focuses on what makes the church "the church" and not other issues.

I agree with Mike that Christ always changes us - never leaves us the same.  In his example of the priest who likes his liquor, the priest will change if he walks with Christ. However, his love of alcohol does not in any way change the church he represents...unless, of course the church starts making alcohol a greater calling than following Christ.

Which leads back to what Cindy says...if a church lifts up anything or anyone higher than Christ, then they are not followers of the Nicene Creed.

My church is full of sinners...people who sin knowingly and those who sin unknowingly. We all fall short of the mark. However, the ONLY reason we come together is to worship God and to see Him glorified.

I prefer to keep it simple. Do you lift up Jesus as Lord as your sole reason for being?  If the answer is yes, then the rest is just details that we all need to live with.

Perhaps someone would like to expand upon some of these claims.

I wonder what this WJD site would think of Courage?  Courage encourages chastity among people with same sex attractions (as we are all called to live lives of chastity).  Whereas the WJD website is pretty unclear, but one of their linked sites suggests that Christians who do not support gay marriages are making a mistake.  Really?  I do not hate or discriminate against people with same-sex attractions, but this does not mean that I must agree with the homosexual lifestyle or recognize homosexual marriages.  In my own opinion, Courage is doing a much better job of supporting people with same-sex attractions than these WJD folks are doing.

A couple year's ago, I came across a church site that was promoting the "Joshua" books, but upon further investigation, this was a "Gay" Church.  That was the first time I had heard of such a thing.  Like I have said previously, we are called to love all people no matter what or who they are, but this doesn't mean we must accept there choices or agendas.  I think MyChurch is dong the right thing here.

Cade,

The relationship between David and Jonathan serves as a far better Biblical model for same-sex relationships, and the scholarship on that as well as the history behind it is on far more solid ground.

It think that the line in Matthew that serves Jesus affirming a gay couple is far more of a reach.

Joe Good to see you bro, 1 Samuel 15:32-33, your heart knows the Way.... follow your heart! 

Would anyone here say that it is loving to let a child live out his or her sinful nature without correction? After all, some children tend to be "strong willed" or mean. Why should I try to teach and help him or her change to be more Christlike? Just let the child continue on blindly!??!

The law is given for a reason, to show us that we are sinners in need of a Savior. It is a mirror to show us what is wrong so that we may repent and come into a right relationship with Christ. Some may call that legalism (BTW I am not a legalist - I am a "grace chick"); I call it love. God loved us enough to give us the law -- then to fulfill it (not nullify it) in Christ.  

I find it hard to believe that this is even an issue for a Christian organization. If MyChurch changes its policy on this issue it will no longer be my MyChurch.