YOUR comments: On homosexuality

Since we have three posts for our "On homosexuality" section, I've closed the comments there and created this one thread to make it easier for you to comment after reading the reviews, watching the film or engaging in thoughtful reflection on what the Bible tells us. 

Comments

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

It seems from my reading of the blog-no one is either addressing the sin from the Biblical perspective or from personal encounter. As a non-combatant, Bible reading, praying, virginal soldier, I was approached three times by "Seventh-day Adventist" soldiers to engage in a homosexual act and once by a Seventh-day Adventist teacher in a Seventh-day Adventist college with the same intent. So from David's point of view, I am too far to the right to be credited with a "ethical comment" Never-the- less, homosexuality is a vulgar sin. God can forgive vulgar sins but He doesn't condone them any more than I do. Tom

[Pat Travis]

Tom,
I agree. Homosexuality and all other sexual promiscuity is biblical sin. Thank God with confession he has offered forgiveness in Christ but I personally have experienced His Spirit does not condone or offer spiritual peace while practicing any sin.

pt

[Daneen Akers]

Hi Dr. Zwemer--good to see you on a mutual thread again. Actually, the entire film is about addressing homosexuality from a Biblical perspective--is it or is it not condemned by the Bible as--in your words--a "vulgar sin." Did you read the reviews or watch the trailer? It's very clear this is a main theme.

What I walk away with is a firm conviction that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality any more than it condones slavery, the oppression of women, or the second-class citizen status of divorced people.

In fact, the Bible does not have the language to even address committed, monogamous homosexual relationships that we see today because those relationships simply did not exist then. In a similar vein, the Bible does not have a great deal to say about marriage today because we no longer practice marriage the way it was practiced in the Bible (where a woman was the property of her husband, people married very young, and polygamy was allowed). In other words, we've progressed in how we view marriage, and it's time we progress in our views of homosexuality.

[YourFriend]

Although there are times when I disagree with Zwemer he is right on target with his comments about homosexuality.

Vulgar is probably a mild word for such a sexual aberration.

[Sean]

There is a drastic difference between what the Bible permits and what it condemns. It permitted in limited forms slavery and other institutions that weren't in accordance with God's ultimate will. But simply because God allowed some evil in the past doesn't excuse evil behavior today. He clearly denounced homosexual behavior. Arguing that because He allowed slavery He mustn't have been serious about outlawing homosexual behavior is a far-fetched argument.

[Sean]

Daneen, may I respectully ask you a question? How do you know that when God condemned homosexual behavior in the Bible He was only speaking about promiscuous homosexuality? Nowhere does the Scripture indicate that such behavior is okay as long as it is in the confines of a monogomous relationship.

[Daneen Akers]

Hey--I'm not one to stifle dialogue (and I hope that's what we're having here), but let's keep the comments thoughtful and respectful.

Do you want to address something in the text of a review? Do you want to say something about the film? Do you want to discuss hermeneutical principles? If so, then please, comment. There are enough venues for hate, venom, and "aberration" speech; let's not turn this space into that sort of space. Let's remember that we have many gay and lesbian Adventists who read this site, and let's keep the conversation civil and grounded in the text of the Bible and this film.

[Robert]

For what it's worth, the link to the list of movie showings actually points to the denominational position statement.

I wonder if they tried to get Cheney along with Gephart for some political balance? Bet he turned them down.

[Carrol Grady]

Daneen, I SO appreciate your continuing to push the discussion of this topic. And a big Thank You to Jacquie, Obed, and Dr. Larson for their thoughtful and well-written reviews. I am looking forward to seeing this film here in Seattle in a week or two.

I must say, I was shocked when I read the church's
"Safeguarding Mission..." document. It felt rather like someone had aimed a cannon right at ME - and of course many others whose courage I greatly respect. How can our church make such a statement without even being willing to look at another perspective coming from quite a stellar group of Adventist theologians and educators?

To those who have already posted here, I want to say that after 19 years of prayerful study, I am convinced that the Bible does not even speak to the issue of people with a homosexual orientation, because when it was written, it was assumed that everyone was naturally attracted to people of their own sex. I have read not only Jack Roger's book, but many other theological books and essays, both pro and con, on what the Bible says about this issue.

And Tom, I don't think it's fair to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few. Aren't there plenty of straight men who proposition or even rape women?

Like some of you, I just automatically assumed that homosexuality was a sin, without ever really thinking about it, until I discovered my son is gay. Then, like the parents in this movie, I had to try to reconcile what I knew about my gentle, spiritual, loving son with what I had thought the Bible says.

Now, after having heard literally hundreds of stories that would bring tears to the eyes of the most hardened homophobe, I believe God's heart must ache when he hears the comments of those who don't understand!

[David R. Larson]

The most important ethical issue is not what gay and lesbian people do in private but when straight people do in public.

When last did we hear about gay men forcing a straight man's head into a urinal or toilet? When last did we hear about gay men ripping off the clothes of a gay man and slicing his skin with broken pieces of glass? When last did we hear about gay men tying a straight man to a fence post and beating him to death?

Turning to history, where do we read of gay men bundling sticks together ("faggots") with which to burn straight men to death?

Straight white men are the most dangerous animals on earth today.

The gay and lesbian people whom I know aren't asking for much. They would settle for not being hounded and hurt every day of their lives. Is that too much of them to ask?

[Daneen Akers]

Robert--thanks so much for pointing that out. I'll try to get that fixes asap. In the meantime, click on my name or go to this URL to find showtimes:

http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/screening.htm

[Stephen Eyer]

I used to fear homosexuality. I didn’t understand what it meant to be homosexual or why a person would choose a homosexual lifestyle. I thought the Bible condemned the act of homosexuality and that all homosexuals, if they did not choose to abstain from a homosexual relationship, were committing an intentional act of sin. Then I met someone who was homosexual and became a friend. And then I made another friend. And another. And finally, I saw this film.

Watching “For the Bible Tells Me So” helped me realize a couple of important aspects of this issue. First, homosexuality is not a choice anymore than being black is a choice, or being a woman is a choice. Yet, the Bible has been used to marginalize all of these people in the past. I love the section in the film when the filmmaker interviews Desmond Tutu and he says (paraphrasing) that God does not look at him angrily and say Desmond why were you born black, you should have been born white, anymore than he looks at a woman and says, you should have been born a man, or a homosexual and says you should have been born a heterosexual. If you think that homosexuality is just a choice, then you have never talked in-depth with someone who is homosexual. Maybe it would be a good idea to change that. Nobody would choose such agony and rejection.

Second, how the Bible reads and what the Bible means, are not necessarily the same thing. There is always a cultural context that must be taken into consideration and cultures change. So when the Bible reads homosexuality is an “abomination”, it does not mean that God disapproves of homosexuality. It means that this was not the cultural norm at the time. But we’ve discarded most of what were considered cultural norms at the time over the last 2000 plus years. For example, we do not stone people for breaking the Sabbath, send woman out of town when they’re on their periods, buy slaves, sell our children into slavery (as is allowed) or sacrifice animals. So why do so many people still have such hang up about this one?

Which brings me back to the idea of fear. Fear does strange things to people. It makes us quick to judge, intolerant of change, and often times cruel to each other. The best remedy to overcome the fear of homosexuality is to become friends with someone who is gay. Like many forms of tolerance, when you can put a face on an issue, it suddenly humanizes it. It ceases to become an “issue” and instead becomes a person. I have many friends now who are homosexual and I can tell you with certainty that they are some of the most descent, kind, and loving people that I know. They are not sinners, anymore than I’m a sinner. I credit this film for helping me trade fears for friendship.

[Ron Lawson]

I am a gay Christian of the Adventist variety. I have been part of several Adventist web discussion groups over the years where someone has raised the gay issue, and the result has always been that a few voices have taken over, spewing vitriol. I have found myself wondering where this comes from within Adventist culture: is it a concern for law rather than grace? that we have been taught that doctrine is what really matters rather than love? does it flow from an assumption that "we" (defined as "those who agree with me") have the truth and that those who disagree with "me" and whose experience suggests that reality diverges from "our" understanding are, by definition, wrong, evil, and unwelcome?

I hope that all who write here on this topic will make sure that they see this film.

[Daneen Akers]

Hi Sean--sorry, I hadn't refreshed recently and missed your question. Obviously I can't "know" exactly what the Bible means, but I can try to do all that I can to understand what the Bible was trying to say in its context. There are a lot of really good discussions of the few (very few) verses in the Bible (it's actually interesting how few verses there are but how big a deal Christians make of it). I'd suggest reading a book like Jack Rogers Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. He is a conservative Presbyterian pastor and theologian who always thought the Bible clearly condoned homosexual behavior until he was put on a committee (unwillingly) to study the issue. He (and many others) discuss the difficulties of translation (for example, the word used in Romans is almost impossible to translate because it's never used at any other point in the Bible, so context and connotation are impossible to discern).

The other major principle I've come to embrace as a hermeneutic principle is to examine contradictory or confusing issues through Christ. Jesus was/is our representative of God. What did he say about homosexuality? Nothing. What did he exhort us to do over and over? Love and accept each other.

[Pat Travis]

So Dick,
Homophobic dysfunctional actions by some allow us to call homosexuality biblically legitimate?

pt

[John]

Turning to history, where do we read of gay men bundling sticks together ("faggots") with which to burn straight men to death?
===========================

Please be serious, Mr. Larson.

It is such fun watching leftists try to "create a history".

This myth is as false and the myth that the phrase "rule of thumb" has origins in early American wife-beating.

The daily life of gays and lesbians is far less eventful than that.

I know this because I myself am one.

[Wondering]

Mr.Eyer,
God doesn't look at anyone and say "you should not have been born ________", so that is a useless analogy.

God does not mention the genetics of it, because it is irrelevant.

Simply saying that sexual orientation is like skin color does not make it so.
Neither do you have to believe that homosexuals are depraved perverts (to be held at arms length) to believe that the Bible specifically condemns homosexual behavior.

Friendship does not change the word of God, and "niceness" is not going to get anyone to heaven.

[Daneen Akers]

I was wondering when Wondering would show up! You say: "Friendship does not change the word of God."

I'd say: Let's talk after you've seen this film because it takes on this topic squarely. Indeed, what does the word of God say? We all know what it reads, but that's just a starting point.

Also, I think you're misreading Stephen's post. He's not saying that "niceness" will get anyone into heaven. He's saying that getting to know a gay or lesbian person makes this issue a lot more personal--suddenly you aren't just condemning an anonymous "Other"--you actually start to care enough to get past the fear and misinformation.

Also...I think it's dangerous ground to start postulating on God's reasoning, but, if we want to look at the Bible as a complete document, we'd have to conclude that He cares very little about homosexuality. It is barely mentioned. What He does care about a great deal is how we treat each other.

[Stephen Eyer]

Mr. Wondering,

There is nothing that anyone can do that will get them into heaven – homosexual or not. Grace is sufficient for all of us.

[Carrol Grady]

John, while homosexuals may not have been burned at the stake, that is still the intentional meaning of the word when applied perjoratively to gay men. And certainly the other examples Dr. Larsen mentioned are true. While you may have not experienced such abuse, there are many who have.

And my good friend, Wondering, does the Bible not also condemn certain kinds of heterosexual behavior? The kinds of homosexual behavior condemned in the Bible do not include committed, monogamous relationships, because such did not exist then.

[David R. Larson]

Hi John!

For the purposes of this discussion I'm happy to concede your historical point but not my ethical one.

I do believe that homosexual men and women have more to fear from straight ones than straight ones have to fear from them.

To me this is not a peripheral ethical issue. It is the central one. Everything else is at the margins.

[Peter]

While I do not have a specific stance on homosexuality and its ultimate meaning, I do think that referring to changing attitudes as merely "cultural progression" is a very dangerous line to take. Culture is simply the attitudes and behaviours of the world, which we are called to ignore and walk in Christ along.

In terms of sexual immorality, what indication is there anywhere in the scriptures that we should change our attitudes to fit those of our community. Daniel didn't forget his heritage when he went to Babylon, where he could have easily said that it was acceptable to eat unclean meat so he shouldn't have any ethical qualms about it.

Being a biologist however, I understand that no human is without blemish, either in genetic or environmental terms. So accepting the person in Love, and rejecting their humanity is not a big deal for me. Why is there not an emphasis on expanding the Love of Christ, who accepted prostitutes while asking them to "sin no more", while keeping to the fundamental "sexual immorality" clause, where sexual immorality was in the context understood to include homosexuality. If it was rediculously easy to sin against the murder commandment (eg, thinking hateful thoughts) then why is sexual immorality to contain a substantially broader application.

Also, can I take a "progressive" seriously if they do not change continuously with whatever world attitudes are in vogue at the time. Ie, if polygamy did not violate the sexual immorality clause back when and homosexuality did, then why did a complete switch of the two occur and be accepted by even the most progressive of christians today. Sorry, but I get sick of the continual contextualisation argument, which always reminds of how unknowing and shallow science and secular philosophy are about everything. I (me, myself) am not able to change what is good and what is not. I AM was, is and always will be, the Judge.

What other sexual behaviours could in the future be acceptable as no longer immoral under the eternal moral code?

Even given the eternal free grace given to us by Jesus Christ, we can still constantly improve on the ways we interact with others.

"If your brother is distressed by what you eat [Insert behaviour which you have faith is perfect and would confess to God without any guilt, but your brother does not here], you are no longer acting in love. Do not by eating [or other applicable action] destroy your brother for whom Christ died." Romans 14:15

Having said all that, I have never seen any instance of violent (either physically or verbally) anti-gay behaviour, so I may be coming from a sheltered Australian viewpoint where people are easier to get along with... but I still hope to engage somehow. I don't however wish that I had pent up emotions about the topic, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[anon]

This came out in the latest BRI Newsletter. It's rather lengthy, but relevant to this discussion. For some reason we're not supposed to share these around but oh well...

"Homosexuality in Rom 1:26-27"

While a number of Christians hold that Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexuality and rejects it in all its forms, considering it to be sin, others acknowledge that the passage is dealing with homosexuality but they claim that the issue in Paul is idolatry and pederasty, and that Paul could not have taken in account sexual orientation as we know it today. Furthermore, it is argued that the reference to nature should be understood in the following way:
In describing homosexuality as ‘against nature’ (Rom.1:26 KJV), Paul does not condemn homosexual orientation or any committed mutual relationship. Instead, he condemns perversion of what comes naturally. It is ‘against nature’ for homosexuals to practice heterosexuality or for heterosexuals to practice
homosexuality. Paul does not condemn people for having been born homosexual, nor does he condemn the homosexual orientation (inversion).1
Therefore, the issue is hardly whether or not Paul in Rom 1:26-27 addresses homosexuality and considers it to be sin; this can be taken for granted. The issue is whether or not homosexuality in Romans 1 includes all forms of homosexuality and has a universal scope.
I. The Historical Context
The ancients did not only know what has been called “contingent homosexuals” (people who are not true homosexuals such as teenagers and adults that are bored with heterosexuality and get involved with members of the same sex) and most probably “situational homosexuals” (people who for the lack of heterosexual encounters resort to homosexual acts) but had also some idea or concept of “constitutional homosexuality”
(homosexuality
which is said to be permanent and may be part of people’s constitution).
At least the notion that a person is attracted to the same sex because of his or her constitution is found in Plato’s androgynous myth.
In this myth Plato explains that primal man was dual. He had four hands, four feet, two faces and two privy parts, that is, like two people back to back–the faces opposite directions. Some of these dual, primal creatures
were male in both parts, others were female in both parts and yet others (a third sex) part male and part female. These primal creatures were so strong that they became insolent, attacking the gods. Because of their continued insolence, Zeus divided these dual four-legged creatures into two-legged creatures. A dual male became two males, a dual female two females and the male-female (androgynous) became a male and a female. On this basis he accounts for the differing sexual desires apparent in society, for each creature searches out its own or opposite kind, according to its original orientation. When dual parts encounter each other they fall in love. By the creation of this myth Plato attempts to explain the attraction some men and women have for persons of the same sex.2
It is hardly possible that Paul, who was an educated man and who even quoted Greek authors (e.g., Acts 17:28; Tit 1:12) would not have known Plato’s myth and the concept
of innate homosexuality. Therefore, to suggest that Paul was referring to violent or exploitative homosexuality or pederasty only but not to permanent caring one-partner same-gender relationships because they supposedly were not known at his time, cannot be proven.
A. C. Thiselton declares: “Paul witnessed around him both abusive relationships of power or money and examples of ‘genuine love’ between males. We must not misunderstand Paul’s ‘worldly’ knowledge.”3
II. The Literary Context
The context of Rom 1:26-27 is universal in nature. While Romans 1 shows that all Gentiles are sinners–and Paul presents a catalogue of vices (Rom 1:21-32)–and Romans
2 points out that the Jews are also sinners, Romans 3 concludes that all people are sinners and all are dependent on God’s grace, as revealed in Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. Romans 5 elaborates on the fact that all of us have been slaves to sin but in Jesus are free from it. Paul’s argument is not limited to humanity in the first century A.D. but encompasses people at all times, while dealing with creation, the fall, sin, and salvation. Therefore, the list of vices which includes homosexual
activity is not limited to a special period of time but is applicable also today. Since Paul does not distinguish different
forms of homosexuality he seems to reject all cases of same-gender sex.
The background for the discussion of homosexuality in Romans 1 is creation. In Rom 1:20 the creation of the world and God’s created works are referred to. Evidently Paul’s argument is that God can be known through creation. But although the Gentiles “knew God, they did not honor him as God” (Rom 1:21). God was replaced by gods which were no more than images of created beings, whether humans or animals. The list of animals, the mention of humans, and the concept of “likeness”/”image” suggest that Rom 1:23 echoes Gen 1:24-26. Rom 1:25 points out that the Gentiles worshiped created things instead of the creator. Furthermore, Rom 1:26-27 seems to echo Gen 1:27 by concentrating on the same terms, namely “male” (arsēn) and “female” (thēlu), instead of using the terms “man” and “woman.” Since creation is so clearly referred to in the preceding verses, homosexuality must be understood in the context of creation. “Idolatry and same-sex intercourse together constitute an assault on the work of the Creator in nature”4 no matter which form of homosexuality it is. The creation account points out God’s intention for man and women, which is monogamous heterosexual marriage.
III. Analysis of the Text
Rom 1:26-27 states that God allowed people to exercise
their free will even if it is shameful and may lead to self-destruction. After a description of lesbianism, male homosexuality is addressed. The term “use/function/relation”
is found in the NT in Rom 1:26-27 only, but in this setting it must be understood as sexual relation/intercourse. The last part of verse 22 mentions the punishment that these sinners receive.
The argument that the phrase “the natural intercourse” and its opposite “against/contrary to nature” in Rom 1:26-27 are describing what is natural to an individual is unsubstantiated. Nowhere is the term phusis used in such a sense. In Romans itself the noun is found seven times;5 however, the phrase para phusin occurs just twice (Rom 1:26; 11:24). In Rom 11:24 there is a wild olive tree “by nature” (kata phusin). From this wild olive tree branches were cut off and “against nature” (para phusin) grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Kata phusin means to exist in harmony with the created order. Para phusin on the other hand, refers to what is in contrast to the order intended by the Creator.6 This understanding corresponds
with Rom 1 where creation is the background for the discussion of idolatry, homosexuality, and other vices. Here, activities and behavior described as being “against nature” imply a negative moral judgment. “ . . . homosexual practice is a violation of the natural order (as determined by God).”7 This includes all forms of homosexuality.
Although Paul lived several hundred years after the giving of the law through Moses, obviously this law is–in his opinion–still applicable to NT times. The mention of the adult-adult homosexual intercourse in verse 27 is dependent on Lev 18 and 20. Paul goes even a step further
by including female same-gender activity which was not mentioned in the OT. Dealing with the objection that Romans 1 “identifies a temporary Jewish purity rule rather than a universal moral principle” De Young insightfully remarks: “God cannot consign the Gentiles to punishment for breaking a Jewish purity law.”8 Since God punishes people who practice homosexuality, the laws of Lev 18 and 20 must have a moral quality and be universal in nature.
The fact that Paul adds lesbianism to male homosexuality
supports the point that Paul considers all homosexual
relationships as sin. “Lesbian intercourse in antiquity normally did not conform to the male pederastic model or entail cultic associations or prostitution.”9 It was not exploitative. Therefore, non-exploitative but caring homosexual
partnerships are included in the sins mentioned in Rom 1.
That Paul was not so much concerned with coercion in a homosexual relationship can be derived from Rom 1:27: “. . . men . . . burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Obviously in such a homoerotic union, both partners lust for each other. Both of them are responsible for their actions, and both of them receive the penalty. God is not unfair to punish a young boy who has been forced to play the female in a homosexual relationship, whether by being raped or by being forced into a pederastic relationship.
Homosexuality in Romans 1 is not limited to a certain time, culture, or to certain homosexual forms only. Homosexual
practice is sinful behavior.
IV. Implications
By pointing out that all forms of homosexual activity are sin, our passage warns us not to get involved in such behavior. If we are already involved, we are called upon to give it up. In 1 Cor 6:9-11 Paul records that Christians had experienced such a change. However, Romans 1 and its context does not call us to hate, despise, blame, or ridicule sinners. All of us have sinned and need the salvation offered to us by Christ.
Therefore, Adventists respect all people whether heterosexuals
or homosexuals. They acknowledge that all human
beings are creatures of the heavenly Father who loves them and who are valuable in His sight. Adventists are opposed to scorning or abusing homosexuals.
They love sinners but separate themselves from sin. Adventists are called to support prevention of homosexuality and to care for homosexuals; which in some cases may include to follow Jesus’ advice outlined in Matt 18:15-20 in order
to save them for the kingdom of God (1 Cor 5:1-5). Adventists support change, and they support those who are struggling.10
1James B. De Young, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined
16 in the Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 10.
2Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures (Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference,
1988), 97-98.
3Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 452.
4Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 78.
5Rom 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24, 24, 24.
6Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, The Anchor Bible, Volume 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 286, suggests: “. . . in the context of vv 19-23, ‘nature’ also expresses for him [Paul] the order intended by the Creator, the order that is manifest in God’s creation or, specifically in this case, the order seen in the function of the sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation of children. Paul now speaks of the deviant exchange of those organs as a use para physin.”
7James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:
Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 764.
8De Young, 159.
9Via and Gagnon, 80.
10Cf. “Seventh-day Adventist Position Statement on Homosexuality.”
General Conference Executive Committee, October 3, 1999, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Ekkehardt Mueller, BRI

[Daneen Akers]

Wow "Anon"--that was quite a long post! I wanted to thank you for digging into the text of the Bible thoughtfully in your disagreement with the stance I'm advocating. I really appreciate keeping the discussion grounded in thoughtful discourse. Clearly there is scholarship supporting many positions on the two NT texts.

I've got another question: If I were to take Romans 1 literally and find that homosexual relationships of all kinds are condemned by God, what do I do with the following?
- Women in church
- Equality in marriage
- Slavery (if they're treated well)
- Remarried people (if they divorced for something other than adultery)

[Terrence Finney]

I say Bravo to David Larson's review and comments with one caution. It has been my experience both as a District Attorney and Superior Court Judge that some of the most violent crimes were committed by homosexuals and some of the most violent of those were homosexual on homosexual.

I look forward to seeing the movie and further intelligent dialogue in Spectrum.

[arlyn]

What is the theological consensus on the orientation of the men of Sodom who tried to gang rape the angels, or the men of Benjamin who tried to gang rape the levite but setttle for the concubine? comparing violent tendencies of one orientation vs another is a limited (though interesting)argument- limited by one's knowledge of actual history.

[Brenton Reading]

Thanks for the great reviews. I am looking forward to seeing this film.

"Showing families on their journeys to reconciliation and unconditional love is powerful; it is the heart of society, and none are excluded." This statement by Obed and Jacqueline brought to mind Miroslav Volf's beautiful metaphor in Exclusion and Embrace.

Too often we do damage by excluding those from other races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. And yet, Volf makes the point that even our embrace can become violent.

As Christians relating to others we should follow the example of Christ and open our arms in an offer of embrace. We could consider this offering the best we have which in my opinion is Jesus and His example of love, incarnational life, radical teaching, self-less death, victorious resurrection, and continued (though never forced) presence. The embrace is consummated only when the other reciprocates, offering the best that they have in an intimate exchange. Then, as the shared moment is released, individual identities are maintained. In this way, each party is blessed, changed, and inspired to grow.

However, if the embrace goes on, it becomes violent and assimilating. This is one issue I have with the way we as Christians tend to relate to others as discussed recently in regard to evangelizing Jews here and as evidenced in "conversion camps and reparative therapy programs." Instead of seeking to bless and inspire others to grow closer to God on their journey, our outreach often seems interested only in assimilation with the goal to change others to be exactly like us. Resistance is futile.

[Bill Cork]

The apologists for homosexuality make contradictory statements.

1) They say that homosexuality as we know it was unknown in any of the cultures in any of the times of the Biblical writings. It is, therefore, an acquired characteristic.

2) They say that homosexuals cannot change, because homosexuality is innate in them, whether because of genetics or some other reason; that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality; that 10% or more of humans are homosexual. It is thus an essential characteristic, not an acquired characteristic.

These two positions are mutually exclusive. If it is essential, then it was known in Biblical times. If it wasn't known historically, then it is acquired.

Two contradictory assertions can't both be true.

The Christian position is coherent. It stipulates that God's intention in creation is a permanent union of male and a female, created complementary, whose union is fruitful. That actions or relationships which deviate from this intention are sinful. That humans have choice, and can continue in rebellion or can repent and change.

No, the Bible doesn't know the contemporary construct of "homosexual marriage." It speaks of acts. It addresses the moral quality of those acts.

David Larson throws in a red herring by pointing to other acts. He must concede that the actions he describes would be immoral regardless of who the victim might be.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Carrol

The topic was homsexuality as a specific issue: not sin as a generic problem.

Ethical behavior in a family setting is well outlined in Ephesians. Stott's commentary "God's New Society is a good start on Christian ethics. My point was this idea that homosexuality is not aggressive is bunk--I know that they are predatory. A 20 year old man who is not sexually active is a pretty good target. For such a man to claim being approached is subject to much doubt and much evil surmising--thus safe to be approached without fear of exposure. If hertosexual men can control their biololgical drive so can homosexuals! With God's grace we can be more than conquers. Tom

[Daneen Akers]

Thanks for the thoughts Brenton--I agree that even our embrace sometimes can be violent when it turns into assimilation. That's far too frequently the case. For some reason, being right and being certain that we are right is a value held very close by many.

Bill--You misread my statements and others. You said:
"1) They say that homosexuality as we know it was unknown in any of the cultures in any of the times of the Biblical writings. It is, therefore, an acquired characteristic.
2) They say that homosexuals cannot change, because homosexuality is innate in them, whether because of genetics or some other reason; that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality; that 10% or more of humans are homosexual. It is thus an essential characteristic, not an acquired characteristic.
These two positions are mutually exclusive. If it is essential, then it was known in Biblical times. If it wasn't known historically, then it is acquired.
Two contradictory assertions can't both be true."

But that is very distinctly NOT the assertion made. What I (and others) have said is that homosexuality as we know it today did not exist in Biblical times. Of course homosexuality existed then (look at Greek society). However, what did not exist was committed, monogamous homosexual relationships that we know today where lifelong intimacy, children, and "normal" family life happens. (Now, of course not all homosexual relationships look like this, just like all heterosexual relationships aren't healthy--witness Brittney Spears.)

In Biblical times, marriage as we know it today didn't exist. (I would be my husband's property, he would be allowed other wifes and concubines, I would have been married at 12 or 13, etc.)

But you would be misreading my words in just the way you did above about homosexuality as we know it today if you said that I was saying that marriage didn't exist.

Does the clarification help you understand what I'm saying?

[Alexander]

A few observations:

1. Tom kicked us off by creating a new sin category. Apparently there is sin, you know like, lying, murder, covetousness. And THEN there is "vulgar sin:" i. e., being gay. So apparently two women living together, raising a child, attending church, working at their local charity and occasionally making love is worse that regular abominations like not listening to the Holy Spirit.

2. What's with this fear-mongering about "violent homosexuals?" Can anyone with a shred of science-grounded logic really think that similar genitalia attraction causes whatever violent anecdote one can pull up? This cause would, of course, be different than "normal" human causes for violence? Like anger, poverty, pathology, fear.

Are homosexuals more violent than say -- let's think historically here: religious fundamentalism, racist cops, or men beating their wives?

Anyone who tries to make a connection between violence and homosexuality is intellectually bound to prove the rule beyond the exception, perhaps with evidence.

This gets at larger irrational fears (homosexual lifestyle, violence, straight men as prey -- somehow women have survived with men attracted to them). And notice these fears over human sameness -- human solidarity -- makes those in power, more men than women, nervous about the shifting structures of society that give them extra and relatively easy power. These gut-phobias occur when humans broaden who can love whom, e.g., interracial marriage. Have there been downsides as people overcome the yuk factor? Always. But the increased opportunity always also makes society and the Christian community better.

There is a principle here for consenting, legal-aged com-passionate adults: Equal Opportunity. To. God's. Grace. And. To. Human. Justice.

Not a dual track of hamartia and justification: "Lord, thank you that I don't behave like the Vulgar. . ."

[Tom D]

I believe the fact that the topic of homosexuality is now so very public, even in conservative Christian circles, is a sign of progress. The truth of being fully human with all of its ramifications is breaking more fully upon our planet than ever before in the past. Homosexuality is one aspect of our human fabric that is coming under close scrutiny and I think this is positive.

For myself, I knew in my early childhood years that I had an attraction for men that I couldn't talk to anyone about so I "stuffed" those feelings largely until I was 55 and finally came out of the closet to myself and trusted friends. The response for the most part of was very positive, especially among faculty and staff in the Jesuit university where I was employed at the time.

Seems like the SDA Church has regressed rather than progressed in this regard but yet the discussion won't stop and as more gay and lesbian folks come out of the closet more discussiont than ever will ensue and this will be positive.

I'm thankful for the freedom of expression that this Forum provides. May it always continue.

[question]

is there room in our biblically informed view of marriage for a blessed same sex union?

to what extent are christians called to confine their sexual expressions to marriage bounds?

having considered those two questions, is there any arena any person, straight or gay, can have sex outside of marriage?

or are moral strictures stricter for heterosexuals?

or, to what extent can a person express sex outside of biblically deliniated lines without sinning?

or does grace abound to the point where we don't care about sin?

if the higher value is love wouldn't all of us, out of love for the Christ who saves, confine ourselves to expressions which are revealed in scripture to be goodly and Godly?

sorry for posting anonymously... i don't want to out myself :(

[Bunbury Vidal]

When it's good (I'm writing with mother in the next room so I have to couch this in very general terms) it's very good. I enjoyed love like I always wanted to for 14 years of my life. Unfortuntately, as with mainstream sexualities, there is also abuse by abusive people. I put up with a bipolar lover because I sincerely cared for that abusive, and very sexy--I might add--partner, but in the end I thank God that now although I'm no longer in a partnered relation and no longer go on dates, at least I have my sanity and don't have to put up with the rantings and ravings of a psychologically impaired individual.

What was our downfall? He got bored I think and wanted to try a weekly menage-a-trois. I allowed this, but it made me feel very guilty. Yes, even so called "sinful" people experience guilt and have their limits as well regarding what they will accept as "moral" behavior within a committed relationship.

[David R. Larson]

This sentence from the BRI statement posted by Elder Ekkehardt Mueller suggests to me that it is fair of God to punish boys or men for having been raped by other men:

"God is not unfair to punish a young boy who has been forced to play the female in a homosexual relationship, whether by being raped or by being forced into a pederastic relationship."

Am I misunderstanding the meaning of this sentence? If not, does the BRI also hold that it is fair of God to punish women for having been raped by men?

Again, I may be misreading this. Or perhaps it was too soon to circulate this document after all.

[Audrey]

Dr. Zwemer writes, "If hertosexual (sic) men can control their biololgical drive so can homosexuals!"

This gets at the heart of the matter. Homophobia (the fear of homosexuals as violent and aggressive) is, at its core, a fear of male dominance being challenged. Besides the shock of homosexuality causing us to question whether women really do need men as partners for their lives to be fulfilled, and vice versa, homosexuality reminds men what it feels like to be the focus of male sexual attention, and how that might not always be very nice. But this is something women have been experiencing for quite some time now. Thus, the assertion that heterosexual men can control their biological drive is a bold (preposterous?) claim.

Yet, sexual aggression, by all men, is a very important subject. Objecting to homosexuality is a very different discussion than objecting to sexual violence - and the latter is a much more important stand to take. The world needs Christians to campaign against sexual violence - by ALL men - and it needs this so badly that we are wasting important energy when we condemn loving partnerships that happen to be homosexual.

I have never seen any evidence that homosexuals are more violent or aggressive than the average population (exceptions possibly being the likes of Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and others who so virulently attack other homosexuals, out of the guilt and repression they themselves are breeding). Homosexual men are no more violent or sexual than heterosexual men. They are just men like everybody else. Really. And that likeness is what scares heterosexual men the most.

The threatening thing in this debate is that it shows just how violent and sexual MEN in general can be. Heterosexual men are just now realizing what this is like by experiencing a small taste of what women have experienced from men for millennia, across the world. Need a reminder? At least one in four women are raped - translation: MEN rape one in four women. At least one in four women will be domestically abused in their lifetimes - translation: MALE PARTNERS abuse a quarter of women. (For stats on domestic violence, see http://www.standagainstdv.org/statistics.php) Over 75% of men, which is mostly heterosexual men, of course, use pornography on a regular basis (for more stats on this, see Pamela Paul's book Pornified). How is that controlling their sexual urges? And on a very mundane, less-harmful level, how many women visiting this blog can report having never been hit on by at least one man they were not interested in? We know what it's like, and we know it's not homosexual men who aren't controlling their sex drives.

Clearly, as evidenced by the preponderance of violence against women COMMITTED BY (straight) MEN, heterosexual men have plenty of trouble controlling their 'biological' urges (I would say, sexual aggression is not biological, but culturally-instilled). What stokes the most fear in this discussion is that heterosexual men are for once confronting the violence they have been conditioned to enmesh with their sexuality - a violent nature that is embedded so deeply in half of the human population. And changing that will take a lot more courage and creativity than just pointing fingers at the homosexual minority.

[question]

this discussion has unfortunately shifted from its titled focus in large part due to the obviously ignorant posts by zwemmer

i can't help but feel that those who would like to see homosexuality more openly accepted by our church would rather engage bigots like zwemmer than face what is unambiguous, the scripture and its sexual bounds and the admission that homosexual expressions are clearly sinful much like, or even just like, are those of sexually active unmarried heterosexuals.

[Carmen]

I have put this movie in queue for Netflix!

My question is --"why do so many argue passionately that homosexuality be identified as sin?" If a person does choose to spend alot of energy identifying a sin--wouldn't it be best to identify one's own sin? One has no control over the behavior of others; one's sphere of influence in regards to sin only encompasses oneself.

[Bret Belko]

I look FORWARD to hearing from Bob Rigsby check in on this matter... he's one insightful man!!

[question]

would you have our church employ ministers who are having affairs? no, i think our limits on the offices available to sexually active homosexuals is proper.

we can't judge peoples hearts or grant or deny salvation but we can set standards on what is and is not acceptable behaviour by, at least, people who would have themselves as our church officers.

i see no problem accepting a celibate homosexual into any position as i would agree that we all have sinful characters and nature yet are all called to live a life of both personal and social commitment.

the question is simple: is the Scripture our normative book? the answer is yes.

if you don't agree with that then your views on scripture take you far outside Adventist belief

if the bible is normative then we must conceed that the only sexual expressions which are blessed (and not called sinful) are those between a married consenting heterosexual couple.

[Carrol Grady]

Terry Finney, I think I remember sitting next to you in chapel at LSC/U one semester. We also lived on the same compound as your parents in Singapore - Hi!

I think your point about violent gay-on-gay crimes has to be balanced with the huge number of straight-on-straight crimes. But there is no comparison between gay violence agaisnt straights and straight violence against gays.

Anon, thanks for sharing the BRI study. Here are my thoughts: It seems their main conclusion is that Romans 1 condemns ALL forms of homosexuality because of Plato's myth, which Paul may or may not have heard. But if he had, how much credence do you suppose he gave it? As a good (former) Jew, I suspect he was firmly convinced that everyone was naturally the way God made us at Creation, so I don't think we can assume that Paul is talking about orientation here. And a true understanding of people being born with a same-sex orientation really only became recognized in the late 18th century, and has been studied scientifically since then. The quotation from Thiselton asserting that Paul witnessed examples of "genuine love" between males is unfounded.

What Paul does refer to in Romans 1 is idolatry. He wrote the letter to the Romans while living in Corinth, the center of worship of the goddess Aprodite, as well as the offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite - Hermaphrodite - who represented a combination of both sexes. Temple prostitutes of both sexes mated with worshippers of both sexes in imitation of the chaos that pagan religions believe existed when the world was created. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that, in the context of idolatry, this is the kind of homosexual behavior Paul is referring to. The idea that he is using a well-known idolatrous practice as an illustration of gentile sin is strengthened if, as Mueller states, Paul is harking back the Leviticus prohibitions, because Leviticus 18:22 follows immediately after a command not to practice child sacrifice to Molech, another idolatrous rite.

The description of Paul which includes "burning with lust" for each other and the associated catalog of vices into which such people naturally fall does not describe Christian gay and lesbian people whom I know.

Finally, at the end, he mentions 1 Cor. 6:9-11, which he says gives evidence that some Christians have experienced a change (or healing). That is another whole subject which I won't try to go into here, but I invite anyone who is interested in a different reading to look at the Bible studies on my website mentioned in the original article (someone-to-talk-to.net)

Obviously these texts may be read in various ways, depending on the understanding or prejudice one brings to them. I think our much greater knowledge about homosexuality today make this a current issue on which we may expect to find new light, or "present truth," especially if we are willing to read them in empathy with the very difficult predicament in which homosexuals find themselves.

[question]

if your present truth would have us accept practicing gays, then your understanding of scripture is seriously lacking. yours it may be but adventist it is not.

i you refer to bill corks post where he makes good points. this blog posts are full of red herrings and straw men.

the bible is clear what sexual expressions are blessed and homosexual acts are out.

[Carrol Grady]

In answer to in-the-closet Question's questions:

1 - is there room in our biblically informed view of marriage for a blessed same sex union?

As Daneen has pointed out, marriage today is very different from marriage in biblical times. So, in view of the impossibility of gay or lesbian couples being married today, why couldn't we have a blessing for faithful, loving, Christian same-sex partners? Well, of course I am perfectly aware that this won't happen in the Adventist Church for at least a couple of millenia!

2 - to what extent are christians called to confine their sexual expressions to marriage bounds?

It's kind of a catch-22 situation for homosexuals, isn't it? You can't have sex outside of marriage, and you can't get married! Tom, while I can understand your feelings after having been accosted by a gay man (you must have been quite handsome!)I'd like to suggest that if gays and lesbians could get married, or at least have their unions recognized, you wouldn't have to worry about such an occurance!

But really, it seems to me that most of the posters here think that the only thing marriage is about is sex. After 51 years of marriage, I see so much more to it than that. I have come to understand God's love in ways that I never could have as a single person. I have learned to give up my preferences in deference to my husband's or children's (at least some of the time). I could list so many other benefits of marriage, including a longer and healthier life, and ways it has helped me grow into a better person. Who do we think we are to say God wants to deny all this to homosexuals???

[Carrol Grady]

“Present truth” is a significant phrase for Seventh-day Adventists that dates back to the founding of the church. The expression implies truth that is particularly appropriate in a current historical situation – a fuller understanding of truth that was not available previously. Originally found in 2 Peter 1:12, (Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth), it referred especially to the truth about Jesus as the Messiah. In early Adventist history, pioneer Joseph Bates defined “present truth” as the sanctuary and Sabbath doctrines. Church founder James White wrote, “In Peter’s time there was present truth, or truth applicable to that present time. The Church have [sic] ever had a present truth. The present truth now, is that which shows present duty, and the right position for us.” The church has always paid lip service, at least, to the possibility that new truth may be revealed.

“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” Ellen G White, “Christ Our Hope,” Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, December 20, 1892, p. 785.

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, are you suggesting that ALL the men of Sodom, both YOUNG and OLD, from EVERY PART of the city, were homosexuals? If so, one would expect that the population of Sodom would naturally have died off within a generation. However, if you are suggesting that most of them were probably husbands and/or fathers who wanted to humiliate these strangers (possibly spies, since Lot, himself an alien, invited them to his home) by "treating them like women" those inferior creatures who could be owned by men, then I suspect you are right. They DID threaten to treat LOT even worse if he didn't hand them over, so it doesn't sound like their intentions were amorous!

[Terrence Finney]

Carol:
I understood Larson to imply that homosexuals were more gentle and less prone to violence. Thus my response. What you say is also true. Violence by anyone is wrong and violence by heterosexuals against homosexuals because of there status is particularly dispicable. On the other hand I am not persuaded that if the tables were turned the results would also. By that I mean if homosexuals were in the majority they might also be intolerant with all that entails.
I don't want to be misunderstood as I think the church needs a compassionate rethinking of its position on homosexuals. I certainly can 't cast the first stone. My folks spoke fondly of you.

[Carrol Grady]

Human nature being what it is, you're probably right that if the shoe were on the other foot, homosexuals might just as likely persecute heterosexuals. Which is why our human natures need to be infused with divine love.

[David R. Larson]

I do not know whether on average homosexuals are more gentle and less prone to violence. But I am persuaded that, for whatever set of reasons, at this time in our society and in our church straight white Chrsitian men like me are the bigger problem. From my point of view, this is not a red herring. It is the true trail from which we are too easily deflected. Thank you!

[Carrol Grady]

David, I suspect there are still many men who fear "being treated like a woman" because they feel inherently superior to women.

[Bill Cork]

"However, what did not exist was committed, monogamous homosexual relationships that we know today where lifelong intimacy, children, and 'normal' family life happens."

Well, that's just the point. Children don't happen in a homosexual relationship. It is a fruitless act. "'Normal' family life" doesn't happen. Normal family life is a man and wife and their children, the fruit of their love. That's the order of Creation, that's what's blessed in the beginning and all through Scripture.