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

[Terrence Finney]

David:
I couldn't agree more that heterosexual men in our church and in this society are at this time in this issue a major part of the problem.

[Stephen Eyer]

Bill,

Actually, children CAN happen in a homosexual relationship as evidenced in this inspiring story about Rev. Greg Stewart, the senior minister at the First Unitarian Church in San Francisco:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/01/MNG9HLGA6Q1.DTL

A "normal" family is a hard one to describe these days. I grew up in a divorced family and was constantly shifted back and forth between two homes. Is that normal or Biblical? I wonder if given the choice, if I might not have chosen stability over scripturally sound.

[Alexander]

Bill,

You write: "It is a fruitless act." Are you really saying that sex without making children each time is less than God intended?

You are aware that heterosexual couples do have non-procreative sex. . .while married, right?

You drop the reference to Eden, pointing out that in perfection, there was one man and one woman. Of course there was only one man and one woman period! Significantly the atypicality of Eden as model for the sinful world doesn't help us.

For example, there were no children in Eden. Were Adam and Eve having sex without fruit? Or was humans bearing children in God's original plan? In fact, the curse of bearing children was given after the fall -- like brow sweat for me. So once women give up bearing children and men give up sweating, then we can use Eden as a model.

Also, I really find your use of "normal" puzzling.

You write: "Normal family life is a man and wife and their children, the fruit of their love."

Normal biblically, socially, in the Christian church, a definition of "normal" would be great here.

You are a pastor, right? Do you tell the adopted children in your church that they are abnormal or not normal?

I also might remind you that Jesus' family wasn't normal by your definition. He was not the. . .as you say, "fruit" of Joseph and Mary's love, yet He turned out perfect.

[Stephen Eyer]

Jack Rogers in his book, "Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality" describes the historical context of this "abomination".

Here is an excerpt from his book:

Leviticus includes a collection of laws known as the Holiness Code, so named because the dominant idea in Leviticus is God’s command: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Two texts in this collection of laws are cited by those opposed to homosexuality as explicit prohibitions against homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

The Israelites had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. The needed cohesiveness, cleanliness, and order in every aspect of their lives. They wanted to keep pure their manner of worshipping God, who had brought them to this land. They were struggling for their own identity. Failure to form a tight knit community could threaten their long-term survival. They needed a code for living.

In response, they developed a Holiness Code to define their religious, civic, and cultural identity. The Holiness Code’s function was to achieve the “holy purity” they sought. Its underlying theme was that they must be separate, different from the Egyptians from whom they had escaped and unmixed with the Canaanite into whose land they had now come. How were they to achieve holy purity?

First, Israel’s worship practices had to be different from those of the tribes or nations around them. To be like the Canaanites would make them impure, or “defiled.” Phyllis Bird, professor of Old Testament at Garrettt-Evangelical Seminary, notes: “Israel is enjoined not to follow the practices of the Canaanites who preceded them in the land….The previous inhabitants, through their ‘defiling’ actions, caused the land to become defiled so that god punished the land, making it vomit out its inhabitants. In contrast, Israel was to be faithful to God, so that they would prosper on this land.

Second, they could not mix with any other kind of people or adopt alien customs if they were to remain pure. Practically, this meant no intermarriage with non-Israelites. However, the Israelites generalized this aspect of the code to mean no mixing of any kind. Thus the Holiness Code forbids such things as sowing a field “with two kinds of seed” and wearing a garment “made of two different materials” (Lev. 19:19).

Third, male gender superiority had to be maintained. We find in Leviticus that actions undermining male gender superiority incur the death penalty. A child who cursed his parents could be put to death, for such an act threatened the social order in a patriarchal society. Adultery was similarly punishable by death, because it was an unlawful use of a woman, who was a man’s property, and therefore jeopardized lines of ownership and inheritance. Engaging in homosexual acts was punishable by death, because a man took a passive role and was penetrated, which was the role assigned a woman. Victor Paul Furnish, professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, points out that a man penetrated was thus impure. By, in effect, mixing genders, he had crossed a cultural boundary, and that could not be tolerated.

It is against this background that Nissinen, Bird, and others interpret the statement, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22; cf. 20:13). The Hebrew word toevah, translated as “abomination,” refers here to something that makes a person ritually unclean, such as having intercourse with a woman while she is menstruating. Ritual purity was considered necessary to distinguish the Israelites from the pagan neighbors.

Jesus was concerned with purity of heart. In Matthew 15 he said to a crowd, “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles” (Matt. 15:10-11). Later he explained to his disciples: “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile” (Matt. 15: 18-20).

When we see Jesus as the fulfillment of the law (Matt. 5:17), we understand that our challenge is not meticulously to maintain culturally conditioned laws, but rather, with Jesus, to love God and love our neighbor (Matt. 22: 36-40). When these texts in Leviticus are taken out of their historical and cultural context and applied to faithful, God-worshipping Christians who are homosexual, it does violence to them. They are being condemned for failing to conform to an ancient culturally conditioned code that is not applicable to them or their circumstances.

[Wondering]

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.

Posted by: Bunbury Vidal
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

So you are the one that sets the limits?
Where is God in all of this?

[Wondering]

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.

Posted by: Audrey | 20 October 2007 at 14:02

+ + + + + + + + + +

Audrey,
Men do not rape one in four women in their lifetime. That is a nonsense statistic based on a nonsense "study" (shouldn't even be called that).

The sexual assault rate is more likely to be one in twenty.

[Joselito Coo]

This conversation about a movie evidently revolves around biblical literalism versus contemporary American culture. As a non-American Christian, I'm tempted to suggest a post-colonial hermeneutic. However, I realize that regardless of the perspective one brings to the table it is bound to be a no-win situation. I found this out when conversing with Carrol whom I have yet to meet although I'd seen and heard her husband who traveled in my part of the world as a division departmental director. Elder Grady is a very handsome man, like someone out of Hollywood at least from the perspective of Asians like me.

For the first time a few years ago I was put in touch with Carrol by e-mail through Jonathan, my first-born, who was a graduate student at the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, NY. Personal narratives are powerful witnesses and we all have stories to tell about our own experiences. Those who know my son may be reading this, so here's a recent e-mail from him:

Jonathan Arevalo Coo wrote:
thanks dad...the hospital church is a small congregation...will call them tomorrow to ask exact location.

On 10/18/07, joselito coo wrote:
> Angela Ng wrote:
>
> Dear Elder Coo,
>
> Dr Wong Yew Chong has left the hospital few years ago, we do not have any of his contact.
>
> Please find below are the churches in Hong Kong that has English speaking:
>snip< Hope this information is helpful to you and your son.
>
> God Bless.
> Chinese Union Mission
>
> Jonathan Arevalo Coo wrote:
>
> Dear Sir/Ma'am:
>
> Can you please tell me where the hospital church is located and what time is
divine worship? I'm visiting here and staying at Parkview and I'm planning to go to church this coming sabbath. Is Dr. Wong still the president of the hospital
>
> Jonathan Coo

[Pat Travis]

Joselito,

The HK Island -SDA Hospital Church at 40 Stubbs Rd. is likely still the only English speaking.

pt

[ptpdx]

And what about those of us who are coming out of homosexuality? I have not seen this film yet, but I am moved to comment after reading everyone's comments. I grew up SDA, knew I was different, and ultimately chose to have a same sex partner for 12 years. Trust me, I tried to convince myself that I was doing the right thing, but deep down in my heart, I knew that my actions were not in alignment with God's will for my life. So my partner and I split almost 2 years ago now. I would argue that God's original plan was for man and woman to be one, and only one. After sin entered this world, Satan has tried counterfeiting ALL of God's plans. I don't know why I was born this way; I can't explain it, nor did I ever choose to be gay. But I have come to accept that this is my cross to bear. I have not found anywhere in the Bible where God condemns homosexual orientation, but rather, homosexual acts are condemned. Since leaving my partner, I have been happier than I ever was in a same sex relationship. Now I struggle with how I can relate to gay friends who are partnered. I find our relationships strained since I'm now on a different path. As an aside, about a year ago, I told my story to my SDA church and I was met with loving and open arms. My pastor didn't try to change me into a straight person, but they did love me into their church. By God's love and grace, He is helping me to be the man that He wants me to be.

[Daneen Akers]

Wondering--If you have another study to quote (a reputable one) do so. If not, then please do not simply toss out Audrey's well-known number that 1-4 women are likely to get raped as "nonsense" number. A comment like that simply cannot be useful for furthering conversation at all, and in fact is offensive to women participating, especially women who have been the victims of sexual violence perpetrated by heterosexual men.

I know you choose to not use your name, but I'm more convinced than ever by that comment that you're a man.

[Carrol Grady]

Thanks for your description of my husband, Joselito! He's still handsome at nearly 75.

ptpdx, thanks for sharing your story. No one can argue with another person's experience. But I also have to honor the life experiences of hundreds of other gay and lesbian people I know.

[Daneen Akers]

Caroll-I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying your comments. You have obviously thought about this topic for a long time and the maturity and grace with which you treat us all is so appreciated. I especially love your comment about all of us needing to be infused with divine love--I think that's what so amazing about marriage. It's the one relationship in this lifetime where we get to have another person know us, really know us--the brokenness, the ugliness, the fear, and still embrace us, still love us. I think that is the best chance we have to know agape love, and that's a big reason why I can't tell my homosexual friends that it's only an experience I get to have.

I might have missed it, but I still don't think anybody has addressed my previous questions. Even though I know there are other, more culturally relevant readings of the Biblical verses that at first glance seem to condemn homosexuality, what if I took them literarily? If I decide to take Romans 1 literally, what do I do about all of the other verses in the Bible (especially the New Testament) that conflict with modern culture?

What would I do about:
- Women leading out in church?
- Women’s ordination?
- Slavery (as long as the owner treated his slaves well)
- Divorced people who divorced for a reason other than sexual immorality on the part of their spouse?

Just to name a few that we seem to easily overlook or relegate to "well, that doesn't apply to us now" because our culture has progressed in these areas--and most of our churches have huge rates of divorce. Imagine what would happen if we tried to literally apply Jesus' teaching on divorce and adultery? (And Jesus didn't even talk about homosexuality once.) We used to do this, but that changed about 50 years ago because it was no longer feasilbe.

[Bill Cork]

"Children CAN happen in a homosexual relationship."

That some legislative entities have made it legal for homosexual couples to adopt does not change the intrinsically infertile nature of homosexual actions.

"In fact, the curse of bearing children was given after the fall -- like brow sweat for me."

Bearing children a curse? No, God told Adam and Eve at the end of the sixth day, "Be fruitful and multiply." It isn't a curse, it is a blessing.

And yes, this is the norm--Biblically, biologically, socially, in the Christian Church, whatever. You're playing semantic games with the term normal. Normal means to adhere to a norm, a standard. God set the standard in creation, confirmed it in law, attached specific promises and blessings to it.

That's the starting point for Christian theology--not sentimentality.

[Alexander]

Wondering,

Here's a review of the literature.

And when you factor in the world, where women live too, you find even more evidence. Like in Liberia, where 3 in 4 women report being raped by a man.

Also, here's an interview with John Foubert, who started One-in-Four to help men understand how they be a part of the solution.

And Wondering, as a man I understand the all-too-common default to defend "my team" but it's time to stop protecting the bad players and start getting into the real game of breaking down culturally-formed gender binaries and thereby help humans split sex from violence.

Part of that includes not having your masculinity threatened by homosexuals engaging in the same sexual acts that heterosexuals do.

In fact, this gets at the bifurcation that ptpdx notes. It is impossible to have a logically coherent and historically accurate biblical hermeneutic on sexual orientation in the Bible. As ptpdx sees. What seems to bother people is the idea of homosexual acts. But in fact those acts are engaged-in by straight people all the time without denial of legal rights or Christian considerations of normality. So, if it's not the actual acts and it's not the orientation, what's the big deal?

[Wondering]

I know you choose to not use your name, but I'm more convinced than ever by that comment that you're a man.

Posted by: Daneen Akers | 21 October 2007 at 09:19

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

Daneen,
It is nonsense because it is untrue.

There are two issues here.

1. The "correct" (false) claim should be "25% of college-aged women are raped/sexually assaulted"; because that is who the research was done on (by Mary Koss).

2. It is widely known (among people who...never mind...) that the number was generated as a result of flawed questioning which classified sexual assault as an answer to ten specific questions, one of which was:

"Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure? Because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"

Now, maybe you have lived a sheltered SDA life; but if you have not, you'd realize that such a question would bring about exactly the type of bad statistics you'd expect.

By the way, not even RAINN has such a ridiculous number, pushing more one-in-six (and they would be considered interested):

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

Most other studies have the rate set much lower than that:

3% (college women)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcw.htm

18% (all women)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

For example. It is certainly not "1 in 4"

[Bunbury Vidal]

Wondering: So you are the one that sets the limits?

Where is God in all of this?

Wondering, thank you for taking the time and for caring enough to quote me in full, as well, as asking your valid question.

First of all, I hesitated with sharing what many will see as an unflattering version of gay life within an ultra-progressive adventist context, my own. Nevertheless, it is a slice of my gay life, past and present.

Whether you chose to believe it or not, I can only assure you that it is the truth.

God came to my rescue with these amazing texts: The Lord is my light and my salvation. The Lord is the strength of my life. Of whom then shall I be afraid. The Lord is my shepherd. He restores my soul.

During the last months of a broken relationship, as the 14 years were coming to an end, it was only these words, learned during childhood, that game me strength, hope and sanity to endure the ultimate insult. As I fell asleep chanting these words until sleep finally eased my pain, the man I had loved and cared for through sickness and unemployment, had abondoned me and without concern as to my feelings left me to my "guest room" in our own house while he slept with his new younger, wealthier lover in what formerly was our master bedroom.

Most people in that situation would either go mad or go beserk. I did not have the economic luxury to do either.

In spite of the realization that according to my Adventist family I was "living in sin" and in spite of having fallen from a dynamic faith relationship with Christ into nominal Christianity, I believed enough in Christ to seek him as I lived out the remaining months of a living hell.

So for whatever it's worth, even homosexuals still have an open door to God's grace at all times. "...whoever belives in him should not perish..."

And let's not talk of cheap grace. Grace is never cheap. Grace is simply free. The more sinful we find ourselves to be, the freer it seems. The more righteous or moral we think we are, the less need we seem to have for God's "forgiving love, loving kindness, and unmerited favor."

Only the greatest of sinners can ever truly appreciate the incredible gift of being saved by nothing more than a relationship with Christ, not on how near-perfect and morally upright we imagine ourselves to be. "Those who have been forgiven much have greater love for Christ."

Those who consider their sins paltry love less because they believe they have been forgiven for less, and because theirs are so-called lesser evils and more "normal" human failings. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely ..."

Thank you all for taking time--those of you who are not squeemish--to read my personal story. I hope it has been of benefit to some of you.

[Daneen Akers]

Wondering--I'm wondering what your point is? Should we be happy that only 1 in 6 or even 1 in 20 women get sexually assaulted by men? So, that means, given your more preferred number, that only two women in my high-school class (it was a small Adventist school) can expect to be raped?

You're arguing against these statistics, but I'm trying to figure out for what purpose?

I'm still looking for some response on why we allow divorced people to remarry and/or serve in the church and why we allow women to lead out in church. Aren't these clearly (literally) against New Testament teachings?

[Audrey]

Dear "Wondering,"

Here are two sources of statistics about rape of women (and men!) in the US.

There's this fact sheet, which includes the statistic that 27.7% of college women report having experienced a sexual encounter that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. That figure only includes assault from the ages of 14 through college years, so it is clearly an under-estimation of the rapes women experience across their lifetimes, both under the age of 14 and after college.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
* Personal rant: I take issue with the distinction between rape and attempted rape. Is it really not worth 'counting' if you barely avoid being 'fully' raped? Does that experience not do damage to your body, sexuality, and psyche nonetheless? And why do we still define a sex act by the semen of the perpetrator/penetrator? Is it not rape unless you might get pregnant by it - i.e. is it not rape unless it's potentially procreative penetration? If so, then man-on-man rape is never really 'rape' because there's no potential procreation, a 'fruitless act,' right?

From the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/
They cite one in six, and with over half of rapes unreported, and less than a third by strangers.

The fact sheet also cites this statistic: "About 81% of rape victims are white; 18% are black; 1% are of other races. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)" There is no possible way that 99% of rape survivors are white or black. This statistic reveals the extent that rape is underreported to official justice units, especially among segments of the population (probably the people who are least likely to be believed and most likely to be harassed).

Sexual assault is a particular problem for particular sectors of the population. In her platform statement about domestic violence (which includes a stat that it's one in three, not one in four, women who are domestically abused), Miss Delaware 2007 writes this harrowing statement: "Nearly 92% of homeless women have been physically or sexually assaulted." You can visit her website here: http://www.missdelaware.org/beckybledsoeplatform.htm to check that I got this correct. Domestic violence (which includes marital rape - which is often unreported) is a prime cause of homelessness among women, and homelessness in turn makes women much more vulnerable to sexual and physical violence.

We have to also remember that rape statistics internationally, especially in war zones, will in no way decrease the ratio of women who have been raped to women who have not.

I'm sorry I didn't cite the source the first time around. You hear it so often when you're doing gender justice work, usually with the caveat that it may be a low estimate since so many rapes go unreported, that I guess I forgot anyone still questions the prevalence of this form of violence. I can assure you that the number really sticks with you when you realize it almost perfectly matches the rape statistics of your group of closest friends.

You have manufactured a statistic (the 1 in 20 thing), grounded in nothing as far as I can tell, as if another flimsily-supported statistic could undo or replace my statistic. If you truly wish to challenge someone's statistical information, you should supply your own, not just invent. I am sorry to sound testy here, but it seems to only confirm the horror behind my earlier post, that men, especially heterosexual men, don't care about the violence against women that is part and parcel of male cultural upbringing in US society and abroad.

More to the point than all of this, however, is what almost prevented me from citing stats at all in the earlier post: Need we quibble about just how MUCH of a problem rape is? What is the threshold for your compassion? Will you act to prevent rape only if a tenth of the women around you are living through it? A quarter? Half? How many women will have to suffer this injustice for you to include them in your circle of people whose lives matter? Or is it completely irrelevant that women are raped, because only men's bodies cannot be penetrated against their will?

This is my whole outrage at the vehemence of the debate about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Most homosexual acts are consensual, nonviolent, adult interactions. NO RAPES ARE CONSENSUAL OR NONVIOLENT. There is a clear sexual menace in the world (rapists, in case that wasn't clear). Every ounce of energy you or I spend arguing about homosexuality is an ounce of energy we could have spent preventing the clear violation of God's Creation, in the form of violence against women. This is not 'off-topic.' This is refocusing the topic exactly where our moral outrage SHOULD be.

[Alexander]

Wondering, did you even read your citations?

The 3% you quote comes from a study of women who report rape that year. Yikes! And that's just in the abstract summary you linked to. I'd like an explanation.

The one-in-six stat comes when the question is defined more loosely.

And where's that support for your one-in-twenty idea. And why are you using words like "nonsense" and "ridiculous"?

Of course this discussion over rape is not really on homosexuality, but Wondering brings out the deeper issues:

1. Are men being blamed too much? No, let's separate rapists from "normal" dudes.

2. Will men lose their power as cultural forms of masculine expression increase? No, cultural forms shift (see Renaissance, China, Africa) and sharing cultural power increases equal opportunity and freedom.

This sense of threat lurks behind "the Bible doesn't want women to kiss other women" arguments and in the face of facts, these fears don't obviate the Christian call to equal justice.

[Wondering]

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/3/205.pdf?ck=nck

Click there or on my name and go to endnote 5. You will see what I mean.

[Wondering]

Oh dear...

For a reminder, Audrey said this:

"Need a reminder? At least one in four women are raped - translation: MEN rape one in four women. ".

I called it "nonsense" because it is untrue:

"Daneen,
It is nonsense because it is untrue."

(See post above).

I gave two reasons why the statement was untrue. One had to do with the limitations of the specific survey from which those numbers arise (college women). The other had to do with the way the survey arrived at those results (or rather the way people gleaned those results from the survey).

My "more like one in twenty" was an oversimplification of something I had read, so I am willing to withdraw it. That, however, does not give credence to the "one-in-four" by default.

This one, for example, says 17.6% over a lifetime:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf

So that is that.

Now, as to why the truth matters?

To me that is a very strange question. The truth is the truth, and falsehood is almost certainly going to come back to bite those who despise it.

It must also be said, that not being postmodern, I do not agree with any Dan-Rather-esque "the facts are incorrect but the story is true", or (more pertinent to the topic) Newsweek's Managing Editor Evan Thomas' comment on the now-debunked "Duke Rape Case":

"We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

Look at how "narrative" over facts destroyed people's lives there.

But of course, if the numbers really "didn't matter", there wouldn't be a rush to push them as high as possible would there?

Now, Audrey are you sure you wanted to say this?

"This is not 'off-topic.' This is refocusing the topic exactly where our moral outrage SHOULD be."

The sentence cancels itself out.

I otherwise am less interested in feminist theories of power. I once had a class lecture from Susan Bell, and didn't find it rewarding at all.
I do prefer the original topic, which is (loosely) "homosexuality", as it's something I have thought about at some length (although research in that field is going the way of the feminist/gender studies variety--if it isn't there already).

[Wondering]

Here is the Evan Thomas link:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4379

[Wondering]

Bunbury,
There are all sorts of unflattering things about all kinds of lifestyles--although I will admit that I am less squeamish than some people (most I know).

[Sandy Caban]

Dear anon,re:Muellers article: It is not something I have observed that we Adventists practice in regards to homosexuals, "love the sinner- but separate ourselves from the sin". It seems we mostly separate ouselves and hope that they continue to do so also, or at least sit in the back row.

[Adventistperspective@gmail.com]

This conversation leads me to believe it’s too late even to join the band on the deck of the Titanic. The only sound I hear is “Blub blub blub”! The Adventist band seems to be drowning! Where is a Gospel lifeboat?

[Alexander]

While I completely agree with you on getting the information correct, I find it less than wonderful that you are now wrapping yourself in the vagaries of interpretation.

Facts as I see 'em:

at first blush you exaggerated your own information: one-in-twenty, then actually defaulted to one-in-six,and you misread the 3% stat.

But let's get back to more interesting discussions like morality.

[Carrol Grady]

Joselito, I was distracted by you calling my husband handsome, and forgot to give close attention to the rest of your post. I'm curious to know why you felt conversing with me was a no-win situation. And what is your post-colonial hermeneutic? And please give my love to Jonathan if you see him.

Daneen, since your questions have yet to be discussed, let me say that I think they tie in with my idea of "present truth" - which, by the way, no one has responded to! I think there was a time for "present truth" about slavery and racial discrimination. There is currently going on a "present truth" discussion about the role of women. And there is beginning to be a "present truth" dawning about homosexuality. It seems to me that God has progressively been giving our culture, as a whole, new understandings about these various issues, which the churches, yelling and screaming, are having to face. That's what I see as the "big picture."

I'd just like to add a personal note. Through all the shock, pain and despair that I felt when I first learned our son is gay, God was changing something in me that I didn't even realize needed changing. Several things, actually. I learned how to forgive and love people, even those who do and say mean, outrageous things. I learned to realize the heavy burdens many people live with and to be more understanding and loving. Of course, I'm not perfect yet! I'm still learning to apply these lessons in my life. But at this point, I am thankful for this experience and how God has used it in my life.

So, for that reason, although I certainly think we need to do everything we can to protect women - and homosexuals - from prejudice, hatred and violence, I think we also need to try to understand the men who resort to violence and feel sorry for the pain and rage they feel.

[David Hamstra]

- Women leading out in church?
- Women’s ordination?
- Slavery (as long as the owner treated his slaves well)
- Divorced people who divorced for a reason other than sexual immorality on the part of their spouse?

Daneen:

I'd like take up the challenge and discuss my answers to these questions, but first I'm wondering about our basic assumptions. Does the Bible provide explicit instruction on these points, and if so how? Or does the Bible lay out a general law of love, and expect us to apply the specifics to our time and place? Or is it a mixture of both?

[arlyn]

Carol,
When I posted the reference to Sodom and the men of Benjamin, I was suggesting that the violence question is limited, period- because I (and everybody else) don't know which sexual orientation these men were, and if in fact, whichever sexual orientation contributed to their violent tendencies. So, it was to point out the futility of such comparisons because such aspects are rarely accurately recorded- but the conversation went that way nevertheless, and circled about feminist issues as well.

A few times the assertion has been made that monogamous long term relationships between homosexuals didn't exist in Paul's time. (or more carefully, that Paul was unaware of this phenomenon). Are we arguing from silence (or inadequate archeological data) in the historical records again? If a main pillar of biblical hermeneutical interpretation on this issue depends upon present ABSENCE of archeological data, it is quite vulnerable to the future.

And would anyone mind guiding me to a venerable archeological source that says this - that there is no evidence of monogamous homosexual relationships in that period of history near the middle east, by data? I'd like to read it and learn.

[Carrol Grady]

Arlyn, I wouldn't want to say that there were no long-lasting homosexual relationships (monogamous is more problematic), although the norm for that society seems to have been pederastic, man-boy relationships. What I do believe is that there was then no understanding that same-sex attraction, along with a lack of attraction to the opposite sex, was an inborn orientation - an understanding that came about in the late 18th century. In the Greco-Roman culture, marriage was quite different from what we know today in the West. A free-born male had all the privileges, including sexually, and women were still very much second-class citizens.

[David R. Larson]

WOULD IT BE FAIR OF GOD TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR HAVING BEEN RAPED?

I asked this question a while ago in response to the long statement that "anon" posted, apparently from the Biblical Research Institute.

If I understand the article correctly, Ekkehardt Mueller's answer's to this question is "yes." He is one of the scholars at the BRI.

Because no one responded to my concerns, I have posted them more fully at ponderanew.typepad.com.

I hope that someone will correct me if I have misread the document. If I have read it correctly, I hope others will join me in seeking clarification from the BRI.

Hopefully, one of its representatives can post something at both places.

Thanks!

[Carrol Grady]

Yes, David, that's the way it reads to me, too. My first thought was that it must be a typo. It seems a very strange understanding to me.

[arlyn]

Morally, Thomas Aquinas was very much against homosexuality but Prof. John Boswell points out that Aquinas own writings show the weakness of the arguments then and the inherent "nature" idea was present and recognized by Aquinas even then.

"St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to re­examine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality."

[Daneen Akers]

David--Thanks for the offer. I'd be happy to hear your discussion of these questions from the perspective/assumptions you operate from in your preferred hermeneutic

Alex—Thanks for posting that interview with Daniel Karslake, the director of this film. I hope everyone watches it to get a sense of his motivation.

I’d like to go back to a comment I made in introducing these reviews. I pointed out that
a newly voted document “Safeguarding Mission in Changing Social Environments,” moves the church even further in its stance against gays and is now extending its condemnation towards those who advocate for homosexual rights. “The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy.”

It bothers me a very great deal that the church not only officially condemns homosexuality, but does not want to allow any dissent on that position. If the membership of a church cannot protest a church doctrine or practice, how then will anything ever change? Don’t we value freedom of speech? Aren’t we the church that is suspicious of government wanting to control what we believe? Why are we starting to act like a suppressive government in our official practices? Is anyone else worried about this recent shift?

[Carrol Grady]

Is your point, then, that Thomas Aquinas was aware of inborn homosexuality 500 years before the German psychologists began to study it? Or that the Catholic Church doesn't have a logical foundation for its teachings on homosexuality?

I imagine that a celibate priesthood helped bring about this awareness. It's true that the Catholic Church has long recognized that some people have this "disordered condition" and until recently, in response to Evangelical "change ministries," have never attempted to "cure" homosexuals.

[Carrol Grady]

My last comment was directed to Arlyn.

Yes, Daneen, this document bothers me a great deal, too. It seems like a mighty attempt to sweep this whole issue under the rug and forget about it. I don't think that is going to be possible. I am waiting to hear some more details about how this document was written, why it was introduced, and what discussion took place when it was voted.

[Alexander]

Thanks Daneen for raising the question: in light of the new Annual Council doc, is it okay for Adventists to advocate for equal GLBT opportunity in society and/or in church?

On the other hand, I wonder if there is some tolerance implied by principle four in the voted doc:

Adjusting practices to comply with legislation does not redefine denominational positions. There is every likelihood that response patterns from various entities will differ somewhat before reaching the boundary—the point beyond which the Church would be in denial of its convictions and abandoning its mission and witness. The central concern in these situations is not one of questioning or redefining the Church’s position but of finding a way to translate that position into practices that safeguard the mission of the Church.

Bill:

Thanks for the point about being fruitful in Eden. That's a good point. I have a question that will help me understand your argument that GLBT folks are not normal because their sex is not "fruitful." Would you marry a heterosexual couple that could not bare children?

[Daneen Akers]

Alex, I hope we can read tolerance into that. I'm not sure what to make of, "The central concern in these situations is not one of questioning or redefining the Church’s position but of finding a way to translate that position into practices that safeguard the mission of the Church."

Safeguarding mission and tolerance have not usually been pleasant pals in the past.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Wow- I've missed quite a lively discussion!

I would say that there has been a strategic, even if not intentional, obfuscation of the issues.

I think it's a good time to return to the word, specifically the parable of the sinful woman.

These passages outline two very distinct issues:
1. How should the community relate to sinners
2. How should the sinner relate to sin

Many homosexuals feel the church has wrecked spiritual violence on them, much like the crowd of Scribes and Pharisees wanted to stone the woman they too feel mobbed, attacked, slighted and maligned.

Christ is clear- it is not the role of faith communities to stone sinners.

The call to repentance is put on the heart of every believer by the Christ who saves, not the community which stones.

This call is, as Christ said to the adulterous woman, to "Go your way, and from now on do not sin again".

Christ came not to condemn sinners but to save. We as a church must be careful to not be so quick to persecute those who we would label as sinful forgetting out own sin, as did the Scribes and Pharisees.

The call of Christ is made on the hearts of all. I think Scripture is clear enough as to what sexual congress is consecrated and which is not. I for one have no desire to stone anyone yet am not confused at all as to what the Bible calls us too- a life of costly discipleship.

Alexander quoted lines from American political documents claiming equality for all- however happiness, another American post-enlightenment idea, is thoroughly opposed to the Christian notion of discipleship. Ours is not a 'happy' affair. There are things that please us and seem natural that are sinful. Building Christian character is not the result of following ones passions, it is the result of Christian practices which build character and become habit.

So yes, even if one has a natural sexual urge we are all called to confine our expressions to marriage which, in the Bible at least, is restricted to one man and one woman.

[David R. Larson]

Johnny A.: It is good to see you in print. I hope you are enjoying Scotland and your studies!

Daneen: With respect to the recent GC statement, it looks to me as though in this document the legal department put something into the denomination's memory to which the lawyers of an institution can appeal if it is sued, say, for not giving the homosexual partner of an employee the same medical benefits it gives to a heterosexual husband or wife.

Although the statement could be used to challenge the good and regular standing of a person's church membership, it appears to me that this is not its purpose. Using it this way would avail little because membership issues are the responsibiiity of local congregations. As I know from my own work, there are SDA congregations around the circle that are happy to accept by profession of faith people who have been treated in an unchristian manner by other local churches. These often become the most supportive members even if they live hundreds of miles away!

My own views about the document are mixed. On the one hand, I think religious institutions should have much legal discretion in such matters. For example, although I disagree with it, I think the Roman Catholic church should be legally free to restrict its priesthood to men.

On the other hand,I think the best way to avoid being sued is in the first place to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

For example, on the issue of medical insurance I think we should take sexual issues out of the equasion by making it possible for any employee to purchase medical insurance for anyone--brother, sister, aged parent, etc.--at the institution's greatly reduced group rate. In other words, let's take sex out of the medical benefits department!

There are so many ways that our denomination can handle these issues without compromising its stances, some of which do not make sense to me, that I regret that so often it takes the least creative and redemptiv approaches. Then we get sued anyway!

Why not deal with people helpfully in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Thanks for standing up for sexual abuse victims like that.

[Daneen Akers]

Hi Johnny (I'm trying to say that with a Scottish accent)...

You said: "So yes, even if one has a natural sexual urge we are all called to confine our expressions to marriage which, in the Bible at least, is restricted to one man and one woman."

Where in the Bible is it clear that marriage is restricted to one man and one women?

We've come to view marriage as between one man and one woman, but for a good chunk of Biblical history, a man could marry many wives, and that's not even getting into the issue of concubines.

We've definitely adjusted our reading of the Bible to fit this cultural norm though (one of the reasons why Alex even has to ask that question about a Mormom in his poll, even though they've tried to rid their church of polygamy officially for quite some time now).

[Carrol Grady]

Johnny, I never thought the story of the woman caught in adultery was a parable. Are you sure about that?

You said: I think Scripture is clear enough as to what sexual congress is consecrated and which is not. I for one have no desire to stone anyone yet am not confused at all as to what the Bible calls us too- a life of costly discipleship.

I do not find any place is Scripture that condemns committed, loving same-sex unions. Perhaps you would tell me why you believe that God says people who are attracted to the same sex and unable to be attracted to the opposite sex should be denied the love and companionship to be found in such a union? In what ways do you see that as a sin?

I think there are many ways in which gays and lesbians are called to a costly discipleship, but I don't see this as one of them.

[David Hamstra]

Daneen:

I'd still like to find some hermeneutical common ground before we proceed. I'm fairly literalistic when it comes to interpreting scripture, so I take what Jesus says about "the Law and the Prophets" in Matthew 5:17-20 seriously (Yes, I do reference that passage a lot). To me that means that specific instructions given in scripture have some form of validity today.

I also believe that we need to interpret those instruction withing the principle of love, particularly as demonstrated in Jesus life. But this is not an excuse for putting aside those instructions that are out of harmony with my concept of love. God's instructions and Jesus life set the norm when it comes to love.

I think George Knight's suggestion for "Reading Ellen White" that we realize the difference between the ideal and the real is a valid principle for interpreting scripture, too. I see the ideal in scripture as primarily set forth in Genesis 1&2 and Revelation 21, but also in passages like Isaiah 11 and Galatians 3:28. The instructions are the specific application of that ideal to time and place, which continue to be valid because of the principle on which they are based.

Does this make sense to you?

[David R. Larson]

EKKEHARDT MUELLER AND THE THE BIBLICAL RESEARCH RESPOND

Carrol is right. The statement that alarmed me in the material by Ekkehardt Mueller that "anon" posted a while back does not communicate what was intended. Here is what Elder Mueller wrote in response:

"I am not trying to say that a boy in a peradistic relation will be punished by God. On the contrary, God will not punish him. Therefore, the biblical text must be talking about two consenting adults not about an adult an a youth."

I am relieved! I think Mueller's article deserves some serious attention. I am especially intrigued by his inferences from Plato's "Symposium."

[Alexander]

David, at first blush the separation of ideal and real makes sense to me. In fact, in light of Bill comments on the Edenic pair, I'd use terminology like "perfect" and "real."

What's more important in the eyes of God? Honesty and commitment in human relationships or the look of a couple's genitalia? Lots of people in the Bible who were not only used, but blessed by God were not "fruitful." Daniel was a eunuch, lots of the heroes of faith followed the way of the culture at the time and had multiple wives, even the BRI suggests that Jesus had step siblings from Joseph. And there's no evidence that Paul ever married. Thus, the Bible records lots of people who followed God who were not fruitfully "normal."

It seems, to use the Hamstra/Knight/Platonic binary of the Ideal and the Real, that we could argue that no one has a perfect relationship in the real world. Hell, Adam and Eve show us that even a perfect heterosexual relationship led to original sin.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Alex

Call me timex, I take a licking and keep on ticking. When I used the term vulgar I used it in the sense of lewd. Somewhat in the category of Judas kissing Jesus. Of course all sin is profane. Homosexual unions--are they in holy wedlock? Has God joined them together?
I believe that they should have all the legal property rights under contractural agreement and notorized and registered at the county seat. I do not believe in calling it marriage in any Biblical or legal sense. Our next door neighbors were a lesbian couple. One died of cancer. Because of Georgia law, the survivors of the dead woman claimed and received all the property and chattel. The other woman had to move into a welfare supported high rise even though she had contributed 50 percent of the house and its contents. Yes I think that was obscene! For several years prior to the death of one of the partners, I mowed their lawn, I trimmed their hedges, I fixed their plumbing. We were supporting friends as well as neighbors. That does not change the fact that they lifestyle was not congruent with God's intention in given mankind procreative powers. Tom

[Peter]

Daneen:

"We've come to view marriage as between one man and one woman, but for a good chunk of Biblical history, a man could marry many wives, and that's not even getting into the issue of concubines.

We've definitely adjusted our reading of the Bible to fit this cultural norm though"

So you are proposing that we change again because society is changing again? Although the actual instances of polygamy have gone down, homosexuality has always been there so it can't be pursued in the same mode.

We are not called to be of this world... and the extreme lack of use of scriptural references by most contributors to this discussion is still worrying because we are then relying on our wisdom... which is like wiping a clean bowl with a dirty rag!

The number of red herrings in this discussion is amaxing. The main points should be, does Christ love them, Yes, and would he be the one to condemn their sin and bid them to live a righteous life after, Yes.

If being a prostitute changed cultural connotations and became acceptable in the future, then you would likely ignore the words of Christ in order to bring someone into the church without scaring them with the righteous purity that Christ represents. It is not a wise idea to simply sway with the cultural love.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16,17

And in regards to the concept that one should give in to the lusts of their sinful nature, "All things are possible through Christ who strengthens me" (Paraphrase of Philippians 4:13)

Alexander:

You can love someone without loving or condoning their actions. Reducing the concept of perfection to a Platonic ideal and then dismissing it as the thought creation of a human being does not dismiss the fact that we have a perfect creator who we should want to be like, while turning our back on what our current nature is. You are free to put on the white wedding garment, but looking back and wanting the earthly dirty rag is just your choice.

[David Hamstra]

Alexander, you flatter me too much by placing my name alongside Plato and Knight. Only when (and by when I mean if) the word "Hamstronic" becomes part of the English language might one consider it. Besides, I don't think you'd want to after what I have to say next.

Your argument would make perfect sense to me if I did not believe we must use the specific instructions of scripture to navigate our course from the real to the ideal. The fact that scripture calls homosexual sex, in the forms that it was practiced back then, a sin tells me that, in spite of the fact that no marriage is ideal, God does not want us to use homosexual marriage as a way back to the ideal marriage as given in both creation narratives--one man and one woman.

Sure, homosexuality was practiced differently back then, but should that stop us from extracting the principle from the instruction. Also, the argument that the writers of the Bible weren't aware of the homosexual orientation and therefore couldn't comment on it doesn't hold water with me, because Paul talks about men to desire men rather than women.

Now in regards to Daneen's question of why I would Paul's words on homosexuality more directly to the present day than his instructions regards to slaves and the equality of women. The first reason is the ideal; in Eden Adam and Eve were equal and in the New Earth there will be no slaves. The second is contextual: the instructions regarding women and slaves are given in terms of time and place and therefore requires a more principle based interpretation while the classification of homosexuality as a sin is given in general terms and, in my view should be interpreted more literally across time and culture.

Finally, in the matter of divorce I agree that it should only be in cases of infidelity and for the same reasons mentioned above. Also, I think Paul's instructions on marriage were actually very near the ideal, especially when taken in context of Eph. 5:21, and in view of his instruction that a man give himself up for this wife as Christ did for the church. That's an ideal I dream of approaching.

[Daneen Akers]

Dr. Zwemer--you're my kind of traditionalist. It warms my heart that although in a forum like this you'll admit that you think homosexuality a sin (even a vulgar one), you'll still be such a good and love neighbor. We obviously disagree on the hermeneutics, but if all Christians just loved like that, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation.

Peter--You get at the heart of this conversation and why it is perceived as such a dangerous issue for many. If we start adjusting our readings of scripture to fit cultural norms, where does it stop? I'm amazed at how we've changed our view of scripture in just the past century--we used to be able to find scriptural proof that slaves were in their position because of God's mercy and grace. So, I am encouraged when I look at history to know that we do indeed change. I think it's progress, and I think the fact that this conversation is starting to happen so frequently is a sign that we're slowly starting to adjust again.

It is a slippery slope, but I'd like to think we can wear cleats on our shoes, so we don't necessarily slide all the way down.

Also, there are actually a great deal of comments grounded in scripture here. I know it’s hard to keep track of them all (I’m a bit overwhelmed myself at all of the comments). My own views have been greatly influenced by theologians (conservative and liberal) whose careful study of scripture I appreciate. If you’d like to read more, I recommend Rev. Jack Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. It’s firmly rooted in scripture.

David- Thanks for your thoughts. I really appreciate them. I think you read Paul's words a bit more kindly than a woman does though! I'm glad you realize that there is some subjectivity that happens when we read any of these verses. Again, I'd like to reiterate that I (and others) are not saying that the homosexual orientation did not exist during Paul's time, but that the committed, monogamous, Christian relationships that we see today did not--it just was not a cultural possibility.