Thursday, March 13, 2008
What About Homosexuality - An Addendum
I made a rather lengthy post yesterday about Hugh Hewitt and his ongoing discussion with E.J. Dionne. One reader (thank Tom!) pointed out that I may be incorrect about Jesus saying “nothing” about homosexuality. Not only was his point interesting, but it illustrates how the discussion is framed in the West these days.
The passage in question is Matt 19:3-6, where Jesus discusses is addressing the question of divorce as raised by the Pharisees
[Quick note: the Church continues to struggle with how to handle divorce in its member’s lives. For a great new book on the topic, pick up David Instone-Brewer’s new book from InterVarsity Press on Divorce and Re-marriage. David is a scholar in residence at the Tyndale House, the Evangelical scholarly outfit in the UK of which I am now proudly a member. You can order David’s book at Amazon.com at this link:
Okay, back to the topic at hand. It is clear that both from the Old Testament and this passage that sex (literally in the Hebrew to know someone - a level of knowledge that is rooted in true intimacy and trust coming from a covenant made before God and then cemented by the work of God to make two into one flesh) is intended between one man and one woman in marriage. And so Tom is correct that Jesus is framing not just divorce but sex within the traditional Biblical concept of marriage between man and woman. For more theological discussion on homosexuality I highly recommend the books of Robert Gagnon. The first volume:
is for a detailed look at the passages, exegesis and theology of the homosexual issue in the Bible. But his second volume, a two views book would make a wonderful book for you to work through with friends who are Christian but take the liberal view on homosexuality. It is a wonderful tool to engage in real dialogue aimed at real change in people’s positions (the pro-homosexual argument is written by Dan O. Via:
The bigger issue though is how we discuss these issues. As the great and humerous James Lileks has pointed out [note: tried to find where he wrote this on the Bleat at http://www.lileks.com but could not because I cannot remember the right words] the process now moves from respect (hey, people can do whatever they want in the private of their own homes, and we will get to face the big guy upstairs and explain later) to sociatal okay (do it out in public) to the demand for it to be recognied as the new norm and then to it being subsidized by the state.
We do not live in a theocracy (thank God!). Actually, that is a misnomer, since if God did (as Christians believe he will one day) rule the world as a present king, things would be better. When we think of theocracy we think of Saudi Arabia. That is really a rule by theology determined by human beings prone to rule arbitrarily. So, we do not live in one of those things [note to the author of The Handmaid’s Tale, Christians have the example of Christ not executing the woman caught in adultary, if you want to see your story played out, look to Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Islamic world].
Do I think that homosexuality is wrong morally? Yes. Do I think it should be punishable? Heck no. People have to make their own moral decisions and live with the consequences. There is compulsion in religion as we like to say in Christian circles. Under our American Constiution, sodomy laws really should have been ruled as unconstitutional.
But there is a hugh difference between that and the blanket approval of homosexual lifestyle as equal to the ideal of the heterosexual one - sexual intimacy in the relationship built on trust and love - marriage. But now the argument has been structured so that if you hold the view I just stated I am called homophobic.
People, I do not fear homosexuals (phobic meaning fear of course). Nor do I hate homosexuals. Hate to use the old line, but I have had and do have a number of gay and lesbian friends. We agree to disagree on the morality, but we enjoy each other’s company and love. Some of them attend gay friendly churches, and when we talk theology (which we do) I make the simple statement that I believe Christ calls us to place all of our lives and passions on the alter to follow him. I do not think that the first thing that the Holy Spirit is going to work on in a gay who comes to Christ is their sexuality. We are all sinners and the Spirit is working on all of us - our lusts, our anger, our gossip, our lack of generosity and the like. But Christ is going to come and ask us to give up everything that holds us back from the holiness and wholeness for which we were created. But this view gets me labeled (in some circles) as a hate-monger and a homophobe. Hmmm.
How the love for people that calls them (and me) to wholeness gets labeled hate I do not know. But, as we see in today’s paper, the debate is deeply oriented towards love = absolute acceptance and celebration of everyone’s choices (except smoking of course). So now a Roman Catholic Bishop (who I think may have stepped over the bounds) is seen as loony while the Dutch allow gay sex in park but fine people for dogs off the leash:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/nbishop113.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/wgay113.xml
I guess this is mostly a complaint - can we agree that we do not have to accept everything that we also allow? If not, no matter how big a vote total Obama gets in November, we are not going to create a unified society.
Comments? Questions? Email me at
