|
|
|
||||||||
|
welcome to the |
collecting our thoughts on the same sex issue |
|
AN OPEN LETTER If you believe that 10-15 years from now we as a church are going to conclude that committed same sex relationships can be holy, please dialogue with me. If I should believe as you, help me not wait 10-15 years! I will listen to you. As long as many in my church disagree with me I cannot be sure that I have considered this issue as fully as I should.
Harold N Miller |
Statements of the central issues as I see them after several years of intense dialogue: MY TALKING POINTS This summary draws together main points made on this site; plus new section on same-sex marriage
THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY
SPIRIT OF THE GAY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY Short statements on issues not covered in the above articles: WHAT ABOUT JESUS? Jesus remained silent on homosexuality -- shouldn't we also?
WHAT ABOUT CORNELIUS?
WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE?
WHAT ABOUT DIVORCE?
Mennonite Church USA:
HOPE FOR UNITY ON THE "H-ISSUE" (Oct 2005)
Other writing which impacted me:
WILLARD SWARTLEY'S LIST OF SCHOLARS
ROBERT GAGNON'S WEB ARTICLE - "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" |
JESUS REMAINED SILENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY--SHOULDN'T WE ALSO?
It is often pointed out as significant that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. But Jesus never mentioned incest, rape, or pedophilia, either. Does that mean he was for those behaviors -- or that all those he met already abhorred such sexual acts? Further, did he not speak in principle about all of these when he said "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female'" (Matt 19:4)? Jesus didn't stop there -- "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'"
| return to menu |
THE STORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH RECEIVING CORNELIUS AND THE GENTILES OPENS THE DOOR TO THE CHURCH TODAY ACCEPTING GAYS AND LESBIANS -- DOESN'T IT?
Some persons draw the following two lessons from the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:
1) God is not bound by what was spoken earlier in Scripture; God's instructions to us can change. The instruction about not eating unclean food was changed. So can the instructions concerning two men or two women loving one another.
2) How did Peter and the early church know that God was overturning their understanding on the uncleanness and unacceptableness of the Gentiles? They saw God speaking to Cornelius, calling him, placing the Spirit on him. Similarly our understanding on the unacceptableness of homosexuality can be changed as we see God speaking to, calling, and giving the Spirit to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Who are we to oppose God?
Three responses:
1) When the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 chose to include uncircumcised Gentiles in the people of God, they were led by Scripture as well as the Spirit. At the conference James cited a prophecy of Amos that was one of many Old Testament passages containing seeds of the truth that God's purposes would one day encompass all peoples. Though many Hebrew Scriptures taught that uncircumcised persons could not be included in the people of God, the early church was still biblical when they affirmed the baptism of Cornelius because of the other group of passages James steered them to consider.
Are there Scriptures leading us to make a change in the prohibition against homosexual sex? (Read last half of my "THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY" for discussion on whether the New Testament's ethic of love does this.)
2) The presence of the Spirit in someone's life does not mean that all his or her life is approved by God. For instance, we don't decide whether Cornelius' occupation as centurion was affirmed by God by looking at whether God filled him with the Spirit.
Many of us know church leaders who have been disciplined for sexual sin; and during the time the sin was occurring we often discerned the Spirit's ministry. But this does not mean that the leaders' sexual relations were somehow holy. God in grace places the Spirit even on us sinners. We must not confuse grace with approval.
3) The instructions by Moses regarding the uncleanness and unacceptableness of the Gentiles were not wrong all along. Those teachings were the best way possible AT THAT TIME THEY WERE GIVEN to strengthen the people of God. (Circumcision and the various codes of uncleanness built an identity that helped keep the people of Israel separate from their pagan neighbors and the influence of their idol worship.) They were not errors any more than the incomplete bud of a flower is an error. They were replaced because they were "fulfilled" in the progression of redemptive history.
By and large, the church has confidence that, similarly, Scripture's instructions regarding same sex relations were not wrong all along but were written as Spirit-inspired wisdom. If that teaching of Scripture was fully inspired by God, then we have a right to "correct" the biblical view on homosexuality only if some change in our culture or in the way God redeems us changes the way God's truth applies to our lives. Thus the $64,000 question is "are there changes in our culture today or in redemptive history that might change what God says to us today about same sex erotic conduct?" (For an instance of the church "correcting" an ethical teaching of the Bible, read paragraph on holy kiss in my "THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY.")
Acts 15 only opens the door to the possibility of viewing same sex behavior as holy. It doesn't show that all of us should walk through.
| return to menu |
WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE?
| "If [homosexual people] are being despised and rejected by sections of society on account of their sexual inclination, are in fact victims of homophobia, then indeed they have a grievance which must be redressed. For God opposes such discrimination and requires us to love and respect all human beings without distinction. If, on the other hand, the 'wrong' or 'injustice' complained of is society's refusal to recognize homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriages, then talk of 'justice' is inappropriate, since human beings may not claim as a 'right' what God has not given them. --John Stott, SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS? (Revell, 1998) p57 |
However, is sexual desire a need that must be acted upon if one is to be emotionally healthy? Many generations of faithful Christians bear witness that lives of freedom, joy, and service are possible without sexual relations.
I acknowledge the appearance of callousness when I, in the comfortable position of having my own sexual desires satisfied, forbid that satisfaction to people who want it from a same sex partner. But a heart totally un-calloused might even so forbid same sex expression out of submission to the Bible (see sections on Romans and Corinthians in article on the Bible). Or out of concern for the well-being of gay persons (see sections on physical and emotional wholeness in same article). Not all natural tendencies are good and to be acted upon. For example, I have been a shy, anxious personality from birth. But that doesn't mean God wants me to yield to my inherently fearful nature.
Homosexual orientation is not a biological given (which would make it a clear civil rights matter). All identical twins have the same sex and same race; but all identical twins do not all have the same sexual orientation. There is genetic influence but not genetic cause or determinism.
Justice does demand that a church not insist that gays be celibate unless that church is also willing to work hard at creating and offering a community in which intimacy can be found apart from eroticism.
| return to menu |
no copyright
response or dialogue -
(Sorry it's not a hot link -- to foil WebBots from harvesting address.)
(H N Miller, Corning NY)
| Humor Collection |
HNMiller home page |