"Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; men throw it away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 14:34-45 (RSV)
Throughout history salt has been one of the basic compounds necessary for life. Yet in our modern age it is difficult to imagine just how important the simple mineral was for preserving food. In ancient Israel salt was obtained by evaporating water from the Dead Sea. The process produces not only pure salt (sodium chloride), but other chlorides such as potassium and magnesium. If the evaporated salt crystals are not separated from the other chlorides they attract moisture and dissolve, causing the compound to lose its saltiness and become useless.
What remains is a compound that is completely useless, even harmful. The chemicals poison the soil and even throwing them on the manure pile risk future contamination when the material is used for fertilizer. Saltless salt is worth less even than manure.
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus referred to the crowd as the “salt of the earth.” His point was that just as salt prevents the deterioration of meat, his followers should serve as a preserving influence, impeding the deterioration of their society. But what happens when the salt refuses to be separate and distinct? What happens when the salt loses it saltiness?
I was reminded of that question after reading a blog post by Brian McLaren. As the most influential leader of the controversial emergent church movement, he has received more than his share of criticism. Because of this I’ve been hesitatant to pile on, even though I’ve often had concerns about his work. But a recent blog post on the “homosexual question” forces me to ask: Has McLaren become a saltless servant?
Although it’s the impetus for his post, homosexuality really isn’t the issue I’m concerned about. In fact, I believe that homosexuality is one of the most overrated sins in our culture. Relative to other sexual sins--such as heterosexual fornication, adultery, and divorce--homosexual practice is relatively uncommon. Because it is such a niche sin, it has become an issue on which Christians spend an inordinate amount of time and energy. The reason, as Philip Yancey notes, is that Christians tend to get very angry towards others who sin differently than they do.
But we must admit that for a behavior that is engaged by a small minority of the population, homosexuality has an oversized influence on our culture. From crude jokes on the playground to the oral arguments in the state courts, the subject of homosexuality is pervasive. The only way in which talk of homosexuality can't be tolerated is when it is by those who can't tolerate homosexuality. One of the last remaining taboos in our culture is to consider homosexual behavior taboo.
Because conservative Christians are one of the few groups that take this unpopular stand, it often demarcates the line between us and the larger culture. For both sides of the “culture war” it has become a Maginot Line, sealing each group off from the other. Some Christians do break ranks and follow the biblical warrant by reaching out to their fellow sinners across the moral divide. Others have chosen to defect to the other side, justifying the behavior because the culture has judged it to be acceptable.
Both sides of the Maginot Line are populated by sinners; the only significant difference is that those who condone homosexuality are deluding themselves—and others—about its sinful nature. Unfortunately, Brian McLaren doesn’t have the courage to be truly counter-cultural and so has chosen to stand on the side of the line of the cultural apologists.
In his post, McLaren shares a story about an engaged couple who visit the church where his serves as a pastor. After the service the couples approach him and ask where his church stands on homosexuality. McLaren begins his response by pointing out that this isn’t the first time he’s been asked this question:
Usually when I'm asked about this subject, it's by conservative Christians wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call "radio-orthodoxy," i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters.
What McLaren calls “radio-orthodoxy” many of us call “Biblical Christianity.” After all, it is the Bible, not the “big-name religious broadcasters” that provide the “mandate” on the issue.
He goes on to explain why he is reluctant to answer the question:
I hesitate in answering "the homosexual question" not because I'm a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be . . . pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.
While McLaren may be right that we learn from Jesus that there is more to answering a question that being right or even being honest, there is at least that much. I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that being “pastoral” meant ignoring the question in order to get to what motivates the question. The few times Jesus refused to answer a question directly it was because he was being challenged by the self-righteous Pharisees, rather than by an honest seekers from the pews. Also, I don’t recall Jesus ever refusing to call sinners to repentance.
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit's work in that person's life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are "seasoned with salt" and appropriate to "the need of the moment" (Col. 4; Eph. 4).
I’m not a pastor so maybe I am unclear on what is needed at such times. But I’ve always thought that the most basic “need of the moment” for someone struggling with a question of sin was repentance and the forgiveness that only Jesus can give. Has the post-modern condition changed the need of the moment?
Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent's constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric--and we're pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors. Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ's name, not cultural enemies we're trying to vanquish.
If this is true, and the emerging leaders agonize over calling sinful behavior that the Bible claims is sinful, then maybe the resounding condemnation of the movement is duly warranted. McLaren appears to be more concerned that someone might mistake him for a Republican than he does in acting as a servant of God’s word. If people bring you honest questions then they deserve to have a pastor provide an honest Biblical answer.
Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
This is the point where I lost all faith in McLaren. I’ve heard him refer to himself as an “evangelical” yet if he doesn’t seem to consider Scripture to be authoritative. The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. The church, for the past two millennia, has never had doubts that homosexual behavior is a sin. For McLaren and his “emerging leaders” to express doubts now shows that they are more concerned about accommodating culture than they are with submitting to the Bible or the collective wisdom of the Bride of Christ.
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do.
This is one of numerous examples where McLaren has attempted to make clear that he’s a different sort of Pharisee. He’s not like those tax collectors, his “colleagues” who have the audacity to call on sinners to repent before they join the “conversation.” He’s different. He’s a New Kind of Christian.
If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
The biblical arguments are “nuanced and layered?” If so, then why didn’t anyone notice this over, oh, the past 20 centuries? Why do most Bible-believing Christians think it is rather straightforward and clear?
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably.
Why stop there? Why not call a five-year moratorium on making any pronouncements about sin? We’ll just practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listen respectfully, disagree agreeably, and when God asks us why we didn’t stand up for the truth of his word we’ll just tell Him we were busy having a “conversation.”
When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields.
Who needs Sola Scriptura when you have psychology, genetics, and sociology? What does it matter what that old fogey Paul has to say about the matter. It’s much more important that we listen to Spong, Singer, Freud, Dawkins, and E.O. Wilson instead.
Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
Somehow the church failed to heed the wind of the Spirit for the past two thousand years. But now that we have Pastor McLaren leading an emerging church, the still small voice of the Holy Spirit will surely set us straight. Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that if the Spirit will lead McLaren and his ilk to think that homosexual behavior is (as Scripture makes clear) sinful? Yeah, me neither.
Welcome to our world. Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should "seem good to the Holy Spirit and us."
McLaren is right; being right isn’t enough. We do need to be wise, and loving, and patient. And most of all we need to follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance as he illuminates God’s word. We can start by taking another look at Luke 14: Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored?
When we have sold out Scripture in order to join the “conversation” we have lost our saltiness. When we have pastors that refuse to call sinners to repentance but prefer a “moratorium on making pronouncements” we are not fit even for the dunghill. When we have lost our ability to act as a preservative in a decaying culture we can no longer be the “salt of the earth.” When we refuse to take a stand against sin, we become nothing more than saltless servants of our culture.
(HT: Boar's Head Tavern)
1
One of the last remaining taboos in our culture is to consider homosexual behavior taboo.
I think there's not very soft bigotry beneath a statement like this. When I see "one of the last remaining taboos" I think "Well, that seems to imply that most of 'em have been removed," as well as "The person making this statement seems to be saying that given that most of those taboos have been removed already, it's only reasonable to leave some of them in place. Let's see now, what kind of taboos are there...? There's pedophilia - remaining taboo. Check. There's incest- remaining taboo. Check.
There's legal divorce. Well, that's not been taboo since- sheesh- Henry VIII at least. There's racial intermarriage...uh oh...there's religious intermarriage uh oh.."
See what I mean?
The idea that gay people doing what they want in private is "taboo" merely because you wish to privilege your religious beliefs over theirs, just as racists argued against those whose DNA was ever so slightly different from theirs.
Even though you try to qualify it with the cutesy Klan apologia "The only way in which talk of homosexuality can't be tolerated is when it is by those who can't tolerate homosexuality," at the end of the day, it isn't just gays, and it's not just sex (or at least sex per se.)
You might have free speech rights, but those rights do not extend to the right to incite violence, and if you're rude and bigotted, expect to be called rude and bigotted.
Do not expect in a workplace to have the "right" to be offensive to someone - that interferes with the objective of the workplace every bit as much as if you made disparaging remarks about Evangelical Christians.
Who needs Sola Scriptura when you have psychology, genetics, and sociology?
Indeed. Add science, sentience, wisdom, generosity and compassion to the list, and I'd agree: nobody needs Sola Sriptura. Oh, yeah, I know, you're writing this about Christians and believers. But again, this appears to be "we believe this...it has truthiness...because it's written right here."
Reminds me of Newsmax. A rightie tried to justify some cockamamie right-wing talking point yesterday by quoting Newsmax...
2
Here's an essay entitled "What I believe about homosexuality." It's authored by Lee Irons, and I consider it a real responsible pastoral way to answer to the question. Even if a given pastor comes up with a different answer, Irons' approach is the salty one. Let the reader understand.
HERE IT IS
3
Drivel.
I asked myself on my blog a couple of days ago "what's happening to the church?"
Your post today makes it quite clear Joe, it's the fulfillment before our very eyes of the last days apostasy of the church, the great falling away from the admonition of scripture in favor of teachers who will "tickle their ears".
Look out, look up, for your redemption draws nigh, even at the door...
Maranatha Lord Jesus!
posted on 01.24.2006 6:59 AM4
Joe--Actually the old taboos are being replaced by new ones all the time. Christianity is becoming the new "love that dare not speak its name." Folks (like mumon?) who will leap to the ramparts to defend even the most deviant sexual behavior (not talking about homosexuality here) have no problem accusing Christians of wanting to impose some Iranian-style theocracy on their "beloved" country. It's only the brave warriors at "Air America" that prevent us from realizing our nefarious schemes.
The idea that gay people doing what they want in private is "taboo"
Nice strawman, but completely irrelevant to Joe's point. It is however a nice illustration of his assertion that criticizing homosexuality (by highlighting Biblical prohibitions) has become a new taboo. A post that is only peripherally related to homosexuality becomes an occasion for mumon to compare Christians with the KKK.
posted on 01.24.2006 7:13 AM5
A just and timely post, Joe. Thank you. The emergent church members certainly need all of our prayers for Spirit-taught clarity. Maybe I'll also become a missionary to them...
posted on 01.24.2006 7:19 AM6
Joe,
You believe in a loving and benevolent God.
I do not understand why such a God would consider homomsexuality sinful.
Let's assume that you are correct, and that the Bible proscribes homosexual activity as sinful. What are God's reasons for doing so? What is the reason or reasons that homosexuality is bad?
posted on 01.24.2006 7:54 AM7
Thanks for the great post Joe! When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
posted on 01.24.2006 8:00 AM8
Matthew, you asked Joe, not me... but I'll give you an answer anyway. In Christian biblical ethics, God does not proscribe (&prescribe) things because they are of themselves bad (or good). Rather it is God's pro/prescription that makes them so. Thus, the question is: how did God make persons; sexuality; sexual persons?
Fundamentally, he made us/it hetero. "Male and female, He created them." That's it. The answer is: God made it that way. Now inevitably destructive consequences follow from violating God's design. And homosex is itself a consequence of the fundamental distortion in humanity's nature. But we don't reason from consequences to "therefore it is bad." Your question subtley presupposes an anti-biblical ethic to begin with. If you want to understand the biblical position, you've got to (at least) hypothetically set yourself upon its governing assumptions.
9
If Tomcat's question was sincere, there is plenty of literature out there to help him with his hermeneutic. First of all, he could read the NT book of Hebrews. Then he could read Lee Iron's essay that I linked above. Then he could take a look at the other excellent resources on Iron's website, all exactly to the point of his question.
The short answer is OT mosaic law is fulfilled in Christ. Those parts of the law that are "creationally founded" (such as heterosex) continue in the NT period as the law of Christ.
The ignorant shouldn't be so glib, Tom.
10
i just wanna own canadians, why is that ignorant?
posted on 01.24.2006 8:16 AM11
ucfengr:
...criticizing homosexuality (by highlighting Biblical prohibitions) has become a new taboo. A post that is only peripherally related to homosexuality becomes an occasion for mumon to compare Christians with the KKK.
Who said Joe or you speak for all Christians? I can't believe you would engage in such smear tactics.
I have more respect for Christians than that.
But I see you've danced around my point, namely, when you throw around words like "taboo," there are generally specifics that are referenced.
Which ones?
Like you can't eat in front of the King or be caught in his shadow? (That's a couple of the orignal taboos.)
Like the taboo against some folks riding in front in the bus?
Like the taboo against people being free to practice their own religion?
I didn't bring up the word, with its connotations.
The fact is, in the United States, you're free to criticize whatever you want. You're free to put on that white sheet and parade in the streets if you want.
But if you think that whining about how people don't tolerate your intolerance is going to silence folks who rightly criticize you for making Christianity about "abortion and gays" and not about the Good Samaritan (that religiously incorrect guy about which Jesus spoke so fondly), you better believe there'll be criticism.
12
How is it that no one ever seems to read Romans? The prohibition against homosexuality is not simply a levitical Old Testament law...
In discussing people who turn away from the knowledge of God even though they know the truth (no one has excuse), Paul says:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Romans 1:26-27.
What's so unclear about that??? Homosexuality is a depravity that is the result of refusing to worship God as who He is. Further on in the same passage, we find that unrighteousness, wickedness, envy, murder, strife, gossip, pride and a host of other sins are also the result of turning from God. Homosexuality is not more vile than other sins, but the fact that it is a sin is not in question...
posted on 01.24.2006 9:20 AM13
Is there any distinction between homosexual sex and homosexuality?
posted on 01.24.2006 9:26 AM14
The comments really do reinforce Joe's assertion that "homosexuality has an oversized influence on our culture." As some wag put it, "the love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut up." A post that mentions homosexuality only peripherally becomes a forum for defending the rightness of homosexuality or the wrongness of Christians for attempting to uphold Biblical proscriptions against it in churches (not in government, not in education, but in ostensibly Christian churches).
posted on 01.24.2006 9:31 AM15
Baus,
You say that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God's design. God created us heterosexual, but not homosexual.
This is a much better argument from my point of view than simply falling back on "the Bible says so". But I am still unpersuaded.
Our bodies are obviously designed by nature to function in a heterosexual manner. But we use our bodies in all sorts of "unnatural" ways that are not the least bit sinful.
For example, 3,000 years ago the natural lifespan of a newborn infant was about twenty to thirty years. A forty-year old in most societies was considered to be a very old person indeed, the equivalent of a 100-year old today.
But thanks to modern standards of hygiene, food production, medicine, and social organization, dying at forty is now considered premature, an unfortunate tragedy.
So just because homosexuality may appear unnatural or an aberration doesn't mean it is a bad thing.
Moreover, I don't agree with your premise that homosexuality is such an aberration in the first place. I think that one reason that there have been historical taboos against homosexuality is precisely because it is so natural for us under certain circumstances.
I don't know what Joe thinks are God's reasons for proscribing homosexuality. If they are the same as yours, then Joe and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
posted on 01.24.2006 9:34 AM16
The comments really do reinforce Joe's assertion that "homosexuality has an oversized influence on our culture." As some wag put it, "the love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut up."
Indeed however how to explain the people who are doing the least amount of shutting up are your typically assortment of loudmouth Christians.
Seriously if you wanted to get your fill of 'rants against homosexuality' how deep to you have to dig down in modern Christian culture (again not the same thing as 'all Christians' or even a majority of Christians)?
posted on 01.24.2006 9:43 AM17
Indeed however how to explain the people who are doing the least amount of shutting up are your typically assortment of loudmouth Christians.
I was applying my comments to both sides of the debate. In general, Christians spend far too much time and energy worrying about homosexuality and not enough on divorce, adultery, and pre-marital sex. Those problems are far more destructive to our familiies and culture. Two guys or gals having sex in the privacy of their home has a lot less potential for destruction than the father doing his secretary or his 16 year old girl, just knocked up by her 22 year old ex-con, boyfriend because Daddy was too busy doing his secretary to keep an eye on her.
18
Just a slight comment regarding the passage quoted as opener. In Christ's usage of salt, he does not speak of its preservative effects but of its flavour. It's a small difference, but the ramifications relate to other theological issues, so its always good to keep it straight.
p.s. This is not to say that Christ was unaware of salt's preservative attributes but only that he did not have them in mind when offering this comparison.
posted on 01.24.2006 10:41 AM19
Must be a good post, it brought Tommythecat out of the woodwork and got Mumon giving lessons in tolerance according to it's new definition, "be accepting of all things except biblical Christianity".
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Now David Mclaren appears a little less than half way there so I guess the Christian church in America has a ways to go to hit rock bottom and be completely useless.
20
Cogent points, Joe. Another thing that sends up a red flag is that McClaren is a little too confident in himself as a prophet; Spong is similar. There’s a little too much McClaren in McClaren’s message, KWIM?
22
"Is there any distinction between homosexual sex and homosexuality?"
I think that there is, and that it is this distinction and what to do about it that forms the heart of McLaren and co.'s prayerful searching. The Bible is clear that homosexual activity is wrong, but after that it doesn't say much towards "modern" questions. Is a homosexual orientation (a new concept in itself) genetic, environmental, a disease, or a lifestyle choice under the control of each individual? How then does a homosexual deal with God and how does the church deal with the homosexual? Even given the proscription against homosexual behavior as Biblically solid, there are still questions worth asking and answering.
posted on 01.24.2006 12:59 PM23
I do not believe that christians are obsessed with gays. I think that when people who are engaged in : bestiality fornication polygamy divorce, adultery start to advocate that their behavios is okay christieans will respond just as we do to the gay behavior. its not an obbesion its a reaction to the gay politial and social agenda.
posted on 01.24.2006 1:08 PM24
First, a minor historical/geographic correction. The Israelites got their salt from the Dead Sea, not the Red Sea. Having traveled extensively in that part of the world on both the Israeli and Jordanian side of the valley, I know the Red Sea to be a real schlepp from the population centers of Israel during Jesus' day. (Hey, it's still a schlepp today.) The Dead Sea today is about an hour by car from Jerusalem, so it would have been about a half day's journey back then.
McLaren appears to be more concerned that someone might mistake him for a Republican than he does in acting as a servant of God’s word.
That is the crux of the matter with McLaren and the whole emergent thing. They are so afraid of being associated with some of the unfortunate unpleasant side of today's Christian scene that they they take the illogical position that if they're against it, I'm for it, and vice versa.
25
McLaren appears to be more concerned that someone might mistake him for a Republican than he does in acting as a servant of God’s word.
That is the crux of the matter with McLaren and the whole emergent thing. They are so afraid of being associated with some of the unfortunate unpleasant side of today's Christian scene that they they take the illogical position that if they're against it, I'm for it, and vice versa.
I can't speak for McLaren, but the "emergent" church I attend most certainly has a more nuanced position. One is clearly called for.
posted on 01.24.2006 1:23 PM26
shari--Adultery and easy divorce have done far more harm to marriage and family than "gay marriage" could ever hope to, but of the three, what is the primary concern of the Christian-right? Stopping "gay marriage". I am opposed to legal recognition of "gay marriages", but I think we could do far more good for the institution if we spent less time on worrying about the "gay political agenda" and more on strengthening marriage and family. BTW, the reason there is no political movement in support of divorce or adultery is because the issues a largely settled ("no fault divorce" and de-criminalization of adultery). There are plenty of folks who advocate that the behavior is okay, especially if it makes practitioner happy.
posted on 01.24.2006 1:32 PM27
Some conservative Christians who believe the Bible's teaching on homosexuality will, in an effort to appear diplomatic, admit that Christians should spend more time decrying sins like adultery and divorce and less time beating up on homosexuals. This appears to me nonsensical. Christians didn't all of a sudden decide to criticize homosexuals because we find the practice of homosexual sex more disgusting than adultery or divorce. Rather, proponents of the homosexual cause (and especially those claiming to be Christians) have called into question the authority of God's written word. Thus, the battle over homosexuality is more fundamentally a battle over truth and authority.
This is illustrated perfectly by tommythecat's comment. Putting aside the fact his comment was unoriginal (I've seen it floating around the internet for some time now.), the primary problem with the comment is it is designed not to make more lucid the issue of the Bible's teaching on homosexuality but to call into question the Bible's authority over any moral issue. Thus, because the Bible says we should stone Sabbath breakers and because we know that mustn't be normative for us moderns, we can dispense with the Bible's teaching on any moral question. (I assure there is a perfectly good resolution to the apparent paradox of tomcat's comment, one which has been alluded to above.) At a minimum, tommythe(copy)cat's comment is designed to kick up enough dust so as to obscure the truth from honest seekers. God is not a God of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33), but those who would remove God from his throne as moral arbiter of the universe seek to breed confusion.
28
Joe,
An excellent post and I must say that at least Brian has maintain consitancy with his position. I had the opportunity to hear him up in Grand Rapids and responded accordingly. In fact, the fear of being "republican" is not unfounded. He purposefully was extremely harsh with the Christian right.
However, there is something to the understanding of a difference between acknowledging homosexual tendancies and practice. Just like a person who admits that they have a tendicy towards alcohol vs. an alcoholic. The debate on whether one is created that way or not is a misnomer. We all are created with a sin nature and are inclined to sin in facet or another.
I know individuals who struggle with such homosexual tendencies. They agree to act upon and fulfill these tendencies are wrong. It is an area that they trust to the Lord.
I always wonder how one can have a "conversation" if they are unwilling to have a stance on a certain issue. Maybe emergents should be called "moderate" Christians :)
PuritanD
posted on 01.24.2006 2:13 PM29
It's the same old problem of Christians trying to figure out "rules" by which to live. I have learned so much from direct messages from The Holy Spirit on The Holy Inheritance blog. There are no rules. There is only listening inside to the Holy Spirit's Voice guiding us very specifically in the now moment, and doing as told.
posted on 01.24.2006 2:14 PM30
It is not necessary for us to try to mine the mind of God for His reasons when He makes rules.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. (ISA 55:8)
It boils down to this: Will you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and will you obey/conform? By the way, in the Bible adultery is condemned on a regular basis as well. It is hard to say that homosexual sex is any more of a sin than adultery. We ought to agree that both are wrong.
You don't have to be wild-eyed or Republican to be a fundamentalist. For a believer, a real believer, it is simply common sense. If you cannot bring yourself to depend on the Bible as final authority, it is likely because you just don't have a high level of trust in God.
posted on 01.24.2006 2:57 PM31
Some conservative Christians who believe the Bible's teaching on homosexuality will, in an effort to appear diplomatic, admit that Christians should spend more time decrying sins like adultery and divorce and less time beating up on homosexuals.
Speaking for myself, I am not trying to be diplomatic or make myself look more tolerant or arguing that one sin is worse than another. I honestly think that "no fault" divorce and to a lesser extent adultery have been far more damaging to our culture and the institution of marriage than homosexuality ever will. But that is really not what Joe is talking about is it. It appears that his concern is that you have a growing movement in the Christian commmunity that wants to ignore clear Biblical proscriptions. I don't really think it matters whether it is homosexuality, divorce, pride, anger, or any other sin. It's a shame that the example Joe used dealt with homosexuality, because it is far to easy to get wrapped around the axle on that issue.
posted on 01.24.2006 3:07 PM32
The spineless, weenie, 'still small voice' approach against sin, concerns me.
posted on 01.24.2006 3:21 PM33
I do not believe that christians are obsessed with gays. I think that when people who are engaged in : bestiality fornication polygamy divorce, adultery start to advocate that their behavios is okay christieans will respond just as we do to the gay behavior. its not an obbesion its a reaction to the gay politial and social agenda.
Hmmmm, ok shari so right now the divorce rate is what 50%. Will we be hearing from Christians when it hits 60%? Are you saying that more people are engaged in gay sex than divorce so that's why the focus by Christians????
Regarding McLaren;
I think he is making a point that most of you are missing.
1. Most people who ask about homosexuality are not really asking for themselves. In other words he isn't giving advice about ministering to the actual homosexual person but to the person who is asking because he wants to be part of a political church with an anti-gay agenda.
As Joe pointed out obsessing over how important the 'sin' of homosexuality is can be unhealthy especially for people who aren't homosexual....especially if it becomes a distraction to one's own sins (what do you mean I did X,Y,Z wrong....look at those gays over there!)
2. Many Christian churches have next to no good answers for the homosexual person. The Catholic Church, as an exception, has at least tried to reconcile what is becoming very obvious fact that gay people exist. He proposes to simply drop the subject for five years & then revisit it.
I don't think he should be taken so literally on #2. I can't see a Church putting up a sign saying "come back in five years once we figure out your problem". Obviously a gay person coming to the Church asking "can I have a relationship? can I have a sexual relationship? or a person with a gay child or relative both need advice. But face the facts, this is not a large number of people relative to the amount of time the more political Christians often spend on homosexuality. And of course gays have a right to feel like a double standard has been put in place since in the case of remarried divorced people the policy in many churches seems to be 'look the other way'...(the Catholic Church is one notable exception, it maintains divorced people who remarry others are living in sin and it doesn't care how outside the mainstream they are on that point).
Unless I missed something in the source material (which, fair balance, I haven't read...just what Joe choose to quote) I don't see him advocating removing any prohibition on people having gay sex but I do notice Joe, like many Christians seem to use homosexuality and homosexual sex interchangeably. Something you wouldn't do with hetrosexuality and hetrosexual sex.
posted on 01.24.2006 3:43 PM34
"It's the same old problem of Christians trying to figure out "rules" by which to live. I have learned so much from direct messages from The Holy Spirit on The Holy Inheritance blog. There are no rules. There is only listening inside to the Holy Spirit's Voice guiding us very specifically in the now moment, and doing as told."
The dangerous truth! Many forget that the curtain was torn when Christ died. You're not as nice as I am, I can't bring myself to kicking peoples crutches.
posted on 01.24.2006 3:52 PM35
Thank you Joe for your excellent post. A biblical Christian could no more condone homosexual activity than they could condone adultury or fornication. Not even pagan civilizations in which one's religion had very little impact on one's moral life and even encouraged what we consider immoral acts, considered endorsing "gay marriage". Such a thought was not even entertained. In Greek Sparta where homosexual relations were acceptable when young, you were expected to get married and have children as soon as possible. The modern gay movement was very antiestablishment in the 70's and went out of its way to promote free love and freedom from the comfining sexual morals of a monogomas relationship. Then with the onslaught of AIDS their tone changed over time. The Biblical Church must not conform to society but must hold society up to the light of biblical truth.
posted on 01.24.2006 3:54 PM36
"When we refuse to take a stand against sin, we become nothing more than saltless servants of our culture."
That speaks volumes about any sin, not just homosexuality. Christians need to make a clear stand on sinful behavior, period. Love the sinner, hate the sin so to speak.
McLaren is clearly not "pastoral", nor is he a leader, more like a politician listening to the polling data, shifting his stance to wherever the latest results point.
posted on 01.24.2006 4:29 PM37
It's the same old problem of Christians trying to figure out "rules" by which to live. I have learned so much from direct messages from The Holy Spirit on The Holy Inheritance blog. There are no rules. There is only listening inside to the Holy Spirit's Voice guiding us very specifically in the now moment, and doing as told.
C Prophet- Be very careful friend. The Holy Spirit could never direct you in a way that is contrary to scripture. God is God and His Word is His Word. Take heed lest you be guided by seducing spirits and not the true Spirit of God.
38
The defenses offered by the appeasers all seem to follow a pattern, and are laughable, yet they keep trying them.
Could one of them please direct me to this church that is pro-adultery, pro-fornication, and pro-divorce, yet rabidly anti-homosexual-behavior?
And when does the five-year moratorium on condemning adultery start?
posted on 01.24.2006 6:23 PM39
"If it's true , it ain't new,
If it's new, it ain't true."
'Nuff said.
40
Calling the Bible the root of prejudice toward gays and lesbians is hypocritical and dishonest at best. Stupid arguments about this or that interpretation of a biblical passage are completely meaningless.
The problem I have with any of the discussions about homosexuality and the Bible is that that they always ignore the fact that the people involved are already prejudiced against gay and lesbian people before they even know what the Bible says about homosexuality.
That means that the prejudice is the result of something other than having just read the Bible.
It's deep-seated, almost instinctual. As such it does not follow or reject Biblical canon.
For most people, the Bible, just like the Koran, only re-affirms their pre-existing prejudices toward gay and lesbian people. It does not create them. But it is used to justify them.
Just as the Bible, the Koran, etc., have been used to justify arguments both for and against racism, misogyny, slavery, etc.
But just because prejudice, which is after all simply a feeling, is deeply seated or even instinctual, it does not mean that it is morally correct or incorrect or derived from a logically reasonable thought process. It's an unthinking, atavistic response to someone or something that is different. Whatever that difference is.
This is the source of not only anti-gay prejudice, but every other unthinking prejudice that exists. The dark side of the human soul.
What I find hypocritical about most of those that call themselves Christians is that they tell people who are gay or lesbian that their most deeply held feelings of identity are inherently wrong, a sin, and they challenge us to examine and control or even remove those feelings. That identity. That person. Commit an abortion of personality as it were.
But they are unwilling to take that challenge themselves and to at least acknowledge the true source of their prejudices toward us.
It's not the Bible's fault that people are prejudiced toward gays and lesbians, it's the peoples fault.
So put the Bible to the side of the dinner table. It is blameless and cannot be used as self-justification for anti-gay feelings. What Joe likes to call the "ick factor". You alone are responsible. Your "salt" has already been corrupted before you have even had a chance to stray from Biblical teaching.
I of course, prefer pepper. Well, and Garlic salt. And Trader Joe's 21 seasoning salute can't be beat.
posted on 01.24.2006 6:36 PM41
What I find hypocritical about most of those that call themselves Christians is that they tell people who are gay or lesbian that their most deeply held feelings of identity are inherently wrong, a sin, and they challenge us to examine and control or even remove those feelings. That identity. That person.
That can be said about so many things. Pedophiles say the same thing. I know my personality--who I am, my identity--is to be a fighter and a brawler. I inherited it from my dad, who had the same reputation. Yet I know it is wrong, so I stuff it. Just because you have deep tendencies toward something does not make that something automatically right, nor does it mean you should act on those tendencies.
posted on 01.24.2006 6:49 PM42
Joe,
I normally find your writing terrifically insightful but I found this post too hasty and a bit disturbing.
My question: Why can't Christians admit there is a lack of perfect clarity regarding homosexual behavior just as there is regarding just war theory, slavery, property, etc? You simply stated, without explanation, that there has been an overwhelming consensus regarding homosexuality and that the Bible is very clear on the subject.
I guess I'd want more. Homosexual behavior, in the ancient world at least, was rooted in misogynism. Women were for child rearing, men were for enlightened discussion, and physical relationships reflected that fact. If you can demonstrate, conclusively, that the New Testament (as opposed to Old Testament) passages that deal with homosexuality are conveying timeless truths as opposed to culturally influenced commands, then I'd be satisfied. Or perhaps we should just go back to forcing women to always cover their heads.
As it is, your post struck me as hasty, sarcastic and mean-spirited. Very unlike you. That was a heavy charge you leveled against Brian McLaren. He deserves better than a 1000 word essay on why he has, at first glance at least, fallen away.
posted on 01.24.2006 6:57 PM43
If you can demonstrate, conclusively, that the New Testament (as opposed to Old Testament) passages that deal with homosexuality are conveying timeless truths as opposed to culturally influenced commands, then I'd be satisfied.
Romans 1 cites homosexual behavior (among other things) as evidence that men have suppressed the truth about God that is evident in creation. An objective viewer can plainly see that the male and female sex organs are compatible and are created for a certain function. Sure, heterosexual abuse them, but they have the option of using them correctly.
This is impossible with homosexual sex.
posted on 01.24.2006 7:39 PM44
I don't think Joe was being too harsh. Scripture says that teachers are to be held to a stricter standard regarding their teaching, and McLaren clearly is teaching.
posted on 01.24.2006 8:23 PM45
From the Christian perspective homosexuality is Biblically condemned as "abomination" and is described by Paul as the last depraved state of a life of continual rebellion against God (this teaching also applies to nations) wherein God gives men over to their diseases passions working that which is unseemly with one another's bodies, giving up the natural use of the body between man and woman.
Nature itself points an unbiased finger of disapproval at homosexuality. The most ardent evolutionist would quickly note that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and there is no conceivable merit (natural selection) to a species engaging in unreproductive homosexual anal sex.
Hmmm...it must then be a product of human choice.
At any rate, the key point this "nuanced" thread has danced around is that God is as jealous and severe as He is gracious and loving. It seems that many "Christian" folks prefer the bubble-gum "sloppy agape" nonsense that frames Jesus as some type of platitude spouting "peace and love" hippie who wandered the countryside giving people hugs and generally being a really swell guy.
News Flash!
Jesus Christ is alive and well and He's returning soon. Get your house in order. Flee from sin. Satan wants to kill and maim you, murder your babies before they can be born (47 million in the US alone since 1973), destroy your relationships with both God and man, and drag you down into the pit of hell where it's hot, dark, and forever.
The good news is that Jesus Christ came that you might have eternal life through His shed blood.
It's foolishness to bicker about whether The Ancient of Days condones a man sodomizing another man. It's insulting to even speak of it.
The Bible makes it patently clear that He doesn't. Move along people, nothing to see here.
And guess what? He doesn't ONLY disapprove of the accursed sodomite joining the host of heaven! It ain't gonna happen for him, or for anyone else who lives a life of hedonistic debauchery in open defiance and rebellion against His divine precepts:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
It's a narrow way people. Most of mankind is going to burn in hell forever. Get over it and go do something about it by sharing the gospel.
Threads like this make it clearer than ever to me who those people are who will hear those terrible words "Depart from me...I never knew you": It's the professing church.
It's those modern day Pharisees who are so far away from the Lord they couldn't hear his still small voice if were blared through a megaphone directly into their closed ears. It's the professing church who "Have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof..." from which we do well to flee.
In their conceit they believe a little sin here and there is no big deal...right? Everybody does it, right? I'm just a flawed sinful creature and Jesus understands, right? God loves me and I'm saved. Right?
Think again:
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
It's time for many professing Christians to die to self and make Jesus Christ both Lord AND Savior as opposed to a plastic idol to be used as a "get out of hell free" card.
Judgment is coming and it begins at the house of God.
1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Repent.
46
The validity of the claims of Christ can only be established on their own terms. To try to establish them on the basis of their contribution to their host culture, or on the basis of pre-existent prejudices, or on the basis of their opposition to pre-existent prejudices, or on the basis of how they fit with (our best guess concerning) the ends of our biological nature, or on the basis of what is culturally plausible in the context of modernity, or of post-modern thought--these are all an attempt to make salt out of something other than sodium chloride.
Can't be done.
posted on 01.24.2006 8:52 PM47
M.G. wrote: Why can't Christians admit there is a lack of perfect clarity regarding homosexual behavior just as there is regarding just war theory, slavery, property, etc?
Uh, because there IS perfect clarity regarding homosexual behavior in the Scripture. You must be choosing to ignore it. There are several of those very clear passages cited in this string of responses. The problem is that theological liberals like McLaren and Spong also choose to ignore them in the spirit of being "Christ-like". Jesus didn't ignore the teaching of Scripture. He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. While He would undoubtedly treat the homosexual with love and compassion, just as he did the woman at the well (which, admittedly, we sometimes do NOT do), if the homosexual refused to "go and sin no more", he would probably shake the dust from his sandals and move along. He would NOT just say "OK, it's OK if you just ignore me for five years"
posted on 01.24.2006 8:59 PM48
The issue of homosexuality is one of the few about which I could be labeled "conservative". But the basis for my opposition to homosexuality derives more from a liberal leaning toward evolution than from an adherence to any Biblical proscription.
Simply put, homosexuality has no place in evolution. It has zero effect upon the gene pool. It does not contribute to survival (beyond momentary individual satisfaction resulting in the release of sexual tension) of the family, of the tribe, of the line, or of the species. It does not increase diversity, produce offspring, or contribute either good or bad mutations of DNA. It has zero effect on evolution.
Evolutionarily, it appears to be an aberration. It has always been a minority behavior, otherwise we should not be having this discussion. It is equally rare among the other primates, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Most instances of it being found anywhere in Nature are due to stress. This stress generally takes two forms: lack of suitable mates and overcrowding.
There are some instances of homosexual and transexual behavior that can be interpreted as the real thing, but alas not. For instance, the mounting activity observed in primates and canines is a dominance behavior, not a sexual one.
Men are in the majority, I believe, on the question of homosexual behavior. Men also make up the majority of prison inmates. Prison life is highly conducive to homosexual behavior per the two stresses above. Men are generally acknowledged to have a more active sex drive(I'm setting myself up as a huge target, I know). Outside of prison, though I don't have the numbers, I would guess that male homosexuals outnumber lesbians by 10-1. We have to ask why on a number of points.
I've read plenty of Freud, Kinsey, Masters, and Johnson: regrettably, I have not seen the movies. I have studied plenty of pornography and as a child of the fifties and hippie of the sixties, I have explored sexuality from every veiwpoint. The two stresses above do not cover all the bases.
There really is no shortage of females in our society today or for the past 150 years. In fact, there always seems to be a plurality of females anyway, as a natural result of the birth/death cycle. And if overcrowding is to be blamed, there are plenty of examples of that in NYC or LA, but no explanation for homosexuality in Meridian, MS or Ames, Iowa. Unless overcrowding is to be defined as more than five people per square mile and that's hardly crowded.
There have been some murmurings from the scientific community about a "gay" gene. Maybe that is a third factor to account for homosexuality, and one of devastating weight. If there is such a gene, how can either evolutionists or evangelicals explain it? As stated above, evolutionarily, it would make no sense. How would a gene that is anti-offspring survive? Or is it really a bisexual gene?Evangelically, words would have to be eaten, especially from the bowl of Leviticus. You could no more blame someone for their homosexuality than you could for contracting colon cancer or diabetes, schizophrenia or high blood pressure. It's analagous to the situation with alcoholics, who are counseled, pitied, treated, and medicated, yet still held responsible for their drinking.
We have heard the Biblical injunctions. Can an evolutionist correct me if I'm wrong and enlighten us all as to how homosexuality fits into Darwin's plan?
Your ball!
posted on 01.24.2006 9:10 PM49
As an atheist, let me say that I agree with Joe. If someone claims to be a Christian, let him/her stand with the teachings of the Bible. Namby-pamby Christians who want to water down what the Bible plainly teaches should be forced out of the church.
The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, plainly condemns homosexuality along with pre-marital sex, adultery, and women speaking in church. Come on Christians, say it loud and say it proud: "Practicing homosexuals are going to burn in hell!" And so are any so-called Christians who go easy on the sin.
Speaking of hell, I wish Christians would be a little more insistent about who exactly is going to hell. Anyone who is not a true Christian will be tortured eternally. All Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Unitarians, Rastifarians, Sikhs, Bahais, animists, spiritists, Confucianists, agnostics, atheists, pagans, humanists, evo mats, Jedis and Episcopalians are hell-bound. Also Catholics too, maybe.
posted on 01.24.2006 9:13 PM50
Also, I'm now asking everyone, since I haven't gotten an answer from the big theologians (like Gordon): What about that whole Sabbath thing?
Do you remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?
posted on 01.24.2006 9:20 PM51
Is anyone gonna try to explain why there isn't a Christian tabboo against women making any kind of sound in the church? Paul is even more clear about the need for women to keep silent and cover their head in the church than he is about the sinful nature of homosexual acts, which is covered in one single section (of Romans 1) without regard to temple prostitution?
Aren't female preachers and choir members just as sinful as practicing homosexuals? Can we expect a post on the fake Christianity of anyone who disagrees, Joe?
posted on 01.24.2006 9:23 PM52
Tyler Simons and ex-preacher: Your rhetorical subtlety is lost on people like me. What, exactly, is your point?
posted on 01.24.2006 9:33 PM53
The link given by Baus in his 6:31 a.m. comment didn't work for me. Here's a link that works:
What I Believe About Homosexuality by Lee Irons
It's worthwhile reading.
posted on 01.24.2006 10:35 PM54
Jerry, the whole Sabbath thing is in the old testament. Not only do Jesus and Paul have little time to make sure people observe it, Jesus seems pretty intent on breaking it on numerous occasions to fulfill his obligations to his neighbor.
A lot of the legalistic aspects of the 5 books of Moses are trumped, to put it bluntly by the Christ-event. Jesus, for the most part, says you know, the only commandments you have to worry about are the two about love. (Mt 22:37-40) Paul's common theme about death and sin coming through the law is a warning against too legalistic a relationship with the commandments of Moses. The Sabbath, we can assume, is one of these.
KAM, my rhetorical effort isn't all that difficult to understand. As far as I know, no church in America forbids women from singing or praying out loud. Very, very few forbid women from the pulpit. (Do Conservative Baptists ordain women? I don't know and I'm actually curious.)
This pretty puts each and every church in direct conflict with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Cor. 14:34)
In case you missed the point, Paul repeats himself:
It is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Cor 14:35)
Now, the reason that I bring this up is because it is on Paul's authority that Joe claims a divine prohibition of homosexual acts. My argument is that if he wants to hold this position and keep the rest of his case intact, he must oppose any noise from the fairer sex during any kind of church service. Both positions -- misogyny and homophobia, if you'll permit a bit of exaggerated snarkiness -- are equally critical to "Biblical Christianity."
But wait, some argue, doesn't Paul write letters to Zoe or Phoebe or something like that who has some leadership role in the Church? Isn't it true that the anti-queer stuff in Romans 1 is wrapped up in Paul's central docrine of the fall, essential to the revelation of Christ, while some of his other writing is that of the man, Paul rather than direct revelation?
Well, regardless of what Paul wrote to Zoe or Phoebe or whomever, Paul believes that these commandments against women in the church are a direct revelation from God. Look at the next two verses of 1 Cor 14:
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 C. 14:36-7)
See, if you're going to claim that it's ok for women to preach pray or sing in church, it follows that you must believe Paul to be mistaken in his believe that God commands what he does. If you want to make a case that you can have a tenable "Biblical Christianity" like the one Joe and some of the commentors here claim, you have to get around the fact that some of the things Paul believed to be revealed by God (many of which are the core pillars of the faith, I remind you) are, in fact, historically conditioned customs that are open to revision in light of experience and reason.
But you can't do that, can you, because that's what moderate Christians like myself, for whom Scripture and tradition are mediated by reason and experience, do to justify blessing same-sex unions.
So, I ask again, how do y'all justify betraying God's word, as transcribed by the Apostle Paul, at least, by allowing your women anything beyond silence during worship?
OK. That'll do for now. I'm reposting this comment at my blog, just because I'm filled with sinful pride at the precision of my rhetorical and logical acumen. If you're interested in pointing out why this pride is misplaced, feel free to do so at the Watchpost, as well.
posted on 01.24.2006 11:33 PM55
God, my style could use a little help in that last comment. I should have written:
...Jesus and Paul have little time to devote to making sure people observe it...
and
Jesus, for the most part, says, "You know, the only commandments you have to worry about are the two about love."
There may even be more errors. I apologize to the English language and to all of you.
posted on 01.24.2006 11:37 PM56
Tyler wrote: As far as I know, no church in America forbids women from singing or praying out loud. Very, very few forbid women from the pulpit.
You may be proud of your rhetorical and logical acumen, but if I were you I wouldn't be too proud of my knowledge of American churches.
There are several Protestant denominations in the U.S. that forbid women from singing or praying out loud. In fact, they also dictate that women and men be seated in separate sections of the sanctuary. One of these denominations is the Apostolic Christian Church. Others include some Mennonites churches, and the Amish.
Furthermore, there are a large number of Evangelical churches in the U.S. that do not permit female pastors. Mainline denominations such as the United Methodists and other equally liberal churches do allow women in the pulpit, but it is certainly not true of those who take a more fundamental approach to the Bible.
The key to the relationship of women and men in the church is that of submission of women to men as the spiritual leaders. It is apparent from Paul's writings that this is what he was seeking, if you take a non-proof-text approach to the Scripture. As this relates to homosexuality, it is difficult to conjure a credible story that shows that Paul, Jesus, or other would approve of an act that is so clearly opposite the nature of God's creation.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a very interesting collection of resources on the topics of women in the church, and some about homosexuality.
You might want to study American denominations a bit more...
posted on 01.25.2006 12:10 AM57
A few points.
Tyler:
My Church, the Church of Christ, would disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. We believe that it is not a woman's place to teach in the Church, so woman do not teach. We believe that a man leads prayer, so while women will join in prayer, they will not pray out loud but will bow their heads with the rest of us in participation and silent prayer. So men will lead singing and prayer and our Pastor/Minister/Preacher will be male.
However, when we sing as a body, we all sing and we do not believe the prohibition by Paul covers that. You are free to disagree.
Patrick wrote;
"That means that the prejudice is the result of something other than having just read the Bible.
It's deep-seated, almost instinctual. As such it does not follow or reject Biblical canon."
Have you ever considered that it may be your homosexuality that prejudices you against the Bible?
I'm a married man but I have a strong desire to be an adulterer. It doesn't really seem that wrong sometimes, either. I mean, if the woman I want to be with wants me and I want her and my wife and kids never find out, no harm no foul, right?
As a Christian, however, I am called upon to be better than my desires. To put away my old self and be crucified with Christ.
Don't let your desires get in the way of what you know to be right, Patrick. Crucify your lusts to the cross and follow Christ.
posted on 01.25.2006 12:30 AM58
Ah... Thanks, Ed!
Here it is again to cut&paste:
http://www.upper-register.com/irons_trial/WhatIBelieveAboutHomosexuality(Irons).doc
59
wfseube wrote:
There are several Protestant denominations in the U.S. that forbid women from singing or praying out loud. In fact, they also dictate that women and men be seated in separate sections of the sanctuary. One of these denominations is the Apostolic Christian Church. Others include some Mennonites churches, and the Amish.
Thanks for that. I'm far from a sociologist of Christianity. I'd still bet the number is quite small, in the great scheme of the American faith.
Do you know the status (or lack thereof) of female pastors in the Southern Baptist church? What percentage of American Christians do you think attend churches where women aren't allowed to preach?
The key to the relationship of women and men in the church is that of submission of women to men as the spiritual leaders. It is apparent from Paul's writings that this is what he was seeking, if you take a non-proof-text approach to the Scripture.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-proof-text approach." Could you clarify? Is Joe's "Biblical Christianity" of the proof-text type? 'Cause I don't think he'd support our going into Corinthians and trying to differentiate between what Paul actually meant from what Scripture says. Maybe I missed the point of his post, though. That seems like a hermeneutic quite similar to the one I'd use to justify equal treatment for homosexual and heterosexual acts -- Paul, in laying out the doctrine of the Fall in Romans 1 slipped in that line about unnatural sex as an example to illustrate his larger point about the fallen nature of mankind. He didn't really mean to say that all queer sexual acts are inherently sinful.
Eric and/or Lisa wrote:
However, when we sing as a body, we all sing and we do not believe the prohibition by Paul covers that. You are free to disagree.
You can believe whatever you want w/r/t what Paul meant. I'm talking about what the Bible says. Paul doesn't say women must remain silent unless they're singing, he says they must remain silent. I agree that it's wrong to force women to remain silent in the church. You can make a distinction between what Paul meant and what he wrote, but that road takes you down to the point where you have to make your own judgment call as to where Paul says what he means and where he went a little overboard. That's all we're doing by blessing same sex unions.
posted on 01.25.2006 1:00 AM60
By the way, thanks wfseube for the book recommendation. It's on my wish list now. I read the Biblical resources for gender stuff page. It still seems like so much hair-splitting, even though they do have a rather strict code for women in the church. There's a lot of "Therefore we think Paul means this" type stuff.
In the relevant one of the 50 Crucial Questions for Biblical Gender Relations, the authors of the website are forced to say, in effect, "Paul says women must remain silent, but not totally silent. Silent on specific issues, Paul meant." I just don't buy it, but I allow myself to think that Paul might've contradicted himself on occasion, so I don't have to.
posted on 01.25.2006 1:13 AM61
Tommythecat,
one good cut and paste deserves another . . .
Your "friend" must get around! The list of questions he has asked you seems to pop up everywhere! Did he post them on the Internet, by any chance? I notice that all of his "questions" are taken from the books of Exodus and Leviticus—books of Hebrew law that stand as the foundation of the legal codes of Great Britain and America. It is a sad commentary on today's law training that a degree in law no longer equips a man to understand the laws (i.e., those in the Bible) that are the foundation of both British Common Law and of the American legal system. The American lawyer-turned-evangelist in the 19th century, Charles Finney, was converted to Christianity through the study of law. He kept noticing that "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law" (the standard authority on British and American law at the time) continually referred him back to the Bible to clarify or illustrate legal principles. Finney decided that he ought to read the Bible, in order better to understand his professional field, and ended up becoming a Christian.
In the end of your letter, you wrote: “Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.” Your confusion on every point raised in your letter arises from your mistaken premise that the word of God is in every sense unchanging. The word of God is never invalidated, but it undergoes fulfillment. That is why Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” When a child becomes a man, the child has not been invalidated or destroyed. He has simply reached maturity. The Bible teaches that the ritual temple laws of Judaism were like an instructor to humanity in its childhood, being needed until the arrival of maturity (that is, the appearance of Jesus Christ in history). Until Christ came, the Jews were given instructive rituals to perform that anticipated their fulfillment in the Messiah. When he actually arrived, the anticipatory rituals were replaced by the anticipated reality. “When I became a man, I put away childish things.” The coming of the New Order in Christ has definitely brought a change in the laws of the Old Order (“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law”—Heb.7:12), but the change is one that the Old Order anticipated from the beginning (Rom.3:21).
Of course, people who have no genuine interest in understanding God’s concerns will forever seek for ways to misunderstand the Bible, and will not even discern their own transparent hypocrisy in extrapolating from the acknowledged repealing of the ritual laws a corresponding repeal of ALL biblical laws, including those that define moral absolutes.
While those laws governing temple rituals were provisional and temporary, God’s moral absolutes do not change, for the simple reason that they are the mere reflection of the character of One who Himself never changes (Mal.3:6).
All of your “questions” are easily answered once this principle is recognized, so that I am glad to respond to each one individually, even though I do not have the advantage of a legal education.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Your mockery of the King James English (in using the archaic word spellings) does not testify to sincerity on your part, but merely a desire to make fun of the Bible. The Bible’s veracity can hardly be impugned on the mere basis that it was first translated into English at a time when English words were spelled differently than they presently are. If you are not mature enough to get around the old English without offense, you should be informed that modern English translations are available where the words are spelled just as you would normally spell them.
The system of animal sacrifices is one of the many rituals that has, according to Christianity, become obsolete, since those sacrifices were intended to foreshadow the offering of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world. In the Old Testament, when these things were still being practiced, the sacrifices were offered by priests at a temple site, not in every man’s back yard. I do not know whether neighbors complained about the smoke. Do your neighbors actually complain about the smell when you have a barbecue? Are they vegetarians or something?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I suspect that it is slavery itself that you are actually objecting to. It is an evidence of our cultural provincialism that we find slavery itself (as opposed to the abuse that sometimes accompanied slavery) objectionable. Every society in the world (until about a century ago) had slavery as a feature of its economic life, and many countries (Muslim and African nations) still allow trading in slaves. It was the Christian conscience of western civilization that eventually led to the abolition of slavery here so recently. In ancient Israel, as in other nations, some people became so poor that they had nothing left to barter for food or for the repayment of debts except their children’s or their own freedom. The laws of Israel, however, unlike those of many nations, did not allow an Israelite to be held involuntarily as the property of another for longer than seven years. “Slavery” was thus more like a case of indentured servitude. Though it was indeed lawful to keep foreign slaves (who were generally captives taken in battle) for longer periods, the laws insisted upon just and humane treatment of the slaves, in contrast to that which the laws of other nations allowed. I hope you may not fall upon such hard times financially as to need to sell members of your family into servitude. If you do, you may wish to consult your nearest Sudanese slave merchant as to the going rates.
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell ? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
It is not clear why you would find it necessary to have physical contact with any woman other than your wife. I would be surprised if your wife never lets you know when she is having her period. How does she conceal this from you?
4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
If it were legal, and if Canadians or Mexicans were taken as prisoners of war, then it would be as “kosher” for you to own them as slaves as to own those of any other nation. Likewise, it would be equally ethical for them to own you, if the tables were to be turned.
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The observance of the Sabbath was required of the people of Israel as an evidence of their special covenantal status as a nation chosen by God (Ex.31:16-17). America does not bear such a status with God, and thus is under no obligation to legislate Sabbath observance, or to punish Sabbath-breakers. Relax.
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Fortunately, the laws restricting the eating of certain foods, being rituals associated with temple cleanness, are no longer applicable, since all such temple ritual passed away along with the temple itself in 70 AD, and will never return. Both Jesus (Mark 7:18-19) and Paul (Col.2:16-17/1 Tim.4:4-5) tell us that what we eat is not a matter of importance to God any longer (and never was an issue for Gentiles nations, anyway).
Homosexuality, for obvious reasons, is an issue of a different order. Oh, the reasons are not obvious? I forgot, we moderns have forgotten the difference between normative and aberrant sexuality. Here is a refresher course: The Bible tells us that God created sexuality for the purpose of procreation in heterosexual couples bound to each other for life in a covenant relationship (Gen.1:27-28; 2:24/ Mal.2:15). All sexual behavior that does not conform to this norm (e.g., premarital or extramarital sex, sodomy, beastiality, etc.) is a violation of God’s design and of his commands. Such deviancy is a moral disorder.
I am sure, for example, that you would consider it a moral disorder if the lady next door were to engage in a sexual relationship with her own grandson, or if your neighbor’s daughter were to engage in the same with the family pet (If these cases would not seem immoral to you, perhaps the gang-raping of your own daughter by thirty Hell’s Angels would awaken your moral senses). There are certain sexual behaviors that everybody recognizes as immoral. Since there must be some proper place to draw the line in such matters, we Christians feel that God’s word is a higher authority than is that of a subjective, sex-crazed, self-justifying society in finding that line.
In any case, the Bible itself directly answers your question in 1 Corinthians 6:13. If you have any difficulty understanding this verse, feel free to follow-up with me.
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here?
You needn’t worry about this. The altar of God has not existed for over 1900 years, and it won’t be coming back.
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
The practices of cutting the body and sculpting the hairline in a certain manner were associated with the occult practices named in the same passage you cited (Lev.19:26-28). God forbade his people (Israel) to practice any of the magical and occult arts that were associated with the religions of neighboring nations or to adopt their styles. God was “married” to the nation of Israel by a covenantal bond. For Israel to worship other deities was tantamount to committing adultery against her true husband (God). God’s objection to this, in principle, would be analogous to your objecting to your wife’s wearing a T-shirt around town that said “I love Harry! He’s great in bed!”(Harry being your obnoxious neighbor who breaks everything he borrows from you). If you would not find this objectionable, then the first lesson to be observed is that God is not much like you (which was already evident).
9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Once again, the uncleanness of the pig (and other unclean creatures) was associated with the temple ritual cleanness, which has no continuing relevance to those who live beyond the end of the temple system (ended 70 AD). The ancient Jews had not yet discovered the gridiron, so the ethical dilemma you pose would never have come up. Had they faced this issue in their day, it would have been appropriate for them to decline to touch the football.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
The laws forbidding the sowing of various crops in one field, of wearing garments of mixed cloths, and of plowing with an ox and an ass together were among the ceremonial restrictions that were intended to convey spiritual truths under the Old Testament Order (which is no longer defining of our duty). The spiritual lesson that these particular restrictions were meant to teach is that things that are fundamentally unlike one another (spiritually) should not be joined together. Hence, alluding to the restriction concerning the ox and the ass, Paul wrote, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers”(2 Cor.6:14). The clean beast (ox) was not to be joined under the same yoke with the unclean beast (ass), even as believers (clean in God’s sight) are not to be united with unbelievers (who are unclean in God’s sight).
If you have further difficulty understanding the Bible, you may consider the following remedies:
1. Paul wrote that “The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor.2:14). The problem may be that you are a “natural” (i.e., unsaved) man. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
2. Paul wrote, “Knowledge inflates the pride”(1 Cor.8:1), and Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to babes!”(Matt.11:25). Perhaps, your much learning has made you too arrogant to understand the things of God. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
3. Jesus said, “If anyone is WILLING to do God’s will, he will know concerning my teaching, whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own authority” (John 7:17). Perhaps your problem lies just here. I have found by experience that this is the most widespread defect among those who claim to be baffled by the Scriptures…they simply do not want to obey the will of God for their lives, and thus remain incapable of knowing the truth. God follows his own instructions, and he has said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine, and do not give what is holy to dogs.” We may find the metaphors unflattering, and they do certainly seem a bit unfair. After all, to compare a person who despises and rebels against the benevolent One who has created him and has protected and sustained him throughout his whole life with a pig or a dog is an insult to the latter, since pigs and dogs never do anything contrary to what they were created to do.
According to God’s word, we have all been pigs and dogs in this sense. That is why we needed to be rescued, and that is why God sent his Son to accomplish the rescue. In dying for our sins, Jesus paid the penalty owed for our rebellion and by rising from the dead, he demonstrated that he was who he said he was, and became forever available to govern the lives of those who wisely place their confidence in him. I suspect that it is for lack of your doing this that you find God’s ways perplexing. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=27
posted on 01.25.2006 1:43 AM62
Joe,
While I enjoy reading most of your posts, I have to say that I'm disturbed by the tone of your post here. You do not appear to acknowledge the complexities of this subject, and that is bothersome. Often you seem to consider the nuances, but not in this case. While I come down on the same side as you regarding homosexual activity (in thoughts and deeds) as sin just like heterosexual activity outside of marriage is also, this post seems more like a rant than reasonable argumentation. Careful, bud.
63
Tyler S. wrote;
"You can believe whatever you want w/r/t what Paul meant. I'm talking about what the Bible says. Paul doesn't say women must remain silent unless they're singing, he says they must remain silent."
Yes Tyler, we are both talking about what the Bible says. I thought that was clear. But i'm not reading what you are reading.
1 Timothy 2 says;
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness, I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
I don't see how you can argue that women are not allowed to participate in singing in the Church.
1 Corinthians 14 says
"the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
It doesn't take a well studied minister to see the context here.
I know that you would like it to say something else in order to prove your point, that we Christians for hundreds of years have got it all wrong.
But really, we are confident that women can participate in singing while at Church and that Homosexual sex is just as sinful as if I decided to become an adulterer.
posted on 01.25.2006 6:32 AM64
-- Can an evolutionist correct me if I'm wrong and enlighten us all as to how homosexuality fits into Darwin's plan?
Your ball! --
posted on 01.25.2006 7:40 AM65
Jon:
Well, people have puzzled over the fact that there are a bunch of examples of homosexual activity in the non-human animal world. (No one, as far as I know, believes that penguins live in a fallen world the way we do.)
It seems that homosexual penguin couples, etc are useful for the continuation of species lines because they're the ones who tend to take care of orphaned young. Mating pairs, for obvious genetic reasons, tend not to care for the offspring of other mating pairs. Since gay penguins aren't able to pass their own genes onto the next generation, they don't have the same self-interested urge to ignore other penguins' kids.
Eric and Lisa:
First of all, 1 Timothy is almost definately not written by Paul. The Catholics have a long description of the controversy, if you're interested. In the end, they argue that Paul did write them, but I find their argument (many church fathers -- all of whom were born after the period of Paul's ministry, I might add -- thought they were written by Paul) remarkably unconvincing. Since this is the case, I don't accept for one minute your use of 1 Tim. as "context" for 1 Corinthians. Your making too big of an assumption for that to be possible.
Even if Paul did write 1 Tim, (again, that's a really big "if") I disagree that you can use that book as a contextual resource for understanding a chapter in 1 Corinthians. I could just as easily take the absence of any condemnation of consentual, non-prostitutional homosexual acts in any other book of the NT as context for arguing that Romans 1 isn't really a condemnation of homosexual acts per se. I'm not going to do that, though, and you shouldn't use 1 Tim. the way you are.
Yes Tyler, we are both talking about what the Bible says. I thought that was clear. But i'm not reading what you are reading.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. In other places, NT authors, and Paul himself do say that women should be submissive and not teach men. Paul does not say this in the Corinthians verses in dispute. Paul does not say that it's ok for women to pray out loud or sing in church anywhere. By arguing that Paul meant only that women should not be in leadership positions in the Church with 1 Cor. 34-7, you are claiming that what he meant was different than what he said, which is that "Women should be silent."
You know, I agree with you, I think that Paul didn't actually mean that women should refrain from making any noise in Church. I come to this conclusion, though, by trying to think like Paul and figure out what the spirit behind the letter of the text has to say. I really don't think that this interpretive method, however, is open to those who claim to be "Biblical Christians." Y'all, it seems to me, are stuck with the actual letter of scrpiture. If we're going to try to figure out the author's intent, like modern interpreters do, you've opened a door you don't want to, I believe. Paul's intent in Romans 1, whatever his feelings about gay people, is to establish sin as a punishment for idolatry and to develop his concept of a fallen humanity redeemed by Christ. That's the context of the anti-gay statements in the NT. Using your hermeneutic method, I can just as easily say that yes, 2000 years of Christians have justified a pre-existing, culturally conditioned, macho fear of guy-on-guy action by misinterpreting one or two verses of Romans.
While we're at it, the history of biblical interpretation has very little to do with what the bible actually says. Joe favorably cites Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura. The reason that Luther developed this doctrine was specifically to challenge 1500 years of Christian tradition, who, Luther believed, had missed some very important points. Luther rejected centuries of traditional Christian teaching because he believed it wasn't supported by scripture. I don't think that Christian homophobia is justified, even by Romans 1, and, in my own insignificant little way, I'm following Luther's sola scriptura method in doing so.
posted on 01.25.2006 1:46 PM66
Nature itself points an unbiased finger of disapproval at homosexuality. The most ardent evolutionist would quickly note that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and there is no conceivable merit (natural selection) to a species engaging in unreproductive homosexual anal sex.
This is nonsense. Of course not having children is an 'evolutionary dead end' but it is stupid to take your morality from nature. The individual human is an individual human, not a piece of breeding stock. One doesn't have to abide by 'nature', if one did we would let diabetics die early rather than giving them insulin. As for a general ethical obligation to 'aid the species'... even if you assume people have such an obligation it does not follow that:
1. All sexual acts must be focused on reproduction. As a binding for relationships, sex serves an important role in social stablity.
2. All individuals must have children. Let's note that even if you do want to assert this one can easily be homosexual and have children by engaging in either a few acts of hetrosexual sex or thru artificial means.
Jerry:
The issue of homosexuality is one of the few about which I could be labeled "conservative". But the basis for my opposition to homosexuality derives more from a liberal leaning toward evolution than from an adherence to any Biblical proscription.
Simply put, homosexuality has no place in evolution. It has zero effect upon the gene pool. It does not contribute to survival (beyond momentary individual satisfaction resulting in the release of sexual tension) of the family, of the tribe, of the line, or of the species. It does not increase diversity, produce offspring, or contribute either good or bad mutations of DNA. It has zero effect on evolution.
I don't think your leaning towards evolution is liberal, rather it is incoherent. It is very difficult to figure out where particular traits come from and how they fit into an evolutionary framework. For example, there's evidence that homosexuals tend to be over represented in creative an artistic communities. Suppose the traits that make creativity possible also have a 'side-effect' of resulting in homosexuality 2-5% of the time? It would hardly be the only useful trait that sometimes spawns an ineffective or even harmful side effect. Any attempt to define your ethics by measuring 'what's good for the gene pool' is almost certain to fail because of this lack of relevant information. If, for example, the idea I just tossed out there is correct creativity is certainly good for the gene pool even if it results in a 2-5% reducation in offspring quantity. Focusing on quality is an equally valid and often even better strategy than quantity.
I'm a tad disappointed no one bothered to explore my point. I think the author's concern is that many Churches are obsessed with homosexuality NOT because they are trying to help or guide actual homosexuals but because there are some very vocal, politically active Christians who quite frankly get off condemming sins 'other people' committ. Harping on homosexuality is useful because it easily generates an 'us versus them' mentality & since gays are such a small portion of the population it's unlikely you'll end up alienating many of 'your people'. Now on the other hand imagine they started harping on the remarried divorced people??????
posted on 01.25.2006 2:33 PM67
Eric & Lisa
Have you ever considered that it may be your homosexuality that prejudices you against the Bible?I'm a married man but I have a strong desire to be an adulterer. It doesn't really seem that wrong sometimes, either. I mean, if the woman I want to be with wants me and I want her and my wife and kids never find out, no harm no foul, right?
As a Christian, however, I am called upon to be better than my desires. To put away my old self and be crucified with Christ.
Don't let your desires get in the way of what you know to be right, Patrick. Crucify your lusts to the cross and follow Christ.
Anyone beside me ever find Eric and Lisa to be condescending and arrogant? Prideful even?
Let me spell something out for you since you miss the obvious. Gay men and lesbians also have the same atavistic "ick" response to homosexuality as heterosexuals do. Ideas about the proper behavior for male and female are a very deeply held cultural values. It's starts in the crib, even with such things as choices in color. Blue or Pink ring a bell?
Eric and Lisa assume that I am willing victim of my "desi