The Church and Same-Sex Sexual Relationships: My response to Sam’s guest post
Hi Dojo readers,
Last week I invited my friend and fellow United Methodist, Sam, to write a guest post laying out why he believes the church should affirm same-sex sexual relationships. Sam was gracious and wrote a very cordial, honest, and thought-provoking response to my position (which, for the record, is largely in agreement with the official United Methodist position).
If you have not already read it, please take a moment to read Sam’s post HERE.
I am going to respond to his points individually in a series of posts here in the Dojo in the coming days. Below is my initial response which I hope sets the stage for any further discussion in terms of how I approach this issue and why it matters…
[Note: Sam’s comments are in bold followed by my response.]
————————————
“My overall position is that, responsive to the Holy Spirit’s call to universal holiness, the church should celebrate same-sex/gender marriage and the ordination of LGBTIQ people in the church (and advocate for the same in society).”
To start off with, Sam, I believe it’s absolutely crucial for us to recognize and give due weight to what you are proposing.
You are proposing that the Holy Spirit who inspired both the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek New Testament—which both unequivocally prohibit and condemn sex between persons of the same gender as a form of sexual sin—and who has been active within the Church universal for nearly 2,000 years—in which the voice against same-sex sexual acts has been unanimous—is now the One who is leading you (and others who advocate for same-sex sex’s legitimacy) to go against both the written Word and the ‘great cloud of witnesses’ on this issue.
In other words, unlike other issues in which some (or many) within the Church have been wrong on in the past where there have always been at least a remnant of faithful voices opposing such error (slavery, interracial relationships, women’s roles, etc.), the worldwide and universal Body of Christ has been wrong on the issue of same-sex sexual relationships and the Holy Spirit is only within the past 40 years beginning to set the record straight among His people.
I hope you can appreciate why those of us who hold to orthodox Christian doctrine reject such claims. I believe you can, though most people who are vocal about the acceptance of same-sex sex within the Church assume (and declare loudly!) that our rejection of it is based on things like “bigotry”, “homophobia” and “intolerance.”
I know you have not taken this approach in our discussion thus far, but it’s so common among revisionists (note: I’m not using that term pejoratively, but rather as shorthand for those seeking to revise the Church’s doctrine on human sexuality), that it bears emphasizing at the outset. I hope readers will take note.
At its heart, I would argue, the debate in the Church over same-sex sexual relationships is NOT a debate about whether or not the Church should be “tolerant” rather than “bigoted.” In fact, it’s not even really about sex (though that is the area where the discussion has manifested itself, so sex indeed plays a major part in it).
It is (at least for thoughtful Christians who wrestle with it lovingly–as opposed to cultural voices who thrive on sound-bytes and talking points which over-simplify greatly) a debate about whether Scripture is to be followed on those points which set it at odds with current cultural ethics and in the face of major societal pressure.
Those who want to maintain faithfulness to Scripture, yet who also want to embrace the legitimacy of same-sex sexual relationships to varying degrees (usually depending on whether or not they are “loving” or “committed” or some other qualifying criteria) face a dilemma and have almost always responded in one of two ways:
- Reinterpret Scripture’s teaching on same-sex sexual relationships to exclude such qualified criteria noted above
or
- Concede that Scripture is simply wrong and outdated on this issue and we must look elsewhere for guidance.
Those advocating either of the above often appeal to sociological/psychological arguments to determine whether or not same-sex sex is “harmful”, as well as to (subjective) judgments that “the Holy Spirit is leading” the Church to embrace and accept same-sex sexual relationships as valid expressions of Godly sexuality.
Your response seems to exhibit both of these approaches, Sam. So I’ll begin by responding to the first of the two…
“Interpretation of the Bible alone cannot offer a moral vision for queerness as we speak about it in our time and place…I concede I’ve done less research on the subject, and in the same breath affirm my belief that the Bible doesn’t address queerness in such a way that we are obliged—out of the high regard to God’s authoritative corpus for the church we share—to regard queerness or queer “acts” as sinful. It’s probably accurate, and at least charitable, to note that you’re arguing and that I’m asserting here. Would that I had the means to make an argument! Rather, I can only refer to scholarship that shares (indeed, that has provided the basis for) my view of Scripture just discussed.”
Sam, I very much appreciate your candidness above. This is one of the things I find refreshing about our discussion. I want to commend you for your honesty and I want to lovingly challenge you with the following question: Have you honestly and searchingly read and listened to voices from the historic Christian faith who have specifically addressed the work put forth by revisionists in the past 30 years?
I’m referring to work on the subject by people like Richard Hayes, Tom Oden, Catherine Kroeger, John Stott, Robert Gagnon, and Ben Witherington (representing both Mainline and Evangelical voices, both men and women, Methodist and non-Methodist).
I ask this because what you are asserting (by your own admission), has been reflected carefully and prayerfully upon by some of the most skilled and spirit-filled Biblical scholars in the Church and is, simply put, exegetically untenable.
The arguments put forth in popular works on the subject by revisionists who are often cited by those advocating your position, have all been examined and responded to in detail. Yet many people in the church (on both sides, admittedly) seem almost totally unaware of this and have not done the firsthand research themselves. Thus they simply adopt the position of their favorite author/s on the subject who agrees with what they have already decided about it.
So, as a Bible teacher who has listened to the arguments put forth by many of the scholars whom you gravitate toward on this issue, I can only say that when it comes to understanding the Biblical text and what it does and does not say about same-sex sex, one MUST reject Scripture’s teaching on the subject as WRONG in order to arrive at the position you are advocating.
Of course ,many on the theological left are perfectly comfortable doing this. I don’t think you are, but perhaps I’m wrong. But it really is the only way to honestly and consistently come down in favor of same-sex sexual relationships given Scripture’s overall teaching on the subject.
In other words, after over a decade of studying this issue and listening to the arguments by revisionists, at the end of the day I cannot see any way to hold to the inspiration and authority of Scripture and at the same time advocate for the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (or any other form of porneia for that matter) within the Kingdom of God.
I will respond to your subsequent points in the coming days. But I wanted to reiterate the importance of this discussion and the crucial nature of what is being proposed.
This isn’t an “agree to disagree” issue among Christians (such as, say, Predestination, Church governance, the nature of Communion, etc.) because unlike most matters of doctrinal disagreement, the debate over same-sex sexual relationships hinges upon the acceptance or rejection of actions which are said to separate people from God—in both Testaments.
That means that people’s actual eternal souls are on the line and the Holiness of Jesus’ Bride is at stake.
I’m not saying that to be melodramatic; I’m simply noting it up front because Scripture is replete with examples of humans ability to deceive ourselves or rationalize our sins of choice.
And despite the aversion some may feel at the thought of Jesus condemning anything, Sin does separate people from God in a very real and very insidious way. So if same-sex sexual relationships are a form of sin, then the consequences of condoning and exhorting others to condone it within the Body of Christ are severe and eternal.
That is why those of us who hold to the orthodox position do so with such gravity.
I’ll respond to your other points in the coming days. But in the meantime I invite readers to weigh in in the comments section below with their thoughts thus far!
Blessings from the Dojo,
JM
Categories: Blog, Ministry, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
Dear Sam.
Anyone can interprit Gods word to fit there reasonings for sin they dont want to face, They want God to come around to there way of thinking But God can not do this because God cannot go againts Himself … His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his was Higher than ours. I have heard the same Gender Folks say I was Born this way this is how God Made me … No God did not make them Queer as you say. Again God cannot go againts Himself He is the Creator! Gods Word is clear Man shall not lay with man or woman with woman. this is truth God does not lie. saten is the father of lies/ Why would God tell you not to do this sin (lets call it what it is) and then create it in You to Put it in your dna? He would not do this no more than we are created to be sick, disformed , crippled or other things we may be Born with, This was not Gods intent. Go back to the begining When Man fell sin entered in and it is throughthe fall of the one man Adam that we are born in sin. But through Jesus we have a way out through Salvation through the Death and Resrection of Jesus and when you understand this truth you will see that it is a choice Just as its a choice to spin Gods word to fit thier desires . People want to be Loved and accepted and some will find it where ever they can they have a need and it has to be filled but they want control over it and they want both man and God to meet thier needs according to what they think they need. You also said same sex causes no Harm not true Go and look up every Medical fact about sex and and how men on men and woman on woman can cause harm to themselves and what they can pass on , yes men and woman together can pass on dicease But much more the queer community. Aides originated in the Homosex ,community and other diceases, But look it up and tell the thousands who have died that this should be accepted as good. God is our Father and we his children He wants to keep us from those things that will harm us same sex can Harm. God says do not be unequally Yoked . Do not Blame Holy Spirit for satens lies Holy Spirit will bring you to Gods truth he tells you What God Himself says. Again God Speaks But not two sided out of His mouth He Will Not tell you to do somthing He clearly says not to. I pray you will look to God as a Father taking care of His children keeping them from harm and teaching them wisdom , Would we do anyless for our children.
by Laura on Jun 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Thanks for engaging the issue, Laura. I agree with you that God does not go against God’s Self, nor condemn what has been created or taught. I disagree that God’s Word is clear in the way that you and JM say. And I especially disagree that same-gender/sex sexual activity is harmful.
Our unity lies in commonly believing that Christ Jesus has accomplished our salvation and that the Holy Spirit will bring you and me to God’s truth. I hope we can act out that unity by loving all the way God loves us!
by Sam on Jun 11, 2012 at 2:58 am
Paragraphs 1 and 2.
The Orthodox Church has not been unanimous or unequivocal on same-sex sex. It has been teaching about sex within the cultural framework of the time it was written. At the time it was written there were not same-sex acts or relationships that were free from idolotry, prostitution, or pedophillia. Unfortunately, when scripture was written there were no outlets for homosexuality that approximated same sex RELATIONSHIPS (as opposed to simply same sex acts). Your claim that same sex acts are universally condemned is false. They are condemned in the historical context, a historical context where same sex acts were ONLY used in terms of prostitution, idolatry and pedophillia, all of which seriously transgress the Law of Love.
The only exception to this was Eunuchs, which are blessed and respected by both Christ, the Talmud, and in every Biblical source as different, but likewise blessed just as heterosexuals are blessed.
So the claim that Scripture condemns homosexual acts universally is false, it condemns them in a historical context where these acts were used to initiate things against the Law of Love.
Paragraph 3
The church’s rejection of Homosexuals in some cases, and of homosexual acts in general IS bigotry. Any objection to an act that doesn’t violate the law of love is an act of bigotry writ small, and the rejection of homosexual relationships is an act of bigotry writ large. You may claim to have no hatred in your heart (and I don’t believe you do) but singling out an act that isn’t sinful and doesn’t transgress the law of love and claiming that it is somehow “sinful” is bigotry: the singling out of someone or something which is different in some way and claiming it to be sinful. If you claim that people because of their skin color are more sinful, that is bigotry. If you claim that people who intermarry and have children is sinful, that is bigotry. if you claim that people who are transgender are sinful that is bigotry. If you claim that someone who spikes their hair is sinful, that is bigotry. If you claim that someone who is born with same-sex desire is sinful that is bigotry, and if you claim that acting on some difference you have (even though it doesn’t transgress the law of love) is sinful then that is bigotry.
Simply engaging in acts that are different than the ones you do isn’t sinful. It is transgressing the Law of Love that is sinful. Claiming someone is sinful when they haven’t transgressed the Law of Love is the very height of Bigotry.
You claim that the Church’s proscriptions against same-sex acts isn’t motivated by bigotry. I think that’s preposterous. People aren’t as kindhearted as you, JMS. To claim that the Church isn’t motivated by hate to condemn same sex acts is worse than naive, it, is, in my estimation, turning a blind eye towards hatred, and helping those that hate.
Just as Paul told Peter he was wrong “On his face” I will so tell you that you are wrong on your face. Paul was telling Peter he was wrong because in preserving the Old Law and keeping the gentiles out (as the Judaizers advocated) was not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught the Law of Love whereby all could be let in. Was Peter a Bigot? No. But was he fighting on the side of Bigotry? Yes. The real reason the Judaizers didn’t want to let the gentiles in was racial. That’s why Peter finally agreed with Paul.
Last point: Changing sexual practices is no big deal as long as it doesn’t violate the law of love. Scripture changed from a monogamous sexual practice to a polygamist one, and then Levirate one, and then back to monogamous. It changed its position on the Niddah, on marrying cousins, and on circumcision. Claiming that scripture (or the Church) keeps sexual laws for eternity is false. Levirate marriage existed for 2000 years. So did polygamy. 2000 years isn’t a precedent. Things change. As long as they don’t violate the Law of Love, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9
You are trying to pretend that your position on homosexuality is the “Original one” and that it is trying to be corrupted by “Revisionists”. This is false. Christ’s original teaching is that the Law of Love is supreme over all other things, written in scripture or not. He makes this point many times by observing the Law of Love ABOVE AND OVER the Old Law. Your claim that homosexuality was “originally” and “universally” reviled by Christians is false. Gay marriage was legal in the Early Christian Roman Rule as well as in the following Byzantine empire. It was only after the Christian world absorbed northern and Western European cultures (as the Holy Roman Empire) that their position on this changed to one of intolerance towards
Homosexuals. Your position that Homosexuality is morally wrong is the revisionist one.
Any claim that homosexuality is wrong even though it doesn’t violate the Law of Love is an argument based on culture. You claim that people using arguments to show that homosexual acts don’t violate the Law of Love is based on “opinion”. However, your claim that Scripture prohibits ALL homosexual acts is based on what? Your opinion. Your claim is that you think that God said all homosexual acts are wrong in scripture, even though you can’t demonstrate how these sexual acts are in any way in violation of the law of love. Your argument essentially boils down to this:
“All homosexual acts are morally wrong, because I think God said so. I don’t know why he said so, and I can’t show how homosexual acts are evil, sinful or harmful, but I think God said so.”
This argument doesn’t stand the slightest philosophical muster. It is entirely unprovable, undemonstrable and solipsistic. You could make any act right or wrong because you think God said so. I think long hair is wrong because I think God said so. I think tattoos are wrong because I think God said so. I think having money is wrong because I think God said so.
Paragraphs 10 and 11.
I have read Ben Witherington and Gagnon on the subject. They are extremely poor in terms of ethics and in particular having any ethical basis for their arguments, as well as a flawed and culturally biased view on the subject, again coming from the Anglo-Saxon view of sexual taboos popularized in the era of the Holy Roman Empire.
Paragraph 13
I do not disagree with Scriputre’s teaching on Homosexuality. I disagree with YOUR interpretation of Scriputre being universal and that all homosexual acts are condemned. I further disagree that there is any category of something which is “wrong” or “sinful” that DOES NOT transgress the Law of Love. Your claims do not come from any ethical demonstration of wrongness, they come from a divine command theory of “wrongness” that whatever God says is wrong is wrong, irrespective of the golden rule. Scripture isn’t wrong: you are.
Last Paragraph:
I’d like you to consider the implications of condemnning somethign that is NOT a sin. Because by condemning people that are acting out of pure and true love, you are condemning God himself, for God is love. If you condemn two men who love each other, and you condemn their relationship, you are standing in the way of God, who is love itself. You are piling evil upon those who are trying to do good (by loving one another), and you are further demonizing people (and their actions) who do not deserve to be demonized.
Furthermore, by claiming that all such actions are a sin, you are relagating them to bathouses and dark alleys. By not accepting these relationships, you are driving people out of Church and away from Christ. You are setting up a false and heretical doctrine whereby they are condemned for the very thing Christ enjoined us to do, to love one another. In doing this you are setting up a false Christ and a false Christianity, one that persecutes people for acting out of love. You are doing not only great damage to homosexuals, but you are doing damage to society as a whole by stigmatizing these relationships to the point that people MUST turn to sin as the only outlet, rather than be loves and accepted by their community in a true, loving and responsible relationship.
by Chris Bowers on Jun 8, 2012 at 6:52 am
[…] here for Part 1 of James Michael Smith’s […]
by Thought of the Day 06/06/12- “The Church and Same-Sex Sexual Relationships: A Response” | Letters From the Top on Jun 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm
[…] read my 3-part response to Sam’s main points HERE, HERE, and […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response (continued) on Jun 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm
[…] My response (1) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-2 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response (continued, 2) on Jun 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm
[…] https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-2 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-3 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-4 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » A respectful Methodist dialogue on Christian LGBT ethics (Part 1) on Jul 8, 2015 at 5:29 pm