Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response to Sam
We’ve been having a discussion here in the Dojo between myself and a reader friend, and fellow Methodist on the subject of same-sex sexual relationships.
If you’re just joining us, read Sam’s initial guest post can HERE.
Then read my 3-part response to Sam’s main points HERE, HERE, and HERE.
In the next few posts I will be responding to Sam’s second guest post (which can be read HERE). As always, Sam’s comments are in BOLD, followed by my response.
Let’s jump right in, shall we?
—————————
Very quickly off the bat: it’s not clear to me that “current cultural ethics” is on the side of queer marriage and ordination. In the US context, 33 state plebiscites since 1998 have yielded 32 victories for opponents of same-sex/gender marriage. In the UMC context, the eleven General Conferences since and inclusive of 1972 have forbidden “homosexual practice,” including the one that happened a few weeks ago. We will probably do so several more times. But that’s a minor point. Moving right along:
Point taken. I should have said “current pop cultural ethics” (i.e. media, entertainment, metropolitan culture, etc.)
I’d like to suggest that our conversation can no longer be about whether Scripture is unanimously against queerness. You will invariably say that it is and I will invariably say that it is not. We’ve both pointed to scholars who support our side; and though you’ve read more scholarship, it doesn’t mean the scholars from whom I derive reasonable doubt about the Bible’s condemnation of queer acts can be discounted from the basic premise of our conversation…I don’t mean to say that these arguments cease to function as constituent parts of our consciences. What I mean to say is that we’ll gain no ground asking one another to dwell on the texts or the secondary literature.
This is, indeed where our divergence is most pronounced and most critical.
For me (and those taking the orthodox position within the UMC), Scripture’s teaching is the highest authority on the subject that we have and overrides any other claim which stands in contradiction to it. This is because we see it as the authoritative writings of God’s prophets and the very Apostles whom Jesus commissioned to take the Gospel to the world.
This is why study of the texts of Scripture and the contextual/hermeneutical question of same-sex sexual relationships should be the foundational task of any Christian seeking to speak faithfully on the subject, I would argue.
And while I respect and appreciate your candid honesty and congenial tone throughout this discussion, Sam, I believe that you have (for lack of a better way to put it, and no offense intended) read just enough work from revisionist scholars to enable you to justify the conclusion you had previously determined to be correct but have not given the same degree of effort to engaging the many, many refutations of revisionist conclusions from the historic and orthodox stream of Christian thought on the subject (such as, for instance, pieces like THIS or THIS). Again, I don’t mean that to sound insulting or belittling on a personal level. It’s just an observation that I’ve drawn from your words thus far. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
As a Biblical teacher this is what I find most troublesome about many discussions on the issue of “homosexuality and the Bible.”
Rather than admitting that their conclusions are exegetically problematic and that they are seeking to bend the text just enough to cast doubt on it, thus making it secondary in the discussion, many revisionists seek to embrace parts of Scripture that they feel can be used to make their case, but at the same time reject or creatively reinterpret the parts that are diametrically opposed to their proposed conclusion when it comes to sexual ethics–though of course I recognize that people do this on every side of nearly every theological issue…but it often reaches new levels of such when the issue is same-sex sexual relationships, due most likely to its divisive and highly emotional nature within mainline denominations where it is under debate.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a conscious effort on their part (and certainly not on yours!) to be deceitful or dishonest…I think it comes from a genuine desire for the Bible to not say what it in fact seems to be saying. However, those who don’t have firsthand knowledge in things like contextual exegesis, ancient Near East/Greco-Roman cultural background, and primary languages of Scripture (i.e. the average lay reader) are often left with the impression that the revisionist’s position is exegetically valid, or that the issue is simply “too complex” or “unclear” in terms of what the authors of Scripture actually wrote.
Now to be clear, there are many levels of depth and nuance in terms of what the Biblical authors are addressing when it comes to same-sex sexual behaviors. I don’t want to in any way deny this. And a simplistic Fundamentalist approach is just as unacceptable in terms of generating intelligent and faithful reading of Scripture within the Body of Christ as opposed to cultural-/folk-theology.
But, I maintain, the Biblical position on same-sex sexual relationships really isn’t overly complicated to the point of being unintelligible. It is consistent and unequivocal in terms of its basic teaching on the subject. Namely that engaging in sexual relationships with someone of the same gender is sinful in the eyes of God and incompatible with Jesus’ call to a life of radical Discipleship.
What is excluded is the dichotomy you present: either we have to “Reinterpret Scripture’s teaching on same-sex sexual relationships… [,] or [c]oncede that Scripture is simply wrong and outdated on this issue and we must look elsewhere for guidance.” The problem is that you’ve excluded the possibility of my Scriptural argument holding any water. Again, for the purposes of your argument, predicated as it is on your study and conscience, yes, Scripture is clear and so we’re forced into that two-way street. And if you were right, yes, I would have to admit the former possibility (thank you for presuming I want to be faithful to Scripture; I do, and I hope that I am, and so I reject the second option you present). I would have to admit that a re-interpretation of Scripture is necessary to accommodate a sexual ethic that comes from elsewhere, and doing so is problematic for Christians like us.
I appreciate you admitting this, Sam. It is important to me that you (and readers who may be leaning toward your conclusions thus far) see that what you are engaging in is, in fact, reinterpretation seeking to accommodate an ethic that is foreign to historic Judeo-Christian streams of thought. (But I must admit that I find the underlined part above to be somewhat of a contradiction of the first sentence in that paragraph, honestly. It seems that you are proposing exactly what I state as the first option–reinterpreting Scripture’s teaching on the subject in order to accommodate it. Am I missing something?)
And yes, I have excluded the possibility of the arguments you are advocating holding water, from an exegetical/hermeneutical perspective…but only after having examined (and continuing to examine) them and interacting with them for the past 15 years or so. I say that not to brag or claim infallibility on my part or anything like that. I only note it to let you (and readers) know that I’m not discounting your position out of hand or flippantly; but rather, as someone who is generally competent in the field of Biblical interpretation yet honestly finds them severely lacking on the level of historic/contextual/exegetical grounds.
(However, if you or any readers have particular works by revisionist scholars that you feel are the strongest and most definitive/convincing works in terms of exegesis, please share them with me and I will do my best to interact with them in more detail as time allows.)
But for just a moment, if we flip it around and presume for the sake of argument that my Scriptural assertion is correct, then I’m really not forced into either of those choices, am I? I could (and do) say: the Holy Spirit has never forbidden lesbian or gay relationships and we have misinterpreted Scripture for a long while on the matter… Again, you don’t have to hold this, JM, and you have a greater ability to deal with the biblical foundation of its force. But what I’m talking about really is something of a refereeing suggestion for where our conversation can go from here. As arrogant as my ethical stance that “we can know the harm that sin does” may have been (and to the extent that that was arrogant I apologize and will clarify more below)… quid pro quo JM, consistently telling me that your position is “orthodox” and representative of the “unanimity” of the Holy Spirit’s leading—suggestions which are not uncontested givens in this conversation, but which are the very items under consideration—is perhaps less than charitable to me. I suggest we move away from making those suggestions.
I agree that we can move on from those assertions, now that they have been made and acknowledged by both of us.
I believe it’s important to lay foundations and groundwork when discussing complex cultural and Biblical issues, and much work must be done up front to clear away the roots and rocks before the seeds of clear and honest dialogue can be planted.
All the above discussion can be summed up thus: I disagree that we are any longer able to appeal to Biblical clarity (though we both are committed to Biblical authority) for the sake of our conversation. So to what can we appeal? Well, we’ve had an interesting back-and-forth on that topic which I’d like to discuss, drawing especially from your second response. You have noted that there is a “discernable spiritual harm” in queer sexual relationships—namely, the harm that comes from disobeying God’s commands. But if I’m reading you correctly, JM, you’re saying that we don’t need to speak of sin as discernable harm in order to establish sinfulness. The necessary and sufficient basis for establishing sinfulness is lack of correlation to God’s commands—God says don’t do it, we do it, it’s sinful… Is that a fair summary of your position? Indeed, as you go on to say, only a Scriptural interpretation “for that reason alone”—only because it is the authoritative command of God—has any traction for you on the moral question of queerness. (I have to say that you’re probably not too far away from how our ancestor in the faith John Wesley would weigh in here.) This is an important point to keep in the foreground of this response.
Yes, Sam. That is a fair assessment. And I appreciate the acknowledgment that it is how Wesley himself approached various moral issues. Many Methodists who seek to redefine our position on same-sex issues seem unaware of how “un-Wesleyan” their views are in terms of things like holiness and sin. So I very much appreciate you noting this.
Let me attempt to summarize where we are differing thus far. As far as I can tell, you are advocating that:
1) the vast majority of Jews and later Christians have been misinterpreting Scripture when it comes to the Old and New Testament prohibitions of same-sex sexual relationships
and
2) the label of “sin” can only be applied to thoughts or actions which can be shown to produce demonstrable harm to humans or to God.
Is this correct?
Likewise, I am advocating that:
1) the vast majority of Jews and later Christians have been correct in recognizing the prohibitions of same-sex sexual relationships found within the Old and New Testaments
and
2) thoughts or actions which God has prohibited can in fact be labeled “sin” even if we cannot show demonstrable harm to humans or to God that they cause.
Are we on the same page here?
You dwell for a while on the Imago Dei issue, and I’m glad for it because it’s worth talking about. Again, acknowledging that I have nothing like the exegetical resources of you or Gagnon, I will point out in passing that both of you presume that the “image of God” metaphor in Genesis 1 is somehow more important or paradigmatic than the other places the “image of God” is brought up in Scripture… a presumption that I find problematic from the interpretive perspective of Jesus (never himself a part of any sexually complimentary union) as Christ. I take Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18 and Colossians 1:15ff as pretty good indicators that “image/likeness” language in the Bible doesn’t necessarily reach its apex in Genesis 1; that is, saying that the Image of God necessarily or even primarily means anything about gender (much less gender complimentarity, see 1 Cor. 11:7) is tough to reconcile with a Christ-centered textual reading with respect to the Imago Dei. But as always, I look forward to your input here, JM.
Yes, I agree that the doctrine of the Imago Dei does not reach its “apex” in the Creation narrative.
However…
I believe God does set its foundational trajectory there in terms of human sexual relationships and gender complementarity.
I believe this is why Jesus and Paul (both of whom, as you note, were not involved in sexual relationships at all) both set their discussions of sexual relationships/marriage within the context of the Creation narrative of Genesis 1-2–Jesus in his discussions of marriage, celibacy and divorce, and Paul in his discussion of same-sex sexual relationships in Romans 1.
So, I would argue, while Jesus and Paul didn’t teach that in order to bear the Imago Dei one must be involved in a sexual relationship via marriage, they did teach that the concept of a sexual relationship expressing the Imago Dei is authoritatively and foundationally rooted in the male-female union of marriage as set forth in Gen.1-2, and that humanly-determined deviations from this in terms of other sexual relationships (hetero-, homo-, or other) are ultimately sinful attempts at redetermining our boundaries according to our own fallen and flawed judgment (which Paul explicitly states, in his discussion of the subject in Rom.1, is the result of God “giving over” humanity to its idolatrous nature).
As the late John Stott put it (regarding Jesus):
The complementarity of male and female sexual organs is only a symbol at the physical level of a much deeper spiritual complementarity…
It is of the utmost importance to note that Jesus himself later endorsed this [i.e. Gen.1-2] Old Testament definition of marriage. In doing so, he both introduced it with words from Genesis 1:27 (that the Creator ‘made them male and female’) and concluded it with his own comment (‘so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate’, Matthew 19:6). Here then are three truths which Jesus affirmed: (1) heterosexual gender is a divine creation; (2) heterosexual marriage is a divine institution; and (3) heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention. A homosexual liaison is a breach of all three of these divine purposes…
This argumentation is the opposite of “biblical literalism”… It is rather to look beneath the surface of the biblical prohibitions to the essential positives of divine revelation on sexuality and marriage. It is significant that those who are advocating same-sex partnerships usually omit Genesis 1 and 2 from their discussion, even though Jesus our Lord himself endorsed their teaching.
“Issues Facing Christians Today” pp.456-460 (Zondervan 2006)
Or as our own UM scholar Ben Witherington puts it (regarding Paul):
[Romans 1:] 26–27 are about as clear a condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior as exists in the NT. Paul speaks of actions, not inclinations, attitudes, or genetics.He says quite literally that those who practice such behavior have exchanged the natural function of intercourse for that which is against nature. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman tradition there was a long history of seeing such behavior as “unnatural” or counter to the way God originally created and intended things to be (Plato, Laws 1.2; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.758; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Philo, Abraham 26.135; Special Laws 2.14.50; Josephus, Apion 2.25, 199; 2 Enoch 10.4).Paul certainly believes there is a natural order of things that God put into creation which ought to be followed. In v. 27 he speaks of a corresponding penalty for such “unnatural” behavior. “The punishment not only fits the crime, but directly results from it as well.”Such behavior is a constant means of putting God to the test. The just decree of God concerning all the listed vices is that those who do them deserve death—and yet God has sent his Son to call both Gentile and Jew to a better way, a way out of human darkness and fallenness. In Paul’s view homosexual behavior flows naturally from idolatry in that it is a rejection of the creation order that the Creator God set up in the first place.27“For him it is a way in which human beings refuse to acknowledge the manifestation of God’s activity in creation.”
Paul’s Letter to the Romans : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary” p.69 (Eerdmans, 2004)
There is MUCH more that could be said about the Imago Dei and its implications in terms of the issue of marriage/sexuality. But I will leave off on it for now and direct anyone interested to the various commentaries on Genesis, the Gospels and Romans. I very much recommend the chapter on same-sex sexual relationships in Richard Hays’ (another UM scholar who teaches at Duke) “The Moral Vision of the New Testament.”
I’ll respond to your comments regarding my statement about wishing that Scripture said differently on this subject in my next post, as I believe what I communicated was not worded very well and was misunderstood.
Blessings from the Dojo,
JM
[stay tuned for my response to the rest of Sam’s points this week and invite others to follow along with us in this dialogue.]
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Ministry, New Testament, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
I have one clarification real quick, JM, as I’m sure we’ll each have more substantial stuff about this as time goes on.
Regarding the passage you underlined in the third quotation, yes, that is supposed to be in contradiction to the first point because it’s a conditional. I reject the dichotomy you present. But then I say that “if you were right” then I would have to admit the underlined passage. I DO NOT ACTUALLY admit that we have to re-interpret Scripture; I only *would* do so if I admitted you are correct, which I did briefly *for the sake of argument*.
Apologies if that was unclear. Does that help your reading at all?
by Sam on Jun 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying, Sam.
by jm on Jun 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Couple quick thoughts and questions.
#1. Catholics claim that contraception is an affront to the “Imageo Dei”. If the “Imageo Dei” is really a cut and dried concept, could you explain how, objectively, you can prove that they are wrong (since you don’t agree with the Catholic Church on contraception)?
Forgive me, but I’ve heard many Theologians wax poetic about concepts that are “firmly rooted in scripture” and then used them to justify or disqualify a number of behaviors or policies, everything from the death penalty to communism.
#2. You claim in this post that you’ve studied the homosexuality issue for 15 years and not found pro homosexual claims to the contrary very convincing. However, in our arguments about the issue (in the last 15 years) you HAVE been convinced by arguments of the pro homosexual side. Namely:
A. That the Sodom story is not representative of homosexuality, as anti-gay theologians claim.
B. That the terms Arsenokoitai and Malakoi in 1 Cor do not in fact refer to homosexuals or homosexual behavior.
I feel it would be fair to mention that not all the exegesis on the anti-homosexual side is correct. You present it as if you are an expert and this is a slam dunk, when really anti-gay theologians have been proven wrong on these two counts.
#3. Oddly specific question:
Romans 1 has:
24. Because of this, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
What “this” is Paul referring to in this passage. In other words, Paul says “because of this, they were lustful”.
What “this” is Paul talking about? What does the pronoun “this” refer to.
Other translations have “Therefore”, but that’s the same deal. What is the causal link that caused these people to be lustful.
This is one point of the exegesis in Romans which I think is critically important, but that you haven’t addressed when I mention it.
I am obviously not trying to start a debate here, because the current debate is too interesting to be taken over by side debates. But in any case, I would like you to address these three specific questions.
by Chris Bowers on Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Just a quick reply…as Im not quite sure what you’re claiming
Sodom was about homosexual gang rape being symptomatic of how wicked they were in general.
Malakoi and Arsenokoitai most likely refer to the passive and active partners in male-male sex based on LXX evidence.
The other question I don’t have time to go into now bit perhaps in the future I may.
by jm on Jun 19, 2012 at 11:02 pm
IIn case readers are curious about the mysterious words in 1 Corinthians, here is an excellent post on the topic:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=15130&postcount=20
by Chris Bowers on Jun 20, 2012 at 12:12 am
>Malakoi and Arsenokoitai most likely refer to the passive and active partners >in male-male sex based on LXX evidence.
I find it interesting that you haven’t put this forward as evidence but instead rely on Romans. And i find this claim to be incredibly dubious, as dubious as suggesting that male bonding ceremonies were Gay marriage.
What does “most likely” mean?
Does that mean “We have no idea what it actually means because evidence about these terms are scant, but the most likely option is this”
Or does it mean “It’s very likely that’s what these terms meant.”
Do you have any proof to your claim that these two words refer to homosexuals other than your opinion?
I think it’s very unfair and bordering on dishonest to say “most likely”. There isn’t any sort of proof about what these words meant as they were very obscure slang words, the meaning of which we will never definitively know.
by Chris Bowers on Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17 am
> Sodom was about homosexual gang rape being symptomatic of how wicked > they were in general.
And so the claim that anti gay proponents put forth that it proves that homosexual acts are morally wrong is false.
So, in that, you have come to learn, in your 15 years study, that the side you support is wrong in this assertion.
And you don’t have any proof that the words mentioned in 1 Cor really mean “homosexual in any sense” and a more fair characterization is that scholars really have no idea WHAT they mean, as they were slang, rarely used terms from the time period.
I just think it’s fair, if you’re to claim that Boswell’s stuff is overblown, for you do admit on your side that these two claims: that 1 Cor definitively refers to homosexuals and that Sodom proves homosexuality is wrong, is something that you have “learned” is not the strength of your side of the aisle, anymore than I can say that male bonding ceremonies are DEFINITIVELY gay marriage.
And so your original claim, that you’ve investigated this subject for 15 years and have found any claim on the other side to be baseless isn’t really true.
In fact those are two areas on your side of the aisle that you have found (or rather that I have pointed out) are lacking.
by Chris Bowers on Jun 20, 2012 at 2:35 am
Please show where I’ve ever mentioned Sodom in this discussion.
Just because I argue that revisionists are wrong on their conclusion that same-sex sex is not always sinful doesn’t mean I hold to every argument ever made by traditionalists. That’s a total non-sequitur.
As for Paul’s terms, just because revisionists argue that they are unknowable doesn’t make them right. The LXX evidence is more than enough to demonstrate what they mean with a fairly high degree of certainty. This is why the majority of NT scholars are not persuaded by arguments about their unknowability despite the work appealed to by Soulforce and other revisionist groups.
by jm on Jun 20, 2012 at 3:00 am
Okay, JMS, here is the paragraph I’m talking about, which you wrote:
>And yes, I have excluded the possibility of the arguments you are advocating >holding water, from an exegetical/hermeneutical perspective…but only after >having examined (and continuing to examine) them and interacting with >them for the past 15 years or so. I say that not to brag or claim infallibility on >my part or anything like that. I only note it to let you (and readers) know >that I’m not discounting your position out of hand or flippantly; but rather, as >someone who is generally competent in the field >of Biblical interpretation yet >honestly finds them severely lacking on the >level of >historic/contextual/exegetical grounds.
You are talking in generalities here about the sum total of all arguments made by the liberal side of Biblical Scholarship. You are asserting to your audience here that none of those arguments are convincing.
But that’s simply not true, some of their arguments about homosexuality are convincing, and the Sodom story is one of them. Sodom does nothing to condemn homosexual acts, because the men who were supposedly engaging in them were trying to gang rape people. In addition to that, the words are ambiguous (to know, or to know in the carnal sense) and it may have had nothing to do with sex at all.
Thus the traditionalists claims that Sodom proves that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t hold any water.
>Just because I argue that revisionists are wrong on their conclusion that >same-sex sex is not always sinful doesn’t mean I hold to every argument >ever made by traditionalists. That’s a total non-sequitur.
It’s not a non-sequitur.
Let’s compare these two claims:
A. I’ve studied this for 15 years and no argument that liberals make hold any water.
B. I’ve studied this for 15 years and many (the majority?) of the arguments that liberals put forth don’t hold any water.
In the above paragraph, you were saying A. That’s how it came across. But in actuality the case is more like B, because you don’t hold to some of the traditionalists’ argumentation.
I think it’s important to communicate to your audience that some of the arguments put forth by traditionalists you don’t subscribe to because they are incorrect. Just as I disagree with Boswell on certain points, you disagree with traditionalists on this issue at certain points.
____________________________________________________________
>As for Paul’s terms, just because revisionists argue that they are >unknowable doesn’t make them right. The LXX evidence is more than >enough to demonstrate what they mean with a fairly high degree of >certainty. This is why the majority of NT scholars are not persuaded by >arguments about their unknowability despite the work appealed to by >Soulforce and other revisionist groups.
This kind of argument makes me want to punch the screen. And I’ll tell you why.
Let me explain something to you JMS. I will be very clear. The vast majority of Biblical Scholars are bigots.
Do you understand that?
The vast majority of Biblical Scholars are bigoted against homosexuals.
You have conservatives, then conservative Christians, and then conservative Christian Biblical scholars. These are, by and large, not people known for their progressive viewpoints, and the vast majority garner a hatred, dislike and disgust for homosexuals.
So when you say that who specifically have made no secret to their hatred towards a group of people find themselves translating ambiguous words in a way that oppress those same people which they hate, it makes me want to punch the screen, break the keyboard over my knee, throw my computer out the window, and break down the walls of a Church with a spoon. Why a spoon? Because it would take longer and be more annoying. Imagine every Sunday hearing a spoon scratch concrete while you are listening to hymns. It’s not pretty, my friend.
Let’s imagine it’s 700 AD. Time machine time. And you came up to me and said “Slavery isn’t justified by the curse of ham, nor is it justified by original sin.”
And I said to you “Well, I don’t have any truck with “revisionists”, THE MAJORITY OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARS BELIEVES THAT SLAVERY IS SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE. The Orthadox Church, the Catholic Church, even Augustine and Aquinas believe that the Bible sanctions it. ”
“Sorry “Liberal Revisionist” I’m going to stand with the majority of Biblical scholars on the subject. Save your new age tofu egalitarian ideas for your french hippie commune with the Cathars, okay?”
You don’t have a SHRED of proof that Malakoi or Arsenkotai refer to homosexuals at all. If you did you would proffer it.
You don’t have a single passage written in the Bible or any other book that clearly points to either word’s meaning.
You don’t have any proof that either didn’t mean “effeminate”, “cross dresser”, “male prostitute”, “player” or “pimp.”
You have nothing, no objective proof whatsoever. What you offer as “evidence” is simply the opinion by bigoted scholars that the group they hate should continue to be oppressed.
Wow, I’m REALLY SURPRISED that a group that so vehemently hates homosexuals would allow personal bias to come into play when translating a word which we don’t know the meaning.
So let’s hear a sentence from any book, written at ANY TIME that definitively PROVES that either word means “homosexual” and NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
I’m all ears.
by Chris Bowers on Jun 21, 2012 at 4:59 am
“The vast majority of biblical scholars are bigoted against homosexuals.”
And with that you’ve just excused yourself from any rational conversation.
by jm on Jun 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm
[…] My 2nd response (1) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-6 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response (continued, 2) on Jun 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Okay, so your claim is that there is not and never has been any bigotry towards any homosexuals in any church by conservatives or biblical scholars, ever.
Is that your claim?
Yes, Biblical scholars are more likely to be bigoted because CONSERVATIVES are more likely to be bigoted.
I know that YOU aren’t bigoted, but to claim that there is not, nor has never been bigotry in the Christian Church towards homosexuals is MORONIC.
by Chris Bowers on Jul 13, 2013 at 1:27 am
[…] https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-4 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-5 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-6 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-7 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » A respectful Methodist dialogue on Christian LGBT ethics (Part 1) on Jul 8, 2015 at 5:28 pm