Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response (continued, 2)
Hi Dojo readers!
We are nearing the end of my discussion with friend and fellow Methodist, Sam, over whether or not Christians can embrace same-sex sexual relationships as valid outlets for Godly sexual expression.
Sam and I both believe that regardless of one’s sexual orientation or desires, every person is of sacred worth and deserving love, compassion, and human dignity.
Where we differ is on the question of whether or not same-sex sexual activity is inherently sinful, and thus to be placed in the category of other sexual sins, or whether committed same-sex sexual relationships are in line with God’s will for human sexuality.
For ease of following along, links to the entire discussion thus far are:
Sam’s initial guest post – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-1
My response (1) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-2
My response (2) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-3
My response (3) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-4
Sam’s rebuttal guest post – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-5
My 2nd response (1) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-6
My 2nd response (2) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-7
Below is the 3rd part of my response. My final concluding thoughts will be posted next week, so stay tuned!
And let me once again thank Sam for his gracious and respectful approach and demeanor throughout this exchange. If only everyone who debated this issue would take note! Thanks so much, Sam.
Again, Sam’s comments are in BOLD, followed by my response.
———————-
Again JM, the rhetorical force of your statement, that “the Holy Spirit is only within the past 40 years beginning to set the record straight among His people,” is palpable at first blush. But it’s fortunate that this isn’t the centerpiece of your argument since we both acknowledge that the Holy Spirit only within the past century has set the record straight vis-à-vis women’s ordination. We clearly didn’t read Scripture right about women and ordination for some 1700 years; can we be so sure about our Scriptural clarity on queerness now? We shouldn’t be skeptical about the ways God can Isaiah 43:18-19 us, even in 40 years’ time, even today, even now. And indeed, you’re not skeptical in that way—we return again to the fact that it’s only on the merit of your biblical interpretation, supported as it is by other extremely knowledgeable scholars, that your argument rests. So you could (and perhaps must?) concede that, since the church has in at least one other significant way massively misinterpreted Scripture vis-à-vis polity and sexual ethics, and since the official church has egregiously erred in its treatment of queer people even if we presume for the sake of argument that the loving thing to do is to bar them from marriage and ordination, it’s at a little tough to say that the Holy Spirit has in any meaningful way been leading us to live the way we’ve been living. Am I off base here?
I think you are indeed off base a bit, Sam. And here’s why I say that.
The question of ordination has been one of ecclesiology rather than ethics—particularly sexual ethics. The church universal has been divided for centuries in how best to go about the task of ordination, governance, leadership, etc. Yet despite that (and this is significant, I believe) it has maintained a universal voice up until the past 40+ years when it comes to same-sex sexual relationships being sinful (though I readily admit that many within the church have acted shamefully at times to those who suffer from same-sex sexual desire).
For instance, there have always been women who have been teaching, preaching, and ministering in some way in the Church since the time of Scripture. It’s not accurate to say that only in the past century has we finally gotten it right when it comes to women in leadership positions. While many, even the majority of Church leaders have not embraced women in leadership over men in a teaching capacity, that position stands in direct tension with actual Scriptural evidence…in both Testaments. And throughout the centuries there have been Christians who recognized this (Susanna Wesley would be an excellent example of such). Like other doctrinal issues, such as Predestination/Freewill, Infant/Believer Baptism, etc., the issue of women in ministry positions has had a history of debate and there is Biblical teaching that can be brought to bear on the issue.
Yet this is simply not the case when it comes to same-sex ethics. Thus the comparison (as William Webb has pointed out thoroughly) is not quite applicable, despite its rhetorical and surface appeal. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible do we find anything saying that God judged pagan nations for allowing women to teach men. Nor do we find the allowing of women to teach men listed in the New Testament as something that will keep anyone from inheriting the Kingdom of God or being an outcome/symptom of human idolatry. Yet we find both of these when it comes to same-sex sexual activity. This is worth considering carefully, as according to Scripture this is not on the same level as doctrinal debates. There’s a severity to this which is startling and sobering (as I noted in my initial response post to you last round).
The point is this: being consistently oriented to will to commit sins may not be in and of itself sinful but it certainly is pathological.
PRECISELY.
Addiction to alcohol isn’t sinful but it’s certainly something that we need to minister to because it does clear harm, harm we can speak about without recourse only to esoteric Scripture passages.
I disagree. I believe addiction to alcohol is sinful and does harm. Both/and not either/or.
Ditto pornography. What clear harm does consuming pornography do? Presuming it harms no one socially/work-wise/kin-wise, why forbid it? Well, certainly not just because God said so. It’s because consuming pornography entails objectivizing another person (a subject of sacred worth)…
Says who though?
Who’s to say that someone who consumes pornography or fantasizes lustfully about another person can’t maintain that the person they are lusting after is a human being who they desire to be in relationship with (think the infamous pool scene in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” for example! J)?
I believe there is a deeper and more personally subjective component to sin, particularly sexual sin, than what can be measured in terms of “harm.” This is why Paul tells the Corinthians that those who engage in sexual sin engage in sin against their own bodies (1Corithians 6:18). It is very much worth pausing to note that nothing is said about “objectifying another” or any of the other aspects of sexual sin; rather, one who sins sexually is said “eis to idion soma hamartanei” (“to sin toward his own body”). If we reduce this concept to mere “harm”, we miss a key aspect of the spiritual diagnosis of sin, I believe.
…and also more than likely (though not necessarily) involves supporting an industry that has erected a system of person-objectification. That’s real, tangible, discussable harm—harm predicated on our faith that God has created us and called that creation very good.
Sam, I agree that those harms may be present (though not necessarily. One can sinfully lust after bra ads in the Sears catalogue, pre-teens on the Disney Channel, TV New Anchors, or other non-pornographic material depending upon the various natures of their sexual temptations)…but it seems that this is where we most clearly differ:
I argue that sin makes something harmful, whereas you seem to be arguing that harm makes something sinful.
If God has indeed spoken on the sinfulness of a subject (which, in terms of same-sex sexual relationships, in both the Old and New Testaments, he has), then we need no other reason to declare it sinful–though there may very well be other reasons we can perceive.
This is not in any way “arbitrary”, as many claim, because God’s very nature is not one of arbitrariness. If God prohibits something to His people, since He is the source of all goodness, justices, righteousness and truth, then we may be assured that there are good, just, right and true reasons why it is to be prohibited. Does this require a degree of faith? Of course. That’s the essence of true Godly obedience…just ask anyone in Hebrews’ famous “hall of faith”!
If God has clearly commanded or prohibited something (which is why I say that the entire issue hinges on the exegesis of the texts in question!), then it is not arbitrary. Just as it may seem “arbitrary” from a child’s perspective when the parent tells them not to walk on a patch of grass, from the perspective of the parent there is a good reason for prohibiting it…even if it’s a reason the child does not have the capacity at the time to appreciate. This is the opposite of arbitrary.
God’s prohibition of sexual sins (including, but not limited to same-sex sexual acts) is most definitely not arbitrary. Like all sin, sexual sin causes real harm—to ourselves and to others (if others are involved). If we only deem sinful what we deem to be harmful by our own human standard, then we are sublimating the command of all-knowing, all-loving, almighty God to our limited human understanding and placing the authority of our ethical judgment above the authority of God’s revealed will. This is especially egregious when done in the name of “holiness”, because it’s calling darkness light and light darkness–the very opposite of holiness.
For Christians who see Scripture as a reflection of God’s authority, and the rule of faith for God’s people, this is simply not an option. That’s why I maintain that the controversy regarding same-sex sexual relationships is not, at its heart, one of sexuality. Rather, it’s one of authority. Sexuality just happens to be the battleground upon which it is being fought.
Indeed, pornography consumption is something of an entrée into a fruitful discussion of the harm of idolatry. We agree that idolatry doesn’t harm human people and does harm God. But here’s a subtle truth that I need to take a little time to tease out. Idolatry doesn’t harm God because God said not to worship idols and doing so steps on the toes of God the rule-maker. God said not to worship idols because doing so is actually wrong, actually harmful. In a similar way that masturbating to an image of a person reduces the sacred worth of that person to a means for one’s own visceral pleasure, so too does worshiping an idol reduce The Divine Mystery into a means for one to curry supernatural favor without the cost of the Cross. One replaces real, equitable, mutual human relationship with a reduction of humanity via pornography; one replaces genuine worship of the one God with a reduction of divinity via idolatry. Does that make sense? Mistaking a subject for an object—treating a sacred person or Person as a means to our ends, rather than an end in herself—is, I think, demonstrably, reasonably sinful. Treating someone as a mutual, equal, consenting partner for sharing intimacy and mutual support in and through the grace of God is not so easily spoken of as sin.
Of course I believe it is easily spoken of as sin if God has already (and in multiple places) spoken of it as sin.
But more than that, I think your reasoning here ends up being very subjective. Let me give an example.
If there is a couple who are not married and have no intention of marrying, but who have sex regularly as “mutual, equal, consenting partners for sharing intimacy and mutual support”, how can this be spoken of as sin according to your approach? Under the approach I take, the fact that it is prohibited in Scripture as (to borrow the good ol’ KJV term) “fornication” is more than sufficient to determine its sinfulness. But the couple living in such a manner could use every argument that you have used thus far in supporting same-sex sexual relationships as morally acceptable to argue for the acceptability of their practice.
Or what about a married couple who lovingly engage in sex, but invite others to participate in some manner (even if it’s just as observers) because they believe it strengthens their bond (as polyamorous couples sometimes claim)?
Or an adult woman and her consenting adult son falling in love after being reunited from being apart for decades, and seeking to marry—though not to have biological children?
One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate objective “harm” in such situations without resorting to purely spiritual and subjective claims which could be brushed aside using the very same arguments that you seem to find convincing when it comes to same-sex sexual relationships, would they not?
This is not just a “slippery slope” argument, mind you. Rather, it’s a question of Biblical ethical foundation and governing presuppositions.
Grounding all discussion of ethics and sexuality in the concrete, lived experience of persons is the only responsible option we have. Which is why we are under a serious obligation to reject Christian ethics based on forensic (as opposed to, as commenter Morgan Guyton cleverly puts it, “therapeutic”) salvation or a morally arbitrary God. We have to do what God has given us to do: to obey by thinking, not to think by obeying.
The problem with this approach comes when our “thinking” leads us to conclude that God’s command to his Covenant people (which ever Covenant is in effect at the time) is no longer binding upon them or can be disobeyed/redefined without explicit Biblical warrant for doing so.
Could it be that in doing so, one is using the term “thinking” for such conclusions when in fact a better term would be “justifying” or “rationalizing”?
We humans are experts at that, after all.
[To be concluded in the next post…]
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Ministry, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
>The question of ordination has been one of ecclesiology rather than ethics—>particularly sexual ethics.
Nope. The role of women has primarily to do with sexual ethics. If you refuse to ordain someone due to their genitalia being different, that is sexual ethics. It has to do with sexual taboos: things that certain genders can or cannot do because we think of it as morally wrong.
JUST LIKE you feel that same sex attraction between a MAN and a MAN is wrong but between a MAN and a WOMAN is okay.
You’re trying to claim that the church has never reversed itself on sexual ethics, when in fact it has and continues to do so.
>It’s not accurate to say that only in the past century has we finally gotten >it right when it comes to women in leadership positions. While many, even >the majority of Church leaders have not embraced women in leadership >over men in a teaching capacity, that position stands in direct tension with >actual Scriptural evidence…in both Testaments.
Except that the VAST majority of tradition has REJECTED that there is any tension in scripture at all.
When I point out tension in the scriptures with say, the case of David and Jonathan, or that Eunuchs (who were cross-dressers and engaged in homosexual sex) were blessed by both Isaiah and Paul, you discount that evidence and maintain there is no tension at all.
Likewise the people that believe that it is against sexual ethics to have a woman as a priest (as both the Orthodox and Catholic Church STILL DO) they discount YOUR scriptural evidence that there is any tension at all. There were never women priests in ancient Judaism, and there aren’t going to be women priests in Christianity now.
The fact that you think there should be is simply because you are a Liberal American revisionist. There is no tension in scripture at all on this point. All of your scriptural evidence is wrong, and only MY interpretation and the interpretation of Tradition matters.
>I believe addiction to alcohol is sinful and does harm.
This is just demonstrative of the fact that you have little grasp of ethics whatsoever. Being addicted to a substance is sinful? Are you crazy?
People who develop a chemical dependence to a substance have no free will in the matter. You can become addicted to morphine in the hospital while unconscious. Your body becomes dependent on the morphine because of the chemical reception of it. You wake up from your coma and you’re addicted to morphine. You’ve committed some horrible sin?
Preposterous! Addiction has nothing to do with sin, as there is no free will involved. It’s simply the biological state of your body when it becomes dependent on a drug.
Do you have the free will to resit taking another dose of the drug? Yes, but it’s very hard. Your free will is being coerced by chemicals in your brain. The moral responsibility is hard to ascertain.
From this comment alone, I can reliably tell people that you don’t understand ethics whatsoever.
>But more than that, I think your reasoning here ends up being very >subjective. Let me give an example.
Hold on. You think that the reasoning that knowingly inflicting harm is “Subjective” but that constructing your ethic SOLELY by your opinion about the Bible is “objective”?
>One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate objective “harm” in such >situations without resorting to purely spiritual and subjective claims which >could be brushed aside using the very same arguments that you seem to >find convincing when it comes to same-sex sexual relationships, would >they not?
Completely untrue. Incest has been objectively and scientifically proven to be psychologically harmful and cause the manifestation of several specific mental disorders.
While the ethical import of some of your examples are harder to determine, that doesn’t mean they are “subjective”. Yes, the interpretation of harm CAN BE subjective (it isn’t always subjective as most harm can be scientifically proven), it ALWAYS has an objective base: is there harm being comitted.
Your formula of ethics is 100% subjective. It relies ONLY upon your interpretation of the Bible and NO OTHER factors or logical principles. Your view of ethics is COMPLETELY subjective. It all rests on your own opinion of what the Bible says. That is wholesale subjectivism.
>Could it be that in doing so, one is using the term “thinking” for such >conclusions when in fact a better term would be “justifying” or >“rationalizing”?
You mean like justifying proscriptions homosexuals based solely on one’s opinion about the Bible?
by Chris Bowers on Jun 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Hi Folks, The person above, Chris Bowers needs to do only one thing…read Romans 1. It appears very much that he doesn’t know Christ. His thinking is very much contaminated and compromised. I am sorry for him.
As for anyone supporting or promoting same sex anything, they are corrupt.
Hey, who said that ? God. That would include all sin such as PORN, Alcohol, Drugs and substance abuse, lust and perversion of any kind. And if a person is ordained to Minister in the Name of Jesus Christ…they need to be and to stay absolutely clean…for as soon as they sin in any regard with respect to staying pure…they are no longer Ministers of The Lord from Heaven, and are just wasting their time and the time of others on earth. God’s Spirit will dwell in and work thru a clean vessel only, nothing less.
Homos are filthy before God, and are children of Satan…they need help and love to repent fully…but first must realize and confess their terrible and wicked sin so that The Lord can forgive them. Remember in John 8, Jesus told the woman, “Go and sin no more’.
As a former Prison and Jail Chaplain for more than 15 years, the only real solution for these people (Drug & Alcohol people too) is to teach them slowly the Word of God, as it will Sanctify them in its’ TRUTH. John 17:17. To Sanctify is to make Holy. Jesus gives us the proper formula…need to read it.
Thank you for listening…anyone with sin problems can contact me at chaplainmike@hotmail.com…or go to…www.comingtochrist.com.
by Rev. Michael Costigan on Jul 31, 2014 at 9:48 pm
I have been to 3 Churches here in the S. Charlotte area and the big problem I find is that the Pastors do NOT teach Jesus Christ. People know very little about the Bible and Christ…the New Covenant, The Holy Spirit, the Sacrifice of Calvary, and are unfamiliar with much of the New Testament Scriptures.
Church leaders and Teachers need to read carefully what The Father said on the Mount of Transfiguration…when he interrupted Peter and gave a command to all men…This is My Beloved Son…Hear Ye Him !” Or – Pay strict attention to His Holy Word, Scriptures, New Testament commands and exortation given by Christ to His Church all through the New Testament by the H. Spirit. Have you ever visited Calvary ? I have many times, but I have never been to Israel.
The Spirit of Almighty God wants to take you there and shake you with the visions of the suffering of Jesus for you…and will do so if you let Him. Pay the price to spend time with the Lord, alone, and He will teach you these things, too precious to explain here. Pastors…please obey God, preach Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified ! as His #1 man in the New Testament did faithfully – Paul.
by Rev. Michael Costigan on Jul 31, 2014 at 10:04 pm
[…] https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-1 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-2 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-3 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 https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-8 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » A respectful Methodist dialogue on Christian LGBT ethics (Part 1) on Jul 8, 2015 at 5:30 pm