Would Jesus discriminate?
Continuing the thread of political hot topics, I read an article today about billboards being placed around Indianapolis "by Jesus Metropolitan Community Church of Indianapolis with support from Faith In America and Metropolitan Community Churches worldwide." The billboards quote Scripture in defense of homosexuality and each includes the question/website www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com. Here are some examples:
"I can already hear tires screeching across Indianapolis as folks see the billboards," said Reverend Jeff Miner, Senior Pastor of Jesus MCC. "Most people have no idea that the Bible contains passages that powerfully affirm gay people."
On www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com, there is a short video in which a man explains how "good-hearted" Christians have used the Bible to support wrong stances on significant issues such as slavery, voting rights for women, and interracial marriage. How could we have been so wrong? His answer: "They allowed deeply ingrained cultural prejudices to distort their interpretation of the Scriptures on each of those issues...For all of human history, slavery had been regarded as an established institution, it just seemed to be part of God's natural creation. For all of human history, women had been denied the right to vote. This too just seemed to be part of God's natural order...we pray that we would never make that kind of mistake again...Could most Christians be wrong again today when they say God condemns homosexual relationships?"
The website also has rebuttals for Romans 1:21-28, Leviticus 18 and 20, Sodom and Gomorrah, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10.
I'm not 100% sure what they mean when asking "Would Jesus discriminate?" I don't know if they are asking whether Jesus would withhold love, grace, redemption, compassion, forgiveness...but I do assume they are talking specifically about discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual men/women. So what do you think? Would Jesus discriminate?
- Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13.
- David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26.
- Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. Genesis 2:24; Ruth 1:14.
- Jesus said some are born gay. Matthew 19:10-12.
- The early church welcomed a gay man. Acts 8:26-40.
"I can already hear tires screeching across Indianapolis as folks see the billboards," said Reverend Jeff Miner, Senior Pastor of Jesus MCC. "Most people have no idea that the Bible contains passages that powerfully affirm gay people."
On www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com, there is a short video in which a man explains how "good-hearted" Christians have used the Bible to support wrong stances on significant issues such as slavery, voting rights for women, and interracial marriage. How could we have been so wrong? His answer: "They allowed deeply ingrained cultural prejudices to distort their interpretation of the Scriptures on each of those issues...For all of human history, slavery had been regarded as an established institution, it just seemed to be part of God's natural creation. For all of human history, women had been denied the right to vote. This too just seemed to be part of God's natural order...we pray that we would never make that kind of mistake again...Could most Christians be wrong again today when they say God condemns homosexual relationships?"
The website also has rebuttals for Romans 1:21-28, Leviticus 18 and 20, Sodom and Gomorrah, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10.
I'm not 100% sure what they mean when asking "Would Jesus discriminate?" I don't know if they are asking whether Jesus would withhold love, grace, redemption, compassion, forgiveness...but I do assume they are talking specifically about discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual men/women. So what do you think? Would Jesus discriminate?
posted by Matthew at 10:51 PM
17 Comments:
I'd say this is a textbook case of eisegesis. They are reading meaning into the passages instead of pulling the meanings out of them. I agree that the church should welcome a homosexual just as the church should welcome anyone else, as a sinner in need of salvation available only by the blood Jesus. In the same way, as Christians we are called to share the love of Christ with everyone we come in contact with. That being said, I see nothing in any of those passages that condones the practice of homosexuality. I put it up on the cross with the rest of our sins for which Jesus had to pour out his blood.
Tom,
I imagine the founders of www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com would accuse you of eisegesis. They have outlined why they don't believe homosexuality, when practiced in the confines of a loving, committed relationship, is sinful. They appeal to the "original" Hebrew/Greek and the culture of the time to make their case. How can you make a confident claim that you are being exegetical in your interpretation?
(FYI, I had to look up the definitions of eisegesis and exegesis. Here they are for the simple folk like me:
- Eisegesis: interpretation of a text by reading extraneous ideas into it
- Exegesis: explanation of a text, with emphasis on getting the meaning from the text itself)
Regardless, Romans 1 makes God's stance on homosexuality pretty clear. And that's not dependent on any paradigm I may have. There is absolutely no basis on which to build a case for homosexuality. It is a sin. Clear and precise.
That said, we are not to exclude those that struggle with homosexuality from worship as far as I can tell.
But most importantly, Christ demonstrated over and over that no group or race or creed should be excepted from the love we as Christians are to show them. As Christ said, love is what marks a true disciple.
Matt,
If you look at certain passages such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10 which says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God or Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The meanings are pretty clear from the face of the words. You don't have to go to word histories or intent of the author. Now, when it comes to whether a version has been translated correctly or whether a certain verse should apply in our time as it did in the old testament, that's another issue. But I read all the passages they put up on the site and none say "homosexuality is ok with jesus". They had to go into 3 pages of why they might mean that. On the other hand, the passages that I have listed above are pretty clear on their face.
Couple of things to think about:
- Jesus Himself never condemned homosexuality in the Gospels (the four in the Bible or the hundreds that have been discovered), while he was quite vocal on matters of sexual immorality.
- The six instances in which homosexual acts are condemned refer to specific cultural norms and, in each example, condemn lust-fueled idolatry more specifically than committed homosexual relationships. As the site pointed out, very few men and women were openly gay, much less in homosexual relationships, during the times in which the scriptures were composed.
- Even if the Scriptures did specifically condemn homosexual relationships (which I don't believe they do), the said condemnations would reflect the judgment and wisdom of people who lived, most recently, a little less than two thousand years ago. While most basic codes of morality are timeless, we all, even the most literalist among us, read the Bible through 21st-century lenses. For example, we no longer agree that those who eat pork, work on the Sabbath, or dishonor their father and mother are fit for stoning. We strongly condemn slavery as evil, though Paul did not. What I'm getting at is, God didn't stop moving in people's hearts and teaching them how to treat each other when the last word of Revelation was penned. We worship a living Christ and loving God, and whenever a few scattered verses of Scripture deeply separate us from our brothers and sisters, it's clear to me what trumps what.
- To focus a moment on Leviticus 18:22... to me, that verse isn't clear in the face of the words. Saying that man "shouldn't lie with man as with a women" could mean (and to me, does mean) that those men who lie with women shouldn't also lie with men. Which makes sense to me - if you were born straight, you shouldn't indiscriminately sleep with men (or women, for that matter).
-Many of the problems that some Christians have with homosexuals -- promiscuity, lack of stability in the community, in-your-face assertion of their differences -- are not inherent flaws of homosexuality but rather reactions to persecution and an inability (until recently) to codify relationships. Allowing gay marriage would do a great deal to stabilize the community and reduce the prevalence of disease (physical and psychological) that too many in the gay community face.
- Finally, there is strong evidence that the orientation of most homosexuals is genetically determined (even ignoring the scientific evidence, there's the logic of common sense: why, given the discrimination and difficulty homosexuals face in our society, would anyone choose to be gay over straight?). It's for me hard to believe that God would create someone to be gay and condemn them if they happen to fall in love.
How wonderful it is that we have a forum in which we can discuss these important issues. Mad props to Matthew.
Parker, a couple of things:
- There is no way (as I've said before) that you can spin Romans 1:26-27. It is clear that it is unnatural. This generation is swinging back towards the universalistic paradigm when interpreting Scripture, which is troubling. We try to see things based on how we feel...or how it makes others feel. That's wrong. Scripture is truth. Like I said, Romans 1:26-27 is pretty darn clear. You can always twist verses. I just wouldn't advise it.
- Just because homosexuality is genetic in some people doesn't ever mean that it proves it's okay, or even natural. People also receive other struggles from genes like extreme anger, alcoholism, depression, etc. God condemns those sins. (And the trump card...original sin. We're all born with it, so it kind of negates any genetic talk.)
Every so often this topic (or another sin) gets brought up because somebody thinks they've had a revelation and can see things differently than everyone else...that it's totally revolutionary. But Scripture always remains the same. Sin is the vilest thing in the world. Whether you're a homosexual or unfaithful with your money or whatever sin you're in, you need to come to a place where you absolutely hate it...because God does. God hates sin. Hates it. There's really no way around it.
As a further thought, I hope my last post wasn't too harsh, but if anybody is really having those thoughts about how homosexuality or any other sin isn't condemned in the Bible, let me know and I'll pray for God to take you through life enough to make His Word light up to you.
The complete passage describes how the ex-Christians engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that throughout their lifetime they had had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex. God influenced them so that they engaged in homosexual sex. This was, for them, an unnatural activity. They were criticized because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual behavior by gays and lesbians -- activity which is equally against their nature.
For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. For the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.
Referring to Romans passage that Hudson's dad says cannot be twisted.
Yogi beat me to the post; I kept my message as it was before I read his... sorry for being repetitive.
Hudson's Dad,
I respect both your opinions and your passion. To be honest, I did find your reply to be unnecessarily harsh (only slightly so, but, as your second post confirms, still worthy of note).
I don't doubt that God hates sin; I do as well. I simply don't believe that being a homosexual is a sin, and more being a heterosexual is a sin (though both can result in sinning -- promiscuity, lust, adultery, etc).
Putting Scripture into proper historical and literary context is a necessary first step in understanding what the authors were attempting to communicate, not "spin." In Romans 1, Paul was referring (beginning in verse 18) to a group of people who renounced God (turning to animal-based idolatry) , then their natural sexual orientation in a blind pursuit of pleasure. Of course he condemned it. There is a difference, however, between those acts and a committed, Christ-centered homosexual relationship.
And yes, I believe that homosexual relationships can be Christ-centered, though, due in large part to the Church's frequent rejection of homosexuals, too few of them are. I say this because, as I mentioned in my previous post, the Gospels offer no condemnation, direct or otherwise, of homosexuality. Abandoning one's natural sexual orientation in service and dedication to God would be incredibly difficult, even without a direct call from Christ to do so. Why, then, did He offer no words of encouragement to the hundreds of millions of homosexuals He expected to follow him? Why not even a confirmation that their demanded struggle was the will of God? It's inconsistent with the Living Christ who, while calling out sin for the evil it is, offers to take the yoke of all who struggle to free themselves of its grasp.
"and more being a heterosexual is a sin"
A truly unfortunate typo.
I meant to write "any more than being a heterosexual is a sin." What I actually posted sounded like an indictment of heterosexuals. My bad.
In response to Yogi Berra:
"Gave them over" is the Greek word paradidomi, which has the idea of releasing someone into their moral depravity. God didn't introduce something new to them. He allowed them to explore the depths of their depravity. While Romans 1:26-27 is talking about a specific people group, look up at verse 25 and you'll see that this (the condemnation of homosexuality) applies universally when it says "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie". And the passage continues with what that entailed.
And I assume you think that homosexuality is indeed genetic. I don't think it's wired into us at all. I think there's a bend toward certain struggles that God has wired into us, including homosexuality, but there's no proof at all that there is a "gay gene." All the studies have been quickly debunked even in popular magazines like Time Magazine, Science Today, etc.
And by the way, I didn't say you can't twist verse. Re-read what I wrote. I said the meaning of the verse is blunt..but that any verse can be twisted to fit a person's paradigm. I just wouldn't advise it.
In response to Parker:
I believe that anyone who follows Christ should stand up for HOLINESS, and the Bible makes it painfully clear that homosexuality is wrong. If you can't see that (and I'm coming from love, not attack, although it's hard to get that from written word), then I feel you really, really need to do some fasting and praying for God to reveal what His Holiness is.
And believe me, hermeneutics is my friend. I know how to study Scripture from the historical context.
And with this last post, I'll sign off for the week. I've said all I could. And I'm not the one who changes heart or removes the blindness. But I will be praying for you guys to have truth revealed to you.
Let me first begin posting a link to Justin Taylor's blog which has some posts related to homosexuality -- http://theologica.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality. If you follow the link, you will find several posts related to Al Mohler's (President of Southern Seminary) comments related to homosexuality and genetic makeup.
I have a hard time understanding how this condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 potentially only applies to believers at that time. Does that mean the list of sins in verses 29-31 only applies to Christians at that time? Verse 26 says "dishonorable passions" (ESV)and verse 28 says "what ought not to be done", both of which seem condemning to me. I think it is very important to consider culture, but the majority of Scripture and its commands stand for all people throughout history, as you noted. Do you have any Scripture to back up your statement that this applies more to cultural norms? Considering there are six passages that seem to condemn homosexuality, at the very least doing so upon first glance, I hope that you have some Scripture to back up why you should not interpret them as applicable to all generations of people. Six may not seem like a lot, but what other sexually immoral acts are specifically referred to in Scriptures six times? I think the strongest way to interpret Scripture is by using other Scripture.
As to why Jesus doesn't specifically refer to homosexuality in the Gospels, I don't know, but there are tons of things that Jesus doesn't directly address in the Gospels. The epistles deal with many issues that Jesus doesn't hit on in the Gospels. The epistles are NO less Scripture than the Gospels.
I want to make one thing clear so that people don't misunderstand my heart. I definitely think we as Christians have done a very poor job of loving homosexuals. I truly hope that Christians can learn how to better love homosexuals. In the end, we are ALL unrighteous before Christ and I can boast in NOTHING of myself. I am righteous through Christ and Christ alone, so who am I to look down upon another? But, with that said, I firmly believe that we cannot overlook sin in others lives. We must encourage our fellow believers to battle sin and we must come alongside to help them, hoping they will do the same for us. (I say that obviously realizing there is debate over whether or not homosexuality is a sin.)
This is not an accusation against any post on this board, but let us not forget to PRAY and be dependent upon the Holy Spirit as we interpret Scripture. I pray that we are all HUMBLE and open to the Spirit's leading as we read and understand the Scriptures.
Previous posts have dealt with the textual cases for and against homosexual marriage in the Bible. But there’s a prior and more general question that needs to be addressed: how does one get truths out of what one reads in the Bible?
Here’s one possible principle:
(A) If any Biblical writer believes X and expresses that belief in a verse of the Bible OR if any Biblical writer believes that Jesus said X and states in a verse of the Bible that Jesus said X, then X is true.
I think many, many Christians approach the Bible with a principle very much like (A). But that’s by no means the only principle that has been used by Christians for gleaning truth from the Bible. Others have held:
(B) Biblical writers are infallible on matters of faith and morals, but not necessarily on historical or scientific statements.
Still others say:
(C) Biblical writers are infallible on all and only those truths which God intended for them to express (but there may be no litmus test for determining which statements in the Bible are in that category).
At the other extreme from (A) we have things like:
(D) All the Biblical writings are fallible, and those who collected the books of the Bible were fallible in their choices of what to include; the Bible contains much that is true, but the writers and those who formed the canon were not in any epistemically privileged position.
And of course (A)-(D) don’t exhaust the field; there are various other principles which could guide one’s approach to the Bible.
Which (if any) of these is the correct view? It is a difficult question, and I do not think there’s a proof which would convince every reasonable person of the correctness of one over the others. I tend, at this more skeptical stage of my life, toward a more “liberal” view, but I do not think I have a compelling proof that my view is correct. I do think there are certain hard questions that can be pressed against views like (A) and (B). The defender of (A) faces questions about whether certain Biblical writers believed that the Earth is young, that the genealogies in the Bible are complete, that the numbers of soldiers mentioned in certain battles are correct, that Paul’s missionary journeys really followed the order given in Acts, and other such questions. The defender of (B) faces questions about whether Biblical writers assert that women should not speak in church, that slavery is okay as long as you don’t abuse your slaves, that getting a tattoo isn’t okay, that men shouldn’t cut the hair on the sides of their heads, and that second marriage (except perhaps where there was infidelity in the first marriage) is adultery.
More liberal positions like (C) and (D) are pretty insulated against these sorts of hard questions. But many Christians will charge that such positions are impious in some way. If asked for an argument for this charge, however, there’s not usually much on offer. Most Christians who take a more “conservative” view of the Bible simply take it on faith that their position is correct. There’s nothing wrong with taking some things on faith! But if the homosexual Christian asks why he should accept (A) or (B) and you tell him, “I just take it on faith,” that may not give him much of a reason to agree that (A) or (B) is the correct view.
So I don’t think the main point at issue between homosexual Christians and conservative Christians is whether the Biblical writers were tolerant of homosexuality. (I think it’s pretty clear that they weren’t, but that’s beside the point.) The main point at issue is what is the proper role of the Bible in Christian thinking about such issues as homosexual relationships. I want to discourage easy knee-jerk reactions to this question.
One final point. Christian condemnations of homosexuals are typically way out of proportion to the Biblical statements on it, at least by comparison with Christian condemnations of second marriage. Indeed, most of us (myself included) think second marriage is often okay, even in cases where there was no infidelity in the first marriage—the couple just made a mistake. And those who are against second marriage (a small minority!) don’t condemn it very loudly or harshly. But the Biblical condemnation of second marriage is at least as clear as the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relationships, probably clearer! Jesus is reported to have called it adultery. Those of us who don’t think second marriage is adultery will not easily be able to accept (A) or (B); thus we can be very understanding of a homosexual Christian who does not accept (A) or (B). And even those who do think second marriage is adultery will probably not think that one must be demonically evil to be convinced that second marriage is okay. So to be consistent, those who think on (A)- or (B)-type grounds that homosexual relationships are immoral, need to resist the widespread tendency among Christians to view homosexuals as “abominations.” (See Nick's post above.)
Just wanted to make clear: in referring to Nick's post, I mean that Nick is making the same point at the end of his post that I'm making at the end of mine--he's just done a better job of it, so I'm directing readers back to the last bit of his post. (I add this note because I realized one could also interpret the last line of my original post as saying that Nick was succumbing to the tendency to view homosexuals as abominations, but he's not doing that at all!)
'Discriminate' does seem an odd term to use when discussing Jesus. It seems a bit anachronistic, much in the same way that those who have wanted to apply biblical passages to contemporary sexual practices that would have been unintelligible in the first century ancient near-eastern cultures. Just as it is a bit unnatural to ask whether Jesus would descriminate, a fairly modern worry and conceptualization, so too it is a bit difficult to try to find what we now call homosexuality addressed in Scripture. No, I don't need you to send me a list of verses, since the question is whether what those verses discuss - given the structures of first century sociality - are anywhere close to what we talk about today when we talk about homosexuality. It would be helpful if people would read books such as Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, and The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. All that being said, the interpretations which the WJD people have supported suffer just as badly from poor exegesis.
If posed with the question in the post title, I'd say no, but more than anything it seems like a poorly conceived, and exegetically irresponsible gimick. I'm not sure that billboards or bumper stickers are where or how we want to discuss theology.
Post a Comment
<< Home