There's been a lot of blog talk regarding the topic of homosexuality, and so far, I've just read and not written. I wanted to avoid responding with any gut reactions, before taking the time to do my own studying of the subject etc. Let me give you a little background before I start so you can understand where I'm coming from.
1) I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
2) I struggle and will say for sake of condensing my opinion that I do not believe that the many (many, many, many, many) interpretations that have come down through the centuries are inerrant. This opinion is based on my understanding of the history of language translation, the undeniable fact of the possibility of human error.
3) Someone in another post made the point that we tend to take other people's arguments, and make them our own so long as they line up with what we previously believed. I think this person has a good point, and I am making every attempt to avoid that, therefore I will tend to walk through my thought process rather that just bluntly state how I feel.
The first thing I did was to find all the scripture references to homosexuality. Feel free to let me know if I've left any out, but after searching several places - these are what I've found to be most commonly referenced:
Gen. 19:4 -13, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Lev. 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Rom. 1:26-28
Re: Gen. 19:4 -13
The Genesis scripture refers to the story of Lot. The men of the city go to his house and ask Lot to let them in so that they may "know" them. Lot begs them to leave ("I beseech you my brethren, do not commit this evil"). Lot then offers his two daughters to them ("I have two daughters who as yet have not known man : I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof"). SAY WHAT? Someone's going to have to help me here to understand why it's not ok to for the city men to "know" the men in the house, but it's ok for them to "know" Lot's virgin daughters. I'm guessing the first explanation will be of a cultural nature. So my question is, if it's culturaly acceptable for a father to give up his daughters to be sexually abused in that time frame, where does the argument of homosexuality being culturaly acceptable for this time-frame fall? Does it? Curious on different interpretations of that. Am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: 1 Tim 1:8-10 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10
"We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,"
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
What I've read on these verses is interesting and deals with the specific interpretation of the word homosexual. The reason behind the debate is that 1) the word "homosexual" wasn't even around until the 19th Century. The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" has been translated more than a few different ways over the years including someone who masturbates, someone who molests children, etc. So 1500-1900yrs after these passages were written, we've come up with the word homosexual and plugged it in? My issue here is the human factor. While sure, it makes sense in context to use any one of those translations, am I willing to steak my claim as a Christian on this? I'll say it again - am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: Lev. 18:22 & Lev 20:13
Both these passages seem pretty clear. They both refer to a man or woman lying with another man or woman to be an "abomination" or "detestable". Again, because these are Old Testament, anyone can argue cultural differences (if you can argue it for the treatment of women and slaves, you can argue this too). One more time- am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses?
Re: Rom. 1:26-28
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." For me, this passage has the strongest evidence for homosexuality being against God's will. I do think it is unnatural, and not the way God intended for us to enjoy the gift of sex. I think there is definitely plenty of evidence to support it being physically "degrading" to the body *just as other sexual acts outside of monogamous man & woman marriage are* (std's, aids, etc). Another translation says "shameful lusts" instead of "degrading passions". I don't think we need to have a debate on whether lust is a sin or not.
In conclusion, I have stated before that I will not make judgement on homosexuals, as it is not my place. It may sound like a cop out, however I will quote this passage:
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
--Matthew 12:36-37
We all know what we have done as a church to ostracize homosexuals. I was thinking the other day about what would happen, if we all had to wear a big sign on us that listed our most obvious flaw. For instance if you had a problem with telling little white lies, your sign would say "liar" in big black latters. Or how about "anger", or how about ... you fill in the blank. Gays and lesbians alike have been targeted by Christians who have forgotten what our greatest calling is, to love, love, love. When I stand in front of Jesus one day, I want to be able to say that that's what I did. I don't want to have to tell him why I said (or even just thought) that a friend of mine was "clearly" going to hell because my interpretation of the Word was "clearly" the correct one.
Anyway, I know my conclusion is a bit weak here but I'm trying to put hours and hours of reading in to a blog :). Let me know what you think! As others have said, I'm not here trying to prove my point right or wrong, I'm just trying to be open and sincere with my thought process and trust that the Lord will guide me in my thoughts/actions every day.
The end.
PS: I love comments.
PPS: If anyone doesn't feel like sharing their opinion on this or their response on this with the world, then shoot me an e-mail at ambershomo@yahoo.com.
4 comments:
Amber, I really love your thoughts, here, and I think you did the right thing by looking into these things yourself before you drew a conclusion to not draw a conclusion - haha! You and I seem to be on the same page. My "conclusion", too, has just been that, well, we don't know for sure where God 'stands' on the issue of homosexuality, therefore we should not point fingers and say that someone is wrong and living in sin...at least that's my interpretation. So, if we're not going to judge or point fingers, what can we do for our homosexual friends? We can love them and encourage them on their walk with Christ - to seek His face and His will for their lives - just like any other friend.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. It was very well thought out, and very honest of you to say, "I don't know." I've learned that this is an okay answer to give!
Very nice post, Amber, welcome to the discussion! Sorry for the deleted comment, if I write anything over a page, I like to place it on my blog, rather than bury it in a comments section. It just helps me keep my thoughts organized.
Click here for my response
"3) Someone in another post made the point that we tend to take other people's arguments, and make them our own so long as they line up with what we previously believed. I think this person has a good point, and I am making every attempt to avoid that, therefore I will tend to walk through my thought process rather that just bluntly state how I feel."
For future reference, the technical term for this is 'confirmation bias'. Human beings have a natural tendency to disregard information as irrelevant or non-factual that does not fit well within their preconceived notion of truth, which is the converse of what you describe above (both are categories of confirmation bias).
Post a Comment