Does the common good include gays? My trouble with the emerging church and Brian McClaren is that their version of the gospel doesn't include gays. I am very tired of Christian candidates like Mike Huckabee using words like "pro-family" to mean "anti-gay marriage." I am entirely pro-family. My hope is to one day find a man and take public vows of lifelong sexual exclusivity, and then maybe have or adopt children. I would expect the same support from my congregation and community that straight couples get. I want my family and all families to be stronger. I remember that Jesus my Savior blessed all different kinds of families. He Himself formed a family around Lazarus, Mary, and Martha.

You can't welcome gays into the Kingdom by saying, "Come on in as long as you believe you are evil and disordered and you must never, never act on your feelings." The Kingdom is about all of us, gay and straight, learning from each other how to be stewards of our deepest emotions in ways that glorify God. Gays need to be given the model of lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships so we can live their lives in the sort of partnerships which God blesses. We need to be included into the call of the Gospel.

When will those at God's Politics and the emerging church offer the Gospel to the gay community?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 27, 2007 9:31 PM

You can't welcome gays into the Kingdom by saying, "Come on in as long as you believe you are evil and disordered and you must never, never act on your feelings."

No person, gay or straight, gets into the Kingdom without believing they are sinful and have a sin nature. I am straight, and I have feelings, sexual and otherwise, that I must never act upon, lest I be guilty of sin. We all do. I am coming up on 38, not married, and still a virgin. Difficult? Very. But it hasn't killed be.

"The Kingdom is about all of us, gay and straight, learning from each other how to be stewards of our deepest emotions in ways that glorify God."

Just curious, in a gay relationship, who is the spiritual leader. Who is the head of the household? Why doesn't Paul address the dynamics on how a gay relationship is supposed to work? Why didn't Jesus condemn the Pharisees for their beliefs about homosexuality if He didn't agree with them? Why didn't God bother to mention homosexuality in a positive light even one time?

Posted by: Brent | November 27, 2007 9:45 PM

A straight person can confess sexual sins without having to confess his basic orientation is an abomination. A straight person can be given a model which shows him the proper stewardship of his sexuality. A gay person has to say that his orientation can't be expressed in any way that isn't an abomination--that the words Paul uses are exactly equivalent to the modern understanding of a homosexual orientation.

I believe that Jesus uses the term "eunuch" to mean those who are not suited to traditional marriage. (Strong uses this definition, too.)There is nothing in Scripture which suggests eunuchs were either castrated or celibate. Even those who were castrated could play the passive sexual role. Jesus didn't require eunuchs to be celibate. He didn't require the Centurion to leave his "beloved slave." Jesus was proud to be of the house of David, even though he knew of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Jesus included Ruth in his geneology knowing her relationship with Naomi. Jesus used the story of Isaiah and his beloved's vinyard as the basis for his parables. Jesus quoted from Daniel even knowing that Ashpenaz and Daniel shared a "womb-like" love. Jesus celebrates and supports same-sex love.

Jesus in welcoming the "sexually other" in his culture made a place for all those who were created by God for intimate relationships other than traditional marriage. God doesn't want us to be alone, either.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 27, 2007 10:50 PM

Where does it say he was castrated? Or that the passage in Isaiah refers to castration? You're reading meanings into those passages that aren't there. Abraham was a "dry tree" and had to find a surrogate mother at first, too. He wasn't castrated or celibate.

It's interesting that Christians can claim support for the Iraq war is fully in keeping with Christ's teachings, but two people of the same sex who want to live in a monogamous relationship is totally unbiblical. It's interesting that prosperity theology and dispensationalism are considered mainstream, but gay theology can't even get a hearing. If someone sees the images in Daniel as exact equivalents for current events, that's totally cool, but if someone else sees the love between Ashpenaz and Daniel as an example of holy love, he's considered heretical.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 27, 2007 11:54 PM

If someone sees the images in Daniel as exact equivalents for current events, that's totally cool, but if someone else sees the love between Ashpenaz and Daniel as an example of holy love, he's considered heretical.

I am not the one you have to convince. I am all for you having the same rights as any straight couple. I support and agree w/ Gay marriage. No I am not reading anything into the text. Did you know that there were castrated classes in Nubia and Ethiopia? There was a class of castrated men in Ethiopia that looked after the queen and the harems in the court.

I am a contemplative. Our theology is not so conservative or rigid as my baptist brothers and sisters. Oh and I consider dispensationalism heretical too.

But back to the eunuch.

"Emasculation was a practice in ancient royal courts for those who were singled out for promotions to very trusted levels of service. For example, eunuchs were appointed to watch the king's harem. The harem was obviously safe under the watch care of a eunuch, who was incapable of being sexually tempted. He was immune to seduction. Emasculation was a way of making sure a high-ranking servant would remain loyal, and singular in focus. Castration takes away nearly every reason for treachery. This eunuch had likely been castrated to remove the distraction of any sexual interests and to prevent him from fathering children. This would eliminate two of the driving forces in a man's planning for his own life—sexual expression and fathering progeny. As a consequence, the eunuch would have no temptation to self- deal to favor his own family.

As a trusted official given charge of all the queen's treasure, he was apparently given the privilege of creating a comfortable living out of her vast wealth. When it says he served under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, "Candace" was not a name but a title like "Pharaoh." The Candaces were queens in Nubia (now Sudan) in the upper Nile region. This reinforces the fact that this man was black because all the Nubian queens were black."

p

Posted by: payshun | November 28, 2007 1:07 AM

The experience of transexuals clearly shows that castration does not cut off sexual desire. Castrated men frequently played the passive role in sex with royal males. Even if Jesus were referring only to castrated men, he would still be welcoming those who participated in gay sex. Without, I might add, asking them to change.

Potiphar was a eunuch and was not castrated or celibate. Men were chosen as "bed-keepers" because of their lack of interest in women, not because they were incapable of sex. Castration would make them weak, and guards had to be strong--so they needed all their testosterone.

I will give up my hope for a lifelong, monogamous partner and call it sin on the day you sell all you have and give all you have to the poor, or gouge out your right eye, or stop investing money at interest, or demand women keep silent in church, or ask your slaves to be obedient to their masters. Oh, and stop eating shrimp. Let me know!

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 28, 2007 1:26 AM

I generally wish for more intelligent and thoughtful consideration of evangelicalism in public dialogue; and for respectful dialogue between persons with varied points of view on the topic. So the BeliefNet dialogue on Evangelicals in power delivers on these two points and I feel like saying, "Just be quiet!"

It's all very interesting; and I feel like I do in seminary libraries looking at thousands of intelligent treatments of scripture, Jesus, theology, etc.--i.e. "How about if we engage the Truth that became flesh...?"

I would take the faith/life of my 88-yr-old mother over most all of the contemplations in that dialogue. To me she represents "true blue politically conservative evangelicalism"; and from my perspective those in the dialogue completely miss her.

They are very interested in a few hundred persons they perceive as leaders and the constructs of their interpretations of those leaders and Evangelicalism.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 28, 2007 1:49 AM

kevin s.,

If it could be conclusively proven that your skin color could only result in sin, would you be willing to abandon it for God?

Posted by: ocho | November 28, 2007 8:48 AM

The integral, more holistic gospel that McClaren wants can only happen if we follow Isaiah's prophecy:

3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let not any eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree."

4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-

5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant-

7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations."

Isaiah 56

To me, this prophecy opens the doors of the Kingdom to gays, undocumented workers, and Muslims--three of the groups most hated by Christian right. We need to remind everyone of this prophecy and proclaim God's welcome to everyone.

Posted by: ashpenaz | November 28, 2007 11:31 AM

We need to remind everyone of this prophecy and proclaim God's welcome to everyone.

However, God calls us to conversion and holiness as well. He may meet and accept us as we are, but (as in any relationship) we will not stay there -- we will change and He will facilitate that change.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 11:38 AM

kevin s. answered: "I would be willing not to act in accordance with my skin color, the the extent that sinful actions were the necessary result of that action."

but your question did not ask ashpenaz if he is willing to not "act in accordance with" being gay, you asked whether he was willing to "abandon" his sexual orientation. big difference.

let me ask you this - would you support legal and spiritual recognition of a celibate gay relationship?

imho, it's nothing short of arrogance for me, as a straight person, to make any kind of assumptions about how easy it is to "abandon" being gay. i've known enough gay people to know that it is akin to asking me to stop being white.

Posted by: ocho | November 28, 2007 1:09 PM

"but your question did not ask ashpenaz if he is willing to not "act in accordance with" being gay, you asked whether he was willing to "abandon" his sexual orientation. big difference."

Depends on how you define "abandon". I did not say "change", per se. Perhaps a better term would be "de-emphasize". It is clear to me that ashpenaz's sexuality is of principle concern to him, even to the detriment of eternity, potentially. But let me restate my question.

Are you willing not to act in accordance with your orientation if it is proven that doing so will invariably result in sin?

"let me ask you this - would you support legal and spiritual recognition of a celibate gay relationship?"

Insofar as a gay relationship is a function of mutual attraction, and that sexual orientation is designated based upon ones sexual proclivities, no I would not.

"imho, it's nothing short of arrogance for me, as a straight person, to make any kind of assumptions about how easy it is to "abandon" being gay. i've known enough gay people to know that it is akin to asking me to stop being white."

You actually just did make an assumption about how easy it is. However, I never suggested that it was easy. I am certain that it is not. I am also certain that the difficulty of turning away from sin is not a reason to rewrite the scripture.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 28, 2007 1:20 PM

"You actually just did make an assumption about how easy it is. However, I never suggested that it was easy. I am certain that it is not. I am also certain that the difficulty of turning away from sin is not a reason to rewrite the scripture."

actually, i indeed did not make an assumption. i have gay friends (try it, you may be surprised how much they're just like you) and i'm taking THEIR word for it, which, on this particular subject, has a bit more authority than yours, assuming that you're straight of course.

but the root of my question is what is the sin, the action or the orientation? you apparently think it's both, which is just not consistent with even the conservative interpretation of the scriptures.

Posted by: ocho | November 28, 2007 1:29 PM

by the way, i assume you would also support a constitutional amendment banning divorce?

Posted by: ocho | November 28, 2007 1:32 PM

At the very least, we can strip naked in front of each other and fall into each others' arms until one of us becomes erect, as Scripture says about David and Jonathan.

Sorry, but Scripture most assuredly does not say that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 3:09 PM

John Dominic Crossan recently on "On Faith" Washington Post website concerning religion and sexuality:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care

“Sexual preferences” is simply contemporary code for lesbianism and homosexuality. The question is not asking, for example, about the “sexual preferences” of clergy who choose or are chosen for celibacy which is, after all, a “sexual preference” or, better, a “non-sexual preference.”

The question repeats, first of all, what was already asked on Wednesday, February 28, 2007: “What does your faith lead you to believe about gay unions and gay clergy?” And, second, it asks whether “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an adequate solution if and when one’s faith prohibits gay married clergy.
My answer responds narrowly within biblically-based Christianity and it argues that “don’s ask, don’t tell” is not a solution but an evasion. What we need, instead, is a “don’t care.” Gay or straight should be as irrelevant as color or race in making a Christian judgment about a sexual relationship.
What has to be done instead is an honest and open decision on the contemporary validity of New Testament prohibitions on gay sexual relationships involving Christian laity and clergy. And so, quite deliberately, I repeat what I said to that February question.

Decisions on what is natural and unnatural define our humanity but those determinations, unfortunately, are also and always conditioned by time and place, society and religion. An example. The Greek philosopher Aristotle judged slavery to be a natural situation. But the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, judged it to be an unnatural status—“a thing absolutely and wholly contrary to nature, for nature has created all men free, but the injustice and covetousness of some men who prefer inequality, that cause of evil, having subdued some, has given to the more powerful authority over those who are weaker (On the Contemplative Life, 70).
Another example. My own personal and moral judgment is that capital punishment is a cruel, unusual, and unnatural penalty. But, quite clearly, many others in our country find it quite natural.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul made a rather sweeping accusation against non-Jews. “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,” he wrote in 1:26-27, “and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” That judgment on homosexuality as against nature (physis) is also echoed in most other contemporary Jewish writings on that subject.
Earlier, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul also invoked “nature’ in discussing the length of female and male hair. “Does not nature (physis) itself teach you,” he asked them rhetorically in 11:14-15, “ that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Most of us might well agree that gendered hair-length is not about human nature and human unnature but about social custom and social habit.
My point is not that our judgments about what is natural and unnatural are irrelevant or absolutely relative but that we must always carefully assess what is nature (avoid eating people) and what is tradition (avoid eating pets).
On homosexuality, many ancients judged sexual nature in terms of biology and organs but many moderns—myself included—judge sexual nature in terms of chemistry and hormones. In other words, Paul was wrong on hair and equally wrong on homosexuality. And, by the way, can you imagine how unnatural he would have considered a heart-transplant?

Posted by: | November 28, 2007 4:43 PM

"It is clear to me that ashpenaz's sexuality is of principle concern to him, even to the detriment of eternity, potentially."

Ummm why would you even go there Kevin?

Ashphenaz,
No I don't know how close Jonathon and David became but I sincerely doubt that Jonathon and David had a sexual relationship and even if they did and that's a big if it sure did not last that long.

We don't know what the text is missing so it doesn't make sense to speculate one way or the other. It must stand on it's own. Oh and you don't need the bible to justify homosexuality. This is a secular nation and all people deserve the same rights.
p

Posted by: payshun | November 28, 2007 4:48 PM

Ashphenaz,

Study actual Nubian and Ethiopian history. They reveal they actually did castrate men to protect harems and work on behalf of the King or Queen (Candace.)

p

Posted by: payshun | November 28, 2007 4:56 PM

Regarding the gay issue: The message and lifestyle of Jesus is about inclusion and how people miss the point with their "rules." God (Divinity) did not write any books. The scriptures are sacred, but written through the hands of men. It was compiled by men. Men goof things up. God allows men to goof things up. There are countless examples of this including the famed holocaust, but also child molestation and I don't need to go further. God allows misunderstandings to be passed down. Family cannot be reduced to the sameness or difference of genitals. Marriage should not be defined by genitals. I am a male attracted only to females, but that is involuntary just as others are involuntarily attracted to same gender individuals. It is natural, just ask any person attracted to the same gender. It feels as natural as anyone else. Love is independent of gender and genitals. Heterosexuals have not proven any ability to handle marriage in an inspiring way. Family is supposed to be about love. The teaching of Paul and other men ought not to be confused with the messages of Jesus. Many Christians are Paulians. Paul, the fine man that he was, may have misunderstood something. Regardless, God did not literally write any books, but we do know that love is the ultimate and only ideal. It is our true north--love in its various forms. This argument will soon be comical, just as the arguments regarding racism are that went on just decades ago.

Posted by: Aaron B | November 28, 2007 6:11 PM

So where is the gospel in all this? I have made a decision about what I believe about my homosexuality. Should I be a part of a community who is overtly accepting but covertly trying to convince me I'm wrong? People who pretend support but who are trying to undermine my hard-won self-understanding--in fact, trying to undermine my relationship with God so they can impose their will on an issue which can only be sorted out between Jesus and me?

I don't see anything in McClaren's original post that applies to me. I appreciate the dialogue here, but I'd like to be in a community where there is no dialogue or covert agendas--just simple acceptance. And I'll accept all you slanderers, gossips, gluttons, ragers, interest-takers, prosperity thinkers, and shrimp eaters as well.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 28, 2007 11:46 PM

Speaking of "sin," which some here seem to know a great deal about, the sin of judgementalism and self-righteousness seem to run rampant in many comments here. I have a thousand responses to those who misuse the bible as if it were their own private tool to exclude "the other” but to do so, as you well know ashpenaz, is an exercise in futility.

Posted by: jackfate | November 29, 2007 10:04 AM

But should we celebrate slander, gossip, gluttony, usury, rage?

Slander and gossip are two of the most destructive things that can happen - and in a church setting it's particularly so. People's lives and health ar ruined through gluttony. Rage is destructive to others, whether psychological or physical. As for usury, it's another component of greed, endemic to many problems in our society. The prosperity doctrine is really the greed doctrine.

Posted by: Oscar Wild | November 29, 2007 10:42 AM

If David and Jonathan were lovers and that was okay with God, then he would also be fine with adultery, as both men were already married to (and even lusted after) women.

Excellent, excellent point. When the Episcopal Church consecrated that gay bishop some years ago, part of the reason the conservatives in that denomination (rightly) opposed it was that he had left his wife for his male partner.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 10:46 AM

I reject absolutely any god, or human perception of a god, who rejects anyone for any reason. Period.

Trust me -- you want a God that doesn't. He would thus not be worthy of worship.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 11:35 AM

Wow...There are a lot of "I" on these comments. Since when is the gospel about I???? The Kingdown about "us"? It's about the KING! JESUS! And if we don't like it we can't change the message to suit our felt needs or feelings. Sorry this is just a reaction to some of the comments and not the article.

Posted by: Jorge Rodriguez | November 29, 2007 12:57 PM

Whatever your perspective, the great temptation is to either distort or create a religion that tells you it's OK to do what you wanted to already.

It's the Christianized apposite of "the devil made me do it."

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 29, 2007 2:13 PM

However, the difference is that when Jesus calls a straight or gay person into His Kingdom, He doesn't say, "Your orientation is fundamentally wrong," He says, "You have been created by God to be exactly what you are--here's how I want you to express your sexuality."

Sorry, but no, that's not in the least what He says -- in fact, the Scriptures themselves don't say that much when it comes to sexual expression because that's a Western thing (it was written in Eastern culture, BTW). Marriage is given primarily for the sake of strengthening families and communities; in fact, marriage cannot work outside of a community (which is why so many marriages in the "straight" world fail). As Rick Warren said in "The Purpose Driven Life," "It's not about you." Trying to reinterpret the Scripture the way you do to justify behavior does serious violence to it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 2:46 PM

But no one has brought up promiscuity in the gay subculture. Everyone here can make the decision that it is wrong to be promiscuous regardless of sexuality. But a more evolved discussion would point out the health of one's choices. That's what's missing in this discussion.

When we base our behavior off of really old ideas of morality we in effect become legalists. If the bible is true and we live by the law of love (Love God and love other people) we cease to live by a legalistic moral standards because they are right but we live by moral standards because we love God and other people which is a lot harder than it sounds. Most of the time we characterize love as an emotion. That's not love that's sentimentality. Love at it's root is an act of the divine will. That means it follows the basic commandment of loving God and loving others.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 29, 2007 2:48 PM

If the bible is true and we live by the law of love (Love God and love other people) we cease to live by a legalistic moral standards because they are right but we live by moral standards because we love God and other people which is a lot harder than it sounds. Most of the time we characterize love as an emotion. That's not love that's sentimentality. Love at it's root is an act of the divine will.

That is why Augustine said, "If you but love God you may do as you incline" -- if you love God you will be motivated to do His will in all areas of your life, doing over and above what the Law says. Jimmy Swaggart, in response to people not participating in "worldly pursuits" after conversion, said correctly, "You won't want to do them." That was the problem with the Pharisees -- as much as they were committed to God's Law they completely missed Him, who gave the Law in the first place.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 3:36 PM

"There is no biblical passage that supports racism. That is the difference."

Are you sure about that? Slavery is condoned repeatedly. Would you also claim that the bible has no passages that are sexist and put women as inferior?

In our defense of something we can become a bit blinded. There is no attack on God by observing the human parts of the bible. God is infinitely greater than the bible. The bible is one great way to explore spirituality, but only to the extent that we utilize it in a spiritual way. Divisiveness is not a spiritual practice.

Posted by: Aaron B | November 29, 2007 4:25 PM

Are you sure about that? Slavery is condoned repeatedly. Would you also claim that the bible has no passages that are sexist and put women as inferior?

Once again, the cultural context is being missed. The kind of slavery that existed in ancient Rome was not really "chattel slavery" that we liken to slavery of blacks in this hemisphere; rather, it was more accurately "indentured servitude." (Remember that God removed ancient Israel from chattel slavery thousands of years earlier.) Properly understood, Paul's writings about women -- remember, there were women in leadership of the early church -- were, for that day, downright feminist.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 5:02 PM

"Then on what basis do you say it's incorrect? The the Bible documents human sin does not mean the texts are inaccurate."

Doesn't make them accurate either. What makes the bible incorrect or better yet innacurate are the mistakes in it, mistakes like when Chronicles and Kings have different accounts of the same story when they were still close to the same source material. That is not to say there is not truth but again truth comes alive when the Spirit makes it live not before.

Then you also said this:
Depends on how you define "abandon". I did not say "change", per se. Perhaps a better term would be "de-emphasize". It is clear to me that ashpenaz's sexuality is of principle concern to him, even to the detriment of eternity, potentially.

Why would you bring up his station in God's kingdom? Do you honestly think Ashphanez could theaten his "eternity, [even] potentially?"

When you wrote that there are several things that text could communicate and none of it is the love of Christ. You potentially set yourself up as a god able to judge if he is saved or not? I just would not even pose the query. I find that to be insulting you would not question Donny's eternity even though he worships the Republican party over Jesus why would you even bring up the question of his eternity.

The emphasis on "de-emphasizing or changing" his sexuality shows a fundamental ignorance on how human sexuality can "change." Not only that but this is what makes you a hypocrite. Unless you have gone thru and worked through those issues yourself you should not suggest that others do it. I would rather be silent and have integrity on an issue than type and have none. Have you gone thru the necessary "de-emphasizing?" What did you do? How did it work? Can you give any practicals?

If you have not gone thru that then please don't talk on it. Love is not easy or simple or nice. You are right about that but when our straight culture has done such a poor job at showing any of those things then maybe we should focus on those parts of love. Jesus does promise those types of love in discipleship. There are passages in Isaiah that speak to that love and Jesus quotes it. Jesus only calls people to the hard stuff as they walk w/ him. That won't happen until we teach others to trust even when it is really difficult. Nothing in your responses does that. The focus is on correcting doctrine over showing grace. That's not Jesus. We are not dealing w/ a pharisee here or a saducee.

p

p

Posted by: payshun | November 29, 2007 11:27 PM

Just to make a point, the Bible nowhere calls homosexuality a sin. That word did not exist until the 19th century. The Bible calls certain acts sinful, which translators have wrongly translated as equivalent to the word homosexual. We don't know exactly what those words referred to.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 30, 2007 10:50 AM

"Yes. I say "potentially" becuase I don't know. How important is his sexuality? Is it something he would give up for God? Do you think giving up self for God has eternal ramifications or no? That is a question for you, btw."

I don't know. But judging from the parables I read it doesn't. Discipleship is different from actual salvation. I can come to the table just w/ a belief in him and not necessarily repenting of my sins just like the poor steward or the lost sheep or the prodigal. God saves and he doesn't seem to care who or how, just as long as he does it.

"Well, the English major in me is judging YOU right now, but what I think you meant to say is that I suggested the text does not necessarily communicate the love of Chirst. I said no such thing, and so the proposition that I have established myself as a god is false. Exegesis does not require us to be God. Discerning what God intended in the Biblical text does not require us to make ourselves God either."

It does when you potentially question someone's salvation which is what you did.

"Having not gone through it does not make me a hypocrite. You are straining the definition of the term here. There are a number of things that the Bible labels sin that I do not struggle with. "

No it doesn't. Just because you don't "struggle w/ homosexuality" doesn't mean you should not learn to kill your broken heterosexuality. I did. My critique stands because all human sexuality in humanity is broken and unless you went thru the work of understanding how it's broken then that would not give you the integrity to talk on the subject thus making you a hypocrite.

"This a curious response to my statement that I did not ask him to change. You seem to want to quantify my opinion in a manner that you can comfortably lecture or talk down to. "

No. kevin you asked him to see his sexuality as sinful, that necessitates a change therefore what I said stands. You can't change what you actually wrote to fit the thoughts you really wanted to convey.

"I am not trying to teach. I am not his pastor."

Then stop trying to explain proper theology.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 30, 2007 3:36 PM

I reject absolutely any god, or human perception of a god, who rejects anyone for any reason. Period.

Rick N.
I just found your response to my above comment:

“Trust me -- you want a God that doesn't. He would thus not be worthy of worship.”

I do trust you. You seem like a good guy. I’d trust you to borrow and take care of my Dylan memorabilia, borrow my car and even to baby-sit my grandkids. I would even loan you money knowing you would pay me back promptly... but trust you to explain theology and the nature of God to me? Sorry, never. I have not agreed with one word you have posted on this thread.... but hey, that’s ok. I simply feel you have a long way to go on your journey. I was once where you were but have discovered new understanding of how to interpret the bible and new ways to understand the divine. I feel someday you will move beyond naive pre-critical thinking into a more mature understanding. It is a difficult, challenging and sometimes fearful journey but for some reason I feel you are up to the challenge. Good luck.

Posted by: jackfate | December 1, 2007 4:38 PM

Rick:

The language of your post still reminds me of me several years ago!

All language about “god” is human language whether it comes from the bible, MLK, the Dali Lama, or deep inside our own selves. We have no other way to speak of the divine or of “god.” Therefore, any conclusions we come to are human opinions. I feel it is imperative to understand this. Without this understanding we are kept in a childlike position of immaturity looking to a type of supernatural father figure to set rules and boundaries for us. We even project a sex onto our “god” (I noticed you used the pronoun “He” and “His” to refer to your concept of God.

I have no desire to kept in a position of childlike immaturity. There comes a time to put away childish things even in our understanding of who or what god is or isn’t. It is up to each one of us as mature adults to decide such matters. The Realm of God (I am not particularly fond of the word “Kingdom” because of the sexist language but use it out of habit many times) is within us. We all have the potential to live its attributes of love, compassion, generosity, patience, goodness, kindness, temperance, joy, peace, considering others better than ourselves, etc. These are human characteristics that when actually lived and not merely used as romanticised platitudes can put us in touch with the divine dwelling within the human heart and mind. Jesus is a human possibility. To me that is inspiring. To me that is maturity. That is theology for a thinking, mature adult who wants to move beyond the childish perception of god as a magical, stern but loving parent figure who lives above the sky.

My conception of god is quite different from yours. I cannot perceive of a god who rejects people. I cannot perceive of a god who would condemn one to a life of misery while blessing others. I cannot perceive of a god who would accept or reject based upon belief of the individual. I cannot perceive of a theistic supernatural god separate from us. God is to be found in our own humanity not separate from it.

I do not consider myself evangelical but the one thing I like about Sojourners and Jim Wallis is the recognition of common ground between conservative and liberal Christians which is of course is taking care of the least of these.... feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and in prison. On this the most conservative and the most liberal can agree. I trust we are at least together on those things and that is enough.

All the best to you.

Peace.

Posted by: jackfate | December 3, 2007 12:27 PM

Man, well I've just finished reading the above 70 odd comments and find it very interesting and at times very frustrating.

On the gay issue: I am of the opinion that while many things are not black and white, the practice of (acting on - whether physically or by 'in the heart/eye as Jesus referred to in terms of lust) homosexuality issue is. There are repeated references to homosexuality being sin. There is simply no doubt about that. If anything in the bible is sin, then homosexuality is. (Of course there are many things the bible lists as sin from murder to lying but homosexuality is most certainly one of them). If we are wanting to start making arguments for our own beliefs based on what is 'not in the text but hidden' then we are all in serious trouble. We can then make the bible 'say' anything and everything. To make "David wept the more" say that "David got a full erection and had an orgasm" is the most absurd and laughable argument I have ever heard. Can anyone else see that we could be then making the same arguments that sex with children and animals, because "that's just the desires that I have and therefore the way God made me" are also God ordained gifts? And the argument about what is natural and unnatural?? It doesn't take a proctologist to know that the anus is not designed or intended for sex. It is a one way valve! So I truthfully wonder, if males did not have any 'large enough orifices' would we even be having this 'debate' about whether homosexuality is 'natural' and righteous before God? I do apologise if these comments seem vulgar - that is not the intention but merely to point out that before the need to turn this into an intellectual and theological issue, there is a very basic biological problem that seems to be danced around and the homosexuality issue has ironically been romanticised.

I'm not for one moment denying the fact that some have very real 'feelings' and attractions to members of the same sex and the enormous struggle, heartache and pain that this can bring. I am a married man and as others have stated, there are struggles that I have at times with lust for women other than my wife and if I act on this lust (for some reason I feel like I very carefully need to keep qualifying my statements on here?? I am referring to lusting in my heart, or if I was to have a physical extra-marital affair) then it would be sin, of which I would need forgiveness. At times that can be an enormous battle. However, some people in our societies, as I have already mentioned, have very real feelings and attractions to children, family members, animals and other peoples spouses. Of course my point is that these feelings, attractions etc, are not justification before God for us to act on these feelings.

Having said all of that, please let me clarify that I absolutely believe that we are to love everyone, as God loves us. Period. All human beings have intrinsic value because of the value placed on us by God and the price that he was willing to pay for us. I also believe that we are all fallen, and broken individuals that are desperately in need of the amazing grace of God and his incredible plan of forgiveness and redemption.

Posted by: oooben | December 28, 2007 8:34 PM