Huckabee has just blown it anywhere outside the South. You can bet the party establishment is going to really go after him now, the way the Dem establishment went after Dean in 04.

Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 2:44 PM

I see a few false assumptions and bits of misleading information presented here. First, "wifely submission" is not necessarily equivalent to support of "traditional roles." One could very easily believe in wives submitting to their husbands while at the same time being comfortable with the husband cooking and cleaning and the wife is out winning bread.

Second, Huckabees' views do indeed represent those of evangelicalism (or at least a strong majority of evangelicals worldwide). Criticism of this interpretation of submission is coming almost solely from liberal/mainline theologians who also hold dubious positions about Christ's deity, for example.

Where you veer off later suggests that you view submission as a doctrine that views women as having less worth than men. If wives are worth less than husbands because they submit to them, then wouldn't I have less worth than my pastor because I submit to him? Just because one is a leader doesn't mean they have greater worth. This postmodern view is a perversion of the idea of equality.

That's my two cents, anyway =).

Posted by: jesse | January 11, 2008 2:50 PM

E. Schulz -- Ron Paul is not a Christian to my knowledge. Besides, you can be principled in isolation all you want, as he is in practice.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 3:12 PM

Criticism of this interpretation of submission is coming almost solely from liberal/mainline theologians who also hold dubious positions about Christ's deity, for example.

Uh, Jesse, this is a rather sweeping accusation, don't you think?

D

Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

"Uh, Jesse, this is a rather sweeping accusation, don't you think?"
--Correction: "TEND to hold dubious positions about Christ's deity and other important doctrines."

Still rather sweeping. Do ALL 'mainline theologians' who criticize this interpretation of submission have this tendency? Maybe you should give us some names.

And further, do all conservative theologians agree with this interpretation of submission? My own experience with a church that taught sumbission in this way ended rather badly for both myself and my wife, by the way.

D

Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 3:39 PM

In the "submission debate" I have almost never seen the next passage in Ephesians 5 cited or commented on. It reads (25-28) "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."
I don't understand the nuances of "submit," but it's clear that husbands are called to total sacrifical service to their wives. I doubt that submission to a husband like that would be particularly oppressive or ego-destroying, or whatever other negative is read into "submit." It sounds like a pretty resonable balance to me - or more likely a distinction without a difference.

Posted by: JWH | January 11, 2008 4:09 PM

"Still rather sweeping. Do ALL 'mainline theologians' who criticize this interpretation of submission have this tendency? Maybe you should give us some names."
--Not all. I'd say most would deny that there was anything unique about what Jesus did and that salvation can be found outside of Christ (including the current leader of the Episcopal church, for ex).

But this is beside the point...criticism of the biblical passages re: wifely submission are mainly coming from outside the evangelical church. Evangelicals all over the world generally affirm the belief re: submission stated by Huckabee. DBB provides us with no evidence to suggest otherwise--even among those early Christians at Wellesley.

DBB also seems to be praising the idea of "submitting to no one" (a characteristic she applauds in Wellesley women). Sorry, but commands to submit are found frequently in the Bible; to imply that we should not submit to anyone is simply false doctrine.

Posted by: jesse | January 11, 2008 5:03 PM

cheyenne bodie--I would guess the answer to your question is, "Yes."

Posted by: pleasant day | January 11, 2008 5:44 PM

"Wifely submission is only one interpretation of scripture and not without significant criticism by biblical scholars and theologians."

This statement says almost nothing. The existence of criticism has not bearing on the merits of an interpretation. To piggyback on Jesse's point, there ARE a number of scholars and theologians who do not affirm the deity of Christ. That simply means that there are scholars and theologians who are wrong (and will not see heaven if they do not adjust their worldview).

By my observation, women who hold to concepts of wifely submission and headship feel more valued in their relationships than couple who don't (and certainly moreso than couples who disregard scripture entirely).

Posted by: kevin s. | January 11, 2008 6:35 PM

I am liberal theologically and unlike some of my liberal brethren I do believe that Jesus is both divine and human. He is one w/ the Father.

As for submission theology, I find it laughable. I prefer the partner theology founded in Genesis which did not have presupposed roles for each gender to follow. I think by taking Paul's letters so seriously (and out of context) we have done a great deal of damage to women in Christianity.

It's not like the idea of submission was always used justly, at least not in this country, so can we please stop pretending that men in this country have a history of treating wives fairly. That didn't really start to happen until the 70's.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 11, 2008 8:35 PM

Ms Diana Butler Bass--I am sorry you did not listen more closely to Mr. Huckabee's response and that you paripharased him inaccurately since some reading your post diod not see the debate themselves and won't know any better than to trust what you wrote. A). Mr. Huckabee did not joke that his wife is not submissive. He joked that anyone woh knows her understands that she isn't "going to just sit by and let me [Mr. Huckabee] do whatever I want to." B). As an explanation of the submission text he stated, "It's not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other." For Mr. Huckabee it is a matter of mutual submission, each giving 100%. The phrasing of the statement that was signed was "wifely submission to servant leadership" emphasis on servant as well as submission. How Senator Clinton's win in New Hampshire "provides an instructive historical lesson about that [I'm assuming you mean egalitarianism here] evangelical alternative" is beyond me. A belief in human equality is not served by Senator Clinton's win any more than it would have been served by a Senator Obama win. I personally was glad to see Senator Clinton show a little raw emotion, however if the pundits can be believed (and I'm not saying they should be) her tears caused more than a few women to rise up and with their votes say, "We're tired of the powers that be beating up and pushing down women." Does voting for someone because she's a woman make her more equal? I don't think so.

Posted by: Margaret | January 12, 2008 3:44 AM

Very good, post. Thank you, Ms. Bass for sharing your expertise in the American religious experience. It is always refreshing to see that there have been progressive elements in the evangelical world going so far back in time and that even that long ago, people did not feel constrained by archaic interpretive paradigms.

"Very interesting and not that surprising that DBB misrepresented his position. Submission does not equal dominance, people!" Jesse

I doubt that DBB misrepresented Mike Huckabee's position. What is more likely is that Huckabee paid lip service to the traditional, conservative position and then tempered it with the line about his wife. He wanted to appear to be towing the conservative line while at the same time seeming to be reasonable. The ambiguity leads to differing interpretations of what he said.

"Servant leadership is sacrificial--"as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it." Most wives would be on cloud nine if they had this." Jesse

That is one interpretation that I have heard in churches that I attended that did not ordain women as ministers but nevertheless held the position (rightfully so) that men were not to abuse their wives and that they were to respect them as co-equals in the marital relationship.

That position is certainly better than what has been the problem historically with the "wives submit to your husbands" verse when in some contexts it has been used as a pretext for opposing women’s' rights. And certainly many of us in the center and on the left feel that the verse is being mis-applied when denominations use it to keep women from being ordained pastors. Those same denominations that would prohibit women from being ordained do not require that they keep their heads covered in church and that they remain silent in church- notwithstanding specific Bible verses that would require it.

"If DBB and Sojo really want to make inroads with evangelicals, they will not distort their positions in debate. " Jesse

I think that we are all resigned to the fact that there is a certain segment of the evangelical world that we will never convince and we are fine with that- they will never convince us either. It is mutual. As for misrepresenting peoples' positions, I saw plenty of that coming from so-called "Bible-believing" "orthodox" pastors who would level the most horrible accusations against the writings of those whom they opposed- and that without ever having read what the person said and why they said it. No side is perfect. I will admit to the shortcomings of the liberal side. Are you willing to admit to the shortcomings of the conservative side?

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 12, 2008 9:49 AM

Mike Huckabee is a charming person, a fine man and perhaps the most "populist" of the Republican candidates. That said, he is an "old school" traditionalist, staunch in his conservative religious, political and social convictions. That should be enough to discount him as a leader for Americans, especially women, who are committed to a dynamic, pleuralist future that empowers all of us.

Posted by: Anne McCrady | January 12, 2008 11:03 AM

OK, now I'm repeating myself, but the above post is not true. Scripture takes a positive view of what the writers call "eunuchs," which was a catch-all term for all those born without the capacity for traditional marriage, including gays. (See Strong's dictionary for confirmation of that definition.) Jesus had a high view of the Centurion and his lover. Philip baptized a non-damaged Ethiopian who was probably gay. Ruth and Naomi were treated as a married couple. Etc. Etc.

No one knows what the word "arsenkoites" means--it was used less than 100 times in all ancient manuscripts up until about 1500. You can't simply say it can be exactly translated as "homosexual" the way we understand homosexuality as a biological orientation. "Malakoi" means soft, the way Jesus uses the word to describe silk. It probably has nothing to do with sexuality--it probably means something more like fat and lazy. Televevangelists, look out or you might be malakoi!

There is no passage in Scripture which describes what we mean today by homosexuality, which is an inborn, biological orientation. Those men described in Romans started out heterosexual, turned to idols, then were led by God to behavior which was unnatural for them as heterosexuals. The passage in Romans says nothing about those who were knit together by God in their mother's womb with a homosexual orientation. There is no mention of lesbians in this passage--the women described were led to the unnatural act of pleasuring men in non-procreative ways. I wonder if anyone here has participated in that sin? Hmmm?

If you only pick out those passages which condemn cultic, ritual homosexual prostitution, then, yes, the Bible and all gay Christians condemn that form of homosexual behavior. Do you pick out only the passages which condemn adultery and promiscuity in order to condemn heterosexuality? There are many places where the Bible lifts up homosexuals and welcomes them into the the Kingdom without requiring celibacy or healing.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 12, 2008 1:32 PM

"Criticism of this interpretation of submission is coming almost solely from liberal/mainline theologians who also hold dubious positions about Christ's deity, for example."

Jesse, this is simply not accurate. The Biblical understanding of mutual submission in marriage is widespread and growing in the evangelical community. For a scholarly presentation of the evangelical egalitarian view, visit the website of Christians for Biblical Equality: http://www.cbeinternational.org

Posted by: Rachel | January 12, 2008 3:07 PM

Ashpanez--Yes, I do notice you are repeating. Please do not necessariliy assume no one has heard. I believe the Lord has asked I more carefully attend to issues/questions/challenges being raised regarding how churches/Christians respond to 'homosexuality.' I am interested.

I am not interested in moving as frequently to the issue as you raise it.

My impression is Huckabee's response reflects what I believe is the structure of the submit/love Ephesians passage: i.e. submission and love within the context of mutual submission; and that the living out of this way leads to understanding that really is not reflected within popular language--which has trouble envisioning any kind of submission by anyone to anything as being anything positive. Maybe just a hint of issues with authority--do you think??

At any rate I would have zero surprise if JamesMartin is correct about Huckabee staking out an ambiguous position. Which again leads me to wonder out loud about DBB's use of the ambiguous comments as a launching point for this blog.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 12, 2008 3:16 PM

OK, now I'm repeating myself, but the above post is not true. Scripture takes a positive view of what the writers call "eunuchs," which was a catch-all term for all those born without the capacity for traditional marriage, including gays.

You're really playing with Scripture here. Ever go to the Middle East, to the cultural source? You would know then that what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous.

There are many places where the Bible lifts up homosexuals and welcomes them into the the Kingdom without requiring celibacy or healing.

Let's see them. I bet you're wrong.

Example is perhaps Hillary and Bill sending their child to a private school.

Bad example -- they had the money to pay for it. That's different from raiding the public treasury for another middle-class entitlement, which is what vouchers in practice represent.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 5:33 PM

"Again, if you've already decided that women shouldn't be ordained, you won't see these passages as being about ordained women. You'll create a translation and a context where these texts about ordained females aren't really about ordained females."

I agree w/ you on that. Ofcourse there were female apostles. Anyone heard of Thekla?

http://www.antiochian.org/1440

In early church history there is no woman that was more important than her. She rivalled Mary the mother of Jesus as the most important woman in apostlic tradition and history.

But the thing is when it comes to issues about homosexuality you have already some rather large holes in your presentation of the theology. You ignore other cultural sources that confirm Candace's eunuch was in fact a castrati. Read about ancient Ethiopia and see for yourself eunuchs could only serve the queen if they were castrated. I am not making that up and I am just going by one definition of someone that doesn't fit the traditional forms of marriage between man and woman. Jesus does indeed talk about all people for whom "traditional" marriage may not be the best option but it isn't in that passage.

I still don't understand why it matters if the bible sanctions the love you have or not. I know it does but not thru most of the passages you listed.

The bible doesn't talk about overt love btwn two people of the same gender w/ the possible exception of David and Jonathon. Even that love is not fully charactized in the same light as David and Bathsheba, David and Michal and other women David slept w/. Why is that? Why doesn't the bible just flat out say that David and Jonathon were lovers? Instead if uses vague poetic imagery to reveal a very intimate and close relationship where sex btwn the two is vague at best.

The bible is a very honest book when it comes to the sexual habits of many of its leaders especially David and Solomon. But for some magical reason that level of honesty and clarity doesn't fully manifest itself in the most intimate friendship recorded in scripture. Why?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 12, 2008 7:49 PM

Why doesn't the bible just flat out say that David and Jonathon were lovers? Instead if uses vague poetic imagery to reveal a very intimate and close relationship where sex btwn the two is vague at best.

Because they weren't. Again, people often confuse Oriental and Occidental cultural values; what we interpret as sexual they don't. I have on very good information that close same-gender friends hold hands in public in the Middle East; holding hands, of course, has a sexual/romantic connotation in the West. Did you ever notice also that, even in modern Jewish culture, men do folk dances only with other men? There is simply not much casual contact with members of the other gender in that part of the world. (FWIW, Islam operates similarly.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 8:40 PM

So, you're saying that their culture had different norms, and we can't apply those cultural norms to our current culture?

You're getting warm!

What you describe between Jonathan and David was a ceremony during which they became "blood brothers," not uncommon in that day -- sex was not involved because under Mosaic law both could have been stoned. In fact, if you read the Scripture more carefully you will note that both were already married to women; David, in fact, was married to Jonathan's sister, whom Saul gave to David in marriage for taking out Goliath, and after Jonathan's death David seeks out Jonathan's surviving children so that they could eat at the king's table -- which was part of that covenant. To insist that they were lovers is simply ridiculous.

Did Mary and Joseph have sex? How do you know?

Go right to the source. From Matthew 1:25:

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 11:43 PM

"In the first section, Jonathan strips naked in front of David and vows his love."

I live in Minnesota. If I go to shovel snow and, upon my return, remove my coat, gloves, snowboots and shovel, am I naked? Not unless I am a weirdo.

"it is clear Saul considers them married"

That is not clear unless you want it to be clear.

"and because of their marriage, they won't have children."

Wait. I see what you are trying to sneak in here. You are trying to say that Saul was suggesting that the kingdom would not be established because they could not produce children together. This requires us to believe that he took time from his tirade to acknowledge a biological practicality. That is an absurd reading of the text.

"Did Mary and Joseph have sex?"

Have you read the Bible, or have you only read it as strained through you the lens of your pet theory.

We can tell Mary and Joseph did not have sex (before conception, which is what you are talking about) because the Bible says they did not.

Your argument boils down to the notion that, if the Bible doesn't say people had sex, we must assume they did. That is the most absurd argument about anything related to scripture that I have ever heard.

"So, what Paul might have thought of as unnatural in his culture, such as men with long hair, grafting alien branches into vines, and heterosexual idolaters performing homosexual acts, might not have the same meaning for us today? Interesting. . ."

It's not interesting at all, at least not the way you present the challenge. You are arguing from what I call the shellfish fallacy. This derives from the argument, often stated, that we must disregard an element of the Old Testament, lest we hold ourselves to the law of not consuming shrimp. This is another manifestation of that reasoning.

Incidentally, Paul explicitly said that the hair thing was in reference to culture. This example undermines your point, in that he did not make a similar qualification for homosexuality.

But to the main point, I will again reassert my agreement that to interpret wifely submission in the context of Paul simply acting as a sounding board for the culture is no different from interpreting homosexuality the same way.

The Episcopalian church has utlized the same calculus to argue on behalf of practicing gay clergy.

One could use the same argument for any behavior down the road. The couple struck dead for lying about their charity to the church? Simply reflection of a culture that despised dishonesty. The admonition to not have sex with one's in-laws? Again, cultural. You could go on and on.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 2:17 AM

I've never understood why people use the example of David and Jonathan to support acceptance of homosexuality. The reason being that if they had sexual relations, they would also be adulterers, since both were married. Are you saying the Bible is okay with adultery, as well?

Posted by: jesse | January 13, 2008 7:37 AM

Oops, Alexander's beloved was named Hephaestion. Here's a link to more information:

http://www.alexander-the-great.co.uk/hephaestion.htm

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 13, 2008 12:44 PM

Ashpenaz--I was interested in how you assess other treatments of the derobing narrative, why you dismiss those and consider it an act of eternal vows (say as opposed to vow of allegiance to David's Kingship which would seem to make greater sense in the broader narrative). I am OK with you wishing to explore the meaning and consider options. If I see that process going on in your head it opens my ears to your conclusions. If your just grabbing onto an interpretation to get to a conclusion then my ears close and dialog about it is likely a waste (particularly given this is not on-topic with the blog).

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 2:37 PM

The New Innuendo Bible--isn't that next to the Scofield Reference Bible or the Prosperity Bible? In any case, I'm using the actual Greek.

Samuel 20:41--After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

David didn't "weep the most": the word used means "David became large." So, the simplest description of two men who vow eternal love, love each other more than women, join their households together, strip naked in front of each other, and become erect in each other's presence is, well, gay. And there's nothing wrong with that, since Jesus welcomes gays into the Kingdom.

The point is, you don't want to see any of this--you don't want to see that eunuchs were neither celibate and castrated, and that the term, though not synonymous with gay, was a catch-all for all those who were born without the capacity for traditional marriage, including gays; you don't want to admit that Centurions had sexual partners which were their beloved slaves; That Ashpenaz had a "womb-like" love for Daniel, and since they were both "eunuchs (see above)," sex wasn't out of the question; and that David and Jonathan were lifelong partners.

You also don't want to admit that no one knows what "arsenkoites" means, and that the two parts of the word may have nothing to do with its definition, like our word for a woman who's a "mankiller" or a guy who's a "hothead." You don't want to admit that "malakoi" is not a sexual term, but a term for lazy living. And you don't want to see that "para physin" has to do, not with the law of nature, but more with a breach of common action, like long hair, and including Gentiles.

You can't see that a homophobic church has chosen to suppress the true meanings of words and incidents in order to oppress gays--the same way the church has oppressed women, slaves, and other minorities.

I include this long passage from Romans as my final word on this subject for awhile:

"1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

Ultimately, this is between me and God. I've found a congregation which accepts me, and that is where I need to be to grow. If you want to keep self-accepting gays out of your congregation, fine--we'll shake the dust off our shoes and take our gifts elsewhere.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 13, 2008 4:39 PM

"In any case, I'm using the actual Greek."

Selectively, yes, in a sense. But unless you are a Greek Scholar, what you are actually doing is simply parroting the arguments made by the homosexual theological movement.

"David didn't "weep the most": the word used means "David became large."

It translates literally to exceeded himself, which might cause tittering in Middle School classrooms (as would the word "tittering", for that matter) but more likely refers to an excess of grief rather than a flow of blood to the genitals.

The next thing Jonathan does to David is note that they have sworn friendship, which is a curious thing to do after you have just had a gay tryst.

"The point is, you don't want to see any of this"

How do you know what I want to see? Unlike you, I do not read the Bible with an agenda. I did not decide, before embracing God, that he must believe this or that. If He accepts homosexuals, then He does, but the Bible states that He does not.

You want a eunuch not to be a eunuch, a friend to be a gay lover, a slave to be a gay sex slave. You are bringing the wants to the table here.

"You can't see that a homophobic church has chosen to suppress the true meanings of words"

But you are reinventing the meaning of words. The "homophobic church" has done no such thing, and you have provided no evidence that they have.

"If you want to keep self-accepting gays out of your congregation, fine--we'll shake the dust off our shoes and take our gifts elsewhere."

It doesn't seem fine, given that you introduced the topic (yet again) in response to a post about gender roles, but you are correct that it is between you and God. But if you devote your life to theological strains that exist for the purpose of yielding specific outcomes, you will be very misled indeed.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 5:22 PM

Ashpenaz--Thank you.

It would have been nice to have you respond as to how you weighed various interpretations of the 'derobing.' You inject the topic into a thread, assert your position repeatedly, don't answer the question, then 'sign-off' as if no one is interested in dialogue with you.

I share ground with JamesMartin re: having sympathy for your views.

I think there are about 1001 issues within this issue that the church needs to address. And frankly I would likely agree with you on about 927 of them. Even though I take a traditional stance that Scripture argues for a normative ethic of heterosexual marriage equally yoked in Jesus. But that leaves 999 questions unanswered(or thereabouts). Since our sexuality (maleness/femaleness) is central to all relationships--all relationship questions essentially need to be answered if we hold that homosexual orientations are not normative. How can a person bring themself to any human relationship and leave their sexuality (or spirituality for that matter) out of the equation?

How do persons who cannot be physically categorized as male or female experience human relationship if we just say "You're broken?" Again, there are 1001 questions.

But if we try to answer all the questions by traveling first through the "I have an ethical, scriptural, and equality claim to engage in Gay Marriage and homosexual intimacy"--we will do one of two things. We will never answer 999 of the questions because we will forever be arguing if David had an erection. Or we will solve the issue through a socio-political fight (as we did with Feminism) where there is a winner and loser. IN which all of us reap the benefit of solving some of the questions and all of us reap the harm of imposing answers outside of a coherent, ethical framework.

Currently the fight is primarily being waged on a very low-level moral claim: i.e. "A childish That's not Fair!" claim.

I appreciate Ashpanez asserting a parallel between the current debate and that over women's rights. Much needed change occurred in the last century due to feminist action. And we also have a social landscape littered with broken family and relational structures--without an ethical framework even to rebuild.

Those of us with a more traditional framework need to recognize we fear turning over another piece of sexuality/family/relationships/spirituality to another wave of chaos. We need to move in love instead of fear. We need to hold the Good News of Jesus as being truly good--liberating--healing--Shalom.

We need bring it to bear on 999 issues. When we fail at that (which I think, e.g., the FOTF crowd does) we leave the door wide open for confused/blind/shepherds to drive in with deception.

And Ashpenaz, I say not one word of this to diminish one iota of your God-birthed humanity and dignity; nor to pretend I know or have figured out the 999 questions or answers. Every Christian I have known with same-sex orientation has lived with great pain--and has been a wonderful gift to me and the Body of Christ. I have more to learn than I have to say.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 6:50 PM

letjusticerolldown You have a beautiful and Bibical way of expressing yourself .

James Martin said

"Are you trying to say that Sojo should have come out and taken a stance on what Obama was doing?

No not at all James . I thought it was noteworthy . I agree with you , I thought it showed Barak's ability to have people around him that are not all politically and idealogically out of the same progressive mold . . He was being attacked by at least one large gay rights organization , demanding he fire his friend . I thought it was refreshing and one of the reasons I like Barak, he stuck by his friend . . He can have a friendship and respect for another who he disagrees with , or agrees with , I don't actually know , but it was refreshing !

Maybe just off SoJo's radar . But Ifind their lack of covering many situations in the left while seeminly to spot only a negative lens on the right hurting their opportunity to as they state to widen the conversation .

And also James are you sure his church is open and affrming ? I do not think it was the denomination you were referring to . It seemed very conservative compared to their teachings from their web site . The denomination you speak of had a speaker who spoke to the probability Christ was not God . Just seems a bit more liberal then Barak's church anyway .

Their is a link from his church that goes to trumpet magazine and has a story on the "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan" I though he was against any kind of gay issues , but I might be wrong there ?

"I am not sure what the SOJO stance on the gay issue is. I believe that Jim Wallis at one time or another said that it should be handled as a congregational autonomy issue. Maybe that was in God's Politics. Some congregations will accept it and others will not. But both groups should agree not to condemn the other as non-Christian for their stance. "

Right on and well said . It causes problems though , and I believe it will continue to . Refreshing your view on respecting other views .
But from my discernment , politically SOJO would have the liberal view and support on gay issues .

"I see a lot of merit with this middle ground. I base this on the fact that the root causes homosexuality are unknown with any certainty."

Your a good man James , well stated . its an issue I don't think can be resolved , we can only hold to the scriptures and spirit that helps us understand and compete in the race as Paul says . And realize but by the grace of God go I .

Posted by: Mick | January 13, 2008 8:26 PM

"Here's one thing that's true--all of the examples I have listed are men who love other men--men whose primary love relationship is with another man. We are only arguing about whether they expressed that love sexually."

That is not clear at all in the case of the Centurion. Some of the men you mention are not married. As a Christian, I can't say that I loved any woman more than my guy friends until I met my wife.

"It's also OK for men to express their love for each other by kissing, by laying on each other's chest, by being naked with each other, and, well, exceeding themselves. If all that's OK, where do you draw the line for physical expression of love between men?"

Sex.

Today, the Dallas Cowboys lost their playoff game. I am guessing Tony Romo shed some tears, told his teammates he loved them more than anything, embraced many of them, and then showered nude* with them, perhaps not in that order. He probably meant every activity sincerely.

And if Jessica Simpson were to accuse him of being gay, she probably wouldn't get the chance to make him breakfast tomorrow morning*. He isn't into dudes, and being an emotional football player doesn't change that fact.

* - Not ceding your arguments re: David and Jonathan being nude and David "exceeding himself", nor am I suggesting that sleeping with B-level actresses is any more or less sinful than a homosexual encounter with the offensive line.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 9:49 PM

Here's what bugs me--you keep saying that Hebrew and Greek culture didn't have the same concept of sexuality that we do, and then you say Paul's writings on sexuality within that culture are binding on all cultures for all time. If Paul didn't have the same understanding of homosexuality that we do, how could he comment on it? And if he did have the same understanding of homosexuality that we do, how come that is the only one thing where his understanding and our understanding is exactly the same? We and Paul disagree on slavery, on wives, on long hair, etc., and we put those down to cultural differences. But you say there are no cultural differences to consider when Paul talks about gays.

And there is one Biblical character--and I wasn't planning to bring this up--a single male whose primary relationship was with a man. Jesus loved Lazarus in a special way so that Lazarus was set apart as "the one Jesus loved." Not "one of them that Jesus loved" but "the one." I don't think Jesus and Lazarus had sex, but I do think it's clear that Jesus had his primary emotional connection with a man. Unless you believe the Da Vinci Code and not Scripture.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 13, 2008 10:25 PM

From Webster's Dictionary: Submit= To yield, resign or surrender to the power, will or authority of another. That is the primary definition and is all about dominance

Posted by: ragnarok_13

You are using today's definitions to define a term used thousands a years ago, in another culture , translated to another language and ignoring other Bibical references and context .

The Bible tells men to Love their wives like Christ Loved the church .
The example Christ gives is not dominance over the church , but being a SERVANT for the Church . Remember his example of washing the feet at the last supper . He died for us , does not sound like dominance to me .

I think women have it easy , all they have to do is agree with the man who says he will do everything she wants . ;0)

Ok , kidding .

But I am curious how you submit to God but are unwilling to do what He tells us to to do ?

.

Posted by: Mick | January 13, 2008 11:26 PM

If Paul didn't have the same understanding of homosexuality that we do, how could he comment on it? And if he did have the same understanding of homosexuality that we do, how come that is the only one thing where his understanding and our understanding is exactly the same? We and Paul disagree on slavery, on wives, on long hair, etc., and we put those down to cultural differences. But you say there are no cultural differences to consider when Paul talks about gays.

Read what I wrote earlier: Homosexual conduct is always identified as "of the world" and thus not to be brought into the church at any time under any conditions. This is what Paul wrote, echoing the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus there is no cultural explanation needed for that. "Slavery," on the other hand, in those days meant "indentured servitude"; the best modern synonym is "work." (Notice that the Hebrews were called out of "chattel slavery" in Egypt.)

And there is one Biblical character -- and I wasn't planning to bring this up -- a single male whose primary relationship was with a man. Jesus loved Lazarus in a special way so that Lazarus was set apart as "the one Jesus loved."

Well, if you want to go any further, you can go to John, "the apostle whom Jesus loved" (of course, referring to himself in his Gospel). But why can't you let go of equating "love" with "sex?" Besides, it's likely that Lazarus was also married; singleness simply wasn't the norm in those days. (His spouse was irrelevant to the story.)

To me those verses seem to say that women should give up all decision making power to men and men should be nice to them and take care of them. In my opinion, it certainly seems to regard women as inferior.

I wrote earlier that women who lived during the Roman Empire were legally required to submit to their husbands; Paul, on the other hand, reinterpreted that command -- as also mentioned above -- for mutual submission. And in fact, in the Ephesians 5 passage, it's clear that in a marriage the man has the far greater responsibility. So, in the best circumstances, it all balances out.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 13, 2008 11:53 PM

Paul never says that homosexuality is of the world because Paul never talks about homosexuality. Paul does not think of homosexuality as an inborn, biological orientation any more than he thinks a cold is caused by germs. Paul only discusses the behavior he sees of Gentile, heterosexual idoloaters--you can't equate that behavior with that of baptized gay Christians who want a lifelong partnership.

There is nothing about being God Incarnate which would have prevented Jesus from getting married and having children--it's not a sin. He was single when it was unusual to be single, and his primary emotional connection was another single man (who lived with his sisters). The point is this: it's OK to be a man and love men more than women. The Bible nowhere suggests that it is unusual or wrong for men to have other men as their primary emotional connection: "I love you more than any woman," as David says.

If a man is knit together in his mother's womb with an orientation to love men more than women, the logical thing sould be that sexual intimacy would be a way for those two men to express their love. (I'm not talking about male friendship--that is subordinate to the relationship with your wife. I'm talking about two men who choose each other as their primary partners.) If two men have set themselves apart for each other, why would sex be wrong? The Bible nowhere condemns sex between two men with a biological homosexual orientation who have chosen each other for their life partners--if there is a Bible passage which does this, show me.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 14, 2008 10:56 AM

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 14, 2008 10:56 AM

With all due respect - you are putting things forward that are not in line with the full counsel of scripture. If God had ordained that man could love sexually another man. I believe that he would have made allowances for that. He would have created Adam and Eve and also provided Fred and Charlie so that all would know that it is OK. I believe that Christ would have blessed the wine at the wedding for the one couple married. If he was to put forth the idea that homosexual relationship were approved of, Christ would have blessed the wine of Alan and Jack.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 14, 2008 11:37 AM

Plus, I'm not sure how the discussion wandered so far off the original topic!

That's easily explained. It's long been a tactic of folks who support homosexual conduct to add that to discrimination by race and gender (in this case, the latter).

Getting back to the topic, I think Dr. Bass got it wrong in one sense when we talk about "female submission" out of the context in which it occurs. If we were more concerned with the other person and not simply the "offices" or "roles" we're supposed to play things would run far, far easier. Indeed, I would want a woman who knows enough about the Scripture to be able to challenge me -- because she just might be right. I'd rather get it right than feel I have to be right.

But rather than use this controversy as an excuse to tear the church apart, e.g., what's happening to the Episcopal Church, I would somhow wish we could leave it to God to sort out. Especially since it's the Holy Spirit's job, not ours individually, to convict people of sin.

Well, quite often the Holy Spirit uses His people in the process; I hope He uses me.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 12:24 PM

It isn't necessarily arguing from silence to suggest that, since Christ is not shown affirming homosexuality, the OT law stands in this regard.

"But rather than use this controversy as an excuse to tear the church apart, e.g., what's happening to the Episcopal Church, I would somhow wish we could leave it to God to sort out."

And how does the New Testament demonstrate that God sorts things out? Through his followers, for the most part. God is sorting out the issue in the Episcopalian church... By tearing it apart. As long as their church leaders persist in their arrogance and contempt for his word, he will continue to do so.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 14, 2008 12:42 PM

It is interesting that this article came on the same day as reimaging of God. What is so constraining about seeing yourself under authority? The Bible speaks to the liberating impact of taking Christ's yoke. Psalm 2 describes "why the nations rage so furiously" as because individuals rebel against the Lord and Christ saying "let us break their bonds and cast their yokes from us." Liberation can be enslaving when it seeks to "reimage" out from under correct authority. Servant leadership says that men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Wives need to respect their husbands. This undoubtedlty speaks as much to what each gender generally has more difficulty accomplishing as to what each requires most in a strong marriage, but the requirements are not the same. Wouldn't egalitarian language use the same requirements for each? I am glad that God gave us a theology that we are not free to pick and choose from based on what percentage of sinners (read all of us) buy into a particular flavor of it.

Posted by: wildebeast | January 14, 2008 4:20 PM

You know, it is really difficult to counter the statement that the Bible nowhere affirms gay relationships when you say that the gay relationships I point out aren't gay. You could say the Bible nowhere says "Love your neighbor" because that word doesn't mean neighbor.

Your list of meanings suggest that David "grew large" is a likely definition. Look at all the ways the word is used to mean "to grow, to become great(as with child, say)" etc. So, two guys making out until at least one becomes large sounds like sex to me. You don't want it to mean sex, so you refuse to see the obvious. If you walked in on that scene, what would think was going on?

If you can assume Lazarus was married, based on absolutely nothing, why can't I believe that the Centurion and his slave were lovers, which I at least base on social customs of the time and the use of the word "pais" in other literature? If you can define "slave" and "master" to mean our more modern "worker" and "manager", why can't I say "eunuch" includes our concept of gay?

And what, in fact, are you going to do with baptized Christian gays who use their believer's priesthood to interpret Scripture for themselves? You can say you disagree, but on what basis are you going to say we're wrong? If we can demonstrate our belief in lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships as well as you can demonstrate, say, premillenialism or prosperity theology, how are you going to keep us out?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 14, 2008 5:12 PM

You know, it is really difficult to counter the statement that the Bible nowhere affirms gay relationships when you say that the gay relationships I point out aren't gay. You could say the Bible nowhere says "Love your neighbor" because that word doesn't mean neighbor.

Haven't you figured out by now that your stance affirming homosexual conduct has no sanction in Scripture? You're simply trying to find stuff in there that just doesn't exist! They were not gay relationships and your assertion of such simply doesn't make them so. (Oh, and the Scripture does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- Jesus Himself quoted that Old Testamant command.

And what, in fact, are you going to do with baptized Christian gays who use their believer's priesthood to interpret Scripture for themselves? You can say you disagree, but on what basis are you going to say we're wrong? If we can demonstrate our belief in lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships as well as you can demonstrate, say, premillenialism or prosperity theology, how are you going to keep us out?

You would be laughed out of my church and most conservative churches for even saying that. I've already said -- but you refuse to listen.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 5:21 PM

Marriage, by its definition, is the start of a family. And since, by your definition, sex is left out of it, how can you deny familyhood to same sex couples.

I didn't say that "sex was left out of it"; only that sex is not generally the focus of it -- two different things. Part of the reason for the high divorce rate in the West is precisely that overemphasis on sex and sexual expression, which eventually gets old, that has, among other things, hijacked this thread.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 5:56 PM

I'm not sure I have more to add to this discussion, except that this is one of the best threads I've been involved in. Your iron has sharpened my iron. You might find it unfortunate, however, that I think I'm onto something, and I think that what we've discussed is the foundation for an emerging gay theology. I think I'm fundamentally on the right track. I have to accept that not every Christian will agree, and, for awhile, gays will have to be part of those congregatations that accept them. (Let's all vow not to call them "congregaytions" :) )I hope that baptized Christian gays' witness and our Scriptural faithfulness will lead to greater acceptance over time. This may not be my last comment in this thread, but it might be, so thanks again.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 14, 2008 9:11 PM

You might find it unfortunate, however, that I think I'm onto something, and I think that what we've discussed is the foundation for an emerging gay theology. I think I'm fundamentally on the right track.

We've se