Kelly Soderlund has an article about writer A.J. Jacobs and his new book, “The Year of Living Biblically” in which he chronicles his attempt to live by every rule set forth in the bible. The article talks about, for example, his efforts to avoid menstruating women or sitting where they have sat as well as his having to purge mixed fiber clothing from his closet (keeping with the Biblical injunction against mixing wool & linen.)
This idea amuses me, not because I think the Bible lacks value as a spiritual guide; but because I’m annoyed by people who use the Bible as a pretext to indulge in their own prejudices. “We have to oppose the gays because the Bible commands it!” Yeah, well, the Bible commands a lot of crazy stuff. The Bible can be a guide to moral living, but there has to be some external guidance as well to help someone pick which Biblical commands are imperative and which ones are relics from a tribe of Bronze Age shepherds.
I knew the CSI shows were getting a bit far-fetched!!! That one is jumping the shark for sure;-)
Fortunately, there is some guidance from the New Testament and the application of basic hermeneutic principles.
I have some commentary and a lot of resources about Jacobs’ book at:
http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/unabomber-member-of-zz-top-or-biblical.html
And here’s another article on Jacob’s book:
http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-aj-jacobs-book.html
What’s the New Testament guidance on homosexuality? (And, fair warning, if it comes from Paul, I come pre-skeptical.)
Homosexual conduct is one of many potential sins and temptations within Christian sexual ethics.
Homosexual conduct within the Church is to be dealt with as any other pre-meditated or repeated sins– through various forms of accountability and “church discipline”. The strongest of the latter is “ex-communication” until the sin has been dealt with.
Homosexual conduct in the world cannot be condoned, but is simply one of the many ways in which “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”.
The injunction of Christ with “the woman caught in adultery” applies nicely here: don’t throw stones (to her accusers), but (to her) “go and leave your life of sin”.
Homosexual orientation or “identity” is one of many potential pre-Christian identities– as opposed to Christians who might struggle with homosexual urges.
This passage is not meant to provide a complete list of such identities, but is still instructive:
“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Bottom line: Whatever your sins, have you accepted the washing or not?
Good thing he doesn’t live in North Dakota-I just heard on MSNBC that “increased FLOW from the RED river has caused a breech in a DYKE, causing mass evacuations.” How many Levitical laws are broken there?
Oh wait…it’s a dike….nevermind;-)
And I don’t use Paul as my NT hemeneutic for homosexuality….rather the condemnations that Jesus had about homosexuality…what’s that…cricket sounds??????
Doug and I think Rev AJB are saying, in essence, “I don’t use Paul…” This means you take yourself as a greater authority than the Bible, picking and choosing what you like. OK… Good luck with that.
Since you both seem to respect the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, where do we find Him re-labeling homosexual conduct as righteous?
since eric decries “picking and choosing what you like” from the bible, i take that to mean that he regards eating shellfish to be an abomination, avoids spending time with women who are menstruating, and so on.
if not… good luck with that.
I won’t eat homosexual shellfish.
St. Allio, most dietary restrictions and the ceremonial laws were done away with in the New Testament. The moral laws were not. It’s apples and oranges– or more like apples and rocks.
I wish more people (Christian or not) understood the distinction. If they do, we could dispense with what turns out to be a lame argument.
On what grounds were they done away with? Is the doing away with them explained? Or do they just kind of say, “Well, enough of all that dietary nonsense”?
I could go to the source, but asking is easier.
Sure!
The easiest/fullest source on the ceremonial is the book of Hebrews where it is a key theme.
The dietary is more famous– with references by Christ to clean/unclean on the inside/outside and Peter’s dream about eating clean/unclean and its use as a metaphor for Gentiles and their full access to God’s Kingdom.
I very much enjoy and respect Eric’s treatments of various subjects, and the fact that although he believe homosexual behavior to be contrary to Biblical teachings, significantly parts company with the usual Righterous Right crowd when it comes to the role of government in the area.
But I’m a bit disappointed when he enters the “what Jesus did or didn’t say” thicket with
“Since you both seem to respect the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, where do we find Him re-labeling homosexual conduct as righteous?
Let’s see now. I think somebody could likely raise some Old Testament proscriptions to forbid the selling of derivitives based on sub-prime mortgases, only to be countered by folks who say they must be OK because Christ never said a word about them in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. To which Eric would say: “Show me where Christ ever made such selling righteous”
This exercise of “what was said here but not there about what wasn’t said there but not here” can get pretty silly-sounding pretty fast.
Promiscuity was the sin.Promiscuity speads disease. Biblical era people surely figured out there must be a connection with disease and sex.Also monogamous relationships,which leads to family, are the bedrock of civilization.There have never been any roll models until recent times of two ‘gays’ having a stable reltionship and raising a family.In Biblical time the brother would have married the former wife to keep the relationship going.
We would do well to re-evaluate our moral thinking in light of insights we have gained.Let’s at least make a disctinction between promisuity ( always bad) and monogamous relationships which stabilize a society.
Don, thanks for the encouraging words.
I’m not sure that “what Jesus did or didn’t say†solves everything. The people with whom I’ve been chatting hold something against Paul, so my range of motion is a bit limited!
But to your point, I think it would be consistent, reasonable, and easy to lay out a default position that the moral law holds between the OT and NT– unless it’s spoken to in the NT (e.g., Jesus’ treatment of the Sabbath).
So, to your example: Whatever practices or principles one might derive from the OT about financial instruments, they would hold today as well. (See: “usury”– however it’s defined.) As you’re familiar with my writing on Christianity and public policy, there would still be the vital question of whether it would be ethical and practical to use government to legislate against that activity. But the sinfulness of the practice would be constant.
Lou-thanks, you touched on what I was going to say. When Paul condemns homosexuality, he’s actually condemning the practices of boy temple prostitutes and eronemous relationships (older married man with 12-18 year old boys). In the condemnation of Soddom and Gommorrah it can be said that the sin was lack of hospitality towards the stranger (especially since the men were willing to rape and kill the daughter when she was offered instead of the male guests) rather than homosexual behavior. Yes, there is the part in Leviticus-but Leviticus also tells us that when a child speaks out against a parent, that child is to be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death.
As Lou pointed out it has only been in the last 40 years that even psychology hasn’t viewed homosexuality as mental illness. It has also only been in the last 20 or so that we’ve heard society talk about the possibility that homosexuals can be in committed, life-long relationships. The Bible does not address such a possibility-and it seems to me that Jesus found some more important things to talk about during his ministry than prop 8.
BTW it’s not that I DON’T give Paul’s words credence-it’s just that I read them in the cultural and historical framework of his day.
Reverend, What an wonderful difference that enlightenment would have meant throughout my years of parochial education (Missouri Synod).
AJB, thanks for the clarification on Paul. The extent to which cultural context matters is an interesting and important question.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but for the record, it doesn’t speak to what I’ve been saying.
On Sodom & Gomorrah, Scripture defines “the sin of Sodom” in Ezekiel 16:49-50. And there are other hints in Genesis 19 which indicate that there was far more than homosexuality at stake. Hospitality is part of it. The far larger issue is rape!
A child speaking out against a parent is still a sin, yes? The NT often moderates or eliminates earthly sanctions against X, but does not redefine X as righteous behavior.
I agree that Jesus would have had better things to do than Prop. 8. But that’s not the same thing as condoning any given behavior. (See: John 8’s don’t chuck rocks but “go and leave your life of sin”.)
There are two mistakes to avoid here. Some note that something is sin (e.g., gambling, bad wealth distribution) and argue that it follows that there should be a law. Other people see no call for a law and conclude that the behavior is condoned.
Ultimately, when one debates whether or not homosexual conduct is a sin (when one talks about the “homosexuality†as sin it confuses the matter because in other areas “temptation†or “predisposition†toward certain conduct isn’t considered a moral transgression in and of itself), the question still needs to be asked: “What is it about homosexual conduct in and of itself that makes it sinful?â€
Yes, there are those who would say that if God really declared it so, and nothing more, that should be more than enough, because God is God and can define anything sinful if He wants to. But generally there is some kind of harmful practical consequence (other than eternal damnation of disobedience) associated with the forbidden activity. Arguments about dangers to health, seem to break down, for example, when at least certain non-insertive sexual practices are excluded. The AIDS virus does not itself appear to have a sexual orientation. Issues of fidelity and trust seem independent of whether the genders involved are the same or opposite.
Some will say that, well, since homosexual activity serves no procreative purpose, and hence “unnaturalâ€, that makes it sinful. But that raises some difficulties as to why some of the same type of activity between married heterosexuals isn’t considered sinful at all by most folks. Other than the most orthodox of Catholics and perhaps a few others, the idea that doing something for other than its intended purpose (the whole contraception debate) makes it sinful just doesn’t hold elsewhere. When was the last time you heard a sermon about savoring a piece of chocolate cake for its own sake and not caring one whit about the digestive process ultimately serving to keep the body functioning vertically.
When you get right down to it, what’s the moral transgression here? A lot of long-term, committed, ordinary (if not downright boring) same sex couples want to know.
Don, I agree that it’s an interesting if not necessary question to ask: “What is it about homosexual conduct in and of itself that makes it sinful?†And you’re correct that “generally there is some kind of harmful practical consequence associated with the forbidden activity”.
The health data seem compelling, but to your point, only in general terms. Of course, one could make the same argument about smoking– it doesn’t always kill you, but we would all say it’s still a bad idea.
To your points, the “no pro-creative purpose” and “unnatural” cases are difficult to make– and you have to buy into a lot of assumptions to get there.
Although homosexual conduct may be the most famous example, there are many examples of righteous or sinful behaviors– where it’s not patently obvious why these things should (not) be done. Regular church attendance, taking care of your family materially, loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, giving more than a tithe to the local church, honor your parents, no pre-marital sex, and so on.
In those cases, you either believe what God has revealed– or you make yourself god and decide something else. At the end of the day, one either believes that God is benevolent– or that He’s a cosmic killjoy, trying to keep us from all sorts of fun.
If, as indeed many, if not most of those who style themselves as “Evangelical Christians” profess to believe, the Bible is God’s clear guide to human salvation (or lack of it) for all eternity, the it indeed seems as if that behavior considered to merit permanent hellfire would be pretty “patently obvious”.
A benevolent God would not seem to be one placing words and phrases that scholars debate endlessly the meaning of in a text. That would be something far worse than being a “cosmic killjoy” just for the fun of being Almighty.
There also seems to be quite a distance between the kind of moral landness which the concept of a “non-patently-obvious” sin connotes and the concept of God “hating the sin” but loving the sinner. But then I guess if you’re a “cosmic killjoy” you can engage in lots of mind games with the marginalized, just because you can.
Don,
According to the Bible, no particular behaviors “merit permanent hellfire”. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God– and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:23, 6:23).
Although some Christians might think or give the impression that homosexual conduct is “special”, the case cannot be made biblically. In the sense of salvation, it is one in a million.
Scholars can debate anything! ;-) There are a range of very interesting debates well within the pale of Christianity orthodoxy (including, interestingly, whether Hell includes eternal punishing or ends in “annihilationism”). The debate about on homosexual conduct is on the fringes (at best).
When Jesus was asked what part of the law was most important, he said that it was to love God and ‘to love thy neighbor as thyself’.
I’ve always thought that a good quick test to see if you’re acting in a Christian manner is to see if you are acting out of love.
If you aren’t, that’s the time to reconsider what you’re doing.
The level of honest self-reflection this requires can be painful – but I never seem to be sorry when I try to do this, as much as I’m sorry when I don’t.
Thanks, Eric. There are countless numbers of people on this planet, many of them sincerely considering themselves to be followers (not just fans, to quote you elsewhere) of Christ, who have prayerfully come to the conclusion that the good things heterosexuals associate with love and inimate relationships, extending to the erotic and sexual, bring them closer to Him rather than to the spiritual desert. Many of them feel that the churning up of this issue, seemingly often for the sake of simply raising money or stirring up political emotion, is using them in a way that a loving God could hardly condone.
Hardly as trivial as failing to correctly bracket the NCAA Final Four. But “all have fallen short”, at least in March 2009.
Amen, Parker! The only problem here is that people often reduce it to merely this AND add in their own definition of “love”– both about God and toward others.
Don, it’s a side point, but an important one: the use of this issue as a tool to raise money is unfortunate at best.
I appreciate your sincerity, and at the end of the day, I have to leave that between you and God. If we’re both men who are “after God’s heart”, then one of us is wrong, but we’ll figure it out in Heaven.