-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2008/04/bible-homosexuality-and-christianity.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/04/adventist-theologian-takes-on-gay.html
This is equivalent to saying that God will save anyone anyhow, including hardened murderers, rapists and pedophiles. Jesus message is so extremely different from what this article proposes that it's hard to describe it any other way than a bold-faced lie.
I'm not saying that just homosexuals should be seen as hardened sinners; anyone who lives in open sin will have to repent and know God and CHANGE. Knowing God means that I will no longer choose to live in the midst of filth because my God wouldn't live there with me.
To those who seem swayed by Cannon's choosy hermeneutics this is what Romans 1:18,27 really says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. [...]
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
As much as Cannon wants to theologize and demistify the passage, the text has nothing to do with Baal worship since this type of worship was no longer being practiced in 1st century AD.
This is a direct reference to homosexuality as unnatural. God placed it in the same level as zoophilia (sex with animals).
If any hardened sinner should be allowed to enjoy the communion of the church, then let's accept murderers, thieves and pedophiles to our Saturday services, but I doubt any of us would invite them for potluck.
How hypocritical...
But I'm sure Jesus would be eating with them (Mark 2:15-16).
I thought God's plan was to save the WHOLE world - even illuminated, narrow minded conservatives.
Thanks Marcel for you invitation for the Holy Spirit to guide you - I'm asking for the same.
although you have articulated the tradition accurately, i'm not sure its good theology.
besides, your're quoting Romans out of context.
it just doesn't jive with the overwhelming tenor of the biblical narrative as it has been passed down to us. throughout the story, GOD repeatedly subverts good people's attempts to maintain "purity" within their communities. the story is also replete with persons you made GOD smile by embracing the outsider.
in light of this, perhaps we should reexamine our reasons for not welcoming "murderers, thieves, pedophiles" and other "hardened sinners" into our mist.
I wonder whether or not anything in scripture can be taken as an absolute if this passage is no seen for what it actually does say? For example, "You shall have no other gods before me." "You shall not lie..." Are those absolutes or just contextually relevant? "Turn the other cheek." Was Jesus just messing with us there - perhaps a parable?
Marcel, I can understand your conundrum and internal pondering. I have friends too... Yet, moral relativism is something that God tends to despise. In Revelation, God says that He would much rather have us be hot or cold. He tends to spit out lukewarmness. I think that is partially the problem with some within the progressive religious experience, and even in the emergent church. In embracing everything, they water down God's Holiness and Righteousness to something that is loath to call sin by its right name, and more importantly, embrace the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a life altering event.
How can one expect to mature in their walk with Jesus if they unapologetically continue to live in sin and ignore explicit indications within scripture that show otherwise?
Lastly, Jesus and the apostle Paul have warned about leading others astray. This article deals with something that, in the end, could jeopardize someone else's salvation. Thats very dangerous ground to be standing on, but valid to discuss, so I am glad you posted this item.
Andre, I really appreciated your fervent defense of Biblical truth.
It's interesting that you lambaste my adherence to Christian tradition in regards to homosexuality and in the same breath praise the way Biblical "narrative" was passed down to us? I'm confused, to me that's also tradition...
Cannon used really bad theology when he threw out the window not only basic principles of hermeneutics such as consistency in the Bible on one given subject but also centuries of theological thought on the matter.
I don't mean to have the whole truth on this matter. I think that many homosexuals will be saved because they were able, with God's grace to surmount the urge to practice their impulses with another man or woman and lived a celibate life, struggled and overcame.
The same cannot be said about homosexual christians who have one sexual partner or many in their lives. God's standard on that is very clear.
Why? Not because I am prisoner to an abominable belief that women do not count as much as men (Leviticus) - or that a woman can be stoned in front of her father's tent due to no fault of her own (also Leviticus) - or that a young man or woman emerging from a pre-pubescent existence is damned by the attraction for his or her own kind, which may lie deeply embedded within their own psyche.
A young man or woman's attraction for the same sex is abominable in the face of God - when it is often not of their own making? How strange . . . It reminds me of those days gone by where the Zulu would crush the skulls of newborn twins because it was an abomination to their view of what life was all about - and of what lay beyond life and death.
Justin Cannon’s distorted hermeneutic is just as flawed as his fundamentalist belief that it is God who speaks in Leviticus. Let us admit that the ancient Semite people were indeed repelled by same-sex relationships. While I do not want to deny that there is much in Leviticus that I admire, why on earth should I want to accept the book in it’s entirety as divinely inspired – and then spend time trying to prove that it has been incorrectly translated?
To equate paedophilia, murder, robbery and all the other crimes of mankind with a loving same sex relationship is surely far more abominable than the so-called abomination of homosexuality (or lesbianism). It is deeply unkind to express such a sentiment. I certainly do not care for the type of debauchery which is so often found amongst same-sex or heterosexual couples, however that is a far cry from a loving and sincere relationship – damned by a society which simply fears the unknown - and the mysterious.
So why is it so difficult to reconcile with my own world-view – same sex relationships simply do not seem to be natural (forgive me for my candour). Perhaps it may well be due to some or other aberration of nature – who knows? It is a mystery why such a type of relationship should exist. And it will be inevitable that such mysteries will impel us to search out a theory of origins which will somehow account for a kinder God than the one described in ancient Hebrew literature. Would an omniscient God create a prehistoric Adam and Eve in a world in which they find themselves damned by the possibility of annihilation and terrible self-destruction through an act of imposed choice? So often we neglect the other side of such a beautiful nascent world – a created world which has the spectre of terror and death. Need we enter history to recount the catalogue of horrors which lie there?
Why such a God? Before we arrive at such a notion let us imagine our own child is already marked out for death in some or other corridor of history. Or perhaps your child is lying in the cradle of same-sex attraction – damned by it’s creator to be an abomination to mankind. What a remarkable God that would be . . .
Many years back Richard Rice wrote a challenging book titled 'The openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will'. The book was originally published by the Seventh-day Adventist church; however due to the great deal of controversy which it generated it was never republished by the Review and Herald. It is a great pity that more Adventists are not aware of this publication. I believe it is an endeavour to visualise a kinder God – perhaps a prisoner to unfolding history, but nevertheless a kinder God. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rice).<BR/... is ‘as of 2007’ . . . professor of theology and philosophy of religion at the SDA Loma Linda University in California.
let me cut to what i believe to be the heart of the issue. regardless of whether it is tradition, a systematic theology of exclusion doesn't (for me) add up: it creates as many problems as it supposedly solves. it leaves us to have to admit too many exceptions to the absolutes we want to hold dear.
charles, i do not understand on what grounds it can be deemed more 'serious' and more appropriately 'literal' an approach than others, but the purity/piety approach (i pray that is not unfair shorthand) does reinforce a fundamental belief that many have: that one of the Christian imperatives is to distinguish who's in and out. i hear the story differently.
i believe cannon has offered an accurate context for the first chapter of romans. anything can be read/quoted out of context--even the 10 Commandments. one scriptural example, the hebrew midwives lied to save the lives of hebrew boys like moses and the narrative says they were blessed for it. what happens to, "thou shalt not bear false witness," in this instance? one contemporary example, the commandment "thou shalt not steal" was written in the context of a community that was never to allow anyone to go without basic human dignities, which raises questions of whether those stranded in new orleans after katrina were "looting" when they took food off of abandoned grocery shelves.
granted, context hasn't mattered so much in traditional SDA theology. from what i understand, the thinking has been that the bible is universally contextual/relevant. that is a different presupposition than the one those who take a narrative approach to scripture have. we also beg to differ with the closely related idea that scripture is given to be "absolute" (if by "absolute" you mean "in all times and all places blanketly applicable). as a native son to such thinking, i have found it to be irreparably problematic.
when i now read scripture, i don't see the imperative for followers of GOD in the way of jesus to determine who's ultimately in or out of GOD's favor. every time israel takes this approach, i see GOD hasting to correct them (e.g. Jonah). i do, however, see the unmitigated imperative for love (joy, peace, etc)... for embrace/inclusion... for grace... for forgiveness... for justice.
marcel presented an idea. others have made counter-presentations. still others have further expounded upon marcel's position. please don't label it moral relativism or lukewarmness and thereby dismiss it. let's be in conversation. agree or not, i have herein grappled with what you've brought up. please extend the same courtesy by wrestling with the ideas marcel, brad, gordan and myself have put on the table: (1) how does one continue to take absolute positions in light of often contradictory readings, (2) how does one continue to emphasize one scriptural "imperative" when the "counter-imperatives" are so numerous, (3) how does one factor in the contextual realities of the text, (4) how does one continue to admonish thinking that condemns a person for whom s/he confesses s/he is.
i am not afraid to call sin by its right name: i believe the church's historic treatment of homosexuals is sinful. i have not embraced everything, but rather everyone. and although i believe it is the death and resurrection together that changes everything, the real exception is that i no long admit fundamentalists' right to define for for me (or the world) what is "hot" or "cold" or "sin" or "relativism" or "holy" or "righteous" or "spiritual maturity" or "leading others astray"--particular because those definitions (which have ruled the day for many years) have not led to a world that better reflects the kingdom jesus spoke of and practiced.
Secondly, I will admit, your point is well worded in regards to bearing false witness. Another good story where a lie was used is the story of Rahab of Jericho (Joshua 2). In regards to stealing - I reject the notion that the stealing of electronics and other non-food items (as was shown over many news broadcasts post-Katrina) was acceptable. Getting food for survival was perfectly justifiable.
Thirdly, a lot was suggested concerning my comments that were read into what I wrote, and mostly without merit. Here are a just a few things I believe in regards to this debate, so as to clarify where I am coming from:
1. Gays/Lesbians should NOT be rejected and marginalized within society or the Christian community
2. Gays/Lesbians should be treated with dignity and respect just like any other person. (This does not release them from returning the favor, by the way...that is another story.)
3. Homosexuality is NOT on par with pedophilia and murder.
4. Practicing homosexuality IS on par with practicing adultery and fornication (unless, of course, you see no problems with those). (1 Corinthians 6:9-20, Galatians 5:13-26)
4. I believe Jesus WOULD dine with and socialize with homosexuals, and expects no less of me. (Unfortunately, He would very likely be condemned for it by prominent evangelical leaders and SDA membership.)
5. Jesus never left sinners to their own devices without at least attempting to change their hearts. (John 8:1-11)
I hope these few bullet points clear up my philosophy concerning this topic, and help illuminate my comments more effectively. I will endeavor to get to your points asap.
Gordon, I think you have valid viewpoints concerning Leviticus, though I don't view it similarly. The Levitical laws are not applicable, as Christ became the sacrifice to atone for sin. We are living under a New Covenant where the demanded blood and death for sin (as in the Old Covenant) has already been paid in the person of Jesus Christ. My often "personally acceptable sin" is just as much a violation of God's law of love and grace as is homosexuality, so I claim absolutely no moral or spiritual superiority.
I think that Andre put it nicely concerning "surmounting urges". I will try to say it a different way: just as singles are expected by God to maintain sexual purity (chaste/celibate), so must the homosexual who claims the mantel of "practicing Christian".
We all are bound by the same truth: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." ~Matthew 5:8
Charles (Armed2Win)
narrative theology may be considered a part of my answer to your question as well. i know you disagree, but in its defense, it doesn't leave me with having to make exception for every lie, murder, hatred and other act of lust committed by the heroes of the biblical narrative. having grown up with the same fundamentalist teaching you've passed through and having at one point mitigated it in a quite similar way as you have (striking what I felt at the time was good balance), i eventually found that to be too precarious a posture to keep and got sick of what felt to me like a swiss cheese theology (with all my exceptions).
i talk about it more here.
As an SDA I'm glad my church does not condone or support gay-bashing parades...
The fact that there's "love" in a homosexual relationship does not justify it IMO: many people have "loving" relationship with animals in a erotic, sexual way. Is that acceptable? Why not, if there's "love"?
How many fathers have "loving" sexual, erotic relationship with their daughters for years, many times with their consent? The father's are absolutely sure it's pure love, genuine attraction. Is that acceptable?
Ergo:
By what standards should we judge what is pure, genuine LOVE and what is purely human sinful passion? God's revealed truth or personal experience?
The main problem with Cannon's approach is that he is looking for new revelation where there doesn't seem to be none.
I think his article, rather than present new light, continues to polarize the two camps: those who thought that practicing homosexuality was ok were relieved, thanks to the shallow hermeneutics; while those who are for a biblical view of homosexuality further solidified their opinion, for the same reason.
As far as the testimony at the end of the post, it's hard to imagine that God would all of a sudden present a new, private revelation while throwing out his past revelation on the subject. There are countless examples of former homosexuals who have been able to overcome and are faithful fathers and husbands. (Joe Dallas is probably the most prominent.)
Those stories of redemption tell me a whole lot more about the power of God's grace and love than a personal experience that goes diametrically against revealed truth.
YWHW bless!