Newsweek and Homosexuality -- the Responses

Yesterday I posted a response to Lisa Miller's Newsweek article on homosexuality in the Bible. Yes, it was provocative, but I found it useful and thought provoking. Well, apparently the response has been swift and pronounced. A whole lot of people, even people who might lean her way, have thrown stones. All of which shows that this is an issue that continues to divide the nation very deeply. Indeed, I've been reading all kinds of responses, not just to this article, but to the issue of general that show that we are at a definitive point in our lives.

I believe that a day will come when this will no longer be an issue, but that day is far in the future. My own denomination, which is very congregationally oriented, has chosen to not take a position. Some regions are open and affirming, others the opposite. The same is true of the churches, and I doubt that this will change in the near future. Ours is a church that values diversity and freedom, which means that it's unlikely that firm stands will get taken.

Anyway, I appreciate this essay from religion professor and fellow blogger James McGrath, who has addressed the response to the Newsweek article by taking us back a century and a half to the debate over slavery. It is worth reading -- and its brief.

Perhaps, we await another Pentecost -- a day in which we will recognize that God's Spirit rests on Gay and Lesbian Christians, and that this presence should be a sign to us, even as it was a sign to Peter that God had reached out to the Gentiles in such a way that circumcision was not a stumbling block (Acts 10-11).

Comments

Anonymous said…
Would there be room for those who might believe that ultimately, homosexuality is incompatible with our future resurrected life, but who, like you, recognize the Spirit at work in the lives of gay brothers and sisters?
Chad McDaniel said…
is it a question of whether the Spirit rests on homosexuals? i don't see that being the issue. the issue seems to be "marriage" and other "rights". i agree with you whole-heartedly that God's Spirit rests on all people as Peter recognized and proclaimed at Pentecost.

i wonder how we have these conversations in church and how the Spirit might move us today. can i be brutally honest? is it the Holy Spirit telling us that homosexuality should be accepted as normative? i agree that homosexuals need to be invited into the body of Christ, respected and encouragad to participate FULLY, but i'm not ready to say homosexuality is not a sin.

i also read Dr McGrath's response yesterday, i agreed with a great deal of the Newseek article, yet i don't know that slavery and homosexualty are apples and apples.

the same thing happened in seminary when we began talking about race an gender, and sexuality. is one's born race, or one's born gender the same as one's sexuality?

i realize comments in the blogosphere can sometimes carry emotional value that they may not actually contain. i'm not attacking your position in any way, i'm just looking for some open discussion. i have friends that if i told them i felt this way would probably call me a fundamentalist!
Anonymous said…
Is homosexuality normative? I think not for society or for me. But that does not mean that it isn't normative for homosexuals. And, I think that a homosexual can lead a healthy and productive life, and can do so as a valuable and contributing member of a community, even a community of believers. I believe the Holy Spirit is as likely to fall on a homosexual as It is to fall on me.

I suppose it may be important to define and identify sin in the world, and that this may be impelled by virtuous motives. But when the sin you seek to define and point out is someone else's, I think the motives become suspect and the value of the effort less significant.

In the end, what is a sin is a matter of context, even Paul concedes this. What may be a sin for one person is not a sin for another; the determination turns on motive and circumstance.

For we who claim other sins as our own, I think the more virtuous motives leads to charity and compassion. Sinlessness is not a requirement for inclusion in the community of believers, nor do we associate with only certain kinds of sinners.

Instead we pray about our own sins, for the strength to repent, for forgiveness, and for healing. And we pray for one another, that God will stand with other sinners while they sort out their issues, that they will find their way into the healing arms of the God whose healing love we pray for.

I think the Holy Spirit is telling me to be concerned with whether and how effectively I share the love of God in the world.

John
Anonymous said…
I think the Newsweek article is a disaster. The article comes off as mocking the Bible, it throws out Leviticus b/c we don't "cut our hair", and the clear passage that speaks to the issue is thrown out as "an analogy" by one scholar.

Personally, Romans 1:27-28 is pretty clear on homosexuality, and I find it odd that Paul would talk about Nero in this one passage. Its not like Revelation with clear analogy language.

As for the Holy Spirit issue... thats above my pay grade. Faith in Christ saves me from death, after that there are sins, but nothing is fatal.

-Chuck

Ps.. one, I pray we can all share our ideas here within a Christian context without anyone feeling attacked. I would rather have Christians express emotions with each other and come to a conclusion before broaching a heavy subject with a non-Christian.

Also.. gotta hand it to you Bob, months of Obama posts and we go radio silent after the Blog. scandal!! :)
Robert Cornwall said…
Chuck,

On the Obama issue. I've not commented on it because until I see something that links him to the governor, then there's little to say. Is it a distraction? Perhaps. But I think this is more a Fox news thing -- unless something comes out. So far everything suggests that Rod B hoped to get something but didn't get satisfaction.

Yes, I blogged a lot about the election, but unless I see something that is worthy of commenting on, I'll focus on other things.

On the gay issue. Whether one agrees with the analysis, I think it is important to recognize that our faith has continued to grow as time has moved forward. That's the point of Jim McGrath's essay.

Just this morning I heard a "debate" on CNN between a Catholic Priest being excommunicated because he publicly questions the church's views of women in the priesthood, and a representative of the official position. That official position is that Jesus called men to be apostles, so only men can be priests. It can't change, because only Jesus can make that change. The answer that the renegade priest offers is similar -- how can I deny the call of the Spirit?
Chad McDaniel said…
the issue of women in ministry seems drastically different to me. i guess that's what i was trying to say. i can see a stance on slavery or women in ministry changing over time, but a stance on homosexuality changing baffles me. yes, the church is full of sinners. i'm one of the them. the Apostle Paul himself declared, "i am chief among sinners."

however, the problem i have is when we come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin. so far as i can tell the Bible doesn't talk about the sin of being a woman. we have to at least acknowledge that it does speak about the sin of homosexuality.
Robert Cornwall said…
Does the Bible call same-gender sexual relations sinful. Yes, it does. I would suggest, however, that there is considerable scholarship that is showing that much of this is contextual. The one text that I struggle with is Romans 1, but we're dealing with a small number of texts.

I know both sides of the issue, because I've argued both sides. As they say, been there done that. But, if homosexuality is, as much scientific study suggests, not a choice but genetic, then I believe it fits in the same category as race and gender.

Now, I'm not an inerrantist, so while I see Scripture as being the normative guide to faith and practice, I believe it must be interpreted in light of its own context and in light of where we are at as a modern society. When Paul was writing in the first century slavery was perfectly permissible, but not now. If you read Acts 10, you'll notice that Cornelius sends two slaves and a soldier to get Peter -- nothing is said there about slavery.

Again, I think a generation from now this will be a different discussion.
Justin said…
Chuck Said, "I think the Newsweek article is a disaster. The article comes off as mocking the Bible, it throws out Leviticus b/c we don't "cut our hair", and the clear passage that speaks to the issue is thrown out as "an analogy" by one scholar."

I have heard many people refer to the article as "a disaster". I don't think that she is mocking the Bible in the article and to come away with that understanding is to miss the point altogether. Perhaps she is mocking SOMETHING, but it isn't the Bible. I think what she is mocking, or at least bringing to the surface as a credible point, is how we understand, and more importantly, use the Bible.

WE pick and choose verses that ALREADY confirm our own stance on any given issues. we saw the same thing during the debate about slavery. We see the same thing from all sides every day.

An honest look at the context and history show that the Bible is NOT clear-cut on this issue. Yes there is a text in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Cor.... but again, are they truly as clear cut as we think? When we look at the historical and literal context honestly does it throw SOME doubt in our static beliefs? When we take an honest look at the translation issues, the purpose and audience for which the text was written, and weigh it against the overall themes in the Bible... is there room to say perhaps, just maybe we could be wrong about our unforgiving (and often unloving) stance on Gay marriage?

I know that it's tough to do that, and please know that I respect those texts and believe wholeheartedly that they can't be ignored and have to be addressed. Yet at the same time, the context, et al. and overarching themes can't be ignored and must be addressed and weighed as well.

Sometimes it takes a person making us (of course when someone makes our interpretation look silly, we claim they are making the Bible look silly...by quoting itself? By putting it in context?... no, let's be honest and say if she was mocking anything it was certain beliefs and esp. INTERPRETATIONS), anyway, sometimes it take a person making something look silly, outrageous, etc.. in order to get us to finally question and perhaps even doubt, our tightly held beliefs. The point is that I don't think either side (well ANY side, there is more than one option of belief) can say with 100% certainty that they know the answer as well as the best way to address the issue practically. Anyone who does say this is presenting more of an illusion to him/herself than they are to others. There is always doubt and uncertainty in faith. I too have argued both sides, so I know that there are holes in all sides of the argument!

I am glad we are struggling with this issue. I am glad that the Church is having to converse over this and can no longer hide from it any longer. AS mcdaniel clan asks, "I wonder how we have these conversations in church..." I think that is a GREAT question (along with the rest of the comment). I think that BEFORE we can answer definitively the question of faith+Homosexuality, we must first be asking HOW do we have these honest conversations.

Bob, I've been reading your blog a while, sorry it has taken me this long to respond. you always have pertinent posts, and I thank you for that!
Anonymous said…
Justin..
You actually stumble onto some of the points I would make in a discussion like this. (too bad we can't have a nice meal and hash out some ideas.) We hit scripture.. so my next thought be:
Theme- the Bible uses marriage to describe Christ and the Church.. again, the understanding is a man/woman relationship
Nature- As un-PC this is, I think its safe to say that men and women have different strengths. My 2 yr old daughter loves dolls and is loving, her male counterpart loves trucks and cars and ramming things. In a family setting.. this would be a nurturing mom and the male leader. I can feel the rebutts on this one..
Physical - not to overindulge this.. but its not a biologist who can see how man/woman "fit" together. If it was man/man, one turns his back to the other.. hardly a loving pose. (now I can feel the arrows coming!)
Ok.. so this how I view the subject, I know its open for all kinds of yelling and screaming, but I would rather be open within a Christian context. I have no authority and welcome any retorts. I thank Bob for being bold, yet open on a hard issue!

-Chuck

ps- I see this any sin issue, whether lying or murder.. we seek repentance and heart change.
Justin said…
Yes a sit-down conversation is always more advisable and desirable. I have trouble reading tones on blogs sometimes.

I won't try to rebuttal your arguments, I respect them...again, you are willing to converse and (I think from your comment) explore the issue(s).

I will say that a lot of experiences play into my beliefs on the issue. I was a psych minor, and have a psychologist as a wife...so psychological, genetics, sociological, etc... opinions play into my opinion as well as per my experiences. Also, my work with and AIDS foundation and having come into contact with a lot of people who are gay, and the conversations that those opportunities have developed into.

I'm not saying that scripture is not important. It truly is as I state in my last post. It is still THE authority in my life, but as a friend of mine says in his blog...sometimes scripture can become an idol...like when it gets in the way of open-minded, doubt-filled, humility-driven, relational conversations about such hard topics.

Again, I don't claim to have an answer that is "certain", I just have a stance that I hope is close to what Christ has called me to, and HOPE and GRACE may cover what I may have wrong. I think my position is simply that I would rather live a life of love, hope and grace than one of certainty...and that goes for any theological musing.

My friend, Adam's, post is a tough one,even for me...but I think he challenges us to think about what we have to put aside in order to truly have this discussion...IDK, just a suggestion, not an endorsement, but worth taking a look at:

http://pomomusings.com/2008/12/15/the-bible-and-homosexuality/

thanks for the kind response Chuck, please read mine in the same kindness:)
j
Justin said…
Let me clarify...I say Scripture is THE authority....yes, second to Christ. Scripture in my life is interpreted through Christ as best as I can do.

I know my comment seemed to contradict itself...sorry
thanks
j
Anonymous said…
If homosexuality is a sin, then what is left to say? Are we called to sin?

Popular Posts