"Of course it's unnatural. How can you argue with Paul?"

I have a friend who is a New Testament scholar. I mentioned to him that a gay acquaintance had once said of his orientation, "No one would choose it. It's like having a disease." What the man meant was that gays are often subject to ridicule, rejection, and the violation of human rights (and, in many nations, jail, life terms, and death). They are treated as if something is very wrong with them. Why would anyone choose to live a life in which one had to endure such bigotry?

 

But my friend took the remark somewhat differently. He responded, "Of course it's unnatural. Men messing around with men (he may not have put it quite that way)? Who can argue with Paul?" While his response may have been more visceral than exegetical, it does reflect the position of Christians who feel that the Bible, and therefore their faith, does not allow them to accept being gay as normal or lacking in moral issues.

 

This brings us to the heart of the problem of understanding the New Testament position on homosexuality. We have seen that much of the legal material of the Old Testament comes to a grinding halt in the New; i.e., while underlying principles carry on, specific external requirements and behaviours with respect to living out one's faith are dropped. But in the view of many, St. Paul does seem to carry the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality straight into his letter to the Roman Christians in chapter 1:18-32:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse....Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the
Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error....Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

If we take St. Paul's words here as my scholar-friend does, we appear to have Leviticus Redux. But singling out attitudes and behaviours, rather than specific behaviours, is very much Paul's style. Therefore, if St. Paul is zeroing in on a specific, objective behaviour here in Romans 1, it would be virtually unique in the apostle's writings.

More on this next post.

 

 

 

 

Now we know why it's called Air-izona, not Ahr-izona.

As you, my faithful reader knows, I have been posting on what I think is a major error on the part of the Christian church--that being gay is, in moral terms, any different from being straight. But a quick digression here for breaking news.

I used to wonder why the state of Arizona was pronounced as if it started with 'Air', unlike say Arkansas. Now I know--it's short for Airheads.

I want to begin my post with this assurance--I'm not making this up. This is not some contrived slur to make citizens of that rather conservative state where a U.S. congresswoman was shot in the head for being a Democrat look worse than they are. This is real and you can read about it here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/arizona-passes-bill-letting-people-to-refuse-service-to-gays-over-religious-objections/.

That's right. The legislature elected by those noble and, apparently, very devout citizens, has passed a law letting businesses refuse to serve gay people if homosexuality is against their religious beliefs.

No, I'm not channeling 1960 when American businesses would place No Coloured signs on their doors and send African Americans to the back of the bus. And I'm not confusing a state of the Union with the Union of South Africa and the apartheid era. This is a considered act by a Republican-dominated legislature in 2014 to defend religious freedom:

Republicans who support the bill pushed back against accusations it would promote discrimination, saying they are solely attempting to ensure people’s sincerely held religious rights are protected.
“Within religion, people are to love each other,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “What we’re trying to do is make sure that we don’t force somebody to go against what they think is very sacred to their faith.”(Source:http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140221brewer-religion-bill-1062-controversial.html?nclick_check=1).

Very sacred to their faith? Something that goes beyond love? I wonder what that is. St. Paul's counsel to Christians was, So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. (Colossians 3:12-14).

This isn't religious freedom. It isn't a sacred belief. It's hatred. It's bigotry. It's discrimination of the highest order. Such beliefs as are espoused here are beneath contempt. They are indistinguishable from the rationalizations for racism or misogyny. Hitler had the same regard for the Roma, Jews, and developmentally challenged people as some Arizonians apparently have for gays.

I'm holding my breath for what comes next. The Jewish and Christian Scriptures are replete with lists of behaviours that are condemned on a regular basis. I'm waiting for those god-fearing (I won't say God-fearing because I'm not sure they know who the real God is) Arizona Republicans to pass an omnibus bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gossipers, materialists, adulterers, and slanderers. Perhaps they'll throw in the masturbaters while they're at it (although they had better check with their 16 year old sons first).

Beyond the issue of the moral and religious repugnance of this legislation, we have the practical matter of how to know when you are serving a gay person. Does one go by appearance? Rock Hudson probably could have avoided detection, not to mention Canada's own Ellen Page. Gestures? Clothing? How many straight women or men slightly to the left or right on the masculine/feminine continuum are likely to be challenged by a zealous merchant or lawyer or barber or shoeshine boy? Behaviour? I once watched a Russian hockey coach kiss every one of his players after a big win over their arch foes, the Canadians. Perhaps they could get some nice pink triangles from the purveyors of Nazi paraphernalia. That would simplify life greatly.

I have to hand it to Arizona, however. They have done the seemingly impossible. They have made McCarthyism look good.

Damn. I've tried to make light of the matter. But in fact, I think I'm going to be sick.

The Bible according to football and and other fundamentalists

While most professional football players showed support on social media for NFL prospect Michael Sam after announcing he was gay, Arland Bruce was not among them. The Montreal Alouettes receiver wrote an offensive message towards Sam over Instagram on Tuesday night, suggesting that the Missouri defensive end Sam should "submit to God." 

"YOW!," he wrote. "Mr/MSam you scared to rub on ------- and --- and ------- you gaey. Man up and do some --- push UPS and get on your knees and submit to God fully. Come out of her" Americas Trap. Lil homie don't go thru with it it's a trap bruh."

The message could cost Bruce his job as TSN's Farhan Lalji reports the Alouettes are expected to release Bruce. (Source: TSN)

I like Arland Bruce as a football player. He brings real sizzle to the game. He delighted those of us who support the British Columbia Lions in his time here. I gather that he is some kind of fundamentalist Christian, judging from  his comments above. Amazingly Bruce has both a gay brother and gay half-brother. But he is typical of many in the dinosaurian world of men's professional sports when it comes to the issue of gays (a word which apparently Bruce can't spell).

For instance, Chris Culliver, a member of the 2013 Super Bowl San Francisco 49ers, was asked whether he would have problems with a gay teammate. His response probably did not go down well in his team's city, given the large gay community there:

 “I don’t do the guys. I don’t do that,” Culliver said. “We don’t have any gays on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can’t be with that sweet stuff.”

He went on to say that if a player were gay, he should definitely keep it to himself: “Yeah, come out 10 years later.."

To my knowledge, no gay professional football player has ever acknowledged his orientation, at least during his playing days. I believe the same can be said for baseball and hockey. Only last year did an NBA player, Washington Wizard Jason Collins, admit publicly to being gay. While many other basketball players praised him for his candour, no other player has taken the same step.

This animus is probably more prevalent than even we tolerant Canadians realize. A gay friend of mine who lives in Vancouver, believed to be one of the world's most gay-friendly cities, said that a day does not go by that he doesn't receive some kind of slur or negative gesture to indicate a passerby's disgust with his orientation (indicated, I gather, by his appearance or some aspect of his behaviour).

There has been an evolution in evangelical thought towards the matter of sexual orientation and what it means for participation in church life. While more "liberal" or "mainstream" denominations have dropped virtually all barriers to gay involvement in the church (up to and including pastoral and even bishop's roles, and in the case of the United Church of Canada, denominational moderator), evangelicals have pitched various camps. 

Some maintain the traditional view that the Bible consigns gays to Hell unless they repent of their orientation. Such people often believe as well that gay orientation is a choice, and that a gay person could choose to be straight. See, for instance, the teaching of a Dr. John Oakes who produces a website entitled Evidence for Christianity. Please note that I have added the underlining.

You seem to believe that homosexuality is not a choice. I beg to differ with you on that. The homosexual community may try to present it as something we are born with and inevitable. I do not deny that some people are born with a stronger tendency toward this particular sin. Others are born with more tendency to alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, violence, and any of a host of other sins. The fact that one person is genetically more disposed toward one sin than another does not remove our responsibility to repent and to stop sinning. Those who are attracted to the opposite sex more strongly cannot use this as an excuse that "the devil made me do it" any more than those who are attracted to the same sex. All are responsible for their own sin. 
 
Will homosexuals go to hell if they do not repent? I believe that they will. I believe that liars will go to hell if they do not repent. I believe that swindlers, arrogant people, abusers, selfish people, manipulators and gamblers will all go to hell if they do not repent. In other words, all of us will go to hell if we do not repent of our sins.  There is no difference (Romans 3:10-12).  I will acknowledge that homosexuality carries some special issues with it, but in the end, there is no significant difference in how God will deal with one kind of sinner than another. 
 
You should tell your homosexual friends that God loves them, that they are no "worse" than adulterers, those who engage in premarital relations with the opposite sex and others who have sex outside of marriage. There is as much hope for them as for anyone else. All they need to do is to repent of homosexual acts (as well as all their other sins, just like anyone else), accept the love of God, make Jesus Lord, be baptized, and they will be forgiven of their sins, receive the Holy Spirit and be saved of their sins. (https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-does-the-bible-say-happens-to-homosexuals-if-it-is-not-a-choice-then-how-can-they-be-held-accountable/)

Other evangelicals have taken a different tack. They have accepted, in part or in whole, modern scientific findings that sexual orientation is not a choice which a person makes, and that a genuine orientation is (or may be) permanent. Such people should be shown love and acceptance without any expectation that their orientation should change, or even that they have to repent of it, as they didn't ask for it in the first place. Nevertheless, they still view this orientation to be an aberration, and sinful if acted upon. See, for instance, a good summary of this position by the highly esteemed Anglican clergyman, teacher, and writer John Stott at http://www.ccel.us/samesex.toc.html. I don't think that I am misrepresenting his position when I say that high profile teacher and public spokesperson John Stackhouse of Regent College in Vancouver falls into this camp as well.

Pope Francis was saying more or less the same thing in his famous utterance about gays last summer:

If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?....The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalized because of this [orientation] but that they must be integrated into society....The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. 

His reference to the Catechism indicates his belief that while a homosexual orientation is not a sin, homosexual acts are.

A growing group of evangelicals are accepting that sexual orientation is not a barrier to the full love and acceptance by God, and total participation in church life, provided that the orientation is acted upon in the same way as the Bible teaches for heterosexual relations (monogamy, fidelity, etc.). As one fellow (and completely straight) church member said to me, "The time will come when the church will look back and wonder why we made such a fuss about this matter."

As I indicated in my first post on this subject, I fall into this latter camp. But as a Christian committed to the full authority of Scripture, can I hold this position with integrity?   This is what I will now begin to study. 

And we will plunge in at the deep end, with a scrutiny of the teachings of the Old Testament's Holiness Code, the book of Leviticus.