Let’s Talk About Homosexuality Yet Again
One of our recent posts was thread-jacked with a completely undrelated discussion on homosexuality and homosexual practice and Mars Hill/Rob Bell’s treatment of the issue.Â
I debated whether or not to reward the threadjacking with its own post, since it seemed to come at a time that the previous and unrelated discussion had reached a point where the threadjacker had run out of logic. However, Julie has kindly suggested a couple of times that the issues being discussed merited their own post, so here is it for you, Jules (can I call you Jules, or does that conjure up something unforgivable?)
Just to note, we’ve discussed this a couple of times previously, so please check these articles/threads for a more thorough discussion up to this point.
Back in February, Bell was asked a question about homosexuality (not homosexual practice), which he said he would not delve into in a public forum. When pressed, he answered that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. (NOTE: For those of you who do not often work with people struggling with homosexual temptations, ‘homosexuality’ is the term for this set of attractions/temptations, while ‘homosexual practice’ is actively engaging in homosexual sex). While his answer was rather inelegant and against his normal M.O. of tackling tough questions, his church’s orthopraxy and one-on-one response to this particular issue is both orthodox and loving - something hard to balance in this area which is fumbled by most churches today in one direction or the other. Bell also made the comment that you should not be speaking publicly on homosexuality if you have not been involved with helping a friend/family member through it.
Let’s be clear, first, as this is an easy mistake to make (I did in the first article back in January). The Bible does not show that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible shows that committing homosexual acts is a sin. We in the church do a pretty good job separating temptation to sin from acting upon that temptation - except for the glaring inconsistency with homosexuality and homosexual practice.
The threadjacker was rather insistent that we must not treat homosexual sin differently than other sins, and I would suggest that we are forced to because we already treat the sinner differently. We don’t call someone who is tempted to steal a thief. We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer. However, we do call someone who is tempted with an attraction to the same sex a homosexual, whether or not they ever fall to that temptation.
So, our threadjacker then created a straw man with which to argue:
So, following Bell’s example, we could say,
“You can’t say anything about oral sex before marriage unless you actually know someone who is practicing it, and understand their struggles.â€
“Jesus didn’t say anything about oral sex.â€
Going back to the point above, homosexuality, itself, is not a sin - it is a temptation. Oral sex, on the other hand, would be. Thus, her logic does not wash.
How do I know that Bell understands this distinction? I look at the practice in his church, as explained by one of his co-pastors, and at the reasons why Mars Hill does not talk about homosexuality from the pulpit - and why some other prominent churches do not - but choose to address it one-on-one.
Mars Hill does not have a “stance” about homosexuality. However, if someone wishes to become a member and to follow Christ, they are encouraged to become part of a group that specializes in helping people leave sexual addictions, and they are brought to understand that an active homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with following Christ. Why? A friend explained it to me this way:
When people ask you about your ’stance’ on homosexuality in a public setting, they’re typically in one of two camps:
1) They are Christians looking to see if you are ‘orthodox’, looking to get a public affirmation, which then can be used as a club of sorts. They already know what the scripture says on the topic, and that practicing homosexuality is a sin - the same as lying, stealing, adultery, speeding and cheating on your taxes. However, many of them hold homosexuality as something higher, more insidious, than these other sins.
2) They are active homosexuals, friends of active homosexuals, or someone struggling with homosexual temptations. Often, these people are either searching for help, or looking for initial reasons to reject Christianity.
My friend says that his response to both of these - in public fora - are the same. He won’t answer. In the first case, he won’t feed the beast. In the second case, he won’t give a person a cause to reject Christ before they have heard the message. However, if they wish to follow Christ, his church has a program, similar to Rob Bell’s and Bob Hyatt’s, which will help individuals struggling with sexual sin (homo-, hereto- and bi-) to leave these sins behind when they accept Christ.
So, Bell was being consistent with this particular philosophy which is both orthodox AND loving. Meanwhile, we’ve got the beast begging to be fed, so please, by all means, discuss away…
July 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
You may call me Jules. I used to put my foot down when I was younger, but then my sister tossed me a round a bit. So I’m fine with it now.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
OH Boy, this will be interesting…
July 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Yet, strangely it is silent.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The Friday night crickets maybe?
July 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I already used my best line on the other thread… : (
iggy
July 28th, 2007 at 1:31 am
“We don’t call someone who is tempted to steal a thief. We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer. However, we do call someone who is tempted with an attraction to the same sex a homosexual, whether or not they ever fall to that temptation.”
I am going to use a word that many in this forum absoulutely love — context.
There is a context where a man having sex with a woman is acceptable. It’s called marriage. So to be tempted in this area is a product of natural desire mixed with depravity (is that a bad word in this forum? I mean, certain Calvinists use it often).
When a man is tempted sexually, he should thank God for the gift of sexuality and then ask God to give him the grace to express it within the right context — marriage.
However, there is not a single context where it is ever acceptable for a man to have sexual contact with another man. The desire is not natural — generally, it is a product of sin, whether past or present. I believe this was Paul’s point in Romans 1 where God gives the women up to “vile affections” or “dishonorable passions.” The men are also “consumed with passion for one another.”
These descriptions are all mentioned prior to any actual sexual activity. Read the passage. Furthermore, what did Jesus teach about looking on a woman to lust? Therefore, I say to you if a man is desires sex with another man, he has already had it in his heart. Homosexuality cannot be divorced from homosexual acts no matter how many intellectual acrobatics are attempted.
I have said all that I wish to say…I hope this lands upon soft hearts, ones that desire truth.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Clearly,
This was part of my point on the other thread…
In the context of marriage then sex is fine…
Yet, in the point you are making still will make the man who lusts after a woman, as sinful as the man lusting after another man… the sin at its core is not homosexuality nor fornication, but lust.
I can lust after a nice car, someones house… as it morphes into covetness…
Yet, as now those who are in Christ are not condemned by our thoughts… as we are having our mind renewed… and our conscience washed by the holy spirit.
So, as I stated there is a bigger issue than that of “this sin is sorta bad, but that sin is really bad.” It is the overall issue of human sexuality that we must look at.
Do we accept the divorced couple who had an affair and now attend our church more than the newly converted gay couple who have been monogamous for years and now have found their new identity in Christ? Do we just think they can change over night?
Some might, yet some will struggle with the “sin”… and in that they struggle, that is part of the victory as they now see that some things though permissible, are not beneficial… (I know you will bug out over that).
God wants what is best for us and to ostracized someone who is gay makes it harder for them to believe someone other than another gay person will accept them for who they are… a person who Jesus died for.
I still think you miss that just because one might lust after a woman, and is married they are tempted… yes by the evil desires of their own heart, but we are now able to overcome by the Blood of the Lamb and the Power of the Holy Spirit.
Until we can accept other as they are… and let God do His Work in their heart… we can try to change their behavior all we want… it most likely will not happen. We cannot even change our selves… real change comes from the heart and from the workings of God in our heart and mind.
blessings,
iggy
July 28th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Clearly,
Lust goes beyond temptation. As I have heard lust explained, beginning with my New Testament course my freshman year in college, is that lust implies that not only are you tempted to sin, but that, given the right opportunity and the likelihood of not being caught, you would fall to that sin. This is also the concept behind ‘passions’ - which encompasses both lust (sin in the mind) and physical sin.
Attraction, in the case of heterosexuality, has both temptations and acceptable physical manifestations. However, in the case of homosexuality, the attraction has no real biblical physical manifestations, so it is a dead end road. Insofar as it does not fall into the area of lust (willingness to sin in the correct circumstances), however, many Christians have a difficulty seeing it as a temptation and not a sin. It is in understanding this distinction - which many people struggling with this sin also do not understand - that requires a more gentle approach to the individual than just a blanket pronouncement.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Hey guys. Been a reader for a while now. Just wanted to drop a line. I’m actually a believer who happens to struggle with homosexuality but choose to honor and obey God by not giving it a foothold in my life. If that ultimately means a life of celibacy, then so be it. That’s coming from a 24 year old…so I hope that carries some weight.
And before some of Ingrid’s grunts come parachuting in, let me just say that I never ever ever had a say in this matter. I can remember having this struggle as far back as 3rd grade, before I even knew what sex was. And when I became a believer at 18, I spent several years in scripture and prayer trying to reconcile this seemingly paradoxical situation to the type of life God has called me to live. In the end, the authority of scripture stood firm. But like it or not…that was the easy part. The hard part is waking up each day and deciding to continue to have faith that God knew what he was doing when he designed his will for sexuality. And God is faithful each day.
I am now on staff at a church in Dallas. And yes, the leadership is fully aware of my struggle. But they are confident (as am I) in the work God is doing in me.
For what it’s worth.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer.
We don’t, but Jesus does.
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
July 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“orthodox AND loving”
Isn’t that called “Christlikeness”? Like earning a Boy Scout badge we so often want to be the first to claim we consider homosexuality a sin. Of course it is, but so is being uncaring or prayerlessness.
Matt - that was a very edifying comment and may God use you. How easy it is to throw stones, how hard to receive them. The fact that the leadership knows and supports you is an example to the church. The sins of the flesh are such easy targets while the sins of the spirit can be hidden.
I believe the men that are now teaching that homosexuality is not a sin must be corrected and the men that have no compassion for homosexuals must also be corrected. The pride that now consumes the body of Christ is a stench in God’s nostrils.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Henry,
Just to correct your choice of wording, “homosexuality” - which is most commonly considered to be the temptation/attraction toward the same sex - is not a sin. Acting upon those temptations into the arenas of lust or practice is sinful.
It is this imprecision in language that led to this discussion in the first place…
July 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Pico,
You wrote:
Actually, no he doesn’t.
It is likely you missed the discussion on lust. From my comment from July 28, 2007, 7:51 am above:
You cannot equate mere temptation with sin, itself, unless you wish to disqualify huge portions of the Bible, including the portion in which Jesus was tempted in the desert.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
All,
It all boils down to a heart condition. Christianity is a condition of the heart. The heart of Christ.
Ever wonder what Paul struggled with?