Many from my evangelical camp have taken a non-affirming posture towards the gay community, claiming that the Bible tells us to. Some have said “no” to this, citing errant interpretations of the “hot” passages commonly referenced in this debate.
In almost every case, in my opinion, these pastors and leaders are trying their best to honor our belief that the Bible is the very word of God, and that it should have a high place of authority, even when it leads us to take whatever unpopular stand.
Let’s be honest: if God were to pen a document with his own hand, it would be loaded with propositions that would seem upside down, maybe even unjust. By definition, it’s impossible for us to understand the universe as He does. If the Bible reflects the heart, mind, desires, etc. of the almighty, who are we to argue when it doesn’t make sense, or calls us to do stuff we don’t want to do?
The Bible doesn’t condone slavery, or the crusades, or people who make “God Hates F#gs” signs. Rightly interpreted and applied, it calls us into the deepest expressions of compassion, forgiveness, intimacy, unity, humility, and a host of other powerful expressions that aren’t highly valued in today’s culture.
There are, however, passages in scripture that don’t seem too friendly towards homosexuality. While there are heated discussions about whether or not these passages have been interpreted correctly, there are many pastors, leaders, and well-heeled Bible scholars who read a non-affirming posture in the Bible.
I know some of these folk. They’re good people, working hard as pastors and teachers, trying their best to bring hope, healing, and the face of Jesus into our broken world.
There are, however, three passages in the Bible that get skipped over when we try to figure out how to reconcile our understanding of scripture with our very strong desire to be open and inclusive to all.
While these verses have nothing to do with homosexuality per se, they indict any level of non-affirmation towards the gay community, and force us to reconsider.
These quotes from Jesus use strong language to condemn a practice that’s common in our culture, and our churches. The very CEO of Christianity took a clear, non-affirming stance towards this thing.
We don’t. It’s something that we rarely talk about. We certainly don’t write “position papers” about it, or place restrictions on people who are “guilty.” For some reason, black-and-white as the Bible is here, we’ve decided to address this issue with kindness, compassion, and a mountain of inclusiveness, almost as if Jesus’ thoughts on this topic don’t exist.
I’ve never heard these scriptures quoted from the pulpit. It would crush too many.
There was a time, long ago, when Jesus’ words led us to adopt a strong, non-affirming stance towards these “sinners,” but we’ve since come to terms with the fact that there are times when we’re forced to lead instead with compassion and understanding, even when the Bible openly condemns whatever it is we’re dealing with.
Thank God.
These passages have to do with divorce. The Bible is just as unfriendly here as it is towards homosexuality. Jesus Himself, in three of the four gospel narratives, claimed that divorce is not what God intended when he crafted the institution of marriage.
I’ll post these passages below1, but don’t hear me condemning divorce and remarriage. It’s not my place to judge, and it certainly isn’t my place to walk up to someone who’s remarried and “help” them understand how God feels about all this.
What idiot does that?
If you’re divorced and/or remarried, reading this, God bless you. God bless your second marriage if you’re remarried, your kids if you have them, etc. I fully support you, with no reservations whatsoever.
Again, I share what’s below to ask the question: if the Bible takes a strong stance against divorce, and we don’t, why do we take such a strong stance against homosexuality?
With much hesitation…
The Gospel of Luke, chapter 16, verse 18 quotes Jesus, saying, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Anyone who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery.”
The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 32, quotes Jesus, saying, “I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery.”
The Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, verses 11-12, quotes Jesus, saying, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
It’s impossible to interpret our way out of Jesus’ strong, very unaffirming stance on divorce. And it’s understandable why us Christians, for so long, were just as unfriendly to divorced people as we are towards Gay people today.
But, again, we applied the overall stance of the Bible – love, compassion, mercy, unity, humility, etc. – to the problem of divorce. We shifted our cultural gears (though it took forever) and adopted a fully affirming stance towards the divorced/remarried community.
Good job, us.
To the crowd who believes that the Bible condemns homosexuality, why haven’t we extended the same grace to the gay community?
Because it’s a sin, right?
If you’ve read this far, and you can’t see the rabid inconsistency in how we’re reading our Bibles and responding/failing to respond to the gay community, I’m not sure how to help you move forward without being painfully direct.
I have a friend who just left her church, a place that she loved and cherished, because she recently learned of the leadership’s non-affirming stance.
Can you imagine how crushed re-married folk would feel if we told them that their marriage was illegitimate? Or that it’s OK for them to be married, they just can’t have sex? Or if we refused to perform a wedding because one or both had been married before? We do shit like that to the gay community all the time and don’t bat an eye.
Why?
If you believe that:
-
- The Bible is the word of God
- The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin
- The Bible condemns divorce/remarriage as adultery
- And that the church should openly condemn homosexuality, publish position papers, place limitations on where/how gay people can serve in the church, tell gay married people they can’t have sex, refuse to do their weddings, etc…
… you are forced to apply the same interpretation to the divorced/remarried community.
Please don’t.
Instead, given how we posture ourselves in favor of something the Bible condemns, consider approaching the gay community in the same manner. Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Fine. I understand. You can be completely, 100%, openly affirming and still interpret the Bible as you do.
The problem isn’t our interpretative method, it’s our posture. If the Bible doesn’t force us to “take a stand” against divorce, why have we set our face against homosexuality? Why do we have to go out of our way to make sure the whole world knows how we feel about this?
I’ve been a Bible-believing, Evangelical Christian for 20 years now. I’ve lived squarely in the non-affirming world for most of my adult life. I’m now beyond comfortable declaring, online, for a small percentage of the world to see, that we are conspicuously inconsistent here. And our inconsistency smacks of a bias towards gay people.
Rest assured that they feel it, and they won’t be coming to church. But we’re fine with that because they’re sinners, right?
If you’re gay and/or married, reading this, God bless you. God bless your marriage if you’re married, your kids if you have them, etc. I fully support you, with no reservation whatsoever.
I’d be honored to officiate your wedding.
If you pastor a non-affirming church, God bless you, too. I’m 9000 times more free, more at peace, and more likely to do the work of God because of your ministry. But I beg you to turn away from your “we love you, but…” theology, and free your people to love, embrace, and support the gay community with no barriers, save the ones you extend to everyone else.
1) Scripture quotations are my translation from the Greek text, with links to other translations if you’re interested.
True to the Words of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church does not permit divorce when marriages are valid/licit. The Church also recognizes what is and is not natural according to the design of the procreative organs of human beings, and attaches the necessity of and capability for procreation to the definition of what a real marriage is, according to Sacred Scripture. The Church calls fornication, “fornication” regardless of how it is committed, and it is considered mortally sinful. Finally, the Church has compassion for all who struggle with same-sex attraction, perhaps even in more deliberate ways than she does for those who struggle with other temptations. All Catholics in good standing, that is, all those who strive to be obedient in love and who get back up after they fall and continue forward, all have access to the Graces present in the Sacraments.
Re “good standing” – and not to rip in Catholicism, but we commit too many “unknown” sins to claim that we’ve gotten back up after a fall, or are worthy, etc. the gospel paints us as infants in desperate need of God, constantly throwing up on the carpet, not nearly possessing the control you allude to here. But alas, I’m an Evangelical, on a completely different anthropological/soteriological planet,yeah?
Actually, when I leave the Sacrament of Confession, I am strengthened, reinforced by grace. I don’t just return automatically to the same condition, though I continue to resist or avoid the same temptations. Over time, I am actually stronger so long as I, with faith, depend upon God’s help.
As a cradle Catholic, I have to go along with the observation that a theology based on dogma which is based on interpretation of the will of God based on speculation about “what is and is not natural according to the design of the procreative organs of human beings” is one of the things that hobbles relevancy in the Catholic church. The idea that ‘sex is for procreation only’ begs the question about what happens in a marriage after the childbearing years pass. What about the continued maturation of the partners, the continued deepening of their love? Recognizing that sex is more about relationships than about procreation seems more rooted in what God had ‘in mind’ when he made us. The human person is so much more than a baby-making machine.
Thanks, mark, for a thoughtful post.
Well said, sir. May your words reach many. And then even more.
Thanx Christopher. Would love for you to hang out in this thread as folk who don’t share my perspective chime in. Already lost two subscribers.
I’ll stick around, but this is probably not a battle that can be won in our lifetimes :-]
Of course not, but I’m convinced that these conversations are crucial to whatever change happens. I can’t vouch for the quality of this article, but the argument is difficult to refute, and should at least be allowed a seat at the table.
Thank you for this. Being raised in the Catholic Church and turned away from it due to the idea of my pending marriage to a woman and the eventual start of a family with her is an awful feeling. While I understand, the bible is the word of God, I also believe that interpretation much like everything else needs to be perceived with compassion, kindness and understanding.
Your words are very appreciated. God bless you.
You bet Jackie- thanx for checking in
I dont agree nor disagree with you…but, you should look into Pastor Mike Fabarez’s teachings. he brings these topics up at his service and I believe he does a great job of holding to the Bible on all stances, even unfavorable ones 🙂
Will do – thanx
The best and clearest contrary opinion statement I’ve heard from an evangelical on the subject.
Thanx Mitch – appreciate you reading. Doesn’t put the whole thing to bed for many, but it’s been a good issue for my process
As a Methodist, we just went through a very traumatic general conference about becoming inclusive communities. That conference has wounded so many LGBTQ and so many who are not. This denomination is struggling with this now. It may very well split the denomination. Our congregation desires to become a reconciling church where ALL people can claim their birthright of being a child of God. If there’s one thing Jesus had an unending capacity for it was GRACE. The opposite of that becomes something very punitive and unloving. It’s ridiculous the way some of the Christian community picks and chooses which sins are written in stone and which are cultural. What do they do with the scripture that says if your children “talk back” to you, you should stone them?”
Yep – this is a difficult and confusing thing. We’re caught between trying to honor our understanding of God’s rules, and trying to honor the call to grace, acceptance, etc. I say, err on the side of putting ourselves in a position where people listen. In this case, removing barriers to the LGBTQ community is the way to go.
LOL…I’m a Christian raised Homo. In that, NO LESS human than any of those who came before or after Jesus. Indeed, Our Christ Came in as Jesus…the Human expression of what God wanted for man kind.
Jesus ate and mingled with Sinners and was HEAVILY CENSURED and ultimately killed for that…those Pharisees were not happy with Jesus, and conspired to kill him through Roman punishment…along with a thief and a murderer).
There are two images of Jesus that my mind will not let god of.
1). Jesus in the temple on the Sabbath turning tables in outrage.
2). Jesus crucified on the “Roman” Cross between a murderer and a thief.
To the first, I am never forgetful of The Christ In Jesus’ opinion of “Hypocrisy,” for that is the word he used for those that allowed said practice In God’s temple. And what exactly is God’s True temple. WE are God’s true temple…”People” are the living temple of God, and Christ would not have hypocrisy in our Worship of The Creator.
As to the second vision…who among any man (and to be fairly inclusive – Woman for that matter) would have that degree of mercy for any who would be killed for real evil crimes EVAN AS HE, HIMSELF, is begging murdered in the most humiliating way for simply demonstrating the deepest degree of mercy?
Who?
Christian proclaim their love of GOD through the profession to exemplify the demonstrated acts of The Christ through Jesus.
There is a new kind of Pharisee in Christianity as there where from Israel for whom, SPECIFICALLY, God sent The Christ.
That call continued through Paul by The Christ in the Holy Spirit…and included, then, the Gentiles.
Interesting discussion, Folks. I’m glad there is courage among God’s people who are not his people but would be Through Christ’s example.
Let’s keep working at it.
Peace
Agreed – thanx for you thoughts. The straight-arm that the church is giving the Gay community has to go if we’re to get to a place where any work can be done. I think it will happen, but so many will be hurt in the process… Makes me sad, and angry.
Agreeed, Lloydlandry.
I think Christ was saddened and grieved when he prayed in the garden before he was taken for some torture before he was crucified. And still he had mercy.
I have no words to describe a level of empathy I don’t even have that could override my human will to survive; let alone give up my life for a people (MY OWN PEOPLE…in race, community…in belief that would unite) that despised me for differing…being different by just a little bit. I have no words for that.
Jesus opposed the hypocrisy he saw in the leaders within his own faith and race. Outside of these, he really didn’t do much different except have mercy…forgiveness…and spoke out against hypocrisy.
It’s taken…over 2000 years to get where we are, and in our own country we have continued to innovate our own way towards fairness. IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY, and it’s still not. But That’s saying something! We don’t go around stoning adulterers and prostitutes any more…or thieves….or murderers (unless it’s really really bad…and even then, we have due process). Better? Worse?
Over all, better I think.
Some times people say things like “Christ hates (fill in the blank).” And I think, if Christ where here today knowing how he was with his own people back in the day, what WOULD he actually do? I laugh so hard to myself in Thinking he’d go get a gun…start shooting sinners…pass all the blind and the sick and the poor on his way to the any community that any morally right person despised and have a shoot out?
Nah…
He’d be bringing his bag of Mercy…healing hands…and would be ministering to the sick and to the blind with a lot of love and some curt words for those that despised those he ministered to which is probably anyone who would hear and be inspired.
God bless you all.
I disagree completely but I appreciate the debate. The Catholic faith stands opposed to both gay marriage and divorce. I’ve never understood the Protestants who get remarried despite Jesus’s own words but who oppose same sex marriage. I just think the correct Christian position is to oppose both, not affirm both as you have done.
Doesn’t the Catholic church annul marriage under certain conditions. I welcome any light you can shed on this – but it’s my understanding that, in the US, annulments are fairly common?
I’m pretty astonished, and heartened, to read this affirming post on an evangelical Christian blog. It does seem to me that there’s a lot of cherry-picking going on when folks take their stance on what’s forbidden and what’s not, and it seems to follow cultural lines, community standards, whatever you want to call it.
I would like to gently point out that there’s no such thing as “gay” marriage, a separate entity apart from regular marriage. Marriage is marriage is marriage. Better terms to use if needed are “same-sex marriage” or even better in my mind, “equal marriage.” The issue was about equality. Either you are an equal citizen with equal rights or you aren’t. Marriage being a civil institution, the question of a religious component is up to the partners and up to whoever is officiating.
A marriage is a kind of societal “glue” that holds relationships together, and a wedding ceremony is an important part of that. When LGBTQ couples were finally able to stand in front of their families and friends and communities, to be visible and have others witness their commitment, this was an expansion of the meaning of love and family, not a degradation.
I’m a gay male, and I’m not religious, yet it seems to me that if there is to be any spiritual value in religion it’s the recognition that we are all children of God, and also that God is unfathomable. Our human understanding is “through a glass, darkly.” Religion as a set of warring factions is just so — BCE. But I can see that someone who was a church member would be very invested in whether their church accepted them or not.
Perhaps living with not being accepted is the trial that God is putting them through, that they would learn to love those who hate them. I’d like to think if I were in that position, I would stay in my church and undergo that trial. Failing that opportunity I merely hold that what other people think of me is none of my goldarn business.