Posted on 11/11/2004 4:39:11 PM PST by schaketo
In the wake of voter approval of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in Oklahoma and controversy within the Episcopalian Church concerning the consecration of a gay bishop last year, the Rev. Dr. T. Lee Stevens of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Bartlesville took on the subject of "Homosexuality in the Scriptures" during a public forum held Tuesday.
The forum, sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Church of Bartlesville, was the latest in a series on a variety of subjects held regularly at the church.
Stevens began the discussion by describing that he and some members of St. Luke's began a six-week study concerning homosexuality in the Scriptures after openly gay priest Gene Robinson was consecrated as bishop in August of last year, resulting in the findings discussed at Tuesday's forum.
Stevens said Robinson's appointment has caused "tension" within the Church, and said that many parishioners are uncomfortable with the overall issue of homosexuality.
"We are struggling," he said of the Episcopalian community.
During the discussion, Stevens examined several Scriptures found in Genesis, Judges, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Romans, noting that the Scriptures do not specifically deal with sexual orientation but rather with sexual behavior.
"There are two primary ways to talk about homosexuality," Stevens said. "One is the way people act, what people do. It's sexual behavior. The other (way) concerns the way people are. That is their way of being - their sexual orientation. Sometimes those get confused, but it's very important when looking at Scriptures that those be differentiated between."
Stevens said that in studying the Bible, he has found all references to appear on the surface to address homosexual behavior "and it is deemed unacceptable - even sinful," he said.
"However, the Bible does not deal with sexual orientation because that concept, that way of looking at human nature was unknown to them," he said. "It was not known until the late 19th century."
Biblical writers knew nothing about homosexual orientation, but rather condemned homosexual behavior by heterosexual people, Stevens said.
"In biblical times, everyone was considered to be heterosexual - straight," he said. "This explains some of the views reflected in the Bible and, as a result, the views now held by some people regarding homosexuality."
To truly understand the Scriptures, the reader must not only consider the Scripture but also take into consideration "tradition" and "reason," Stevens said, describing the latter two as commentary about the Scripture that has been passed down over the centuries and the insight and experiences of individuals.
"The primary source of knowing what we believe is Holy Scripture," Stevens said. "But, with Scripture, there's also tradition. Tradition is what people have written about, talked about, said about the Scripture concerning our faith.
"Reason is our God-given intellect and our experiences in engaging life, which includes, of course, Scripture and tradition," he said.
In an attempt to explore opposing views regarding the Bible and homosexuality during the study, Stevens said he searched for words to accurately describe the division. Ruling out "for and against" and "pro and con," Stevens said, he settled on "conservative and liberal," despite his reluctance to apply labels.
In doing so, Stevens said, his study led him to believe there are "three prevalent faults" in the use of Scripture.
"A major one, primarily on the conservative side, was 'proof-texting,'" he said. "That is looking for a passage to support your view and take it out of context to make a point. A second major fault, which is primarily on the liberal side, is 'explaining away' the scripture to defend one's position.
"The third major fault I observed was the referencing of Scripture passages without actually dealing with them. No explanations, only declarations," he said.
Stevens also pointed out selective use of the Scriptures to condemn homosexuality while ignoring others that clearly condemn behaviors widely accepted in today's culture.
Quoting Dr. Walter Wink's work outlined in "Homosexuality and the Bible," Stevens said that "'virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest, rape, adultery and intercourse with animals.'"
"'But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores,'" he said quoting Wink.
Stevens went on to convey Wink's assertions that the Bible also condemned several behaviors that are generally allowed by today's standards, including intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation and birth control.
Likewise, Stevens said, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn, such as prostitution, polygamy, sex with slaves and treating women as property.
"'So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices,'" Stevens, quoting Wink, said.
"We ignore or work around what Jesus did say about other things, such as divorce and adultery," Stevens said. "People seem to pick and choose what can be used against others."
While he spoke at length about several specific Scriptures commonly used to demonstrate a belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality, Stevens spent a fair amount of time responding to interruptions by a small group apparently hoping to debate the issue. Concerning the Bible's New Testament, Stevens pointed out that there is no direct objection to homosexuality activity outside the references of pagan rites, and that there is no reference to committed same sex relationships.
"This does not mean that other homosexual activity was considered acceptable in New Testament times," he said. "I seriously doubt that it was. However, if this had been a problem, you would expect Paul or someone, even Jesus, to say something very directly."
Speaking to Scripture in the New Testament, Stevens said Jesus "broke the mold" by reaching out to people who were considered to be "untouchable, unclean and unacceptable in society."
"That's where He started His ministry," Stevens said. "Jesus said nothing about the matter of homosexuality. He said everything about embracing all people and respecting their dignity.
"Jesus always led with compassion and grace in nearly all His encounters. The exception seemed to be His challenge to the religious leaders who refused to deal with their own sin and used their power to oppress others."
Stevens has spent 35 years in the ministry, serving 22 of them as a Southern Baptist minister. He holds advanced degrees in divinity and theology and has worked extensively with gays and lesbians in the Bartlesville community.
Go, and sin no more.
Jesus reached out with the expectation that sinner would repent and join the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you want to talk about tradition then talk to the Catholics. The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as an abomination.
The LIBS want to get votes so they are now going to try and get religious. But since they still don't get it they are going to try and interpret the Bible in their own perverted and twisted way to justify their untraditional values positions. They truly will be getting their reward.
Garrison Keillor (I know) had a pretty fair joke about an ad for a Unitarian Universalist Bible study class. It said 'bring your own Bible and scissors.'
Another one of those "where to begin" articles.....
Romans 1:
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Specifically verse 27
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Two Words. No Three. Sodom and Gomorrah.
So lets just through everything out the window!
Contrary to what some may think, God's opinion didn't change in the New Testament.
The Word is against homosexuality and any such disservice to the body. People have their own opinions, but God does not care about opinions. He cares that people do what He told them to do.
That guy is spouting hogwash or heresy. Take your pick.
Let this man just try being honest and saying he disagrees with the Bible, or chooses not to obey it at this time. He'd be much better off.
There is also no specific reference DUI so I guess that is OK morally...
Sodom and Gomorrah dealt with corruption of one of the Judaic tribes, if that tribe had not entered Sodom and Gomorrah, then those cities would have not been destroyed.
Exactly. You beat me to it.
Now, one can argue, if one wishes, that the Bible only approximately states the will of God.
But one cannot do what the Episcopalian minister trying to cover for his Church did, and say that the Bible just talks about acts, not "orientation". Actually, right where you cited it, Paul speak in condemnatory tones of the "burning with lust", etc.
And as far as the Bible only referring to acts, not mindsets, THAT'S absurd. "Thou shalt not covet..." this and that is part of the Ten Commandments, for heaven's sake. Mental states are sins every bit as much as overt acts, according to the Bible.
Now, one does not have to agree with the Bible. Or accept the Bible. One can read the Bible as metaphor and still be a Christian, even. But one cannot claim that the Bible, as written, does not say what it says.
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:..." God seems to be big on declarative statements. Christ didn't specifically admonish tax cheats or the fabled Nigerian bank account letter but we still get the picture.
Unitarians: Theology-Free for 50 years. Coming Soon in the New God Optional Version.
There's a lot of equivocation, doubletalk, and downright balderdash in this piece. What there is NOT is a direct citation of the Biblical injunction against homosexuality.
God saw fit to condemn it in the harshest terms. There is no way to reconcile it with Scripture. Choose one or the other, but for cripes' sake, have the guts to stand by your decision, and quit trying to have it both ways!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.