I think this is the crucial question that we need look at carefully in the discussion of homosexuality. The debate over what the Bible says, how we should read it, and then what we should do with it seems to be endless and loaded with impasse. I want to applaud the iscussion over at David Ker's site where many commentators have clear differences of opinion. Yet the conversation is an example of what Paul told the Colossians:
"As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony."
We have too often ignored these critical instructions in our conversations about the church, and I think this discussion exemplifies that. Follow along with James McGrath here and here. Now to my most recent comment which I want to raise here for further consideration.
I think what I have learned from my dogmatic past is that evangelicalism needs a more pragmatic realism that understands the one consistent feature in the map of Christian history and that is its functional social mutability. By that I mean that what we truly believe to be absolute sin today is not the same as it was ages ago. Many still understand women not to be able to hold offices of teaching men theology or holding any position of authority over men in the church. This was transferred to a wider social and political context for most of all histories in humankind.
That women have a vital function in the ministry and can indeed hold offices of authority over men in theological matters is far more normative than ever and will continue to be more normative with succeeding generations. The same discussions about the role of slaves and women have taken place as we are now discussing concerning homosexuality. I think some perspective is needed lest we fold into some irrational progressivism where we simply assume that our age is more enlightened than previous ages. The amass of deaths at the hands of war in the 20th century alone should right dismiss that claim enough.
The argument contra my claim that complementarity should not be limited to body parts, as we know quite well that sex is for more than producing babies given our reduced infant mortality rates worldwide and increased optimal aging, is that of a “trajectory” hermeneutic. This is a fancy way of saying “assertion” without evidence. It assumes what Paul would have said in our current context and that assertion seems to take the shape of whomever is doing the arguing for a given position. Hence, Paul would have not supported even benevolent slavery today when it is quite clear that benevolent slavery was something accepted for him. Treat your slave like a brother, welcome that slave into your family. But this does not change the fact that you have authority over that slave who works for you for no wage at all other than a forced exchange of shelter and food. It seems clear that the authoritarian situation does not justify the benevolence no matter how familial it is rendered.
The point is that we make assumptions on how we read these texts based on variability of contextual matters. I have been on several sides of this argument and the turning point was not in how I understood sin, but in how I understood love and what healthy and up-building relatedness looks like. If you are unhealthily (for a measure of this term one can refer to Maslow's hierarchy among other measures of optimal health in human relationships) related to other people, you cannot be healthily related to God. Many gay persons are unhealthily related to other people and so, they are unhealthily related to God.
The question is if there is a healthy gay relationship in which one can learn better how to relate to God? I think there is and there is ample evidence from gay partnerships that this is true. So can a gay couple receive the love of Christ (which includes an ethical demand to love God and neighbor) in their relationship more fully than outside that relationship? The evidence tells us that we should affirm that claim as the evidence that any form of slavery is unjust, and women in places of theological and biblical authority over men is up-building and not destructive to the church. The alternative to the evidence seems to suggest, for instance, that such a couple must be deceived or delusional. But I submit that this judgment does not make sense because it runs contrary to any measure of relational health that we have applied here. Moreover it does not give an alternative measure to judge its veracity.
No related posts.
[...] Drew Tatusko: Can a Same-Sex Couple Receive Christ? [...]
Can a heterosexual couple living together outside marriage receive Christ – or do they have to marry or split up first? Can a couple remarried after divorce receive Christ – or do they have to split up first? Same question, in my opinion, except that it is likely to be complicated by children who would suffer from any split.
What about Paul's letter to the Romans…chapter 1…..verses 18-32
I would say yes on all counts. Should a couple marry? Yes. Should they do so in undue haste and divorce? No. A 50% divorce rate also complicates the value of marriage. It's clear that it is not held in that high of regard and I think the source of it is a problem with relationships and not marriage itself. Hence the issue of healthy versus unhealthy relationships here.
I think that this passage is referring to a dis-ordering of social roles and is not primarily to do with body parts if you will. The point is that the gentiles have disordered roles as a means to make the Christian diaspora distinct. Again, the issue here is why Paul made this reference and I also think that we have to look at it in conjunction with the claim in chapter 3 that we are all sinners and there is no distinction followed by the climax in 8 that there is also no condemnation in Christ.
And I think the idea of false satisfaction is key. Paul is very clear, for example, that such satisfaction are sources of idolatry which is the primary problem here – esp. in Rom 1. I am following what Gaventa has argued here related to the centrality of idolatry as a source of conflict.
It is passing strange that we must argue from the apophatic point of view – defining the good by what is not good. So it is that the Psalms begin with the happiness based on what is 'not' done. Where 'false' satisfaction is indeed key – thank you, Christ as fully satisfactory is also key. Surely my Beloved is mine and I am his. Or as the Psalmist says – who do I have in heaven but you and who do I desire on earth but you (Psalm 73:25).
very true….very true….
I read through Romans 3 and Romans 8. That has helped…Thanks Drew!! Now back to the question….."same sex couple in a healthy relationship" My thought on that is it does not exist. It is not healthy. Maslow or no maslow…….anyways….accept Christ and go and sin no more. If they (the "healthy" same sex couple) had the TRUE Spirit of God in them, they would not need that type of relationship. Thoughts?
I think the true spirit of Christ is found in relationships that promote human flourishing through mutual commitment. I look at the issue not unlike the vow of celibacy. Clearly many should not take that vow and it is better for them to marry as Paul also says. I look at same sex relationships no differently. The truth is that many homosexuals spend their entire lives on the brink of suicide fighting their sexual identity if they are not successful at killing themselves – which happens at a higher rate than the rest of the population. I have been witness to many same-sex relationships where their mutual commitment has made the love of God real in their lives to a degree that it was not before. So these relationships do exist. They can be sources of redemption and proper directedness out of perpetual self-loathing.
Why do any of us partner with someone for life as it is? I don't think it's only for pro-creation anymore. That's certainly true for infertile couples. For a same sex couple the answer is the same as a heterosexual couple. The only difference in the relationship is biological.
[...] Tatusko of Notes from Off-Center poses the question, "Can a Same-Sex Couple Receive Christ?" In the modern era, it's another question we'll have to face more and more [...]
The Word of God is pretty clear. We can over complicate things, usually in an effort to justify sin. When we start looking to Christian history, the media, current cultural opinions, some liberal college professor, it is very easy to miss the mark. Coming to Christ should entail some lifestyle changes, i.e. bringing ourselves into alignment with His way. "This is love for God: to obey his commands." 1 John5:3
The Word of God is pretty clear. We can over complicate things, usually in an effort to justify sin. When we start looking to Christian history, the media, current cultural opinions, some liberal college professor, it is very easy to miss the mark. Coming to Christ should entail some lifestyle changes, i.e. bringing ourselves into alignment with His way. "This is love for God: to obey his commands." 1 John5:3