The Gang Plank

After three years study, I have come to the conclusion that the argument among Christians regarding homosexuality and the New Book comes down to 2 verses in Romans.

An accurate translation of Romans 1:27-28 is:

For this cause God gave them up into disgraceful passions, for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition

Likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use (sexual intercourse) of the women burned in their lust one towards another, men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves the recompense of their effort which was meet.

For thirty years, I never questioned that homosexuality was a sin. I believed that the "know," in the story of Sodom, meant the same as the "know" in Genesis, i.e., sexual intercourse. This seemed a clear illustration of homosexual sin that was judged by God accordingly. I was not a vitriolic opponent of homosexual rights, I just presumed that gay men and lesbians were unwilling to renounce their sins and be converted into Christian heterosexuals. I guess I believed that there was a "gay agenda," which was attempting to usher in a new wave of repulsive sexual spectacle, ignoring God's condemnation of sodomy and other disgusting acts.

I started to waiver three years ago, when after meeting my son's college roommate, a gay ,Christian kid from Minnesota, I had an epiphany. You could be a sincere Christian and be homosexual.

All I'd ever really known about gays was bath houses, nude parades, anonymous sex, uncontrollable lust and a general antagonism to Christianity. Forgive me Mike for knowing so little and judging so much.

There are 10 passages in the New Book about homosexuality. Verses like 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 that have been used to condemn homosexuality are pretty hollow, for key words in the passages have been fairly well mishandled, reflecting translators' predisposition to be homophobic. I examined Old Book passages, and how the story of Sodom could have been about distrust, dishonor, violent anger and disloyalty of the people of Sodom, not about homosexual mania. I have no problem with other OB passages, because I reject their authority after Jesus' arrival before John the by Baptist at the River Jordan. I find claims about David and Jonathan' sexual relationship and assertions that it was Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Eve ludicrous (and amusing in their earnest awkwardness).

The OB is clearly about "going forth and multiplying." The NB is about "going forth and making disciples." Homosexuality was an abomination to the Jews. So were Gentiles, Samaritans and any food that deviated from God's instructions regarding diet regulations. Circumcision was sacrosanct. All this was changed in the NB: there is no male or female in Christ; no slave or free; no Jew or Gentile. Circumcision was not required of Gentile believers and the dietary laws were lifted. It was a cataclysmic revolution; Jesus was more disruptive than any figure in world history.

It could be predicted that the chasm between homosexuality and heterosexuality would be eliminated as well. The early church had homosexual covenants. The world of the NB is rife with homosexuality, and very little is said about that sexual orientation. The infamous passage in Romans is seen by some as an admonition to not yield to bi-sexuality. The word translated "nature" in most translation is best defined as "native," indicating that the actions described are not contrary to inherent rules for all human behavior, but for individual behavior.

Paul attempts in this passage to call heterosexual believers not to leave their native orientation to embrace entanglement in same sex affairs solely because of pressure from a bi-sexual culture.
Although I am not fully satisfied with this interpretation, the scarcity of passages regarding homosexual practices, the obvious parallel between bond and free, male and female, Jew and Greek, the absolute ability of God to love everybody and the reality of homosexual Christians, famous and obscure, who remain homosexual, even after attempting every means of purging this indelible part of their lives, makes me conclude that some people are born gay, and should be embraced by the faith, not abandoned by it.

This is another area in which many have defined the church as homophobic without having any basis other than changing moral standards behind their own conduct. Christians are servants of Christ and must hear the promptings and instruction of the New Book. If you say you are only going to follow the words of Christ and reject the writings of Paul, you are rejecting the work of the First Century church and its earliest referenced body of sacred writings, detailed in 79AD.

The moral principles of the New Book regarding marriage apply to everyone: celibacy, monogamy, faithfulness, lifelong. The failure of Homosexuals to follow the aforementioned moral principles should be handled the same as heterosexual failure. The bar is the same for everyone, and it is high.

Bi-sexuality is a moot point, because marriage is monogamous and lifelong. Transgender situations should be handled with compassion and understanding. I have no biblical position on this, but I believe in inclusion and support.

That's it. Glug, glug.