Evangelicals and Homosexuality: One more thread

[DMcFadden]

Today I received a notice from my seminary alma mater (the school in Pasadena that must not be named). The student publication featured an article from a professor and former high ranking administrator of the school and one from his gay daughter. Insofar as the school bills itself as a leading evangelical institution, it offers a glimpse into the thinking in the academy these days regarding that sensitive topic. Here are some excerpts for discussion:

I don’t know how to relate lesbian partnership to other forms of sexual behavior rejected in the scriptures. At this time I have no clear answer theologically. For example, I do not see lesbian partnership as sexual abuse, or promiscuity; and heterosexual adultery has elements of both abuse and promiscuity.

I see evangelicals ready to forgive and accept those who have suffered the wounds of divorce, a practice that Malachi says God hates; yet just as ready to reject and even hate gays and lesbians who live in loving commitment to one another.

So as I ponder these things, I have come to accept [his daughter's] partnership with [the daughter's life partner] as more beautiful, caring, compassionate, and Christ-like, than [his daughter’s] former “defective,” “ashamed”, and “black cloud” state of body and mind. I see that my choice as a father is fairly simple.

I continue to love my daughter and accept her as the person God created and redeemed her to be. I seek to love and accept her partner in the same way. I see their relationship as one that has been a blessing to each as they have come to know and love each other.

I also sense the person of Christ much alive in [herJ life. She and [her partner] are now mothers of adopted children – a teenage girl and two boys, aged four and five who were abandoned by their male and female genitors, people who never served as loving parents . . . [his daughter and her partner] are our family and delightful friends. They are people with much love for us and for others around them.

The fuller context of the article allowed that the author struggles with the theological ramifications and that he supports the school's standards on the subject. However, with shifts in attitudes among the younger generation, it would be interesting to see how this kind of sentiment was reflected (or rejected) in other evangelical and Reformed seminaries.

 

[John Bunyan]

Translating: My daughters defines herself as a lesbian and is "gay-married" to another lady, therefore it's not wrong to practice actions clearly condemned by scripture.

 

[J. Dean]

Translating: My daughters defines herself as a lesbian and is "gay-married" to another lady, therefore it's not wrong to practice actions clearly condemned by scripture.

Yep. And I've seen this before, and not just with homosexuality either. It's easy to stand on a Scriptural doctrine when conflict with that doctrine doesn't hit so close to home with us. We preach telling the truth, until it seems expedient for us to twist the truth. We believe in disciplining our children in a biblical manner, yet we "bend the rules" when a child begs and pleads. Bottom line: at that moment, like the professor in that letter, we love our sin more than we love God.

 

[moral necessity]

Amazing...he doesn't have to justify his love for her by finding a way to excuse her behavior. Jesus never did that with us. We must remember that our reasoning is still impaired, so, no matter how good something seems to us, Scripture must direct our view on the subject. God made man upright. Lesbianism is a distortion of that uprightness.

Blessings!

 

[RobertPGH1981]

I don't agree with him but the situation he is in would be very difficult.

One thing that I have noticed is that we all like to place sin on a scale of 1-10. They rate homosexuality really high on the scale for some reason, while divorce is more socially acceptable in some evangelical circles. While I do believe that there are sins that are worse than others, I do not think that homosexuality is as high on this scale as people make it seem.

I am against same sex marriage, but when I meet somebody who is gay I try to know them for who they are and try not label them. They are sinners just like everybody else... One could focus on other areas of sin in their lives because being homosexual is not what is keeping them out of God's Kingdom its being a sinner. Somebody that is not raised Christian creates many bad habits in their lives and God will sanctify them in the time he has set. In the sanctification process those who are truly his will eventually recognize this sin and repent of it.

There are sins that we can consider "respectable sins" and sins that are so horrible that we say that you cannot be christian if you do that. Homosexuality is one of these things. I doubt that God has that type of distinction... Some homosexuals may be turned off by the church as a whole because they are treated so poorly by the church. We picket and protest against them, but we do not do the same when a divorce happens, or when a celebrities actively promote promiscuity, drug use and the like.

 

[Jack K]

Another example of why the church needs to take a stand against heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. Failure in this regard is seen by the world as bigotry, and the world may be right.

 

[DMcFadden]

I lived through the period when divorce was absolutely impossible for clergy to a time when (mainline) denominational leaders often are on their second or third marriage.

Our cultural lenses pretty powerfully control how we "see" sins. This is to our shame.

 

[Andres]

Another example of why the church needs to take a stand against heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. Failure in this regard is seen by the world as bigotry, and the world may be right.

Agreed. A co-worker who professes to be a Christian lamented to me the other day how he would never support Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thrice-married Newt Gingrich.

 

[KMK]

He didn't seem to have a problem with the thrice-married Newt Gingrich.

Agreed. Because the church in America stands against gay marriage but welcomes no-fault divorce, I can see why the world considers us hypocrites.

 

[Miss Marple]

I don't agree with him but the situation he is in would be very difficult.

One thing that I have noticed is that we all like to place sin on a scale of 1-10. They rate homosexuality really high on the scale for some reason, while divorce is more socially acceptable in some evangelical circles. While I do believe that there are sins that are worse than others, I do not think that homosexuality is as high on this scale as people make it seem.

I am against same sex marriage, but when I meet somebody who is gay I try to know them for who they are and try not label them. They are sinners just like everybody else... One could focus on other areas of sin in their lives because being homosexual is not what is keeping them out of God's Kingdom its being a sinner. Somebody that is not raised Christian creates many bad habits in their lives and God will sanctify them in the time he has set. In the sanctification process those who are truly his will eventually recognize this sin and repent of it.

There are sins that we can consider "respectable sins" and sins that are so horrible that we say that you cannot be christian if you do that. Homosexuality is one of these things. I doubt that God has that type of distinction... Some homosexuals may be turned off by the church as a whole because they are treated so poorly by the church. We picket and protest against them, but we do not do the same when a divorce happens, or when a celebrities actively promote promiscuity, drug use and the like.

The difference here, I think, is that divorce is sometimes ok. That is to say, in the cases of adultery or desertion, or severe abuse, the Christian consensus is that divorce is not a sin.

Whereas, homosexuality is always a sin.

Also, a divorce can be forgiven, i.e., if you divorced sinfully when you were 25, and now you are 35 and have repented of it, it is over with. Whereas homosexuality is presumably ongoing.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

Another example of why the church needs to take a stand against heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. Failure in this regard is seen by the world as bigotry, and the world may be right.

Agreed. A co-worker who professes to be a Christian lamented to me the other day how he would never support Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thrice-married Newt Gingrich.

Again, the divorces can be repented of or be legitimate. The ongoing Mormonism is not.

 

[Andres]

I don't agree with him but the situation he is in would be very difficult.

One thing that I have noticed is that we all like to place sin on a scale of 1-10. They rate homosexuality really high on the scale for some reason, while divorce is more socially acceptable in some evangelical circles. While I do believe that there are sins that are worse than others, I do not think that homosexuality is as high on this scale as people make it seem.

I am against same sex marriage, but when I meet somebody who is gay I try to know them for who they are and try not label them. They are sinners just like everybody else... One could focus on other areas of sin in their lives because being homosexual is not what is keeping them out of God's Kingdom its being a sinner. Somebody that is not raised Christian creates many bad habits in their lives and God will sanctify them in the time he has set. In the sanctification process those who are truly his will eventually recognize this sin and repent of it.

There are sins that we can consider "respectable sins" and sins that are so horrible that we say that you cannot be christian if you do that. Homosexuality is one of these things. I doubt that God has that type of distinction... Some homosexuals may be turned off by the church as a whole because they are treated so poorly by the church. We picket and protest against them, but we do not do the same when a divorce happens, or when a celebrities actively promote promiscuity, drug use and the like.

The difference here, I think, is that divorce is sometimes ok. That is to say, in the cases of adultery or desertion, or severe abuse, the Christian consensus is that divorce is not a sin.

Whereas, homosexuality is always a sin.

Also, a divorce can be forgiven, i.e., if you divorced sinfully when you were 25, and now you are 35 and have repented of it, it is over with. Whereas homosexuality is presumably ongoing.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

Another example of why the church needs to take a stand against heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. Failure in this regard is seen by the world as bigotry, and the world may be right.

Agreed. A co-worker who professes to be a Christian lamented to me the other day how he would never support Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thrice-married Newt Gingrich.

Again, the divorces can be repented of or be legitimate. The ongoing Mormonism is not.

I won't pretend to know all the details of Gingrich's life, but I'm highly skeptical that his two divorces were on completely biblical grounds. I'm willing to be proved wrong though.

 

[forgivenmuch]

I don't agree with him but the situation he is in would be very difficult.

One thing that I have noticed is that we all like to place sin on a scale of 1-10. They rate homosexuality really high on the scale for some reason, while divorce is more socially acceptable in some evangelical circles. While I do believe that there are sins that are worse than others, I do not think that homosexuality is as high on this scale as people make it seem.

I am against same sex marriage, but when I meet somebody who is gay I try to know them for who they are and try not label them. They are sinners just like everybody else... One could focus on other areas of sin in their lives because being homosexual is not what is keeping them out of God's Kingdom its being a sinner. Somebody that is not raised Christian creates many bad habits in their lives and God will sanctify them in the time he has set. In the sanctification process those who are truly his will eventually recognize this sin and repent of it.

There are sins that we can consider "respectable sins" and sins that are so horrible that we say that you cannot be christian if you do that. Homosexuality is one of these things. I doubt that God has that type of distinction... Some homosexuals may be turned off by the church as a whole because they are treated so poorly by the church. We picket and protest against them, but we do not do the same when a divorce happens, or when a celebrities actively promote promiscuity, drug use and the like.

The difference here, I think, is that divorce is sometimes ok. That is to say, in the cases of adultery or desertion, or severe abuse, the Christian consensus is that divorce is not a sin.

Whereas, homosexuality is always a sin.

Also, a divorce can be forgiven, i.e., if you divorced sinfully when you were 25, and now you are 35 and have repented of it, it is over with. Whereas homosexuality is presumably ongoing.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

Another example of why the church needs to take a stand against heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin. Failure in this regard is seen by the world as bigotry, and the world may be right.

Agreed. A co-worker who professes to be a Christian lamented to me the other day how he would never support Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. He didn't seem to have a problem with the thrice-married Newt Gingrich.

Again, the divorces can be repented of or be legitimate. The ongoing Mormonism is not.

I won't pretend to know all the details of Gingrich's life, but I'm highly skeptical that his two divorces were on completely biblical grounds. I'm willing to be proved wrong though.

ehhhh. His first two marriages ended after he had affairs with younger women. The two women that he had affairs with subsequently became his second and third wives.

 

[Rufus]

Agreed. Because the church in America stands against gay marriage but welcomes no-fault divorce, I can see why the world considers us hypocrites.

Some (a lot in reality I would say) of us stand against no-fault divorces.

Honestly I'm sick of the gay debate but I will stand for it being sin, and I have friends who are "lesbians" but I would not drop the Lord's will in place of cultural relativism and making everyone happy.

 

[Rich Koster]

The whole problem that I see, when having conversation with the world, is that they always compare their sin to my sin or someone else's sin. They do this to wiggle away from how God views sin. They have their arguments well planned because they have been making excuses their whole life. Rarely will you hear something to the drift of "I know it's wrong, I'm going to spend eternity in hell, and I'm just going to do it because I like it, and don't care what anyone else says or does about it". I was part of that same main-line jellyfish and it disgusted me that the world had more influence over its decisions than the Word.

 

[Elizabeth]

If divorce=homosex in it's evil, should we allow practicing homosexuals into the church as we do divorced people? I guess I don't understand the comparison very well. I get that we can be hypocritical re: these matters, but what is the proper corrective in this? No divorce(even though God made allowances for it) or allowing homosex(even though God made no allowances for it, ever). I am not trying to be a smart aleck about this, I just can't quite wrap my simple mind around the comparison of the two?

 

[RobertPGH1981]

If divorce=homosex in it's evil, should we allow practicing homosexuals into the church as we do divorced people? I guess I don't understand the comparison very well. I get that we can be hypocritical re: these matters, but what is the proper corrective in this? No divorce(even though God made allowances for it) or allowing homosex(even though God made no allowances for it, ever). I am not trying to be a smart aleck about this, I just can't quite wrap my simple mind around the comparison of the two?

I feel the same way, however, to Miss Marples point above the key word is practicing. Would we consider being separated from your spouse through a divorce continually practicing in divorce? My Pastor doesn't believe that we are to divorce in any situation, but in difficult situations we separate and do not divorce.

Are you inferring that if you divorce then you are continually practicing in divorce? If so, I could agree with that.​

 

[DMcFadden]

I suspect that the issue is more one of the church following the lead of the culture . . . one more time.

God's provision for divorce was concessive and severely limited. Today, I know of leaders of mainline denominations who are in second and third marriages for reasons other than those accepted by the so-called Erasmian exceptions (adultery and desertion). Yet, when the culture shrugs off divorce, so does the church.

In the last four decades a concerted effort has been made to mainstream homosexuality. This is seen in the intentionality of Hollywood television and movie scripts and the campaign to define Romans 1 as hate speech in common discourse. Yes, I write as one with friends who are not only gay but in same-sex marriages. Still, it is difficult for me to sympathize with revising moral standards and biblical interpretations in order to follow the dictates of cultural imperatives.

It would appear to me that divorce happens, homosexuality happens, adultery happens, greed happens, and idolatry happens. But, it is only when the culture promotes something as acceptable that the church struggles with revising its principles and practices of hermeneutics.

One of my five children lives in a lifestyle that greatly offends my understanding of biblical standards (not the gay one, but does it really matter?). During our devotions this morning, Jeanette and I prayed for him earnestly as we always do. I have no problem loving my son, praying for him, and communicating to him that he is mine while still accepting what the Bible declares to be righteous and what it declares sinful.

That a leading and respected person in a ginormous evangelical seminary would so write about his struggles with applying the Bible to his family life is courageous in one sense. But, sadly, it speaks volumes about the power of cultural norms to shape and shift our idea of what the Bible teaches.

I am convinced that broad evangelicalism without confessional boundaries cannot sustain itself due to the inherent difficulties of remaining faithful in the face of a seductive culture. Neo-evangelicalism, so called, arose after WWII, to promote orthodoxy without fundamentalist legalism. The minimalist and reductionist version of Christianity that allowed such apparent ecumenism between conservatives in differing denominational traditions, was never robust enough to sustain orthodoxy. And, while confessional subscription is not a cure all that immunizes one against all theological drift, it is certainly a lot more effective than the broad evangelical alternative.

 

[Andres]

If divorce=homosex in it's evil, should we allow practicing homosexuals into the church as we do divorced people? I guess I don't understand the comparison very well. I get that we can be hypocritical re: these matters, but what is the proper corrective in this? No divorce(even though God made allowances for it) or allowing homosex(even though God made no allowances for it, ever). I am not trying to be a smart aleck about this, I just can't quite wrap my simple mind around the comparison of the two?

It's not that I view those who practice homosexuality as equal to those who have had a divorce, but I believe that the broad evangelical church generally views homosexuality as the evil of all evils while not giving much thought to those who would consider a divorce. God says He hates both.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Whatever happened to the Bible?

 

[Jack K]

Rather than comparing homosexual sex to divorce, it's probably more helpful to compare it to unmarried heterosexual sex. Even though the homosexual aspect compounds the sin, both are still sin and the church ought to stand against both.

There are some churches where, despite what they officially believe, this simply doesn't happen much. Is the church for sexual purity, diligently fighting temptations those in the church themselves are most likely to struggle with (in most churches, this means heterosexual sex/p0rnography), or is the church merely against the sins it sees in outsiders?

 

[J. Dean]

Whatever happened to the Bible?

There you go again, bringing that religion thing into this!

 

[Sgt Grit]

I am divorced and in some circles I feel like a leper, even on this board it seems as though we (divorced) are being equated with practicing homosexuals, and that’s exactly what the world does.

I was divorced for biblical reasons. I caught my wife having an affair, and when I confronted her she refused to admit it, but we went to Pastoral counseling, and I forgave her. The second time I caught her with a yet another man, but this time she confessed, we sought counseling and I forgave her. The third time I caught her in the act with yet another man, and I knew it was over at that point, so I walked away. I think I fulfilled all the biblical requirements and then some, and after my divorce I found that I only knew a tenth of the story.

In many Evangelical and Reformed circles an adulterer (past) can serve the church as a Deacon or Elder, but someone divorced for verifiably biblical reasons cannot. Because our sin is akin to homosexuality?

Sorry for the rant, but divorce is only a sin if it is for the wrong reasons.

 

[Miss Marple]

Robert PGH,

"but in difficult situations we separate and do not divorce. "

I may be going off topic? But a quick note, I don't understand that. If you separate you must be "denying" one another, 1st Cor 7:5, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Anyway, my point was, a divorce that is repented of but not repairable (it takes two to repair) is not, to my understanding, "living in sin." Continually having homosexual trysts is. Similarly, having been involved in a fornicating relationship, but quitting it and repenting of it, is not equivalent to continually having homosexual trysts.

A homosexual who formerly indulged and now confesses it as sin and has quit, would be welcome in a church, it seems to me.

So if we "accept" in the church someone who has divorced non-sinfully, or divorced sinfully but has repented, or someone who used to fornicate but does so no longer, I don't think that means we should therefore take in an unrepentant homosexual.

 

[Andres]

Sorry for the rant, but divorce is only a sin if it is for the wrong reasons.

No one in this thread has said otherwise. I am sorry that your wife was unfaithful to you, but if you'll read this thread carefully, I don't believe your rant is warranted

 

[Miss Marple]

Sgt, I am sorry for the betrayal you experienced. I know both of pastors and pastors' wives in the OPC who were (biblically) divorced in earlier years, and went on to be ordained or serve as teaching elders, or be no hindrance to their husband's career as pastor. So I hope that in the OPC, if a divorce was biblical, it does not render a believer a "leper."

 

[Rufus]

I am divorced and in some circles I feel like a leper, even on this board it seems as though we (divorced) are being equated with practicing homosexuals, and that’s exactly what the world does.

I was divorced for biblical reasons. I caught my wife having an affair, and when I confronted her she refused to admit it, but we went to Pastoral counseling, and I forgave her. The second time I caught her with a yet another man, but this time she confessed, we sought counseling and I forgave her. The third time I caught her in the act with yet another man, and I knew it was over at that point, so I walked away. I think I fulfilled all the biblical requirements and then some, and after my divorce I found that I only knew a tenth of the story.

In many Evangelical and Reformed circles an adulterer (past) can serve the church as a Deacon or Elder, but someone divorced for verifiably biblical reasons cannot. Because our sin is akin to homosexuality?

Sorry for the rant, but divorce is only a sin if it is for the wrong reasons.

Your not in the wrong for divorcing your wife Richard. Your reasons are justifiable. I would do the same. And yes divorce is only a sin if it's for the wrong reasons.

The difference between divorce and practicing homosexuality is that one can repent of being divorced and still be divorced, one cannot repent of being a homosexual and still purposely (taking into account falls) engage in homosexual sexual relations.

 

[JimmyH]

The bottom line is that we all have to work out our own salvation ...... it is suggested to do so with fear and trembling. I read that to mean take it very seriously. As Paul suggests in Romans chapter two, I don't presume to judge how others are working out their salvation but I'm thankful that homosexuality is not one of the sins I contend with. As far as I'm concerned anyone who believes that that behavior is normal and should be condoned is conforming to the course of this world, not remaining a stranger and a pilgrim.

 

[DMcFadden]

Richard,

Of course those who have divorced for "biblical reasons" are not in the same situation as the wanton adulterer. The point is that not many decades ago, the church was for (heterosexual) marriage and lived like it. When the world decided that "no fault" divorce was OK, the church largely followed. No, there are some churches that do not permit any divorced (for any reason) person to serve. But, lamentably surveys continue to show that evangelicals mirror their unchurched neighbors in divorce rates. And, as a biblical stance on Romans 1 has become bigoted hate speech (equated with the most vile race-based bigotry), the church is showing significant signs of following the culture again.

There is no basis for stigmatizing people as you note that we tend to do. However, that was not the point of the original post or the comments in this thread . . . as far as I can see.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

That a leading and respected person in a ginormous evangelical seminary would so write about his struggles with applying the Bible to his family life is courageous in one sense. But, sadly, it speaks volumes about the power of cultural norms to shape and shift our idea of what the Bible teaches.

It is interesting that you mention this because at the 2012 National Ligonier Conference that is one of the main topics discussed. I just saw a sermon this morning by R.C. Sproul Jr., and he was talking about how the church likes to bend towards the culture. In an effort to not look stupid Christians will bend biblical truth to stay relevant with the times.


Great Conference by the way, I think Zach and Afterthought would agree with me here...

 

[Afterthought]

Great Conference by the way, I think Zach and Afterthought would agree with me here...

(always wanted to use that) It has been quite good indeed!