I am not one who spends a lot of time, in the pulpit or out, talking about homosexuality. Some churches seem to talk about little else. Just do a google of the word "homosexuality" and nearly any major American denomination and see how many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hits you get.
But when I see a major news headline "Lutheran Bishops Mull Allowing Gay Clergy," I feel forced to say something. Though this particular article does differentiate the major American Lutheran denominations and clarifies that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not the church body that is discussing gay clergy and gay marriage, it doesn't do so until the very last sentence of the article. Many readers will not get that far.
I do not support allowing gay clergy, as the article puts it, and I'll tell you why. But first, I want to be quite clear about what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that I hate anyone. I am NOT saying that I think I am better than anyone. I am NOT in favor of discrimation against homosexuals in terms of civil rights. I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians. So hear me out.
I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful. And I am saying that the Christian Church has no right to condone it. Like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound by the Word of God. One does not have to rely on Old Testament Jewish prohibitions to make the case. The New Testament likewise explicitly condemns homosexual behavior.
I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make. Jesus did not say anything directly about homosexuality, but a man that Jesus personally called to be his spokesman, Paul of Tarsus, did. Cf. Romans 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10.
Some will further argue that homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't hurt anybody. Well, that is a premise with which I do not agree. A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies. Some of his arguments are stronger than others, but all of them need to at least be considered.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful.
There is yet another recent study out that tested people on smells/pheremones. It was observed that the brain activity in gay men responded the same as women to certain smells, rather than other men. THis clearly indicates a biological origin to homosexuality.
Christianity will have to be very creative to continue to try and rationalize how one can be born already sinful. I'm confident though that people like you will find the way.
I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make.
Actually, I think the silence comes from being stunned over the realization of the psychosis they are conversing with. To equate the actions of two consenting adults expressing the emotion of love/attraction, to the actions of forcible rape, intercourse with the dead or eating human flesh probably makes them realize they aren't conversing with someone with an accurate perspective of things.
A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies.
Well there's a non-biased source! I'm a gay man, in a monogamous relationship for 20 years and we are raising a child in a loving home environment. Can't you
feel the decay all around you?
we deprive the individual of an opportunity to be reconciled to his Heavenly Father. And how loving is that?
When it is finally proven that people do not choose who they are attracted to, but that attraction is biological, then I imagine you will feel real good having shut the doors of your faith to those who were born different. I imagine your God will really have something to cry about then.
2 - Scott
I wasn't comparing homosexual sex to rape, etc. I was making the point that Jesus' silence on homosexuality does not mean He approves of it. Jesus was silent about many things. The fact that there are no recorded sayings of Jesus about homosexuality proves nothing. And yet, I have heard people state that it does.
I've read the pheremones report. I'm not a scientist, but it seems that this could just as easily be a conditioned response. Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sight of food, but he was able to condition them to salivate at the sound of a bell. And I am not calling you or anyone a dog. That is just an illustration of a conditioned response.
And I don't rule out the possibility that homosexual attraction has a biological basis. I'm a happily married monogamous heterosexual man and yet I quite naturally sometimes have sexual attraction toward other women. The naturalness of that attraction does not excuse me to act on it. Some men are attracted to children. This is not defensible, even if they can't help it. I mean to say that not everything now in our genes was necessarily put there by our Creator.
I regret that I have offended you. I am honestly not trying to hurt anyone. But I do think this discussion needs to take place.
3 - Steve S
I'm a happily married monogamous heterosexual man and yet I quite naturally sometimes have sexual attraction toward other women. The naturalness of that attraction does not excuse me to act on it.
Of course it does not, because you took a vow to refrain from it and you already have an alternative outlet to focus your attractions on. It is entirely different and not comparable.
4 - DrPat
I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians but I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful.
In your comment #2, homosexual attraction is not sinful. In your main post, it is. That kind of mixed message dilutes your argument severely, and, I think, reveals your basic reaction: anything different from your own inclination in this regard is sinful.
I'm pleased you're attracted to other women, and willing to offer gays equality in civil matters. Why not agree that homosexuals, like all humans, share in both the innate sinfulness and the perfectability with which they were Designed?
I mean to say that not everything now in our genes was necessarily put there by our Creator.
Oh, if you're going to preach Manichaean dualism, I'm going to take my ball and go home...
5 - Scott
The point of comparison was not whether gays can be married. The point of comparison was whether something is moral just because it is biological. Thus, the second illustration. A person's sexual attractions might be ingrained, but that alone is not sufficient to make them good. Our biological urges should not be the foundation for our values and ethics. I apologize if I am coming across as arrogant or belittling. This form of communication has its limitations.
6 - Scott
Dr. Pat,
You misunderstood comment #2. I do believe homosexual attraction is sinful. I just concede the possibility that it is genetic. I also believe it is sinful to be hot-tempered, but that has a genetic component. And the reason I'm not a dualist, as you accuse, is because I believe that the perfect creation fashioned by God has been corrupted.
Another example, many people are genetically predisposed to certain mental illnesses. Did God make that? I don't think so. God looked upon His creation and called it good. The creation has been tainted, polluted. And He is in the process of making a new creation, a new heaven and earth. That is quite different than saying that evil is a created substance or that there are two equal and opposing divine sources in competition with each other.
Are you saying that we are created sinful by God?
7 - DrPat
Are you saying that an evil power has equal abilities with God to create the capacity for sin? That's Manicheanism.
And if someone is attracted to another person "for biological reasons," and this is not defensible, even if they can't help it, then at least some of the sin you condemn is involuntary. Whether that "innate sin" was created in us by God or devil, by good or evil power, it is not our action or choice, and thus is not accessible to our free will.
So I guess it's Determinism or Pre-Ordained Election you're preaching, Scott. And judging from your own admission of "innate sin" in being attracted to other women outside your marital sacrament, you yourself are not one of the Elect.
8 - Scott
Dr. Pat,
Oh, now you're just being silly. Honestly, that is the most off-the-wall string of non-sequiturs.
Do I believe in an evil power equal to God? Of course not. It's ridiculous.
Do I believe in Original Sin? Yes. Look it up. You don't seem to understand the doctrine as it is professed by those of a Reformation heritage.
And do I believe in Election? You betcha. Does my election have ANYTHING to do with my sinfulness? Nope. If election were conditional, then no one could be saved.
Luther's "Bondage of the Will" might help you out in terms of understanding basic Reformation teaching.
This is basic Biblical doctrine 101. Time to move on.
9 - The Theory
People can argue whether or not homosexuality is biological until they are blue in the face. As it relates to Christianity, however, the Bible does clearly take a stand against it. Therefore, allowing practicing homosexual preachers is a slap in the face to religion.
The Church's continuing to bow down to society on issues is a horrid weakness.
10 - Scott
Theory,
I agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It is sinful. As is heterosexual adultery, etc. My point is precisely that whether there is a gay gene or not does alter the fact that it is wrong. As Christians, our task is to proclaim and to persuade. We cannot ignore the findings and claims of science. Science will not change my doctrine, but it may affect how I address others regarding my beliefs.
11 - The Theory
>>As Christians, our task is to proclaim and to persuade
See, I don't know how much I agree with that. I think that if Christians display the traits of Christ (remember the song "They Will Know We Are Christians by our Love") instead of going out and trying to persuade (using Biblical stances in a secular setting is always frustrating at best and ineffective) will allow God to work and bring change.
12 - Scott
Theory,
Re-read Acts 17. The apostle Paul went to Athens, the center of worldly philosophy and he stood up at the place where the pagan scholars congregated. And he began to explain who God is to them. And in doing so, he even quoted Greek pagan poets. All of this was to lead him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus.
And keep in mind 1 Peter 3:15. He tells us to be prepared to give the REASON for the hope that we have. The greek word that is used there is apologia which means defense. He is telling us to be prepared to explain, defend and articulate not only what we believe but why we believe it. And the Holy Spirit will bless those efforts.
I'm not saying we can argue people into having faith. Only the HOly Spirit, working through the gospel can bring people to faith. But we can help to eliminate obstacles to faith by clear explanation.
13 - Dave Nalle
Once someone admits to believing in election the discussion should be over. If you accept election then nothing you say can really be taken all that seriously, because it's either just an intellectual exercise or an attempt to just torment and annoy people who are not 'elect' for sadistic purposes.
Dave
14 - Scott
Dave,
I don't know what you're talking about. What, in your understanding, is the Lutheran doctrine of election? I have a feeling we're not talking about the same thing.
And since we're waxing theological, Christians who adhere to the New Testament believe in predestination because it is taught in the New Testament, very explicitly. Someone who does not recognize the authority of the New Testament has the right to his/her opinion.
For me, the question is "what does the New Testament teach about the matter?" not "what is my personal preference or opinion?"
But based on your comments, I suspect we are thinking of quite different things in regards to election.
Coincidentally, as I mentioned above, Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" would, at least, inform you as to what I believe.
15 - Dave Nalle
I assume the Lutheran version of election is the same as everyone else's. Basically, the elect are predestined to go to heaven, and while no one knows for sure if they are elect, god knows and will allow only those who are elect into heaven.
Like many things in the Bible it basically makes no sense.
Dave
16 - Scott
Well Dave, not surprisingly, you got it wrong. I'd be happy to discuss it, but only if you're willing to read the book I recommended. But since you have already (a priori) decided that it won't make sense. . .
17 - Dave Nalle
The Bible? I've read it a dozen times. I spent 4 years in a church school having it crammed down my throat repeatedly.
You see, there's no discussion of 'election' as such in the New Testament. It's extrapolated from things Jesus said. The version I described is the one adhered to by early puritans in England - which is what I'm most familiar with as a historian. If you've got a different version, perhaps you could post a quick summary.
Dave
18 - Scott
Dave, I'm sorry to be so glib, but you're simply wrong about the doctrine of election not being found in the NT, except from the statements of Jesus (though that would be sufficient). It is found, I think pretty clearly, througout the writings of St. Luke (Acts), St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John.
The Puritans were Calvinists and their view of predestination is indiosyncratic. Remember that Christianity is not encapsulated in the Synod of Dort. The Lutheran position is similar, but with significant differences.
Please understand that it would not be possible for me to give a "quick summary" of such a complex subject without over-simplifying. And since I think you are not being particularly open-minded toward me at the moment, any over-simplification on my part would only seem to add fuel to your already well-stoked fire.
You said that this doctrine makes no sense. If by that you mean that you don't understand it and something you don't understand can't be true, then I'm not sure I can offer much.
And since I am a Lutheran pastor, any detailed explanation of this subject that I would offer would draw heavily from the very Scriptures you don't want crammed down your throat.
EVEN SO, I will make these comments for you to go at:
- Only the elect will be saved.
- All the elect will be saved.
- Election is not apart from faith.
- The elect are called to faith in Christ.
- Faith comes by hearing the gospel.
- God does not desire the death of the wicked and does desire that all men be saved.
- Only those with faith in Christ are saved.
- Faith is worked in man by the Holy Spirit working through means (Word and Sacrament).
- Lutherans do not believe that predestines men for damnation.
- Christians need not fear whether or not they are elect.
- All who die in faith are the elect.
That's just a quick rattling off of theses. Again, Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will (contra Erasmus) is where I'm coming from.
19 - Steve S
Scott says:
The point of comparison was whether something is moral just because it is biological....A person's sexual attractions might be ingrained, but that alone is not sufficient to make them good. Our biological urges should not be the foundation for our values and ethics.
oh, I see, our biological urges of love should not be a foundation for our values and ethics. We as a society should dump the concept of family and marriage and monogamy, so that's what you are saying.
Or do you mean you get to pick and choose which biological urges we can use as a foundation for our values and ethics? Specifically yours and not mine.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, I'm sorry to be so glib, but you're simply wrong about the doctrine of election not being found in the NT, except from the statements of Jesus (though that would be sufficient). It is found, I think pretty clearly, througout the writings of St. Luke (Acts), St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. <<
So as I said it's extrapolated, if not by Luther and his successors, then by the apostles and others writing long after the fact.
>>You said that this doctrine makes no sense. If by that you mean that you don't understand it and something you don't understand can't be true, then I'm not sure I can offer much.<<
Presuming that you know what God's plan for man is makes no sense on such a basic level that you can take as long or as short as you like to explain your particular set of rationalizations for your faith. No matter how long you take it will still come down to a matter of faith rather than fact.
>>And since I am a Lutheran pastor, any detailed explanation of this subject that I would offer would draw heavily from the very Scriptures you don't want crammed down your throat.<<
You seem to misunderstand. I've already had them crammed, so I'm innoculated.
EVEN SO, I will make these comments for you to go at:
>>- Only the elect will be saved.
- All the elect will be saved.
- Election is not apart from faith.
- The elect are called to faith in Christ.
- Faith comes by hearing the gospel.
- God does not desire the death of the wicked and does desire that all men be saved.
- Only those with faith in Christ are saved.
- Faith is worked in man by the Holy Spirit working through means (Word and Sacrament).
- Lutherans do not believe that predestines men for damnation.
- Christians need not fear whether or not they are elect.
- All who die in faith are the elect.<<
So in short, those who have faith are the elect and will be saved. See, it can be summed up simply. And summed up that simply it makes sense in context. The key to it making sense is that you seem to have taken predestination out of the picture. That makes all the difference in the world.
Dave
21 - gonzo marx
ummm..one bit of a Question..
if all are guilty of some sin
and clergy are chosen from among them
why should it matter WHICH sin they are guilty of?
i mean, i am guessing here there is a threshold on severity..one would not want a practicing cannibal as a pastor (tho the practice of symbolic ritual cannibalism is done at least once a week by any of the "elect" that receive communion)
i fail to see how a gay member of the church is more sinful than one overweight from too much love of food, or a borderline alcoholic..or numerous other peccadillos that infest all the imperfect creations that are "man"
just a passing thought..i will leave the discussion/debate of the reference literature alone...silly heretic that i am...
Excelsior!
22 - Dave Nalle
Well, Gonzo, the Lutheran Church is one of the leading churches in accepting gays into the ministry. Clearly not _Scott's_ church, but other branches of Lutheranism are very progressive about homosexuality. In fact, here in Austin we have an increasingly gay dominated Lutheran congregation.
Dave
23 - Scott
Dave,
You wrote:
"The key to it making sense is that you seem to have taken predestination out of the picture."
Except that I'm not taking predestination out of the picture at all. I think here is a key area of misunderstanding between us. For me, the words "election" and "predestination" are basically synonymous or interchangeable. There are nuances of difference, but in both cases, I am speaking of an act of God, outside of history, naming me His child through Christ.
So, those with faith in Christ are called to faith and predestined to faith from before creation.
Lutherans believe that God typically uses means to accomplish his goals. So he calls us to faith. Faith comes by hearing the message. The message is heard/received through preaching and the sacraments. Ministers are called by God through the church and sent to preach and administer those sacraments so that people will hear, believe, be converted and live.
Regarding faith, Lutherans believe that human beings are incapable of believing in Christ or coming to Him without the working of the Holy Spirit. So it's all grace (gift). Human beings can take none of the credit or glory. It's all God's doing, even the creation of faith, the faith by which I grasp the benefits of the atonement.
This generally leads someone to say: "Well, if a person's salvation is 100% the doing of God and if not all people are saved in the end, then how can we posit that God desires the salvation of all?" It's the age old "cur alius, non alii?" Or "why some, not others?" [I can't swear my Latin is exactly right.] And I won't be able to give a satisfying answer. I don't get it either.
24 - Scott
Hi Gonzo,
It does NOT MATTER which sin one is guilty of. I have no difficulty with a gay man becoming a Lutheran pastor. Just as I have no problem with a murderer or fornicator becoming a pastor. The issue is not about the sin. The issue is rather about repentance.
All clergy are sinners, of course. Not one exception. St. Paul, for instance, was a murderer. He called himself the "chief of sinners." But he didn't remain a murderer. He repented.
St. Augustine was a libertine who went from one woman's bed to another. But he repented and became chaste.
The fulcrum is this: Is a practicing homosexual sinning in thought, word and deed? Based on several passages in the New Testament, I would say yes. A repentant sinner can become a pastor. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any pastors anywhere. The chief disagreement arises when someone says homosexuality is not sin at all. The scriptures are wrong. So then that person is not looking for the forgiveness of God and man, but for affirmation in his/her orientation and behavior.
I have my sins too, but I wrestle against them. And I'm not asking anyone to say they're not sins.
25 - Scott
>oh, I see, our biological urges of love should not be a foundation for our values and ethics. We as a society should dump the concept of family and marriage and monogamy, so that's what you are saying.
>
>
>
>Or do you mean you get to pick and choose which biological urges we can use as a foundation for our values and ethics? Specifically yours and not mine.
>
>
>
You are hearing me say things I am not saying. I apologize for not being clear. That is the trouble with these short spurts of text.
First, love and sex are not the same thing. I was talking about sexual attraction. That is not identical to love. Sex is a biological urge, with a spiritual component. Love is a spiritual matter, with a biological component. I posit that love is not chiefly biological, but spiritual.
The Greeks used at least three different words for love. Thus the New Testament, originally written in Greek, uses three words for love. English is far more confusing, I think. I could say "I love ice cream," or "I love my wife," or "I love you," or "I love God." But I'm not talking about the same thing in each case. The Greeks spoke of Eros, the love of animal sexual passion. And they spoke of Philia, that is brotherly love (as in "Philadelphia" the city of brotherly love). And they spoke of Agape. That is perfect selfless love and that is the type of love God has for us. That, I believe, is the basis for our values and ethics. When we are speaking of sexual desire, I meant Eros. Of course, these three forms of love are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, but it is helpful to make a distinction.
So you do understand me correctly when you state that our "urges of love should not be the foundation for our values and ethics." The foundation for my values system is not my urge to love. The foundation is God's love for us. Then, our love for God. And thirdly, our love for one another. But the foundation is God, not anything within us.
In addition, I believe in the notion of Natural Law. That is to say that I believe values of right and wrong are determined and given to us from outside ourselves. From God.
Since I don't hold to the premise of your third paragraph, I do not agree with your conclusion.