The reason for this usually comes down to 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. The verses state:
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
The logic here flows like this: "The Bible teaches that homosexuality is sexually immoral, therefore anyone who claims to be gay and acts on it should be put out of the church, and Christians should refuse to associate with them in any way."
Many Christians that I have worked with over the years find themselves trapped between their internal sense that cutting their friends and family members out of their lives is not the right thing to do, and yet at the same time want to be obedient to Scripture. Others seem to use these verses as an excuse to not have to deal with the challenges of loving people they disagree with, or worse yet to treat LGBT people in disrespectful ways.
I know my Side A friends shake their heads and go "Obviously this verse doesn't apply because there is nothing immoral about gay sexual relationships!" but for those who are Side B navigating friendships with those within the church this verse can be a major stumbling block.
Later this week I will post my thoughts on this verse, but i am interested to read how others have understood this verse. How do you understand this verse? Does it mean that Side B and Side A Christians can't ever work together?
13 comments:
OK, So I am a side B'er.
So this is from that perspective.
My partner and I are both commited Christians. And we both bring valuable things to our church community.
I do not have an issue with those who disagree with me or my lifestyle. I think what I do have an issue with is when people express that in a way that does not respect my dignity.
I think there are many practices that were viewed as negative in the Bible... ie/women in ministry. In which we have evolved in our understanding (at least in North America).
As I read these specific passages, I think it is very important to always put them into cultural context,
When were they written?
Who wrote it"Who was it written to?
What was the purpose?
The political religious right is *led* -- proudly and emphatically -- by people who glorify greed and slander.
-- Greed for money and possessions in a time of growing poverty and environmental damage due to overconsumption.
-- Slander not only against gay Christians, but also against the morals and good character of working women, scientists, doctors, libertarians, Hollywood Jews, and anyone else who stands in their way.
I don't know whether to call the citation of 1 Corinthians by these folks merely ironic -- or appallingly hypocritical and dishonest.
The fact is, there is much less of a gap between the real church and gay Christians than many "Side B" people claim: Gay Christians serve as pastors in the ELCA and Episcopal church, and until the most recent pope, they served more or less openly (albeit celibately) in the Roman Catholic church.
The cause of bridge-building is not served when one exaggerates the size of the gap being bridged.
Oops..
I am a side A'er.. NOT a side B'er.
I do not think there is anything immoral about a same sex couples.
I think that section is really difficult to deal with, but I find that most people apply it only to the "sexually immoral" sin (however they define that)and not to the other ones listed (like greed and slander).
I have found it really helpful to also consider that Jesus ate with and was the guest of some Pharisees... who in a sense claimed to be brothers but Jesus rebuked them for greed (the same people that He was eating with).
So I would rather err on the side of trying to follow in Jesus' example and eat with people who might fall into those categories.
Also, considering that most people understand that the Corinthian church had a problem with unrepentant and continuing incest... I think that would be a lot clearer situation to apply the verses to. (than whether being gay counts as sexually immoral)
I believe that conservative Christians frequently make the mistake of confusing Jesus with Paul.
Jesus was sinless -- Paul and today's "conservative" Christians were/are plagued by "sin," some of it impenitent.
When today's Christians misapply 1 Corinthians as an excuse to be self-righteous, they have become like the very people that Jesus and Paul both condemned.
As a Side A Christian who is in a committed relationship with my husband, I view this Scripture like I do all scriptures that are often rolled out when the subject of homosexuality comes up. The Bible "prohibits" lots of things and often meats out severe punishments including but not limited to removing arms and legs and so forth.
We obviously do not follow these rules with regard to scriptures today because we understand that we have to put them in the context that they were written. I think it's interesting that evangelical christians cannot seem to understand how inconsistent their theology is with respect to homosexuality when they don't insist that we follow the other scriptures literally.
So I guess I will say this : until I see Evangelical Christians insisting that we pluck peoples eyes out(yes read scripture it's there) for various offenses then I am not really going to have much respect for that opinion. And even then, I don't think scripture really prohibits homosexuality anyway. But then again, I am liberal mainliner here so I come from a different perspective. :)
If you read the chapter in context as well as the OT text Paul is drawing from for 1 Cor. chapters 5-6 (which is Lev. 18-20) we are to not break bread (have sacramental communion) with a person who call themselves a brother and yet live a sexually immoral life. They are to be ex-communicated (barred from the table of the Lord's Supper) which is Christ, our Passover. (1 Cor. 5:7) Paul says that in doing so, we remove the leaven. We are then to treat the person as an unbeliever. Do we TALK to unbelievers? Yes. Do we share sacraments with them? No (1 Cor. 10:21). Pay attention to the OT feast day language through 1 Corinthians (ch. 5-11). Can unbelievers come and listen to the gospel at church on Sunday? Yes. But they are treated as unbelievers and the hope is that in hearing the message they will repent. (1 Cor. 14:25) The person who calls themselves a believer and yet refuses to repent would be publicly pronounced to be "a Gentile and a tax collector"; i.e. an outsider (Mat. 18:17).
First of all, I think we need to keep in mind that this is the same epistle in which Paul offers an extremely unflattering view of marriage. I have yet to see a pastor who starts a wedding ceremony by saying, "Paul says it would be better if you remained single, but since you two are unable to control your sexual urges, we're going to wed you instead." So clearly, Christians are already good at interpreting away some of Paul's statements.
As for the passage quoted in this post, I'd draw your attention to the greater context this part of the epistle. Paul's driving points are (1) unity in the church and (2) treating each other appropriately. Note that immediately after this passage, Paul talks about lawsuits and how people treat one another. In 1 Cor. 6:8, Paul writes, "On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren." And then he goes on to mention each of the same sins in the passage already quoted.
This suggests to me that Paul is actually talking about those things which people do to wrong each other within the church. And it makes perfect sense to toss someone from the church who is hurting another member of the church -- whether that takes the shape of fraud or sleeping with your brother's wife.
To me, a committed same sex relationship is not doing any such thing. There is no harm to one's brother. As such, I don't believe that's the "sexual immorality" that Paul is talking about there.
Response part 1..
This passage is very specific for the time it was written. If we truly practiced it as some are interpreting it today we would technically have to include under its instruction .. anyone who was living together without marriage, anyone who was having premarital sex, anyone who was divorced, and anyone who was remarried whose ex-spouse was still living.
So to use it only against those who are having same sex sex is rather self-righteous.
Additionally we see in the passage that the sin being committed in this situation was one that even the pagans knew was wrong .. a man had taken his father's wife .. a form of incest. So for the early church to support this kind of a relationship and even be proud of it (as the passage indicates) was beyond Paul's comprehension. Thus the need for sharp discipline. To draw a parallel to today’s situation .. the world is NOT convinced that same sex sex and same sex marriage is sinful. Several states in the US and all of Canada allows for same sex marriage. Likewise almost every main line denomination has a sub group that affirms same sex marriage. The bottom line here, like it or not, is that same sex sex is not universally viewed as sinful. This is not like the situation that faced the Corinthians where the whole world knew that what this man was doing was wrong and not praiseworthy.
Moving past this chapter ..it is interesting to note that in chapter 6 Paul rather casually tells the Corinthian church folks not to have sex with prostitutes. This is not something one would typically put in a letter to church people. With this instruction there is no warning to throw such people out of the church .. simply a reminder that the person who has sex with a prostitute becomes one body with her.
The bottom line here is that if we are not practicing this instruction with the sexual immorality we already see in the church .. why make a special case for those in same sex relationship?
Blessings,
Dave
Response Part 2
For those who do not get what I am saying thus far lets ask a deeper question… What is the purpose of church discipline? The purpose of church discipline is correction .. not punishment. This is very evident in II Corinthians where Paul, IMO, addresses this situation again..
“2 Corinthians 2
4For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.
5If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.”
Paul here is telling the church that they need to forgive and provide comfort lest the individual being disciplined becomes overcome with sorrow. He points out that if they do not do this Satan may take advantage of this situation. So Paul’s ultimate concern is restoration NOT punishment. This is the difference between seeking the letter of the law (Word) and the purpose of the law. When we use the letter of the law we simply literally follow the instruction without regarding its purpose. When we look to the heart of the law (Word) we look to the ultimate purpose which is restoration and reconciliatation..
I think the church has discovered over the years that excommunication is not an effective means of discipline. It often serves to drive the person away from the faith rather than bring restoration.
For example, in the past, often people who were divorcing were put out by the church and abandoned. The result for many was that people abandoned their faith due to the church’s rejection of them and refusal to acknowledge their pain. Now we have divorce recovery groups that help people who have divorced. The church has discovered that the fellowship of fellow believers is much more useful and effective for helping people in their journey than is excommunication. Sadly we have not learned from the past. Many gay and lesbian people have been pushed out of their churches. The result has been similar – a falling away from the faith with no restoration.
Additionally some in the church have vilified and slandered gay and lesbian people, finding a scape goat in them so that they do not deal with their own sin. And others have happily joined the band wagon in this. However, the passage in I Corinthians 5 speaks to slanderers as well as those who are sexually immorality. So, as a result, those who were so quick to judge others often find themselves judged by this very passage. This is what Jesus warns us about in Matthew 7:2 and what Paul warns us about in Romans 2:1-6…
This does not mean that we can not say what we believe. I have had many conversation with (gay) Christians who affirm same sex sex. They know exactly where I am coming from. But they are not alienated by me. They know what I believe and I know what they believe. From that point I move forward in the many other aspects of the faith, trusting that the same God who lives in me lives in them and that He will direct their paths as surely as He directs mine. And I leave judgment to God knowing that He alone knows people’s hearts.
Blesssings,
Dave
I am not a gay neighbour, I am a gay son and child of God. I feel excluded by being labeled as a neighbour to the family, when in fact I am in the church already, sitting next to you since I was a little boy. Gay children are being born(naturally) into the church family, we are not neighbours, we are heirs with you. We love Jesus, and want to honor him and make him known so that others can except His gift of grace and mercy. This desire does not come from us, it comes from God.
If it is better to be single and celibate, whether homo or hetero, the church has done very little to support this. If I were to be single and celibate, where would I go to live and to be supported in this. The early church did life together... I don't see Christ followers living that out today.
We are all as consumed by the matters of this world as any unbeliever... in fact, many unbelievers live more radical, other-centered lives than Christians locked into their 9-5's.
So that brings up the question- How do you identify someone as a christian? In the Early church people received the Holy Spirit and that is how they knew the Gentiles were included in salvation. But how do we know these days? I believe that I am a christian, I pray, read my bible and live by faith to the best of the ability that I am given... but as a gay man, with a partner who is seeking to understand my God, can I even be sure that I am included in the salvation that Jesus presented to the whole world?
I wrestle every day with my sexuality, and I can't tell if this is because the holy spirit wants me to, or because I have internalized the oppression of the church. Why isn't God changing the church, or changing me?
I think, that by Jesus' definition, hetero sex in marriage is the only sex that is moral, and it is only ok if we can't stand to be single. Everything else is immoral. He also taught that we should sell everything we have, give the money to the poor and follow Him. He sets the bar high, because that is where God is, high above us in a holy place. None of us can get there, there is no difference, we all sin.
But we are not keep on sinning. That is the gay relationship starts to break down for me. How can I work towards holiness when I am committing to be gay? But then how can other Christ followers commit to a job to gain wealth when that is clearly against Jesus' teachings?
I realize that these thoughts are scattered, but so am I.
I also want to add that this is a great idea, these discussions are good to have. None of us have it all figured out. We are all full of a thousand heresies.
In the words of Augustine I would like to share a random thought "The Church may be a whore, but she is still my mother."
Blessings.
Thank you everyone for your comments here. It is obvious there are a lot of different perspectives that people are coming from, but I am glad that you are taking time to engage here. Sorry the second part has taken so long, I will try and get it posted today.
IKM thank you for sharing a bit. I hear the frustration as you struggle with how to make sense of the challenge of your faith and your sexuality. I echo your frustration at the lack of community for those trying to follow Christ as best they can in this. (I will post more on that later)
I pray that you will know the assurance of God's presence in your life and that His grace is enough for you, even as you continue to question and wrestle with what God's will for you is.
I do want to assure you that the title of the DVD is not meant in any way to suggest that no one within the church is gay, infact our resource has been applauded in some reviews for our willingness to give gay individuals a major voice in our resource. (For one kind review by a gay christian read more here: http://joemoderate.blogspot.com/2009/08/joe-highly-recommends-bridging-gap.html )
Family, friends, colleagues, and brothers and sisters in faith can all be neighbours as well. The point of the term is to be as broad and inclusive as possible. Though many Christians have sought to make gay people out to be "those people over there" one of the things that we wanted to do was humanize them, and help Christians realize there is no "us and them" there is only "us together" I think if you take the time to check out more of the clips you will understand the tone we are trying for.
Okay the second post is done, but it will probably not be posted until tomorrow.
Post a Comment