well… here we are… 2010. wow.
so, there have been a lot of postings on the blog since i have last meaningfully posted myself. in my last post, i said that i would answer stephen’s questions of why is this an issue at all? very fair question and a good one to look at.
what have done is posted the link to a did, probably 7ish years ago. it is called, . the premise is that often the church (or at least the evangelical portion of it) has been characterized by a fairly small subset of attention grabbing individuals. they believe what they say and are allowed to say it. and they get the lion’s share of the microphone time.
and they often do not at all represent what i think. or what many of my friends think.
so we posed the question, are Christians the hate people? we seem to be known for what we are against, what we picket, what we protest. is that a clear representation of Christ’s heart for our generation?
we asked the questions: does God hate those who worship other religions, homosexuals, the environment and women? all issues that we felt were very intense, and ones where i (and many others) would say our views are misunderstood or misrepresented.
i include the talk i did on the issue of homosexuality with a few caveats. the first; remember, i did this talk six or seven years ago. you will notice that i use you know quite a bit, i also really seemed to like the phrase, these things. you will hear it. alot. 🙂 sorry. essentially, as a communicator i was still reasonably new, so you will see some of that. also related to that, i have a misstatement about the old testament. i essentially said it did not apply any longer. i was referring to how some components don’t, you will see that when you hear the comment. it just came out wrong.
secondly; some of the terms i used then would be different now. partially that is because i have some greater clarity on how some of those terms can strike people, and some of that is from the fact that preferences about some of those terms have changed over the years.
thirdly, as my life with God continues, i continue to grow and evolve in my understanding of who He is and how He feels about humanity and the universe we inhabit. so to say that my views are exactly what they were when this talk was given, would be to assume that i haven’t grown or changed at all. i will say that some of my views have changed, but enough are similar enough, that this talk still describes my views well.
finally, my friend chris backert handled two of the talks. he and i were very close then and are still today, but i make no claims as to whether or not he holds all of the views he shared exactly as they were shared then.
as for the myriad of questions and accusations or indications of frustration at what i am doing or not doing/thinking or not thinking/representing or not representing, by supporting my friend… i will look at those again over the next few days and decide if i feel that i need to reply to any of them. i am aware of some peoples’ perceptions of me based on my views. i am not sure anything i say will convince anyone differently and will hope that those who know me the best will see Christ the most clearly in me. while many of them were either frustrating or hurtful to read, discussion like this one will bring those out. it is what it is, eh?
peace.
Lauren said...
1Jim, I just want to let you know I appreciate that you are engaging in this conversation and have immense respect for the honest and loving approach you are taking.
Have you heard of The Marin Foundation? (www.themarinfoundation.org) If you aren’t already familiar, you may want to check it out. Their mission is “to build a bridge between the religious and GLBT communities through scientific research, and Biblical and social education.”
01/3/10 7:09 PM | Comment Link
Michael said...
2The Egyptians subjugated the Hebrews for 400 years. They escaped. Like a father training a child, God gave them specific commands to rebuild their civilization in his image. Many of these commands are irrelevant today (take the prohibition on shellfish for example). But others point to larger moral truths. For example, the Bible does not outright condemn slavery, but it does put restrictions on the practice. God wanted his children to focus on other matters while he slowly weaned them from bad Egyptian cultural leanings, such as slavery. The Old Testament Law reveals trends that, in turn, reveal God’s character. Many of these commands trend toward greater and greater personal freedom. They offer training wheels. Not so with homosexuality, you say. The practice may have been commonplace in ancient cultures, but the God of the Hebrews had a different plan for his people. Counter to the cultures around it, the Bible points to rejection, not acceptance, of homosexuality.
This, I believe, is your main point in the podcast. I decided to listen to it again last night even though I was there for the original. I have one question. Neither the author of Leviticus nor the ancient Israelites could have imagined monogamous same-sex couples. How can you take a prohibition on one practice that more likely resembled temple prostitution and apply it to modern-day gay and lesbian relationships? My cousin and his partner have been together for decades. I know of many other couples that have relationships like theirs. This would have been unfathomable in 500 B.C.E. Would Paul, who years later wrote that there was “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” in Christ, have condemned committed same-sex couples if he knew of such a possibility?
01/4/10 11:48 AM | Comment Link
said...
3hey micheal,
loved your facebook post! 🙂
i think your first paragraph, much of which is a rephrasing of what i said, i realize, answers some of the questions posed in your second.
here is what i know. i have heard just about equal amounts of arguing on both sides of the “committed monogamous ancient homosexual couples debate”. anthropologists have said both. most are fairly certain that nero had several long-term male lovers (clearly not what you were referencing regarding your cousin). but there also seemed to have been fairly widespread acceptance of homosexuality in the higher social strata in many cultures of the day. the romans felt that sexuality was much more, well fluid (please pardon the unavoidable pun). it was much more variable. so one’s sexuality being demonstrated in different ways was well accepted and in many schools of thought, respected.
to me, the idea that a culture (just one of them in the OT and NT day) that accepted homosexual activity wouldn’t come up with the concept of committed long-term monogamous relationships seems very tough to believe. as if we were the first to think of it. so the idea that paul, who was roman and highly educated would have never interacted with that possibility seems tough to believe as well.
Even if you were to assert that he didn’t know, if there is any supernatural influence over the writing of scriptures (i definitely say there was), then it would be hard to say that God (who led the writing of them) didn’t know.
finally, the gal 3 verse you were citing simply doesn’t speak to sexaul preference. not because, i don’t want it to. it would make it easier for me if it did. it simply isn’t the context or content of the passage. it is about how we cannot find or meet God though doing enough of the right stuff, working hard enough…trying hard enough. we only find God and reconciliation with him through Jesus, he is the one that sets us free. and that freedom (this is the 3.28 section) is absolutely not bound to who you are or where you are from. no one group has greater access. men, women,jews, greeks, slaves or those that are free. all have the same access. we are all now, if we choose it, a part of God’s family.
it doesn’t nullify all aspects of those distinctions, they are all referenced in other letters in the NT. it simply says that the things that most thought restricted your access to the love of God don’t.
yes, too much has been made of some levitical references that are taken out of context and grabbed while others are left alone. not good scriptural analysis. and yes, the issue of homosexuality has been the focus of a lot of that bad scriptural analysis. but you don’t solve one problem by doing the same thing in a different direction. that is what, i think, using gal 3 in the manner you suggest is doing. i get that you aren’t saying “gal 3 says that homosexuality is a non-issue”. but what you are saying is only one step away and is still, in my view, wrong.
anyway, this has been a fun shift away from other things, but, alas… those other things beckon…
01/4/10 12:55 PM | Comment Link
Friend said...
4Couple of things:
1) For good reading on this topic, check out “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals,” and “The Blue Parakeet.” The former deals more directly with homosexuality, but both are helpful.
2) After several days’ delay, I finally posted another (and hopefully final) comment on the blog post, “my gay friend speaks for himself…” Peace to all. It’s been fun.
01/5/10 10:47 AM | Comment Link