I almost put this one in the “Methodists Splitting” thread, since it’s my denomination that recently went through a schism around the gay issue. But it’s a larger question. I have no issue with the recent decisions of the UMC. My only question at this point is how to make a biblical case for full inclusion. The anti- folks have always pulled 8 or 9 passages out of the Bible for their argument. The other side needs the same ammo that can refute the anti- folks.
Walter Brueggemann wrote a case for full inclusion a few years ago. Having some technical issues, so can’t link it. But in any event, any other thoughts around this?
Totally non-religious here, but wouldn’t “Love thy Neighbor” be good enough to trump most other hateful quotes?
More nitpicky specific passages: Romans 8:31-39
Nothing Can Separate Us from God’s Love
Summary
What shall we say about such wonderful things as these? If God is for us, who can ever be against us? 32 Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won’t he also give us everything else? 33 Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for his own? No one—for God himself has given us right standing with himself. 34 Who then will condemn us? No one—for Christ Jesus died for us and was raised to life for us, and he is sitting in the place of honor at God’s right hand, pleading for us.
35 Can anything ever separate us from Christ’s love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death? 36 (As the Scriptures say, “For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.”[a]) 37 No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. 39 No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Grace of Christ. ‘Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial’.
‘They’ like to use 1 Cor 6
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
But v11 is the ‘out’ as if you are washed, then you are washed.
Also the woman caught in the act of adultery John 8 3-11 usually blows their mind and causes a soft reboot, as Jesus does not condemn her for the act of adultery, which means not only the Father does not condemn the act, but the Lord causes her accusers to admit they are sinners themselves. Not exactly homosexuality, but it is promiscuity and sexual sins they usually like to accuse others of.
Well, yeah. If Christianity is going to toss out Kosher laws, laws about clothing, laws about ritual purity, change which day counts as “sabbath”, etc - but are going to insist on keeping the laws about not having gay sex - that’s pretty suspicious.
I’m not sure if there are any anti-Gay passages in the Christian parts of the bible, but using Deuteronomy is silly for Christians.
The Corinthians one up-thread is popular, and is certainly New Testament.
Of course it also includes adulterers and drunkards and the greedy. But they typically make the distinction between sinning (adultery) and then asking for forgiveness (“washed”) v. remaining in a homosexual relationship.
Yes. The more accurate word for word translation for homosexuality is those who are soft and those who have a ‘man bed’. Soft is taken as the ‘bottom’ in todays language as for sexual position of a homosexual relationship. while ‘man bed’ take as the .top’.
The nuances of how the local church understood those words is in dispute. It does seem to be a colloquialism that would be understood by locals.
There is certainly much debate. The word used is somewhat strange in the Greek of the time. But it certainly seems to be a reference to the Mosaic prohibitions on homosexual behavior and relationships.
Definitely many modern churches try to “explain away” the prohibition in an effort to make the text compatible with modern moral sensibility. Blaming the translation is one common technique to accomplish that.
Sort of. Paul uses the word “arsenokoitai,” which appears to be his own coinage (and, as far as I know, only otherwise appears in 1 Timothy, which may not have been written by Paul, and is used in a similar list of unrighteous behavior).
The standard interpretation (and to me the most convincing) is that it’s an application of the Greek translation of Leviticus 20 which proscribes “arsenos koiten” (translated as “man who lies with man” and, I think, universally understood to refer to men having sex with men). So that people who “arsenos koiten” are “arsenokoitai.”
But, because it’s an otherwise unfamiliar term, there’s no standard usage. So, there have been a number of recent efforts to reframe the term as applying to male prostitutes, or pederasty, or some other behavior that remains frowned upon in modern society.
Significantly, First Corinthians references both arsenokoitai and “malakos”. The latter of which means “soft” and is often translated as effeminate. It’s a lot less clear what malakos means – it may be a generally effeminate man; or a male prostitute; or a male who is penetrated by another male (with “arsenokoitai” being the male who does the penetrating). There’s one argument that it means “wimp” and has no sexual connotation at all, but I don’t think that’s a common belief.
Is it possible that the biblical references to homosexuality were mostly concerned with things like pedophilia or orgies…just an extension of “outside a committed marriage” type thing? If that’s the case, then the modern church could say that committed marriages are available to all without labeling some of the marriages as sinful. And other types of relationships (adultery, for instance) are still sinful.
It doesn’t seem very plausible. With respect to things that seem sexual, 1 Corinthians 6 calls out “pornoi” (generally translated as “fornicators”); moichoi (“adulterers”); malakoi (“effeminates”); and “arsenokoitai” (homosexuals).
It seems obvious to me that “arsenokoitai” is coterminous with whatever Leviticus is referring to “arsenos koiten” and I’m not aware of any argument that Leviticus is limited to pedophilia or orgies.
“Porneia” is a much more interesting word. It comes up in both 1 Corinthians and Galatians (both considered authentic Pauline works). It’s also attributed to Jesus in both Matthew 15 and Mark 7 as among the things the “defile” a person. While I believe it technically means prostitution (and is the same root as “pornography’s”), it seems to always be translated as either “fornication” or “sexual impurity.” It likely refers to all pre-marital sex (with adultery covering extra-marital sex). It may extend to “unnatural” sexual acts, even within marriage. There is a minority view that it is limited to prostitution.
There’s a credible argument that “proneia” and “moichoi” cover “no sex outside of a marriage” and if that’s all that was referenced, you’d still have to deal with issues about a definition of marriage, but your argument might follow. But I don’t see any reason that “malakoi” or “arsenokoitai” would be subsumed in the other terms – they are clearly presented as distinct behaviors, at least in 1 Corinthians.
Since we’re on the topic of Corinthians, I think Corinthians 13 is an excellent verse for inclusion, especially 13:13. “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” I think that should cover previous verses that use things other than love for excluding LGBTQ people.
OK got it. So, I’m thinking about other angles then. We could say that the Old Testament didn’t frown so much on slavery, and yet we ended up rejecting slavery later on as a thoroughly evil institution. We could say that Paul frowned on female pastors, but we ended up using other parts of the Bible to justify female pastors (specifically, how Jesus signaled a change in relations to women and also the book of Acts, as well as other parts of the NT and OT that refer to women leaders).
This is promising. I might also consider the Gospels themselves, and how Jesus lived. He never attacked or mentioned Homosexuals. He didn’t condemn the lady that was charged with Adultery. He was a radical departure from previous ways that people related to each other.
This was the one I was going to put down. “Or let they without sin cast the first stone. Ouch!! Mom, that hurt.” I’m thinking that it has to be in the Bible somewhere that if someone is sinning then it is up to God to deal with, not people.
Trivium: Joan of Arc was executed after being convicted on only one crime - wearing men’s clothing.
I’d note that the language about female pastors in 1 Timothy is, I think, now generally accepted not have been written by Paul at all.
But I’d suggest the first question is whether the Epistles are authoritative at all. On their face, the Epistles are letters address to particular communities in a particular time facing particular issues.
If they’re authoritative, then I’d suggest it’s dangerous (even blasphemous) to look for “angles” to try to sneak in behaviors that are offensive to God. If they’re not authoritative, then you’d need to determine what behavioral principles (if any) are derived from what theological principles (if any) you profess.
That’s true. But he told her to go and sin no more. (And really, the story doesn’t seem to be about inclusion of adulteresses so much as about the fact that all are sinners). When people talk about “inclusion on lgbtq” (to quote the thread title), do they really mean a situation in which the church tells homosexuals to leave their lives of sin?