Monday, September 8, 2008 1:22pm EST
Make this your Home Page | RSS 
Why the black church should support gay rights
Dennis W. Wiley | Posted June 18, 2008 12:18 AMThe Black Church has been so poisoned by homophobia and heterosexism that the idea of it actually supporting gay rights seems oxymoronic. But Black churches are not monolithic and, although the vast majority of them denounce homosexuality as a sin, there are a few that do not. Covenant Baptist Church, a traditional African American congregation in Washington, DC that my wife, the Rev. Dr. Christine Y. Wiley, and I co-pastor, is one of those few. We believe that whereas homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is not a sin, hypocrisy is. That is why Jesus says nothing about the former, but speaks volumes about the latter.
There are numerous publications now available that help us to understand that the few biblical passages once thought to express unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality have been grossly misinterpreted. In fact, the more accurate translations of the Bible do not even mention the word, "homosexuality," a relatively new term. And, while these passages condemn same-sex behavior that is violent, abusive, or believed at the time to result in ritual impurity, the scriptures do not explicitly address sexual intimacy between two loving individuals of the same gender.
The question, then, is why has the Black Church become so hostile toward non-heterosexual persons and so vitriolic in its approach to the issue of homosexuality. The reasons are varied and complex, and are associated with the historical intersection of racism and sexuality in America. Suffice it to say here, however, that it is not the Bible, but socially-conditioned and culturally-infused interpretations of the Bible that account for the pervasive anti-gay sentiment within the Black Church.
That said, it is my opinion that the Black Church should support gay rights because homosexuals are human beings who deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. These people did not choose their sexual orientation. They did not wake up one morning and say, "Oh, I think I'll be gay," any more than others of us woke up one morning and said, "Oh, I think I'll be straight." Despite what some may argue, their sexual orientation is an integral and immutable component of their identity. It is who they are and they could not change it even if they tried.
On a certain level, I believe that many if not most of us in the Black Church are aware of this, but it is too difficult and uncomfortable for us to go against the grain of what has been taught to and instilled in us all of our lives. It is much easier for the Black Church to bash or ignore gay people, while at the same time exploiting their tremendous gifts and talents, than it is to become a safe space in which they can realize their full, God-given potential without having to hide in the closet.
I support gay rights because the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of love, not hate; a gospel of justice, not injustice; a gospel of inclusion, not exclusion; and a gospel of authenticity, not hypocrisy. Remember, Jesus spent the bulk of his time associating with those whom society rejected--i.e., the poor and the sick, the downcast and the outcast, the last, the lost, and the "least." By the same token, those whom he most harshly challenged, criticized, and chastised included not only the rich and the elite, who disproportionately enjoyed the privileges of society, but also the religious hypocrites--i.e., people who pretended to be more holy, pious, and righteous than they actually were.
If, then, the Black Church is the True Church, why would it want to foster within its fellowship, as well as within the broader society, a culture of hypocrisy rather than a culture of authenticity and integrity? But is that not exactly what the Black Church is guilty of doing when it (1) pretends that homosexuals do not exist, and (2) encourages them to pretend to be something they are not--i.e., not merely to tell a lie, but to live and, indeed, be a lie?
While some resent the comparison of gay rights with civil rights, I agree with Julian Bond that "people of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others . . ." In the spirit of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, and even the Declaration of Independence, the Black Church should support gay rights if one believes that all of God's children "are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Because the Black Church is comprised of a race of people who themselves have been, and still are, the victims of oppression, it should be the last institution in the world to condone the oppression of anyone else. For as King once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, Ph.D., is the pastor of the Covenant Baptist Church in Washington, DC.



2008-06-18 02:59:42
I am pragmatic. I tend not to mince my words.
No doubt Reverend Harry How would be quite surprised to learn how his church has so changed over the many years, changed to become one of the most progressive churches of America. Covenant Baptist enjoys quite the fascinating history.
Being raised a pagan American Indian provides me with an advantage of being able to regard organized religion and social issues with a pragmatic viewpoint. My perspective on homosexuality is this is nobody's business and this is a notion which is unworthy of discussion. A homosexual lifestyle causes no harm to our society, is not a threat to our moral values and certainly has no adverse effect on the everyday lives of Americans. Homosexuals are simply people like all the rest of us. Homosexuality should not be an issue which prompts me to write this is a topic unworthy of discussion. Personally, I have always found homosexuals to be very nice people who are typically productive and respectful members of our American culture.
What is an issue for me is organized religion making such an issue of homosexuality. I must interject I view organized religion, for the most part, to be the largest gathering of hypocrites to be found, noting mine is "most" not all religious organizations. Covenant Baptist over in Washington is clearly an exception being so all encompassing.
Problem is organized religion works at promulgating what are acceptable moral values and what are unacceptable moral values. In the case of my peoples, when we rejected Christian moral values, we were slaughtered by the tens of millions. Yes, I still harbor a grudge. History reflects moral values of my peoples are infinitely more pure and infinitely more in keeping with The Good than any moral values set by today's organized religions. History, in time, will also reflect this religious taboo on homosexuality is pervasive bigotry. This renders religion pure hypocrisy. Jesus informs us to treat all peoples with respect, this is all people, not some people. Of course this notion is tempered by our "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy but justice has nothing to do with a homosexual lifestyle, while law abiding.
The instant a minister jumps up on a pulpit and preaches about this sinful nature of homosexuality, I brand this congregation, worshipers of Satan. Clearly, such a display of hypocrisy cannot be that of truly God fearing peoples. This is the problem with religion, rampant hypocrisy.
I do not care about homosexuals, do not care in a sense they have no effect on my life, no effect on our family's life and should have no effect on anyone. Rather hypocritical righteous people hop into bed, turn on pornography, then turn-on each other, get all kinky crazy, then the next day rant about homosexuals being weird and kinky.
In my native tongue, we have no word for homosexuality. Most close expression is "ohoyo holba" which means "womanish" but this is not at all related to homosexual behavior rather is related to behavior of my female gender. However, many of our tribes do have an expression for those Anglos label homosexuals. This expression in my native tongue is "chukash haiyup" which means "twin spirit."
Those of us American Indians who are traditional, display great respect for twin spirits. We view these people as gifted by the spirits. Our Indian history reflects twin spirits often become shamans, healers and spiritual leaders. These twin spirits are escalated to positions of great respect and power. Marriage between same sex couples is highly respected by traditional American Indians. We revere those Anglos label homosexuals, often with contempt.
Quite the contrast, yes? In my culture, my traditional culture, those you folks call homosexuals we treat as people favored and gifted by the spirits. We traditional Indians are pagan, do not share your Christian morals and beliefs, yet we treat twin spirits with the greatest of respect and honor.
Rather challenging for you, the reader, to become aware we pagan Indians enjoy pure and good moral values while you Christians are well noted for your hypocrisy and hatred.
Perhaps, Reverend Wiley, you and your good wife should study up a bit on American Indian spirituality and introduce some of our ways to your congregation; we have respected twin spirits for thousands of years and still respect those so many Anglos label homosexuals, with certain dislike, if not hatred.
I am proud to be pagan. I am proud of my peoples. I am not so sure Black America can claim a similar true pride, least not do so with sincerity.
There is much research material available on the web for those readers who would like to learn more about American Indians and Twin Spirits. I suggest you do so; this may change your perspective about homosexuality. Simply google "native american homosexual" to find hundreds of thousands of links to our traditional ways and beliefs, about this topic.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
2008-06-18 12:01:30
2008-06-18 12:34:38
2008-06-18 14:01:56
2008-06-18 14:06:30
2008-06-18 15:54:42
2008-06-18 20:18:52
2008-06-19 00:23:58
2008-06-19 08:07:28
2008-06-19 12:20:32
2008-06-19 23:04:49
2008-06-19 23:05:32
2008-06-20 12:25:33
2008-06-20 15:04:50
2008-06-20 21:23:49
2008-06-21 14:21:08
2008-06-21 21:59:43
2008-06-23 03:28:37
2008-06-23 14:22:32
2008-06-23 22:40:15
2008-06-24 01:28:21
2008-06-24 07:57:35
What disturbs me is that men and women who should know such things as Greek and Hebrew and the sort have dumbed down these words and have applied them to someting else completely. Paul was not talking about people who force men to have sex, or homosexual rape or those who have hetero-tendencies, but practice homosexuality. I will have to check, but I am pretty sure that NO ONE throughout the history of the Church has exegeted these verses in such a way. So did we get this new interpretation from God or from the Gay, Lesbian and Tran-Gender cause? In the end, when Judgment comes, and that quite soon, it will be shown who was of the Lord and who sought to please man.
2008-06-24 10:01:00
The man who wrote this comment in appreciation for the ministry of Pastor Wiley and his article also (if I am not mistaken) has a Male Gay Porn site geared towards black men.
I am not going post the link, but I would just like to say that if this is the same person with the same ministry (the ministry names are the same and the man on the site does go by "Flex"), then such are the people who jump on the board with what Wiley is doing. Such alliances should be appreciations should be disturbing to even the most "open-minded" amongst us.
2008-06-24 10:01:48
2008-06-24 12:21:14
2008-06-24 13:41:54
2008-06-24 14:09:05
As for your thoughts that most people who preach against homosexuality are either closet gays or ignorant, what has brought you to this conclusion? And does that go with everything else that a minister would preach against? If a minister preaches passionately against adultery, is he either cheating on his wife or ignorant of the reasons behind adultery? I find it interesting that most arguments for homosexuality being allowed/adopted by the Church would not be tolerated as anything near Biblical for other sins.
2008-06-24 17:07:58
2008-06-24 18:30:22
So, what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is MORE than the "same old texts" to add to the discussion? What, then, would you like for me to add? Socio-economics? Psychology behind the homosexual movement and so on? All I have is the "same old texts" that you do not want to hear. And, no, it is not because I want to "hear myself preach."
So now we are about people being happy? When I indulged myself in pornography I was happy, but is that the kind of "happiness" that God wants for His people? If the scale is "How happy am I?" then we might have some problems.
Yes, anyone can take a Scripture out of context. My question is have we been taking these passages out of context for so many centuries. All of us have been wrong about these for so long all the way up until...now. And I am not quite sure what the "White people in authority" have to do with anything.
As far as men having multiple wives and it happening through the Church...well, I guess it still does not make it right. The Churches in Germany stood aside while the Jews were being decimated. Just because a church does it does not make it right.
2008-06-25 10:55:42
2008-06-25 11:07:07
2008-06-25 11:23:31
2008-06-25 14:04:51
2008-06-25 19:17:03
2008-06-25 20:24:34
Interesting, me saying that something is wrong that the Church all over the world has said is wrong for centuries is me disguising my hatred in Scripture? Again, I must ask, if I denounce other things that Scripture seems to be against, am I disguising my hatred for those people? Once again, arguments are made for Christian homosexuality that we would not make for any other sin. If you cried out against liars would I be justified in saying that you simply have a hatred for liars?
Yes, I agree Scripture was taken out of context to support slavery. Oddly enough WHITE PEOPLE like Wilburforce (since I know my history) used the same Scriptures (IN context) to help abolish slavery. If you could tell me how the following is out of context I would appreciate it:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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.--1 Cor. 6:1-10
Now, I would like to let you know that "homosexuality" in that passage is ???????????? (arsenokoit?s, 733), -??, ?, (????? a male; ????? a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite: 1 Co. vi. 9; 1 Tim. i. 10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; eccl. writ.)--see http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/
Again, if the argument sounds stale, I am not sure what to tell you. I have but one sword and one sword alone.
2008-06-25 23:32:53
2008-06-26 08:45:21
2008-06-26 08:50:12
2008-06-26 08:59:14
1. "To thine own self be true" is Scriptural, it is Shakespearian. What you have shown is a certain Biblical Illiteracy, which, unfortunately, plagues most of the American church. You have shown, in the post at least, a better understanding of the HIV epidemic and its accompanying statistics than you have Scripture.
2. It seems as if you are saying that once homosexuals find that society does not tolerate their behavior they are forced to fake it and they end up infecting others. The fact that they have gone from committing one sin (living a homosexual lifestyle) to committing another (fornication) should not be an argument here. If anything it makes it sound like HIV is a judgment against homosexuality (which it may be, I do not know the mind of God in such a way), which is then being given to the rest of the public.
3. I agree that we should judge ourselves by our love and compassion. Yet, you have made another Biblical error, I am sad to say. Judging is not wrong. Judging others with a certain criteria and not judging yourself by the same is wrong. Christ said that we would know false prophets by the fruit they bear. If this is the case, should we not judge them? As far as compassion and love is concerned, Ephesians 4 says
It is Love that speaks the Truth. Love does not watch someone drive off a cliff, not wanting to judge their driving as wrong. Rather love waves frantically trying to get their attention before harm is done. "Open-Mindedness" has so distorted the Way that, I am sad to say, that many may now sit in Wrath because someone did not wish to be declared as "close-minded" to others.2008-06-26 09:08:02
So, the fact that someone has done good to others means that they are a believer? In the sermon on the mount Jesus said that there were many on that day who will say "Lord! Lord!", but did not do the will of His Father. They did however prophesy, and do good works and all the sort.
If we are going to say that this should be the only criteria for judging, then we must excuse Muslims who do good work, Non-Christian Jews who do good work, Jehovah's Witnesses who do good works and etc... Yet this is not the criteria. The criteria is adherence to the Truth...ALL the truth.
And concerning love, yes, I do desire to love others as Christ loved me. That includes speaking the truth. Did Christ love people when He told them to bear their cross daily and follow Him? Did He love Peter when He rebuked Him, calling Him Satan? Did Christ love those to whom He said "Go and sin no more? Love is not apathy towards another's sin, nor is it wholesale acceptance of sin. Love is showing someone compassion AND Truth.
2008-06-26 11:22:42
2008-06-26 14:03:44
Yes, I do apply Scripture to myself and judge myself in light of Scripture as Paul told the Corinthians to do. I am not sure where the illiterate reading of Scripture came from. No one has yet told me where I mis-interpret Scripture, though I am open to any rebuttal of the sort.
"Me and my kind"? I do not know of anyone's life I have destroyed, personally. If what I am doing (calling sin "sin") is destroying people, that would put an interesting spin on Jesus' words that Satan came to "steal, kill and destroy".
Ok? I a agree with that passage, but I am not sure what the point of it was for you to type it, sorry.
2008-06-26 15:16:41
2008-06-26 22:15:58
Interesting...you have time to rail against me for post after post, but not to exegete a small passage of Scripture? Again, interesting.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me about how I am poor interpreting Scripture.
2008-06-26 23:32:27
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
2008-06-27 00:54:51
2008-06-27 09:05:19
2008-06-27 14:19:06
That all SOUNDS pretty good, and I am happy for your credentials. I am not sure what that has to do with anything however. You have gone from giving a "well they do good things" argument, to a "I have a vast education" argument. In there somewhere you managed to argue from "rant and rave" for a while. All the while, however, I have not seen one iota of Scripture. Why is that?
Here is the thing: I would love to give you my e-mail address, so that we could finish this discussion, but I am not going to. The reason I am not is because I people to see the discussions that have taken place and may continue to take place here. I have given Scripture and have been told that I my interpretation is poor, yet NO ONE has ventured into telling my how it is poor. I have given Scripture and I have gotten "You are closed-minded", "Take the plank out of your own eye", "They do good deeds", random cuss words thrown about (with symbols instead of letters though) and various other "non-answers". I want people to see this.
I want people to see the fact that no one has given any reasonable response to my questions, statements and arguments even now. So, we will continue on, I guess.
Odd, however, that Scripture, which has been perfectly fine as the standard of life and faith for several thousands of years, now needs to be backed up by Science. What if, 30 years from now, we find that something else that Scripture (supposedly) says is a sin is defined by Science as natural? What do we do then? Do we decide that whatever it is (since it is "natural") becomes a beautiful thing? Or do we conclude that all of creation (even the chromosomes of men and women) groan until we are fitted with our new bodies? Do we decide that, since Scripture says such is a sin, that THIS is how some men and women bear their cross for Christ? Being learned in so many areas you must know that men are more prone to sexual desire simply by site. Do we dismiss pornography as a sin, since it simply plays into how God made us?
Such arguments could go on ad nauseum if we desire to go there. And you may go there if you like. Yet, as I said, I want people to see that you do. I want people to see Scriptural arguments targeted as "close-minded" and "old".
But once again, congrats on all the education.
2008-06-27 15:11:37
2008-06-27 17:51:46
2008-06-27 18:33:38
This is all that I brought up. When I saw that no one was answering Scriptural arguments I left it alone. I left almost the entirety of the chapter, so as not to allow anyone to claim I was taking something out of context. Answer this one and then we can move on from there, deal?
2008-06-27 18:57:24
2008-06-27 20:13:09
2008-06-27 20:19:27
2008-06-27 20:21:24
2008-06-27 22:11:53
2008-06-27 22:14:23
2008-06-27 23:13:56
2008-06-27 23:19:19
2008-06-27 23:20:17
2008-06-27 23:40:43
2008-06-28 08:41:44
Ramses: You say that through most of that Paul is dealing with past religious practices, right? Do you view the other sins listed in that passage the same way? Should we also put such a "spin" on Thievery, Adultery, Idolatry and so on? Is there a certain way that we should be looking at Greed today, as opposed to how they looked at it in Paul's day? Yes, Paul did expect Christ's return in his life time and told people to live in such a way. He instructed those who could not to get married, and then talks about husbands and wives. The sin of some was that, as married couples, they were not giving their bodies over to one another. So, I am not quite sure where you were going with that last part, sorry. Second, as Leviticus does not apply to believers any more, I suppose you would agree with an "Incest Coalition" demanding the same rights in the Church and in the State as Homosexuals do?
Mel:
I never get tired of that argument, simply for that fact that, if it were not used to promote sin, such a fertile imagination should be applauded. Instead of hearing Paul say that homosexuality was wrong, people have decided to hear him say, "Hey, I am gay!" Second, if we are going use the "A man shall not sleep with a man as he does a woman" bit the way you did, we would have to apply the same scheme to sleeping with animals, right? Also, read what else Spong says about the Bible, Christ and the Apostles, and then decide if you want to link your argument to such a "teacher."
2008-06-28 08:47:21
What "we" think, etc. Self-justifying reasoning. No Holy Spirit inspired revelation. Zero. Not even worthy of a simple logics debate.
Not to mention foul-mouthed rhetoric which amounts to dung in a deserted back alley.
Its good that this type of religious trash is put in the open so that people can see the chaotic mindset behind this demonic thinking.
2008-06-28 09:16:04
Yes, the passages that dealt with slavery in Scripture should be used to deal with slavery in the 19th century. Read the passages in both testaments. Had Paul been in the English colonies or the Americas do you think he would have walked up to unbelieving Masters and told them to let their slaves go? Or do you think that he would have given the Gospel, and let the outcome of its power show that slavery was wrong? Slavery in Roman times were just as bad as what happened here. I could give quotes of how people felt about slaves (and will gladly if you desire).
Yes, people have used Scripture to do some most notorious deeds. But that is not, as you say, living by what the Bible says. For example, the Crusades were done by people who believed that the Pope could get them into Heaven if they fought the Muslims, David Kuresh (I believe) taught people that he was Christ. Slave traders in the America were involved in "People/Man-Stealing", which 1 Timothy 1:8-11 prohibits (along with homosexuality...so apparently it was happening in Corinth and Ephesus). The Inquisition completely went against the teachings and ministries of believers in the New Testament times. Could you imagine Paul killing one of the Silver Smiths for making idols? But anyway, my point is that, what people have said they do in the name of Scripture, Scripture prohibits explicitly 9 times out of 10, and implicitly the rest.
Yes, the words are controversial, but just because something is controversial does not mean both sides could possibly be valid. Example, in Southern Baptist Churches there was the idea creeping around that God does not know the future. From such rose controversy over certain passages. Athanasius faced controversy in the early 300s as he held to the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the pillars of Christian faith. Wycliff (sp?) faced controversy as he tried to get the Bible into the hands of the average "plow boy". And finally...
In the Biblical world being so "far removed" from ours, what else do you lump in there? I find the "that was then and this is now" argument interesting, only because (once again) we do not use that for ANY OTHER SIN in Scripture. Try using that argument for other sins found in 1 Cor. 6, 1 Timothy 1 or Romans 1:18-32 in your next church service and see how that flies. Time to finish this up as I must continue with my morning.
2008-06-28 11:15:20
2008-06-28 11:24:29
2008-06-28 12:26:23
Okay, from the top: Yes that does apply to slavery...why would it not? Would you, as a slave in the 1700s, loved for your master to realize that his Master in Heaven will judge him for his cruelty? Or that the Apostle Paul told him to treat his slave kindly and that he should stop his threatening? The problem was not that they used Biblical passages about slavery, but that they did not use the full passages about slavery. Had they used the full passages they would have seen that masters were in great sin towards their slaves, and, no doubt, the slave trade would have lasted no where near as long. Along that tip: Would you have wanted Slave Traders (from the offset) to know 1 Timothy 1 applied to them when it prohibited "man-stealing"? Or would you have said such a thing does not apply, so don't worry about it?
Yes, whites used the Bible to kill blacks. I understand that as a historical fact. But they were obviously wrong in doing so, since it clearly says in Scripture that we ought not kill. Then again (in your words concerning homosexuality) that may just be my opinion. That is why your view is frightening Mel: It is your view, not mine, that leads to such destruction. It is your view that says "We all have our own opinions!" Well, the whites' opinion of such Scriptures were that Blacks should die. You would be hypocritical if you disagreed with them and denied that their opinion could be wrong.
And, no, I am not a people-pleaser sir. My point was that the same churches that say homosexuality in such passages were simply for such and such culture or time would start a riot if you told them that their partner committing adultery is not wrong, because our view of Adultery is not correct, and etc...
2008-06-28 13:20:04
Paul (and the writers who claimed to be "Paul") never ever said slavery was wrong or even hinted at it. One "Pauline" passage says that parents should not provoke their children to wrath, but did that change the power relationship between children and parents? Slave owners, as fundamentalists, were well aware of these passages that promote "kind" treatment of slaves. But they compared them to the authority and power that Scripture gave fathers over their wives and children.
Fundamentalists rarely actually investigate the theological debate over slavery because it's embarrassing and shows how fundamentalism just doesn't work.
The idea that Paul would have used the "power of the Gospel to convince them they were wrong" is absurd. Paul only told masters to "remember they have a master in heaven" (something that, by the way, many slaveowners said they were doing). So it's nice to know that based on your interpretation of the Bible, that you believe that slavery is not wrong--only "unkind" slave masters (whatever that means). It's amazing what contortions black people will twist themselves into in order to maintain their fundamentalism.
I assume you also believe that slaves that resisted their bondage were also in the wrong because they should have used the gospel to convince their slave masters, who had an economic stake in maintaining slavery, instead of doing something radical, like, say, taking steps to make themselves free. Interestingly, this is precisely what many proslavery folks argued as well. After all, the Bible does say that slaves should submit even to CRUEL masters (1 Pet 2:16-18). Of course, the notion of slavery itself is, to me, an abomination, Paul notwithstanding.
"Yes, the words are controversial, but just because something is controversial does not mean both sides could possibly be valid. "
Indeed. But the merits of a debate are determined by the arguments made, not because you dogmatically say, "your side is not legitimate."
" find the 'that was then and this is now' argument interesting, only because (once again) we do not use that for ANY OTHER SIN in Scripture."
This just reflects your incredible ignorance about the biblical world and your willingness to resort to absurdities. There are a variety of acts that the historic Church has held to be sins that were mitigated, at least by Protestants, including: so-called "Onanism" (masturbation) and the idea that sexual sins could take place even among married couples who engaged in sex acts that had the wrong motivation or were "unnatural," (by the way, the earliest Christian interpreters of Romans 1 argued that Paul was not referring to lesbians, but women who engaged in "unnatural" sex acts with men). In addition, when Scripture mandates certain social and church positions for women, we too have left those in the ancient world where they belong.
Bottom line: New ideas can prompt us to look at Scripture in a new light and recognize that the way that our spiritual ancestors saw things may not be appropriate for today. This is supported by the history of Israel and the Church. I love it when people like Christopher pretend as though theological innovation never happened. That's absurd on its face.
2008-06-28 16:04:29
2008-06-28 20:05:52
2008-06-28 22:42:37