Tupper’s ‘Homosexuality and the Church’ option (4of4)
By Dr. Frank Tupper • Jul 2nd, 2009 • Category: thinkingOption 4. Variation in God’s Design for Creation: “Welcoming and Celebrating!”
The union of a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage constitutes the normative purpose of God for humanity in the goodness of creation. The goal in the relationship of male and female is the intensifying oneness of marriage. Children are the special gift (the promise of blessing) in this complementary relationship.
Celibacy, the choice of life-long singleness apart from marriage, is an authentic human variation in the human calling, but celibacy is not normative in the male and female relationships. It is not a choice in opposition to the calling of marriage, but it is a choice of variation in response to marriage: Celibacy is a gift, but not a gift for everyone. The celibate person does not experience the union of male with female, of the female with the male, essential to the continuation of creation, nor does the celibate person experience the blessing of children. These gifts are not incidental to humanity’s calling; nevertheless, these gifts are not gifts for everyone. A person’s positive response to the call of celibacy as the distinct gift of God is a variation in authentic humanness; celibacy does not require the repudiation of the covenant of marriage between man and woman and the promise of children through the marriage.
Like celibacy, homosexuality is a variation in creation that does not diminish the authenticity of a person’s humanness. Unlike celibacy, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality entails a choice: It is a genetic (and early environmental) given. Like the heterosexual orientation of life, the homosexual way of being human is the gift of God to be celebrated: It is not the disorder of human fallenness. Homosexuality—the homosexual orientation precisely in its variation—belongs to God’s declaration of the goodness of creation. [Otherwise, God has created that which is not good, or the Creator has distorted creation itself into that which is less than good.]
The error in the literal interpretation of the biblical traditions concerning homoerotic relationships roots in the inability of these ancient traditions to recognize that such relationships can be natural, i.e., “according to creation.” This is the new insight in contemporary experience that requires review and revision of the church’s historic teaching on homosexual life and same-sex relationships. (For a homosexual person to engage in heterosexual erotic relationships is unnatural [as the failed heterosexual marriage of a homosexual person in a heterosexual marriage has often demonstrated].)
The prohibition of any possibility of human sexual fulfillment to a homosexual person is far more than the regulation of sexual behavior in the context of the norm of marriage between male and female. It is nothing less than the repudiation of his or her personal identity, of which sexuality is only a part (a decisive part nonetheless). Contrary to the trajectory of the traditions in the Old and New Testaments, the gospel of Christ is life-giving and person-affirming. Today the gospel requires the church to read the Scriptures from a different angle to discern the Jesus way in a critical reformation of church tradition on the covenantal homosexual relationships: The gospel norm of interpersonal sexual relationships is “covenantal fidelity.”
The summons to the heterosexual Christian and the homosexual Christian is chastity in singleness and fidelity in covenantal union. Covenantal Christian union includes monogamy, unity, and permanence—whether heterosexual or homosexual. Same-sex union does not abrogate the importance of heterosexual marriage, because only the oneness that occurs in the union of male and female transcends the otherness of male and female, female and male. Nevertheless, a homosexual union is more than “alikeness,” of like with like, because a gay or lesbian covenant involves two different persons who remain “other” to each other. The relational difficulties in heterosexual and homosexual covenantal commitments are quite comparable.
Similar to the proponents of Option 3, advocates of Option 4 affirm: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). However, the Christian community today recognizes what Paul apparently did not and could not recognize: Oneness in Christ ultimately destroyed the structural diversity between “slave and free.” Through discipleship in Christ and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the concrete division of slave and free was not a structure transformed into oneness in Christ but a social construct that oneness in Christ entirely destroyed. A Christian cannot love his brother who is also his “property.” The Gospel of Christ destroyed the institution of slavery, a consensus not established through Bible study and discussion but through the bloody violence of the Civil War. Baptist biblical interpretation followed the “change in understanding” about the evil of slavery won on the battlefields of the Civil War that set brother against brother. Can the Scriptures of the New Testament move the Christian community beyond established social structures through the dynamic experience of the freedom of the Spirit of Christ? Ephesians provides positive direction. Paul said:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and who has broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances that he might create in himself one new person in the place of two, so making peace; that he might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing hostility to an end. (Ephesians 2:13-16).
Proponents of Option 4 finally ground their viewpoint in the reconciling work of the crucified Christ who has broken down all the walls of hostility—all the walls of custom and tradition that separate and divide us—for us to work with God to establish the grace of “peace.”
NOTE: each of the four options posted are attempts to artuclate the perspectives on thier own terms and do not represent any particular individual’s view. Details can be found here.
Dr. Frank Tupper is an ordained Baptist minister and Professor of Theology in the founding faculty of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity. In 1973 he began a distinguished career teaching theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary before coming to Wake Forest University where he would get to have both Chad and Tripp in his theology class at the same time!!!
Email this author | All posts by Dr. Frank Tupper
This is a beautiful statemrnt of where I hope Baptists and the church in general is moving. Then we could move on to bigger challenges.
Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that people cannot be born or created imperfect and since homosexuality may be linked to genetics it is therefore natural variation. This isn’t true. There are many ways in which people can be born imperfect both physically, morally, mentally and of course spiritually. We may come into the world with physical maladies and deformities that are not normal, they’re the result of living in a world of broken shalom. As well genetics can contribute to issues like libido or anger responses. That doesn’t mean that extra or premarital sex are okay for those born with “naturally” stronger sex drives or that fist fights are okay for those with more active adrenal glands. Homosexuals must live lives of repentant abstinence from sin in the same way every other sinner must for their own particular cross to bear.
Meade,
Your argument is premised on a monolithic understanding of “perfect” and “imperfect.” Your issue is that you cannot accept that not everyone accepts these categories, or are willing to be confined by them.
[...] can find the opening post here and the 4 different views presented (1,2,3,4). Big Daddy Weave and Baptimergent have also blogged about this [...]
[...] 4. An affirmation of the human calling to covenantal union: “Welcoming and Celebrating” [...]
Zach
Let’s summarize
1. Argument: Homosexuality is acceptable (and therefore scripture is wrong) because it’s natural and if something is natural it’s good.
2. My Counter Argument: No, our experience and scripture show there is lots of stuff that is “natural” that is also not good.
3. Your Response: I disagree with your categories so you’re wrong.
So in other words I’m wrong because you disagree with me? Give me a reason or an argument because just saying I’m wrong because people won’t accept my category of monolithic perfect and imperfect isn’t really an argument. How is my argument premised on categories of perfect and imperfect? Why are those categories (If I actually have them) wrong?
[...] Option 4: Welcoming and Celebrating Like celibacy, homosexuality is a variation in creation that does not diminish the authenticity of a person’s humanness. Unlike celibacy, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality entails a choice: It is a genetic (and early environmental) given. Like the heterosexual orientation of life, the homosexual way of being human is the gift of God to be celebrated: It is not the disorder of human fallenness. Homosexuality—the homosexual orientation precisely in its variation—belongs to God’s declaration of the goodness of creation. [...]
“Celibacy, the choice of life-long singleness apart from marriage, is an authentic human variation in the human calling.” “Celibacy is a gift, but not a gift for everyone.” I would take issue with this statement. I think that celibacy is a choice we make an not a gift. A person making a decision to be celibate, to me, is offering a gift to God, not God to the person. There is sometimes a “calling” to ministry that a person may think can best be undertaken by being single and being single means being celibate. I love the statement “like the heterosexual orientation of life, the homosexual way of being human is the gift of God to be celebrated. It is not the disorder of human fallenness. Homosexual orientation —belongs to God’s declaration of the goodness of creation.” “The gospel norm of interpersonal sexual relationships is “covenantal fidelity.” This is so very true !!!! “Only the oneness that occurs in the union of male and female transcends the otherness of male and female, female and male. Nevertheless, a homosexual union is more than “alikeness,” of like with like, because a gay or lesbian covenant involves two different persons who remain “other” to each other.” I totally disagree with this statement. Would homosexuals in a covenant relationship believe they are still “OTHER” to each other? I think not. Seems to me that they would consider themselves one just as much as heterosexual. Their union would be just as blessed and their love making thought of as being one with each other. Partners until death do us part. It is important for me to believe that in and through Christ and The Holy Spirit, all walls of hostility – all walls of custom and tradition that separate and divide us can be brought into being as we work with God to establish the grace of peace. As we give/extend grace to each other they experience grace from God.
Meade,
I must agree with Zach, but I would like to elaborate:
You seem to speak from the point of view that there is a perfect ideal that most creatures are born with (‘normal’) and any variation is therefore imperfection. However, as a geneticist, I hold the point of view that variation is just that: variation. As far as survival of a species is concerned, a particular variant can be good or bad, but most are neutral. The ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of a variation is relative, but variation, in general, is considered to be good, because it allows a species to more readily adapt to a changing environment. This is also true in humans. From this point of view, to declare any particular variant (or variation in general) inherently bad is absurd; no less absurd than calling a people of a particular race or ethnicity bad or subhuman. So too with your examples of enhanced libido or heightened aggression. These variations (with respect to libido and aggression) are not inherently wrong or imperfect; they are simply variations. The examples of enhanced libido and heightened aggression are extremes on a continuum of possible characteristics for traits we define as libido and aggression. These are called quantifiable traits because the characteristic (phenotype) of any given individual with respect to that trait can be measured. One could then sum up the measurements of many individuals and divide it by the number of individuals summed and arrive at an average, which is defined as normal. In this sense, normal is not defined by what most people are, but by the average for the population measured. In this sense, variation (or any particular variant) cannot be wrong, because no (or very few) individuals actually exist in the norm. No one is born perfect, so no one is really born imperfect.
But I have another issue with your argument: Why are fist fights and sexual promiscuity wrong? Because the Bible says they are? This is not a good enough answer for me and for many others. Why does the Bible say these things are wrong? Why does society in general say these things are wrong? Because they are harmful, both to the sinner and to those around him. Promiscuity carries enhanced risk of catching and passing on terrible diseases; fighting can also hurt. In terms of our faith, these activities can also interfere with relationships. We are relational beings, and sexual promiscuity seeks to by pass the relationship for sexual gratification; fighting can also hurt relationships (sorry to be stating the obvious). From a faith stand point, these things harm relationships instead of building them, and are therefore wrong.
Homosexuals are not seeking to harm relationships. We wish to build relationships. The relationships we seek to build (particularly romantic) are different from the cultural norm, but in that sense they are only variations. As for celibacy, I feel that is a calling, and to force a particular ‘calling’ on somebody because of the way they are born is wrong. That is like forcing a left-handed child to write with her right hand (it’s down right sinister, pardon the pun). As for myself, I do not feel called to celibacy. I am single now, so this is my way of life, but I would like to find someone special and build a life with him. I have, and do, pray and commune with God seeking God’s will for my life. I do not feel God calling me to be celibate all my life, and I trust God to (eventually) help me find someone who is right for me. I would be offended if anyone said to me, “God’s will for your life is to be celibate.” That is between God and me. I welcome anyone to challenge me to be certain I am seeking God’s will, but please don’t presume God is calling me to a particular way of life simply because I was born a certain way.
I hope we can converse civilly. My daily prayer is that I can embrace others with opinions different from my own, and it is my prayer for you as well. We don’t have to agree to be Christians living in community with one another. My the Love of Jesus fill us all as we approach this and other difficult topics.
In my haste, I said something that perhaps I should not have said: “No one is born perfect, so no one is really born imperfect.” While I do not think anything can be imperfect if nothing is perfect, some might disagree with my phrasing, if not my statement. A more agreeable statement might be “No one is perfect, just different.” In any case, I would disagree with Meade’s use of the word ‘imperfect’ and would prefer the word ‘different’. Simply because an existence isn’t exactly average does not mean it is ‘wrong’ or ‘imperfect’. That only makes it different.
Nathaniel, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I applaud your self honesty. I am not a homosexaul but feel very strong about the issues that face you and many others. One of my dearest friends for many years until his death was gay and my love for him was very deep (not romantic love). As I walked with and along side him on his journey, the pain he felt was my pain. I suffered when he suffered. As a Christ follower, a moderate Baptist, etc. I am doing as much as I know how to do to aid you and all others to obtain first of all the love and recognition that each person on this planet is entitled to. Second to change the laws both in government and in our churches that deny you anything that is given to me. You should be able to marry the person of your choice and take your place in society as a much loved and beloved child of God and a friend of ours. My prayers will be with you and all who suffer for human rights and a place in the sun. Love, a senior citizen that wishes you well.
Thank you Jo Ann. I have previously observed your kindness and wisdom from your interactions with a mutual friend on Facebook. In fact I have been blessed with several ‘welcoming and celebrating’ friends who have made and will make my life not just bearable but also pleasant. Thank you not only for your prayers, but also putting those prayers into action.
Nathan,
Thank you for your well articulated argument. I appreciate you taking the time. I think we disagree with one another on a more fundamental level that makes our dialogue here less helpful. I hold to an orthodox understanding of the authority of Scripture and the nature of man. By that I mean that yes, things are wrong just because the Bible says they are. (I agree with you that fighting etc. destroys relationships) I just believe even if the wrongness of fighting wasn’t self evident to me it would still be wrong.
I also agree with you that there aren’t really any “normal” people. My point is that simply because our genetic makeup contributes to our behavior that has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of that behavior. I do believe extramarital sex is wrong and, of course, our biology contributes to that.
I personally don’t claim to know God’s will for you or anyone. I do, however, believe the Bible has authority to disagree with my and your will. Otherwise God is simply a puppet created in my image. A Stepford God. Since the Bible is plain that extramarital sex and homosexuality are wrong either one must believe the Bible is wrong or that homosexuals and the singles are required to live celibate.
I should acknowledge the backdrop to our discussion. Most christians who hold to my view of Scripture DO NOT hold to my understanding of the gospel and therefore they treat homosexuals with disgust and contempt. I think the average christian forms their “biblical” interpretation regarding this issue more out of homophobia than the Scripture they claim as their authority. I believe they’re wrong.
Nanthaniel, thank you for your very kind words. I am happy to learn that you have found happiness. When we have those that care and love us it makes life a joy even with all the sadness and the horrible mess in this world. My beliefs do not correspond with Meade in the way he/she interprets the bible. I do not believe that everything in the bible is of God. I belief that the writers may have thought that it was God that was giving them every word but I do not think that way. Those writers were as human as any of us and there is no way that when I write I think God is dictating to me what God wants me to say. My words may contain some truth and I thank God and others for the inspiration I receive for my writing but I would be very mislead to think other wise. People just like you and me wrote the bible and others just like you and me picked out the writings they wanted to include in what we now call our bible. They were very human just as I and just as likely to make a mistake as I. God has spoken since the bible was written and continues to and will continue until this world ends, in my belief. Some have stopped at the bible and read it as if it has no mistakes whatsoever !!! Some day we will know who is right. Paul and others simply wrote letters to the early Christians giving them their opinion of how they perceived God not what God dictated to them. As I write this now I am stating my belief not what God is dictating to me and I think that is what God did with Paul and the others. God allowed or Paul knew he had the freedom to write whatever he wanted to, which ever you want to believe. Either way, I believe God guides and nudges us God does not dictate what to write or what to say and God did the same thing when the writers of what we call the bible was written.
Enjoy the times with those who love you and may you have everything you need to cope with those who differ with you.
Meade,
Thank you for being willing to listen and engage in this conversation. Your opinion seems well formed, which I greatly respect. I particularly appreciate you warning against creating a God, each in our own image. My opinions have not been formed lightly, but with much prayer and study. I have no desire to force my will upon God or to shape my will into god. I do not dismiss the authority of the Bible lightly, but, as you rightly surmised, I do not take it as the final, the ultimate, or the only authority.
I believe we are all interpreting. We are far removed from the language and cultures for which these texts were written. Even the texts we have are copies of copies; no original manuscript exists today. And then these texts were assembled, no less than a couple of centuries after the events they record. In all of this, my faith is not diminished, because I believe God would preserve for us the truths God wants us to have. At the same time, this does not remove the human element. At the very least, you and I are fallible, and the Book we read subject to the whims of our interpretation. In the end I can not claim exclusive right to truth. Even if the Bible is infallible (a discussion for another place), you and I who use it are not.
I have given much thought, study and prayer to the matter of sexuality. Most of what I have read has indicated to me that conservative interpretations of what the Bible says about homosexuality (ex: options 1 and 2) use ancient passages to judge a modern situation. That is to say, our understanding of homosexuality did not develop until the last two hundred years. So whatever these passages have to say (the most recent being nearly two thousand years old) about sexuality does not apply to our modern understanding of homosexuality. There are other, more in depth matters that I feel more comfortable leaving to more knowledgeable scholars to explain. Ultimately, they all come down to the basic premise that they are not discussing homosexuality as we understand it today (and some, like the passages in Paul’s letters, referring to activities modern homosexuals or homosexual Christians would condemn: orgies, child molestation, etc.).
I have an illustration to offer, but I am not certain how useful it would be. You and I have different views of the Bible. If what I have said in the preceding paragraphs is meaningless to your understanding of the Bible, then no amount of illustrating will help my case. I do hope, however, that this does not preclude us from conversing as children of God.
Jo Ann,
I do agree with your view of the Bible. In my understanding, just as each of us grows to understand God (hopefully) better and better, humanity has grown to understand God better and better. To me, the Bible is a record of that development. To dismiss it would be like dismissing one’s own experiences, from which one has learned and grown into the Human one is today. However, as life changes, so too must our personal relationships with God, the Bible and each other. Through prayer and study, with the leadership of the Holy Spirit, we grow in these relationships, not away, but towards with renewed vision and understanding. And this growth does not cease with this life but continues in the next, until we see God and fully understand.
Nathaniel, I fully agree with your last statements. We may or may not be right but that is where I am today. I am so very grateful to anyone and everyone who contributed to the writing of the scriptures, those who made the decisions of what documents to include, etc. I do agree that the bible is a record of the people of that days development. For me it is part story and part historical knowledge. It is up to us to decide which part is story and which is historical fact. As you stated, we do not have original documents but some of the bible came from what was supposed to be original documents. I rely on those historians and theologians who spend far more time in indepth study than I do to help me sort things out in my mind. They are so graceous to share their findings and ideas with us. I love to read the bible, I love the wisdom contained there, I love the poetry and song, I love the “biographies/stories” of the biblical characters. I can see myself in so much of the bible and it makes me both love myself and it makes me repent when necessary. I would never throw the bible away but I do want to keep a perspective that does not allow it to become an idol for me. I think too many folks make an idol of the bible and we should worship God and not the bible or Jesus. I think too many people also make an idol of Jesus. Jesus always pointed away from himself and towards God. Jesus is a great example for us but only one of many, yet the best. As you can tell, I am a trinitarian believer. Thanks and God bless you !!!
Nar a single biblical reference in the 4 parts. Another exercise in personal theological masturbation I say . Amazing all this ‘new thought” is nothing more than man trying to tell God how to see it. Sounds historically familiar.
“Jack”, unlike most spammers you seem to have sort of read the material, since you mention the number of posts, even though there are Scripture references throughout. So we’ll let your comment stay. I hope someone buys whatever it is you’re selling.
But you don’t have to include title, chapter, and verse, which were added after Scripture was written, to make biblical theological arguments.
Chad, thanks for what you just stated. I was trying my best to think of the right words to respond to “Jack”. It is good to memorize verses, etc. from the bible and be able to quote them. However, memorizing is not as important as what the verses mean. Taking verses out of contect and making them say what you want them to say is a very dangerous thing. What the people who have commented, including myself, has been their statements on what they have gained and believed from reading the “entire” bible to fiind God’s truth for them therein. Our life experiences also prove the truth, untruth or outdatedness. We must take into consideration all the “new” truth from God as we formulate our daily actions and beliefs. One of our greatest beliefs as American Baptists or moderate Christians believe is the right of every human being to interpret the bible for ourselves. This is a priviledge we fought very hard for and do not take it lightly. It does but a huge responsibility on us so that is why I for one still listen to God through my prayers and through every other means at hand including listening to those that do not agree with me.
“I think too many folks make an idol of the bible and we should worship God and not the bible or Jesus.” Jo Ann W. Goodson – How can I agree with this statement? I think we should worship Jesus, and God’s word. I don’t think the Bible is infallible but I can’t believe it is just what men wrote down.(Only historical & cultural) I believe it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This also means through the men who wrote it and anything else associated with it. (Responsibly) I don’t believe I can prove that but I take it on faith.
I guess this is why I fall in on the conservative side (Theologically). I have always had trouble with more liberal Christians who deny the Inspired Word, Jesus’s Divinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Trinity, Sin, and the conviction & faith in the Power and the Goodness of God. They keep telling me it’s time for Christianity to change. I say yeah come on I agree, and then they say well all that stuff about inspired word, christology, trinity, and sin is probably not accurate or relevant . ( Normally through long complex process that I a layman can not understand. ) I realize that Christianity needs to change but if dragging and stepping on the convictions that people consider important to their identity and understanding of their faith and worldview is necessary for change without taking the time to help us either understand or grow then what reasons do I not have to oppose this so called ” change”. Sounds like a good conspiracy plan. ( Ok that is probably too far but you get what I mean.) I can’t connect the falseness of a conviction and a commitment to the importance of that conviction. For example if the Resurrection did not really happen, is not Paul’s mention, reflection, and preaching about it’s importance meaningless?Another thing that challenges me is if all religions are about love why choose Christianity? Why be Christian? Isn’t the main point of Christianity love?( 1st John 4:8)
I feel often that if liberal Christians were as open with their conservatives brothers as with other cultures/religions/and worldviews we would gain ground and eliminate some strife. But I don’t see that in my experience. I am trying my best not just to be only around people of my same thought because I feel maybe being around Christians with more liberal views will help my understanding of them and what their identity means to them.
Readers don’t be offended by my ignorance, I am most likely on a different path and level in my faith. I guess this post is just a reflection of what I have challenges with and my overall experience, any constructive comments would be helpful. – I feel like I was born for Seminary,I think and care about these things too much.
I have the weird feeling sometimes that only God and C.S. Lewis know what I am talking about. LOL
Chauncy, thank you for your input. I value times with more conservative folks. It has been my priviledge and pleasure to be in small groups with conservatives, moderns, liberals and non-believers. I spent an entire summer a few years back on Sunday evenings in such a group. To keep us “civil” we decided to use a workbook that was sorta moderate but more conservative. This was an awesome experience for me and we all grew very close. We never “argued” but I found that the conservatives were far more determined to not listen but to preach. I hope you will go back and read some of what I said in my previous post. I stated that it was my belieft that God did inspire the writings that appear in the bible. Also stated that it is my belief that God is still inspiring writers of today and we should value the “new” words from God just as much as we did the 2000 year old documents. God did not stop teaching or guiding us after the bible was published. I love my bible and read it daily but the words for me are not set in concrete. I do not quote scripture as I do not want to beat folks over the head with a verse out of context. The parables, to use one example, when taught to our children and adults are best understood when we use modern language, situations and story that allows for the same meaning but much easier to be understood. That for me is what we must do with the rest of the bible. Yes, tell the stories, use the same characters but put what we learn from those stories into modern language. The most important thing is not memorizing the verses, or quoting them, what is important is that we understand what they are saying to us and then put them into action. My actions, experiences, etc when shared with others are far more valuable than quoting a verse from the bible. I love C.S. Lewis. I agree with your desire to have more conversation with folks that disagree with you. I long for that as well. If you try reading some of the more modern writers such as you will find in Homebrewed Christianity and Process and Faith websites you will find how I really think and feel and they might inspire some “new” thoughts on the subject better than I can. One of my favorite authors is Dr. Bruce Epperly and you can find his works on the Process and Faith website. Another good writer is Dr. Frank Tupper and you can find his two books on Amazon. Jurgen Moltmann has a great book on the Trinity and one on Experiences of God. Good luck to you and God bless you.
Chauncy Silva,
I applaud your bold statement. It demonstrates exactly why these conversations are necessary! We, as the greater Christian community, cannot move forward if we cannot even understand where we are moving and why. Without this insight, we cannot even know if we are moving forward, nor if we are moving at all. Hopefully, after all is said, we can find places we can move forward on, and places that it is OK if not everybody is moving in the same direction.
Thank you Jo Ann for the correction, I do believe I misrepresented and misunderstood your view. I apologize for that.
I also agree with the latter part of your message. That we should put the Bible in modern language because this will help people understand it. That understanding should lead into action and experience based off those actions. And I will take a look at those authors you mentioned. I wikipedia for Jurgen Moltmann seems promising. You have provided a challenge to me if God can inspire those from 2000 years ago why not us today? I do believe we receive inspiration but in some ( without the ability to really make it explainable ) different form or sort than that as recorded in the Bible , or inspirations and revelations as experienced with Jesus when in contact with him. ( As in Gospels)
Nathaniel,
When I saw a video about this transforming theology it refreshed my soul. Made me happy to see that Christians wanted to unify more and engage each others especially from different perspectives. I would be more than grateful to be a part of a transformation process. I could see myself being in a Christian Ministry dedicated to be bring Christians closer together and understanding each other differences.
Chauncy,
Many thanks for your reception of my suggestions. The authors I mentioned have taught me so much. With new learning it does not take away from what we learned early in life about our bible, it simply adds to it, especially our understanding of it. Times do change and not only science, medicine, archeology and many others have brought us a better understanding of Genesis for example. So as we experience our healing, grace, love, sorrow, etc. we are both affirmed from our bible but much is added to our bible, as it should be. God is a living God. I believe that God shows us more and more of God’s self. As Paul said, we now see dimly but as we grow older in age and experience of God, we see more clearly. It is my belief that we will not quit this process until we are in heaven with God.
Nathaniel, I do not know which video you watched but I rejoice with you that it refreshed your soul. I love engaging with others of different faiths and perspectives, that is one way I have grown. You should try and find folks that would be interested in a transformational group. If you do so, read some of Dr. Bruce Epperly’s books to find some spiritual practices that are simply wonderful to use individually or in small groups.
God bless both of you. Love in Christ, Jo Ann
This statement is false:
The error in the literal interpretation of the biblical traditions concerning homoerotic relationships roots in the inability of these ancient traditions to recognize that such relationships can be natural, i.e., “according to creation.” This is the new insight in contemporary experience that requires review and revision of the church’s historic teaching on homosexual life and same-sex relationships. (For a homosexual person to engage in heterosexual erotic relationships is unnatural [as the failed heterosexual marriage of a homosexual person in a heterosexual marriage has often demonstrated].)
The fact is that ancient people considered such relationships quite “normal” while some argued it was unnatural but acceptable. But this isn’t a new insight in contemporary experience, it has been made up whole cloth. Sophistry!
Chauncy,
I enjoy speaking to others who disagree with me. I have to do it all the time as an Army chaplain and Baptist. These types of dialogues help me fine-tune my thinking. But please remember that those with whom you dialogue here have forsaken the basic and foundational teachings of the church as defined for 2000 years. They contradict some of the most foundational understandings of faith common to Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox–which make up the great majority of Christians in the world. We have lots of room to disagree about many things but this is foundational and defining. Surely you believe that there are limits to what one can believe and promote and still be Christian? They would be better off joining another religion rather than distorting the gospel of Christ, especially based solely on dubious junk-science and sentimental and emotional experience. Theirs is a buffet style religion and they come to the table with the latest fads and fancies of culture.
I’d hate to see your faith ship-wrecked. In Galatians 1, Paul warns us of false teaching. The boundaries of orthodoxy keep us safe. It doesn’t mean we are afraid to go outside or be creedal or condemn. It just means that we entered into this world with Christianity already defined for us. We should not think we are better than the apostles and play junior Holy Spirit? How can someone claim to follow Christ and reject his teachings? Integrity demands of them that they reject Christ and his church rather than spoil it for the rest of us.
Matthew, I did not think that I would respond to you again but after your last commnent to Chauncy I could not keep silent. I am thankful that you serve as a chaplain and Baptist that is a great calling. However, as I interpret what you have said my conclusion is that you think God no longer speaks to you or to us now. According to you God only spoke 2000 years ago and those who came together to select the writings that went into the making of what we now call our bible were preselected by God to chose the God directed writings out of the many that were at their disposal. Somehow I just cannot buy that. It is my understanding that God continues to speak to us and give us additional information about God’s self and about God’s character (as first demonstrated by Jesus). My values, etc. continue to come from the bible but God speaks to humans through science and other means to move us forward in our thinking and understanding of what God wants us to learn. For this we are grateful. When we compare the knowledge that people had 2000 years ago to what we now know, some of whick is outdated then we can understand more about ourselves and God’s character. Being homosexual by reason of birth sheds new light on what is stated in the bible and we should thank God for the new information. I am so sorry you are still stuck in the past of 2000 years. When your mind becomes free you will know what I am speaking of.
Jo Ann, I understand your problem with all this. I really do. I do believe that God speaks to us today but I find it illogical that he would contradict that early message of the cross by Jesus and his disciples. It is that message that I received and placed my faith on. I certainly do not presume to act as God’s prophet and make new and greater revelations for the church. If I did, upon what basis would people have cause to believe that I was just as inspired as the scripture writers or anyone else for that matter? We could just as easily say that Mohammad’s revelations superseded Paul’s and Moltmann superseded Paul’s. Imagine the chaos and confusion! Who to believe? God is not the author of confusion–that is a presupposition I have. God still speaks but his final revelation is Jesus Christ as told in scripture. Otherwise, the church is lost in a sea of ambiguity, mixed messages, and contradictory voices. Again, there is lots to disagree on but some things must be non-negociable.
Matthew, I would like to add to what Jo Ann said by emphasizing the fact that I do not reject what Jesus taught (according to the Gospels). Jesus spoke of loving your neighbor, loving your enemy, and helping them in times of need. If you think I can get a similar message from another religion, you are right. However, I perceive Jesus’ message as going above and beyond simple ‘peace and love’ message people think you can get from any religion. Not all religions are the same, and I believe Christianity will bring me the closest relationship to God. At the same time, I do not recall at any point Jesus spelling out “Homosexuality is bad.” If he did, you would have a much better case to suggest that those who accept homosexuals as humans and fellow believers are not ‘real’ followers of Jesus. He didn’t and we aren’t just choosing to follow Jesus out of convenience or out of spite for ‘true’ Christians. So if Jesus didn’t reject homosexuals, what teaching are we then rejecting by accepting and embracing them?
We are not rejecting Jesus’ teachings. Much like we are seeing today, Jesus did a great deal to question the religious attitudes of the day, focusing on the spirit of the law over the letter. Jesus emphasized a frame of mind that does not blindly follow the law but pursues the spirit of love that the law is framed in. Indeed, Jesus didn’t create a lot of commandments and demands; he gave just two: Love God and love your neighbor. What we see in the Gospels draws these out, illustrating what these commands mean, and how beautifully simple, yet gloriously complex truly following them can be. I cannot get the same teachings from ‘another religion’ and wonder why you think I could.
Matthew, by the way the name is Dr. Frank Tupper. At first I thought it was simply a typo but as you continue using Tipper I wanted to draw your attention to the correct spelling. It may not matter to Dr. Tupper but it does to me and all of his friends. He is well known all over the world and I would not want these folks not to know who you are referring to. This topic is about homosexuals unless you have forgotten. No one is questioning the cross or the teachings of Jesus. As Nathaniel said, Jesus did not mention homosexuals. Paul is one of my favorite authors but Paul wrote mostly from just his damascus road experience and not from talking with Jesus personally. Everything he wrote about was from talking with what few Christians he knew and his Jewish history, the rest he wrote about what he THOUGHT and that can be questioned by Christians or anyone. We know that history has proven that more things can be righted or handled by love than self righteous anger, as you are proposing that anger can be used. Jesus may have said some words in anger but he told us to love one another and self righteous anger has no part in loving. We are to use our heads and our hearts to discern the will of God not just the bible because not everything or situation is mentioned in the bible, especially as it relates to the times we are now in and all the much different situations that we face that the bible has nothing to say about. Your examples are ridiculous when you speak of naked people in church, etc. based on how you interpreted Dr. Tuppers words. I assure you he in no way meant to infer all of these things. Again we are speaking on the subject of homosexuals. I believe homosexuals should marry homosexuals and hetorosexuals should marry hetorosexuals. Each should have the right to marry the ones they love within that context. That is just MY belief. I do not have to be an orthodox believer because I am still listening to God and others who have word from God whether they write a book or speak it as prophecy. Moltmann is a great one for you to read. I would also suggest Dr. John Cobb and Dr. Bruce Epperly as great writers that can explain things I believe far better than I can. I say that because I am not as eliquent or as learned as they are but from the things they have written I can honestly say that is what I believe, what they write. Read some of Henri Nouwen’s books as well. I know that all of us moderates and orthodoxes are split on this issue but because the majority, as you quoted, believe as you do does not mean that you are correct. Southern Baptists do not have all the answers.
Nathaniel, thanks for adding your thoughts to make what I said a little more understandable.
Matthew, I would also like to add that none of us are suggesting we hew down the cross, or replace the Bible with a daily devotional book, or replace Jesus with Moltmann, Lewis or any other contemporary Biblical scholar. At the same time, I wouldn’t even place Paul above Jesus, something I have seen many devout and conservative Christians do. Like all of these people, we are trying to understand the place of God and Jesus in each of our individual lives, something every person must do. Then, finally, we must each ask how God wants us to relate to homosexuals and other marginalized peoples. Like Jo Ann emphasized, these are the ultimate questions of this discussion board: how do we relate to homosexuals? How does God call us to relate to them? and How do we relate (how does God call us to relate) to those we disagree with on the previous two questions? Ultimately, I believe the answer to all of these questions is with love, patience and understanding, no matter where else we stand with them.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was writing “Tipper” instead of “Tupper.”! BTW, I do agree that love is the basic Christian principle but I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Loving gays is no different that loving any other sinner(s) including myself. I know that if I believed like you guys, though, I would forget this Christianity thing altogether as a bunch of bunk and move on. If the bible is untrue, if the church’s teachings is worthless, why even mess with being a Christian? Agnosticism is much easier to defend.
Nathaniel, thanks once again for coming to my rescue.
Matthew, sorry you think the way you do. For me your thinking is too judgemental. We do not point the finger at others. We in love ask them to believe in Jesus and then start their own path to learning. You might suggest that they visit a church but encourage them to read commentaries and books from very different points of view so they can truly come to their own beliefs. What you and I believe can only be just that, our beliefs. As you stated there may be millions that agree with you but they could all be wrong.To say to anyone that “now what I am going to tell you is the gospel and if you do not believe what I am saying to you then you are going to hell.” If you really want to help others let them find their own path and simply be there if they stumble to help pick them up. Tracks have never been very effective. What has been effective is to be a guide not a judge. God nudges us along. God does not dictate. Use that example and do not dictate simply nudge. You can tell them, these are my beliefs and I want you to come to your own conclusions.