The Gay Christian Debate — Bradley + Sam

Contents:

• 7 QUTNS FOR CHRISTIANS ABOUT THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE
• WHY ‘GOD AND THE GAY CHRISTIAN’ IS WRONG ABOUT THE BIBLE AND SAME-SEX RELATNSHIPS
• CAN YOU BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN? UNRSTANDG THE DEBATE
• THE GAY CHRISTIAN DEBATE.
• ‘I AM A GAY CHRISTIAN’: DEBAT ABOUT LGBTQ ACCEPTANCE ROIL SEATTLE-AREA NONPROFS, CHURCH

7 QUTNS FOR CHRISTIANS ABOUT THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE

There are many and varied opns on gay marriage, but jt about everyone across the spectm n agree on one thg: It’s been a landmark week for the natnal bate. Tuday marked the Supreme Court’s hearg of the se agast Proposn 8, the amendment that prohibs gay marriage California. Then on Wednday, the Supreme Court held arguments batg the nstutnaly of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that ni feral benefs to same-sex upl married stat where gay marriage is legal.

And some are sayg that you n be favor of legalizg gay marriage while still believg God’s sign is for marriage between a man and a woman. Whatever your personal stance on gay marriage, ’s currently the topic of a heated natnal dialogue—and one that’s not gog to end any time soon.

The issue of homosexualy, of the ordatn of gay clergy and of the blsg of same-sex unns, has ed tremendo divisns the church recent s, and the church remas substantially divid over the issue today. On the one hand, the most mon them voiced by those who support changg tradnal church teachg on homosexualy are those of acceptance, cln, and love, while on the other hand, those who oppose the chang exprs ncerns about sexual pury, hols, and most fundamentally, the place of Scripture our muni. And so acrdg to this view, if someone is gay, then their sexual orientatn is a sign of the fall, a sign of human fallenns and brokenns.

WHY ‘GOD AND THE GAY CHRISTIAN’ IS WRONG ABOUT THE BIBLE AND SAME-SEX RELATNSHIPS

Christians who are gay – those who are only attracted to members of the same sex – are th lled to rea om actg on those attractns, to ny themselv, to take up their cross and to follow Christ. Wh this amework, gay people have a problem, and that is that they want to have sex wh the wrong people. But the nsequence of the tradnal terpretatn of the Bible is that, while straight people are told to avoid lt, sual relatnships, and promiscuy, gay people are told to avoid romantic relatnships entirely.

CAN YOU BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN? UNRSTANDG THE DEBATE

But gay people, though they are pable of and sire lovg relatnships that are jt as important to them, are told that, for them, even lifelong, mted relatnships would be sful, bee their sexual orientatn is pletely broken. Gay people’s sexual orientatn is so broken, so msed up that nothg good n e om – no morally good, godly relatnship uld ever e om .

And wh the tradnal terpretatn of Scripture, fallg love is one of the worst thgs that uld happen to a gay person. And all of the ways that a woman is a suable partner for straight men—for gay men, ’s another gay man who is a suable partner. But the necsary nsequence of the tradnal teachg on homosexualy is that, even though gay people have suable partners, they mt reject them, and they mt live alone for their whole liv, whout a spoe or a fay of their own.

But startg the Middle Ag, began to be wily believed that the s of Sodom, the reason that Sodom was stroyed, was homosexualy particular. But this is no longer the prevailg terpretatn of this passage, and simply bee later societi associated wh homosexualy don’t mean that’s that what the Bible self teach.

THE GAY CHRISTIAN DEBATE.

But that is the only nnectn that n be drawn between this passage and homosexualy general, and there is a world of difference between vlent and ercive practic like gang rape and nsensual, monogamo, and lovg relatnships. The actns of the men of Sodom are tend to unrsre their cel treatment of outsirs, not to somehow tell that they were gay. And ed, Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to 20 tim throughout the subsequent books of the Bible, sometim wh tailed mentary on what their ss were, but homosexualy is never mentned or nnected to them.

It’s now wily nced by scholars on both sis of this bate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer biblil evince to support the belief that homosexualy is a s. It’s surprisg that so many people ntue to believe that the vers Levic somehow form the heart of the theologil bate about homosexualy. The first is the vers’ immediate ntext: Levic 18 and 20 also prohib adultery, ct, and btialy, all of which ntue to be regard as sful, and so homosexualy should be as well.

So if our three Old Ttament passag do not, upon closer examatn, furnish persuasive arguments agast lovg relatnships for gay Christians, then what about our three New Ttament passag?

‘I AM A GAY CHRISTIAN’: DEBAT ABOUT LGBTQ ACCEPTANCE ROIL SEATTLE-AREA NONPROFS, CHURCH

Do this passage require to reject the possibily of lovg relatnships for gay people, and if so, how do that make sense, given the problems that I outled earlier wh that posn? Was that Pl’s tent here, to teach that God sir gay people to be alone for their entire liv, bee their sexual orientatn is broken, and is outsi of His created, natural sign? ” It’s monly assumed by those who hold to the tradnal terpretatn that the terms refer back to Genis 1 and 2, and are tend to fe heterosexualy as God’s natural sign and homosexualy as an unnatural distortn of that sign.

Gay people have a natural, permanent orientatn toward those of the same sex; ’s not somethg that they choose, and ’s not somethg that they n change.

And if applied to gay people, Pl’s argument here should actually work the other directn: If the pot of this passage is to rebe those who have spurned their te nature, be relig when to idolatry or sexual, then jt as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be wh those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientatn toward the same sex should not be wh those of the oppose sex.