Homosexuality

Homosexuality

My frustration with debate about homosexuality stems not so much from the arguments themselves, but the actual method of argument. Often, two “experts” will approach the topic from two radically different “expert” fields. One may be a New Testament scholar and thus draws out the intricacies of Romans 1:18-28 and the true meaning of the word “homosexual offender” (i.e. older man sleeping with a young boy) in that case. The other may be a biologist who appeals to natural logic and reproduction to defend sex as a behavior meant for heterosexuals. Both of them are right within their own expertise. But they cannot, then, debate, for it would be like Chuck pitching to a batter on another baseball field.

I was pleasantly surprised, then, when Via and Gagnon approached the issue of homosexuality from the same basis—the Bible. If indeed homosexuality is to be embraced (or rejected) by the Church as a legitimate expression of one’s being, then one cannot dismiss the Bible as only part of the argument. Behind almost every denominational tradition, the Bible stands as a primary source of wisdom/ethics/practice that, even if its inerrancy is being questioned more recently, cannot be discounted so easily.

Approaches: Therefore, they both come to scripture as authoritative, though both also read it through a historical/cultural critics’ lens. Gagnon certainly takes the position that the Old Testament and New Testament commandments condemning homosexual practices are absolute, saying that a purely scientific renege of multiple biblical instructions is not enough. As scripture interprets scripture, he points out that Ezekiel, Jude, and other texts all support homosexualities’ blanket condemnation.

Via seems m...

... middle of paper ...

..., they should not act upon them in a sexual way, as they can be fully alive without sex.

Some questions I still harbor: If homosexuality is something God has given humanity as a sign of God’s wrath (as Via implies) and not necessarily a sin, ought we still accept it? Can we take the Leviticus passage out of context and put it with the “impure” laws about menstruation when it actually rests between a verse about not sacrificing to idols (obviously against both OT and NT law) and having sex with animals? If we can, then we may make the case that beastiality was just an impurity law and is now a legitimate form of sexual expression. Should we make decisions in the Church based on what is best for the whole body in terms of acceptance and love of people (so that others may be more open to hearing the gospel message), even if it may be “wrong” according to scripture?