Several blogs ago I made passing reference to LGBT issues. That brought comments. I challenged myself to work out my own position, outlined in this blog.
Like it or not the current law of this country is that you can’t discriminate on the bases of sex. The LGBT movement happened rapidly, basically in the last twenty years. We all have to deal with this new legal fact.
What do we do with Paul’s statements?
The Old Testament statements are not relevant to New Testament understandings. The OT had civic Law, ceremonial law and moral law. The moral law is relevant only to the extent it is affirmed in the New
Testament. Paul’s statements are: Romans 1: 26, Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. 1 Corinthians 6: 9, Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders …will inherit the kingdom of God. I Timothy 1: 9, The law is made for lawbreakers . . . for adulterers and perverts.
I can’t just write off Paul as being wrong or old-fashioned. Until the last half-century, the Christian church recognized Paul’s writings, and the whole Bible, as the inspired truth of God. I still do.
Until the past half-century Christian theologians accepted and regarded these statements as definitive. After the Episcopalians placed a professed homosexual as bishop, they have been ostracized by the worldwide Anglican communion. When the ELCA did the same thing, they lost hundreds of congregations and congregations lost thousands of members. I talked with one bishop who called that decision a catastrophe. At their conference in 2019, American Methodists were shocked that delegates from world-wide Methodism rejected acceptance of homosexuals, and Methodists split as a result. The ELCA split and those who rejected their position formed the North American Lutheran church. Those who split from the Episcopalian church formed the Anglican Church of North America. The crusading Americans have persuaded nobody but themselves that their progressive position is right. It is never good to run red lights. This a huge one.
Christians are supposed to forgive all sinners. The catch is that we do that only upon repentance. The problem with those in committed same-sex relations is that they do not repent.
Yet mission-minded congregations want to reach out to all people, and that is the right instinct. Seventy years ago divorce was not accepted. I remember how my father’s congregation excommunicated a woman when she divorced, and it caused quite a sensation. Yet today any church that cannot deal with divorced people would have only a small audience. If you cannot deal with divorced people, you are practically out of business in America today.
Can the problem of ministering to those in same-sex relationships be worked out like the problem of those divorced? I doubt it. When half the marriages today end in divorce, practically all people in this country accept divorce as an everyday fact of life. The fundamental issue with same-sex relations is that about 90% of Christians regard that as wrong. Hence the results I listed above.
The classic position of conservative evangelical churches is to minister to someone who prefers same-sex relationships only by expecting them to change and then supporting them in their efforts to reject their former life-style. In some cases that works. In most, it doesn’t.
I think Christian churches can faithfully minister to those in same-sex relationships under a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. If those in such a relationship don’t make an issue of it, ministry goes on as usual. It is only when someone forces this issue that congregations have a problem to deal with. Then there are limited options.
You state divorce is okay in church because it is common, yet same-sex relationships are not okay because they are not as common? THAT is your benchmark? Wow. While I am not gay, I am thankful for churches that offer acceptance and welcome to those that are. They are taught of God’s love and lead fulfilling Christian lives. I’m thankful to the many gay clergy I know that are effective witnesses to the love of Christ in the community. Let he without sin cast the first stone – I suppose you think you’re not a sinner in the eyes of God? I guess you missed the “Love your neighbor” section.
Responding to B. Craig’s comment: that’s an aggressive and unproductive reply to this blog. On a positive note, what suggestions do you have to bring the fractured ELCA and the NALC closer together?
I think that is a lost cause. If you are bothered by the ELCA, join the North American Lutheran Church.
Barbara, of course we are all sinners. But the scripture is clear that whatever your sin issue is there is need for repentance if you want to be forgiven. Whether you’re sin is same sex behavior or heterosexual behavior outside of marriage, there is need for repentance. It’s the same with divorce. I don’t know any churches, except for extremely liberal ones that have rejected the word of God, who teach that divorce is OK. We try to save marriages, and if some do fail we ask them to repent, trust in Christ for forgiveness, and then strive to do things God’s way from then on. What we don’t do is affirm divorce as a godly behavior that should be celebrated. So, those who celebrate same sex behavior in direct conflict with what scripture teaches are in rebellion against God and their eternal salvation is in danger. The most loving thing we can do is let such people know that they need to repent and receive forgiveness in Christ rather than celebrating what
God condemns.
Well said.
Same sex relationships are not OK according to Paul, whom I accept as inspired to present God’s truth. The reason this sin cannot be forgiven is that there is no repentance. It is not a pastor’s responsibility, on the other hand, to hunt down those living in a same-sex relationship. If the pastor doesn’t know, ministry goes on as usual.
Don’t know is different than don’t ask don’t tell
I think I agree, and your point is well said.
In my background in schools for about 40 years, I suspected that a number of my male students were “gay.” I saw a number who were so bullied to the point that they were often beaten up on their way home. Some were many effeminate in the way they walked or by their gestures when speaking. I always treated my students with true diligence no matter what I suspected.
Because of that and my emergence on Facebook, I’ve had so many of my students become my “friends.” I would say about 2/3’s of my 600 are former students including gay students. Now as adults quite a few are in same sex relationships and have thanked me for accepting them as they are. Most have told me that they were always attracted to same sex. I do not judge! I hold those couples to the same standards as all marriages: monogamy and a loving relationship.
One male student who was extremely effeminate has been married to a wife, has six children, and two grandchildren. He was never gay, but suffered throughout his school years.
Recently a female student contacted me that she’s been in a gay relationship 12 years! Yet, some of my “mannish” girls are wives, mothers and grandmothers.
A former pastor would not make a hospital visit to one of my students and his “husband.” Another pastor said he would when I appealed to him.
My point is that Jesus accepts all and we all are sinners. To single out one type of sinner over others I think is wrong; there is nothing to be gained in doing so. So I accept gays as they are. I do not judge! That’s is God’s place.
Your observations are realistic. According to Paul’s three passages same-sex relationships are sinful. The reason this can’t be forgiven, like other sins, is because there is no repentance.
I am a lesbian pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Your blogpost shows me that you are not reading widely to more deeply understand either the “clobber” passages (those traditionally used to clobber LGBTQ people) or the main thrust of Jesus’ teachings in the gospels. I commend to you the book described here, as well as many of the books you can find when you google “bible passages used to clobber LGBTQ people.” Your reading of Paul is a choice to believe that, in six verses, the Bible reveals the will of God to be judgement and exclusion. It is a choice. There is great tribal comfort in sticking with that choice. Jesus never once chooses such comfort over the lives of the people to whom he ministers, and fir whom he came to give his life.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna673471
Patricia, the fact is that the most highly respected pro gay scholars agree that scripture clearly condemns even consensual same-sex behavior. Both the old and New Testaments are absolutely clear that God never condones same sex behavior in any circumstance but always condemns it. I have written a 370 page book about this issue in which I quote many pro gay scholars who all agree with me. So it comes down to whether you’re going to accept God’s word or affirm your own opinions instead. The fact is that we all struggle with a multitude of sinful desires that we didn’t choose to have, but God doesn’t call us to affirm those desires but repent of them, receive forgiveness in Christ and then strive to live according to God’s loving will for our lives. But if you celebrate what God condemns you mock God and endanger your soul.
Well said.
I simply disagree. That somebody writes a book with a progressive message does not make something biblically true.
You are pretty good at denying the truth of scripture to fit your narrative. You want your sin to not be a sin so you make up what you want so you won’t feel guilty. Problem is, is that you are guilty and choose to be unrepentant. Sadly, you will also be held accountable for leading many away from God.
I believe that same sec partners should be allowed to attend and be ministered to however I don’t agree with the don’t tell, don’t ask position. Everyone knows anyhow. I do not believe these folks should be allowed in any leadership position or to work with children. Same is true of heterosexuals that choose to live together out of wedlock. Both are sin and should be recognized as such.
What alternative do you propose in place of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In my experience it is not true that “Everyone knows anyhow.”
So if we are keeping unrepentant sinners out of leadership positions, we should take a look at all sin, not just sexual. Jesus Spends a great deal of time talking about our use of money. Not tithing, storing up treasure for yourself is also a sin. And those with extensive financial portfolios and retirement accounts, multiple homes and cars are certainly unrepentant and yet are allowed to serve as SS teachers and leaders.
And let’s not forget Paul also said women should be silent in church. As a woman clergy, I am grateful that United Methodists considered the whole canon of God and affirmed Gods call on my life.
For their sins against the Eighth Commandment, gossipers I have confronted will repent. Couples living together without marriage should not be honored and thus not be in leadership. In terms of wealth, that is relative. Whatever God has blessed them with, wealthy people should use their resources wisely and in service to the Lord. I know a man who built up a billion-dollar multinational business. I am sure he was paid well. He donates about $200,000 a year to Lutheran institutions. Now retired, weekdays will find him directing school traffic at his church.
I have read that 4% of the population is gay. I believe it has always been there and permanents every culture. I could see this happening through the way we are wired. Much can go wrong. I don’t think it’s a choice. I like the divorce analogy. We accept some sins but not others. The hope for all in Jesus Christ.
Thanks, Tom
I would ask you to go back and look at a different translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 or even source the original language. The translation “homosexual” is incorrect. That word never appears in the Bible and was not coined until the late 1800s. The word “arsenokoitai” seems to reference pedophilia or some situation where an older male would use power and authority to force a younger male into a sexual act, in no way related to a consensual relationship between two loving and committed adults.
Your understanding of the Greek text of 1st Corinthians chapter 6 is simply incorrect. Even several pro gay Bible scholars would disagree with you. Read the book “The Bible and homosexual Practice” by doctor Robert Gagnon. He gives an extensive study of this term and shows how it clearly and unequivocally refers to any type of same-sex behavior even if it is consensual.
In addition, this pro gay scholar would disagree with you. He simply goes on to reject the authority of scripture on this issue.
https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Sexuality-Christianity-Hellenistic-Greco-roman/dp/0802867243/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=new+testament+sexuality&qid=1588726962&sr=8-2
Also, I agree with you that the word “homosexual” is not in The Bible because The Bible was written in Greek and the word “homosexual” is a 20th century English term. The fact is that the Greek text of 1st Corinthians chapter 6 describes same sex behavior and clearly condemns it in all circumstances.
Tom,
Interesting. In any event, the word basically means same-sex relations. I don’t use homosexual anymore.
Dave
Tom,
I did some serious research this morning on the three passages Paul uses to state his position on same-sex relations. Here is what I found:
Paul’s Position on Same-Sex Relations
There are four key Greek words that Paul uses in his three comments about same-sex relations. Three are all used in Romans 1:27: Men committed indecent (aschēmosunēn) acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (antimisthian) for their perversion (planēs). According to Bauer, Gingrich and Danker, aschēmosunēn means disgraceful or indecent, antimisthian means penalty, and planēs means exception. Literally translated into English: men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for this exception. This all fits into Paul’s view that same-sex relations are unnatural.
According to Little Kittel, the penalty is the opposite of reward; it is going down to the depths, being sold, being killed. It means going to hell, the opposite of life eternal. That is the various serious consequence for unnatural relations between men and men, or women and women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: 10 the keyword is arsenokoitais, translated as paederasts.
Thus Paul’s position is that same-sex relations are unnatural and sometimes done by paederasts.
Dave
That helps. Then what Paul addressed is not related to consensual relations. I have always wondered how what happened then is different from today. Paul talked about perverts.
David, as I noted in another post, what Paul said in 1st Cor. 6 is NOT limited to abusive relationships but also condemns CONSENSUAL same-sex behavior. Read the following books on the meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται :
“What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?” by Kevin DeYoung (see especially chapter 5!)
“The Bible and Homosexual Practice” by Dr. Robert Gagnon (his section on “arsenokoites”)
“The New Testament on Sexuality” by William Loader (a pro-gay New Testament scholar who agrees with the above books that “arsenokoites” condemns even consensual same-sex behavior)
Agreed.
I would take issue with your statement that repentance is a precursor to forgiveness. I would argue a more scriptural view is that repentance is a fruit of salvation and flows from someone who has experienced the unconditional love and forgiveness of God.
But even more troubling is the idea that you can minister to someone if they are willing to keep a hugely important part of themselves hidden. Consider this quote from Pastor Timothy Keller:
“To be loved but not known is comforting but superficial. To be known and not loved is our greatest fear. But to be fully known and truly loved is, well, a lot like being loved by God. It is what we need more than anything. It liberates us from pretense, humbles us out of our self-righteousness, and fortifies us for any difficulty life can throw at us.”
Mark, I agree with your point about repentance if by repentance you mean the sanctified life that takes place after one is converted by the gospel. However, the Bible is clear that repentance in the sense of conviction over sin is necessary if one is to receive forgiveness. If somebody is celebrating a sin then they obviously will not desire forgiveness for it.
Agreed.
It is very scriptural to expect repentance before forgiveness. And you can’t forgive someone who will go on sinning again and again. All other sins we can forgive because those sinning will repent, even again and again and again. As Peter told those gathered on Pentecost, Repent and be baptized.
Three questions arise for me:
1. Is there anything wrong with anything?
2. In light of these comments, are we not saying “mandatory heaven for all” (less a few despots, ie Hitler, Pol-Pok, etc).
3. Are we willing to call same sex marriage “Holy”?
Apparently, eating from the Tree of good and evil has left its mark…
They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of good and evil. There is a difference.
1. Of course. It is wrong to disobey Jesus’ /God’s commandments that we love one another, and that we refrain from standing in God’s place as judge.
2. No one so far has said anything about Universalism in this conversation, but I’d be happy to point out the scriptural basis for such a belief.
3. Yes, provided it is undertaken seriously, reverently, and with the intention of honoring the vows taken.
Patricia,
I am not clear on what you are saying. This morning I did some serious research on Paul’s three passages. Here is what I found:
Paul’s Position on Same-Sex Relations
There are four key Greek words that Paul uses in his three comments about same-sex relations. Three are all used in Romans 1:27: Men committed indecent (aschēmosunēn) acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (antimisthian) for their perversion (planēs). According to Bauer, Gingrich and Danker, aschēmosunēn means disgraceful or indecent, antimisthian means penalty, and planēs means exception. Literally translated into English: men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for this exception. This all fits into Paul’s view that same-sex relations are unnatural.
According to Little Kiittel, penalty is the opposite of reward; it is going down to the depths, being sold, being killed. It means going to hell, the opposite of life eternal. That is the various serious consequence for unnatural relations between men and men, or women and women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: 10 the keyword is arsenokoitais, translated as paederasts.
Thus Paul’s position is that same sex relations are unnatural and sometimes done by paederasts
Thanks,
Dave
David, the English word “pederasty” is not an accurate translation of the Greek term in 1st Cor. 6:9 – ἀρσενοκοῖται . Even pro-gay scholars agree that Paul likely coined ἀρσενοκοῖται based on the LXX translation of the Hebrew of Leviticus ch. 18 in order to stress that ALL forms of same-sex behavior are condemned by God and not merely abusive forms, such as pederasty. If Paul intended that only pederasty was sinful (versus consensual same-sex behavior), there was a Greek word available he could have used to make that particular point. But Paul didn’t not use the common Greek term for pederasty. Instead, Paul used ἀρσενοκοῖται which condemns ANY type of same-sex behavior regardless of the context or motivation.
I give you the definition in the Greek English Lexicon: ” a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite”.
David, many Greek lexicons fail to note that “arsenokoites” has the broad meaning of ANY and ALL forms of same-sex behavior. In other words, “arsenokoites” includes pederasty but is NOT equal to or limited to it. If Paul wanted to forbid only pederasty but allow for adult consensual same-sex behavior, then Paul could have used the Greek term “paiderastia” which was specific for pederasty. But he didn’t! Instead, Paul coined a word based on the LXX of Leviticus 18:22 which condemns even adult consensual same-sex behavior.
I’ll stay with Arndt, Gingrich and Danker’s Greek English Lexicon. I had Danker as a professor at Concordia, St. Louis.
Did I leave that out? You are absolutely correct! We, apparently, want to define what is good and evil. Thanks!
I am not about to call same-sex relations “holy.” That’s not Paul’s view. This morning I did some serious research on Paul’s position Here is what I found.
Paul’s Position on Same-Sex Relations
There are four key Greek words that Paul uses in his three comments about same-sex relations. Three are all used in Romans 1:27: Men committed indecent (aschēmosunēn) acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (antimisthian) for their perversion (planēs). According to Bauer, Gingrich and Danker, aschēmosunēn means disgraceful or indecent, antimisthian means penalty, and planēs means exception. Literally translated into English: men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for this exception. This all fits into Paul’s view that same-sex relations are unnatural.
According to Little Kittel, the penalty is the opposite of reward; it is going down to the depths, being sold, being killed. It means going to hell, the opposite of life eternal. That is the various serious consequence for unnatural relations between men and men, or women and women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: 10 the keyword is arsenokoitais, translated as paederasts
Thus Paul’s position is that same-sex relations are unnatural and sometimes done by paederasts.
First a comment; your father and family were EXTREMELY conservative. Your father refused to commune my mother because she was divorced. Which led to our being able to be ministered to by a variety of wonderful congregations in Cleveland: Evangelical and Reformed and Congregational. And eventually REDEEMER LC-MS which later confirmed me and led me to enter the ministry. It looks like you have not kept up with the exegetical studies on the passages you cite, and it is almost laughable in my view your understanding of divorce being somehow a better grounds for church membership than gays. The latter is of course genetic not usually a choice as divorce is.
Hi, Tom.
Where in the world are you these days?
As was the LCMS in those days, he followed his colleagues in taking a hard line. But the world has changed a lot since then. Now that half the marriages end in divorce, we have to minister to divorced people or churches will practically go out of business. What also changed is that almost all people today accept divorce as ordinary. When I marry divorced people, I ask whether they know that marriage is supposed to be life-long. Regarding their former marriage, all repent of what went wrong. All have agreed and desire their new marriage to be lasting.
This situation is different from same-sex relations, where Paul clearly three times lays out his position that it is sinful. And about 90% of people today agree that it is wrong. The crucial issue is whether those in same-sex relations will repent. Today very few will.
Dave
Jesus said not one word about same sex relationships, and apparently healed the romantic and/ or sexual partner of a Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:5:13, Luke 7:1–10), without a word of reproach or condemnation. On the other hand, Jesus was quite clear on divorce. I wonder why Jesus’ silence on the topic doesn’t help you to understand what his opinion was. But, as you said above, churches would go out of business if they stopped ministering to divorced people, but, apparently, LGBTQ people are expendable—it’s fine to pretend you don’t know the reality of their love and commitment to one another. Thanks for clarifying how you arrived at your position. For more on the definition of “pais” see the article here. God bless you and keep you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1743947/amp
Patricia, your “silence of Jesus” argument on the issue of same-sex behavior has been refuted even by PRO-gay scholars as well as your erroneous take on the GOD-FEARING (not PAGAN!) Roman centurion’s “pais.” See this 50 minute video below to clear up your errors on this:
I too struggle with this issue. But I don’t really feel comfortable with you “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. If same sex relationships are all right, then ask and tell.
If same sex relationships are sinful, then ask and tell.
But I don’t see how we can just ignore such relationships with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach.
How do you know if someone is in a same-sex relationship unless they tell you? It is not my job to go around asking all sorts of people whether they are in same-sex relations? I am not inclined to run an Inquisition.
David, I am glad that you agree with Scripture that same-sex behavior is sinful. But I’m confused about your suggestion that we have a “Don’t ask; don’t tell” policy. How is this supposed to work without encouraging sin? I agree that we should not hunt down secret sins. But we should NOT have a policy that says: “If you’re engaging in a sinful behavior but still want to be a full member of this congregation, then don’t tell us about this sinful behavior, keep it secret, and all will be well!” Huh?
If a couple engaging in same-sex behavior without repentance starts attending your congregation but keeps their behavior a secret, that’s their decision and you have no way of knowing. But I assume you will preach and teach on the issue of same-sex behavior and so this couple will have full knowledge of what the LCMS teaches on this issue and so, if they have any integrity at all, they will confess this sin to you and ask for your pastoral guidance OR they will leave the congregation.
I agree on the importance of having knowledge. How many believers have full integrity? We all remain sinners.
I am Wisconsin evangelical Lutheran synod we don’t allow women to vote in our congregations and we have male only deacons and elders thank god I am not lcms you people are too progressive and heading down the same slippery slope as the Elca had gone down already
John Hus: wait, what? Please tell us why women who are members of your church are not permitted to vote? Are they relegated to sitting (maybe standing) on one side of the church as well? What is the thinking on minimizing women in your church? Thank you.
That position is based on a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 14: 34 and 1 Tim 2: 9. Rather clearly Paul was addressing the culture he lived in. Check out 1 Cor 7:10.
WOW. And what is the Scriptural basis for not allowing women to lead? If you are using 1 Cor 14: 34, that’s Paul’s view, not God’s. Check out 1 Cor 7: 10. If you are going to take 1 Tim 10 seriously, why do you not insist that women not have braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes? I think, again, that Paul is addressing his culture at that time.
David, regarding Paul’s comments forbidding women to speak in an authoritative manner as pastors as found in 1st Cor. 14 and 1st Tim. 2, the context makes it clear that these statements are not MERELY Paul’s opinion. Paul is clear that he is giving us the LORD’S command, and until the last century 99.9% of the church catholic since the time of the apostles understood those texts in that manner. Obviously, this does not mean that women cannot teach at all. It means they cannot preach/teach authoritatively as one who represents Christ in the pastoral office. In the same way, within marriage the husband as “head” represents Christ to his wife – and these roles are NOT interchangeable!
David, you don’t realize this now, but in my book I show that the same biblical arguments used to justify women’s ordination into the pastoral office are also used to justify same-sex behavior.
Well, they are Paul’s culturally relevant principles ( I say, not the Lord). In what he says, he is not delivering what God says.
David, what you say here is extremely problematic and doesn’t fit with Scripture!
In 1st Corinthians 7 when Paul says “The Lord, not I” versus “I, not the Lord” he is NOT thereby saying that we can ignore what he says as his mere opinion! Others could use your same argument to ignore what Paul says about same-sex behavior or other things!
Instead, Paul’s point is that he is distinguishing between things that Jesus actually said versus things Jesus DIDN’T say because it wasn’t relevant to his Jewish audience. But when Paul and the other apostles address other issues they speak with JESUS’ authority and so Paul’s point is that we are to view his words as being as the same level as JESUS’ words – as Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:36-37, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”
Regarding another post about 1 Tim 3:15, the Greek reads: σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. The first part of this sentence should be translated: “She will be saved through the birth of the child…” This is an allusion to Genesis 3:15! Paul’s point in 1 Tim. 2:13 is that women should not be pastors because according to Genesis ch. 2 (BEFORE the Fall!) Adam was created as πρῶτος , that is, the “head” of Eve (see Eph. 5:22ff). Then, in 1 Tim. 2:14 Paul points out that Eve sinned to assuming the role of πρῶτος and thereby being deceived by the devil. (Adam sinned in allowing Eve to do this!) But then Paul gives the good news in 1 Tim. 2:15 where he points out that God used THE WOMAN to bring the child into the world who would save all women (and men also, of course) – as long as they repent versus affirming their sin. So, obviously Paul is not saving that woman are saved by giving birth to children. Paul is teaching that women should find joy in knowing that God worked through woman to bring the Savior into the world. Paul is also teaching that women need to repent of rebellion against God’s order of MEN function as πρῶτος in the pastoral office.
It’s problematic if you don’t accept a literal translation of the Greek.
David, read this commentary (https://www.cph.org/p-690-1-corinthians-concordia-commentary.aspx) on 1st Corinthians chapters 7, 11 and 14 and you will see how wrong you are about this. When Paul wrote about “headship” and women NOT serving the in the pastoral office, the context is clear that Paul meant this as a universal command for the Church of all times and places.
Also, please read the following articles on this issue:
http://www.johnkleinig.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Womens-Ordination-A-Local-Measure.pdf
http://www.johnkleinig.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2014-Is-the-Tradition-of-Ordaining-Men-Only-Based-on-Temporary-Prohibition.pdf
http://www.johnkleinig.com/files/7113/2695/2721/Ordered_Community.pdf
http://www.johnkleinig.com/files/9913/3299/3588/Disciples_but_not_teachers.pdf
http://www.johnkleinig.com/files/8313/2695/2211/Scripture_and_the_exclusion_of_women_from_the_pastorate.pdf
Well said. All the right questions are agreed, and it leaves off with room for Grace to persist without outright enabling sinners in their sin. So long as the same sex couple doesn’t ask to be married within/by the church, or expect the church to become accepting of what is clearly as much of a soon as say adultery or fortification, then why not minister to the sinner? Who knows, if they didn’t land in the ELCA or other liberal mainline churches, they’re probably there by way of sincerity. I personally know a same sex couple (not married) who are celibate and merely partners in life. Although rare and usually not the case, people like these do exist and deserve ministering to as much as any of us other sinners. However like the author states, this type of thing hardly ever works out. But hey, it’s good to be open to it. After all, Christ made exceptions to the Samaritan and others such cases without sweeping with a broad brush entirely. It’s about what’s in the heart.
The problem occurs when crusaders force the issue. At our church we dread when and if that happens.
Yes, we are commanded to love one another. Yes we are commanded to share the good news with the world. It is out of God’s love for us that His word makes clear our path, the narrow path that leads to Him. Not the highway. Paul makes it very clear how we are to address sin within the body of Christ. After following the Biblical proceedings of privately going to the person with the accusation, if that does not work then bring 2 witnesses and if that still does not work bring it to the attention of the church. All in an effort to make it clear that based on the Word of God, not man, that they are sinning. A sin that left unattended provides the platform for acceptance of such sin and the person that continues to do so. This weakens the word of God, the overall body of Christ and ultimately the salvation of souls. This modernization of God’s word has weakened its impact tremendously. The love of God expressed in His sacred vow of marriage and sex to be a special part of this Holy institution has been made a total sham even among Christians. Virtually no one waits to have intimacy before marriage maybe to the point of abortion(s) or children before it takes place. So the couple enters in with both eyes shut. God’s word is but window dressing at this point and Satan is already hard at work pulling it apart with greed, lust and many more forces. God’s word isn’t deeply studied to learn just how deeply He cares for our well-being. Everything that is covered, all the situations, all the ramifications and all of the joys are laid out to teach us how we are to lead our lives. If we pick and choose what we want then we no longer travel the narrow path. Not that we ever can be perfect, not hardly, but we must constantly be trying to get it right. There are many thoughts that are created in our minds and if not for the moral conscious that comes to us through His word, and yes the fear that also comes from what the Almighty God can do to our souls, we force back those thoughts so we do not acted them out. In a society that thrives on individuals who throw care into the wind there is lots of money to be made, the trade off is lots of pain & suffering, empty souls, economic drain and eternal condemnation. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. …
Through being cut off from fellowship and worship he may come to His senses before it is too late. There is forgiveness in the Lord, but sincerity must be in our hearts.
I agree with what you say about the current sham.
I tend to think of same sex relations the same way I do to hetrosexual relations out side of marriage. I don’t think anywhere it is written that it is a sin onto it’s self, it is adultery as is a couple living together out side of the bounds of a marriage between one women and one man. We never question ministering to those, but we do to gays
Hi Ken,
Here is what Paul says about same-sex relations he viewed as different from ordinary adultery. Adulterers usually repent. Those in same-sex relations almost always do not repent.
Paul’s Position on Same-Sex Relations
There are four key Greek words that Paul uses in his three comments about same-sex relations. Three are all used in Romans 1:27: Men committed indecent (aschēmosunēn) acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (antimisthian) for their perversion (planēs). According to Bauer, Gingrich and Danker, aschēmosunēn means disgraceful or indecent, antimisthian means penalty, and planēs means exception. Literally translated into English: men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for this exception. This all fits into Paul’s view that same-sex relations are unnatural.
According to Little Kittel, the penalty is the opposite of reward; it is going down to the depths, being sold, being killed. It means going to hell, the opposite of life eternal. That is the various serious consequence for unnatural relations between men and men, or women and women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: 10 the keyword is arsenokoitais, translated as paederasts.
Thus Paul’s position is that same-sex relations are unnatural and sometimes done by paederasts.
Dave
Thank you David for speaking out on this. Of course there is much to say humanly, but more important, plenty that Scripture has said to give mankind, Christians and the Church good guidance, strength and comfort in dealing with the issues of sin that has plagued mankind after Adam and Eve’s disobedience of eating from the forbidden tree. For to eat, and then give to another to eat makes sin doubly evil. What does it say about those who teach and those who have been taught? The accountability goes much higher. For when we disregard the whole of Scripture and God’s purposeful intent for us to 1) repent and believe the Good News, 2) sin no more willfully (as Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultry) we deserve only condemnation and eternal punishment. We know that for those who repent, believe the Good News and are saved for eternity also continue to sin. Paul speaks about that struggle in Romans 7. I am sure most of those who responded know that as well. And Paul asked, in the remorseful throws of understanding how wicked sin and its effects are (even as we do good sin is right beside us), “What a wretched man I am, who will rescue me from this body of death?” The only place relief can come from this guilt and shame is “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Good News! The Bible is clear God hates sin and divorce, homosexuality (an abomination), lesbianism, greed, prostitution, murder, thievery, fornication, etc… continues to separate people from God, and hurts, harms and misleads others in the various ways it will affect their life. So, damaged in our relationship to God, and not just damage in our relationship to one another (brokenness), but actually damaging (breaking) the body, mind or soul the people whom we are called to love as our neighbor. How this all has played itself out in the Church in the past or now matters not – we can, should and do grieve over our ill-response to those affected by their and/or another’s sin. And because of our ill response, ask God and the appropriate people harmed for forgiveness. The correct understanding of Scripture’s words are very clear in the Bible’s we have today. We understand quite correctly that even with all the different translations/paraphrases there is not one Christian doctrine that is omitted or undone. And over 3,500 years, that is quite a feat, but then the Holy Spirit used holy people to begin with to put it all together. We can clearly see in both OT and NT the clear intent of God’s love for those created in His image, male and female, and that sin was not a boundary He was going to allow to get between. As Paul said, “God no longer hold our sin against us” (2 Cor 5) (universal) yet most people do not benefit from the forgiveness and true peace God offers through Christ alone because of their refusal to repent (not all are universally saved) and believe. A divorce` who doesn’t repent of their sin and believe will not be saved any more than a homosexual or lesbian who doesn’t repent of their sin and believe will not be saved. Those who continually live in sin in a willful manner, homo or hetero or any other sin, is to, 1) show that their conscience has been seriously seared; and 2) that it is an affront to the once and for all time sacrifice Jesus made for all people as the writer says in Hebrews 6: 4-8. To give people willfully living in their sin a false sense of security (the way of the world, flesh and devil) when God desires them to be free from guilt and shame through faith in Jesus’ work is to share in the devils’ work. This is not judging but a judgment God has already declared clearly in His Word towards false teachers/preachers and whoever else wants to throw their hat in the ring. It is only by God’s mercy in Jesus that He hasn’t already come, yet we pray even now, “Come, Lord Jesus come.” And quickly, too!
Ralph,
I agree with all your observations. I did some serious research this morning on the three passages Paul uses to state his position on same-sex relations. Here is what I found:
Paul’s Position on Same-Sex Relations
There are four key Greek words that Paul uses in his three comments about same-sex relations. Three are all used in Romans 1:27: Men committed indecent (aschēmosunēn) acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty (antimisthian) for their perversion (planēs). According to Bauer, Gingrich and Danker, aschēmosunēn means disgraceful or indecent, antimisthian means penalty, and planēs means exception. Literally translated into English: men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for this exception. This all fits into Paul’s view that same-sex relations are unnatural.
According to Little Kiittel, penalty is the opposite of reward; it is going down to the depths, being sold, being killed. It means going to hell, the opposite of life eternal. That is the various serious consequence for unnatural relations between men and men, or women and women.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1: 10 the key word is arsenokoitais, translated as paederasts.
Thus Paul’s position is that same sex relations are unnatural and sometimes done by paederasts.
Dave
I was educated here in Cle by Rev. Edgar Luecke (yes David’s father) in a prominently German community, back in those exciting ’50’s & ’60 it was something you never talked about, Gay/ Lesbian was something that was considered sick, a sin. Do you remember in the other Dynasty in Rome, it was quite normal to have a wife to create a heir & have a little boy for sexual pleasure?
We went thru the sexual revolution of the ’60’s and the slippery slope. Every time we say “that’s ok” there’s nothing wrong with what there doing were rubber stamping that behavior. I’ve been blessed with one wife for life for 50+ years, isn’t that the theme written in The New Testament? Christian values, but then sin wasn’t so bad as this behavior became considered normal, then living together became the thing, chip chipping away. Weren’t we taught this was terribly wrong? Even in mainstream churches these things are considered normal. Sin is sin and if I’m not mistaken the 10 Commandments were not watered down by God. Folks it starts with us.
Hate the sin…Luv the sinner!
Thanks for your comments, Bob. Yes, the world you grew up in is the same one I grew up in.
I’m in the South where we don’t have a lot of Lutherans…so I do enjoy the interplay between various Lutheran groups – I particularly like the WELS member decrying how progressive the LCMS is! I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective!😊 I do think your figures are way off – wouldn’t think close to 90% of American Christians are against same sex marriage these days. To use your argument re: divorce…almost everyone these days knows and loves someone who is gay. And more and more American Christians, it seems to me, believe that sexual preference is not a choice for either gay or straight folks…and they believe that everyone has the right to be in a loving, affirming, caring relationship with the person they love.
John,
So maybe it is 75%. By far the majority do not accept same-sex relations.
Dave
You are guessing. Why not, instead, find a poll—or several polls—by reputable, non-religiously aligned organizations? Don’t make things up.
I think that God understands our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and wants to heal us and make us whole. But he loves us unconditionally, even when we fail him in some way.
Margaret,
Agreed. But Jesus and the disciples expected repentance. Confer John 8:11 and Acts 2:38.
Dave
Yes, true, and let us examine the nature of repentance more closely. How and when it takes place. Augustine seems to say that we can’t/don’t really know anyone’s fate and repentance is always a possibility. So the church needs pastors like you to continue to teach God’s laws (and grace).
Thanks.
The fact that Jesus says nothing about same-sex relationships is huge for me. I worship Jesus, not Paul, and I certainly do not worship the Bible. I believe that we are created as sexual beings not primarily for reproduction, but to bind two people together. I believe that the sexual dimension/arena is a place where we can learn to be and to exercise faithfulness one to another. This dimension on a human horizontal plane is a perfect parallel to the vertical dimension we are called to have with God. God is a jealous God and desires that we have no other or lesser gods between us and the true God. Just so, in the sexual dimension, we are called to have no other persons between us and our beloved. The real issue is fidelity vs. promiscuity. Fidelity equals spiritual faithfulness. Promiscuity equals idolatry. If we can practice/learn sexual fidelity, then we can likewise practice/learn spiritual fidelity to God. And if this is true, then sexual orientation is immaterial. Gay people do not choose to be gay, they simply are who they were created to be by a good and loving God. If Christianity (of any denomination) continues to exclude and discriminate against same-sex persons, it will continue its slide into irrelevance within a culture yearning to see the real Jesus.
This morning I offer Four J’s as an alternative to Pastor Luecke’s Four C’s. Spoiler alert: they are all Jesus.
Look to Jesus, who says: “Just as I have loved you, so you also should love one another.”
Look to Jesus, who says, “Do not judge, unless you would be judged.”
Look to Jesus, who heals the Roman centurion’s “dear one” with no comment and no judgement.
Look to Jesus, who says not one word on same-sex commitments, relationships, or love.
Peace be with you.
Patricia,
The same Jesus who loves us also rebukes us and calls us to repentance lest we be in danger of eternal damnation.
When Jesus said “Do not judge” the context in the sermon on the mount refers to UNGODLY judging whereby men use human reason rather than God’s Law to determine good from evil and then fail to point people to Christ for forgiveness and new life. In contrast, Jesus DOES command us to judge righteously (Matthew 18:15-20 & Luke 17:1-3) that is, we are to use God’s Word to expose sin, call people to repent, and then point them to Christ for forgiveness. In Luke 24 Jesus teaches us to preach REPENTANCE and the forgiveness of sins.
The “dear one” of the centurion servant was NOT in a same-sex relationship with his master because: 1. Nothing is said about them having a same-sex relationship. 2. When pagan Roman masters DID have same-sex relations with their slaves, it was an ABUSIVE form – so are you suggesting Jesus affirmed an abusive relationship? 3. The Jews honored this centurion because he built their synagogue, that is, this centurion was a “God-fearer,” that is, a Gentile who worshipped the God of Israel and submitted to Israel’s moral laws – which included the prohibition against any and all forms of same-sex behavior.
Finally, all the evidence shows that Jesus would have CONDEMNED any and all forms of same-sex behavior for these reasons: 1. Jesus never mentioned incest, rape, bestiality or mocking people with disabilities – but His silence on these things doesn’t mean He affirmed these sins but that He didn’t need to mention them because His Jewish audience agreed with the OT that these things were sinful and so Jesus didn’t need to mention it, and it’s the same with same-sex behavior. 2. If Jesus HAD affirmed same-sex behavior you would have expected the Jews to rebuke Him for this because the Jews unanimously condemned same-sex behavior. But they say nothing because Jesus agreed with them on this. 3. In Matthew ch. 19 Jesus clearly teaches that the only godly place for sex is between 1 man and 1 woman within marriage and that the only other option to this is CELIBACY – and so Jesus thereby rules out any form of same-sex behavior. 4. Jesus condemns “porneia” – a Greek word used by the Jews to refer to all the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus chapter 18, including all forms of consensual same-sex behavior. So, the fact that Jesus condemns “porneia” shows that He condemns any and all forms of same-sex behavior. 5. Jesus entrusted His teaching to His apostles and Paul, when witnessing to the pagan Gentile culture who DID affirm same-sex behavior in some cases, clearly condemns any and all forms of same-sex behavior, thereby showing that Jesus did also.
Patricia, the most highly respected pro-gay scholars agree that Scripture clearly condemns any and all forms of same-sex behavior. They just reject Scripture and Jesus and trust in their own sinful opinions instead. Read the following below from pro-gay bible scholars:
William Loader writes: “It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand, as does Philo after reporting Aristophanes’ bizarre aetiology [i.e., the study of causation] of human sexuality.”
Regarding Paul’s condemnation of male and female same-sex behavior in Romans ch. 1, Martti Nissinen writes: “The distinction between sexual orientations is clearly an anachronism that does not help to understand Paul’s line of argumentation. Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships; but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:26-27 … It is essential to notice that Paul speaks of homoeroticism precisely as a practice … for him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable … nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior. Clearly, Paul, to whom marriage was the only acceptable venue for sexual life, could not have approved of any same-sex interaction that even resembled sex between a man and a woman.”
Also, regarding Paul’s teaching in Romans ch. 1, Lesbian New Testamant scholar, Bernadette Brooten, writes: “Paul could have believed that tribades, kinaidoi, and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful, this all the more so since he is speaking of groups of people rather than of individuals … I believe that Paul used the word ‘exchanged’ to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind … Paul is condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.”
In addition, Louis Crompton writes the following: ““Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [Romans 1:18ff] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality … But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.”
So, not only is the notion that only we moderns are aware of what my be called a same-sex “orientation” wrong, because the ancients new of people who had what we would call same-sex attraction. But even we moderns have not found the “gay gene,” so to speak. Based on recent research the pro-gay APA had to change their position on the cause of same-sex attraction as follows: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”
But what does all this matter? Scripture is clear that we all have a multitude of sinful desires that we didn’t choose to have, and yet in the freedom of the Gospel Scripture calls us to crucify the desires of our sinful nature rather than affirm them and act on them.
You certainly have laid out the issue well.
Patricia, by the way, your reference to Jesus’ words “love one another” is interesting, because Jesus is there quoting Leviticus 19:18:b, which reads: “…love your neighbor as yourself.” But what is the CONTEXT? Leviticus 19:17b reads: “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.” On other words, when Jesus teaches us to “love one another” He does NOT mean that we affirm each other’s sinful desires. Instead, Jesus teaches that if you truly love your neighbor you will rebuke his/her sinful behavior – and that would include same-sex behavior even within an adult, consensual, monogamous relationship.
Well said.
Thank you!
Robert, regarding Jesus’ “silence” on same-sex behavior, see my response to Patricia.
Also, if you’re serious about learning what Jesus’ actually DID teach about same-sex behavior, see this 50 minute youtube video:
Robert, your notion that as long as two people are committed and consent to sex that makes it OK is completely in conflict with Scripture. According to your erroneous thinking, we could also affirm incestuous behavior between a father/daughter or mother/son (or father/son or mother/daughter, to include the homosexual element) as long as they were adults who were consensual and committed. Scripture is clear that ALL forms of same-sex behavior are condemned by God regardless of whether two people are consensual and committed. Scripture is clear that marriage is always and only for 1 man and 1 woman (which is why even the polygamy in the OT was ultimately condemned by Jesus).
In fact, Robert, why do you insist that marriage be limited to TWO people? What’s the point of the number TWO? The whole reason marriage is meant for TWO is that there are TWO sexes – male and female. If you deny the male/female paradigm for marriage than there is no reason to limit marriage to TWO people and the number TWO becomes completely arbitrary. So, you are are going to affirm same-sex marriage between TWO men or TWO woman, then you also need to affirm polygamy and polyamory as well as incestuous marriage if you are going to be consistent.
I think multiple marriages have been taboo. But that, too, will change. The only remaining taboo is sex with a minor.
Robert, you say: “I worship Jesus, not Paul, and I certainly do not worship the Bible.” Obviously we don’t worship Paul or the Bible. However, if you worship Jesus then you will submit to the Bible – which includes the writings of Paul! – because Scripture is the revelation of Jesus! Not only did Jesus consider the Old Testament to be authoritative Scripture, but He also entrusted His teaching to His chosen apostles, which includes Paul. Therefore, if you worship Jesus you will submit to Paul’s teaching because Paul’s teaching is JESUS’ teaching. But you reject Paul’s teaching or the teaching of the Old Testament, then you REJECT Jesus!
Well said.
I was with you all the way to the last two sentences. Paul’s universal principles have equal weight with what Jesus says.
First, I was a student in one of your classes at Fuller Seminary in the 80s.
Second, I did not read every comment, so I apologize if I am repeating someone else’s thoughts.
I am baffled. You accept divorce because if is prevalent in our world today. You justify women leading and teaching and ministering by stating that Paul’s comments are clearly speaking to the cultural norms of his day. Yet the passages regarding same sex relations are strictly interpreted as “God’s Word” therefore the final answer, clearly not treated with the same heart for those in broken relationships or a change in our understanding that people don’t “choose” to be gay. Whether you are for or against allowing divorce among church members, women in leadership, or LGBT.. marriage; I find your reasoning and scholarship to be inconsistent at best and convoluted and weak. Lutheran scholarship reads the Word of God differently, we read it as historical, poetry, law, gospel, cultural, abiding and living. We often are willing to live in the tension of not having all the answers, the “in-between” holding a both/and position. Least you doubt it, I take the Bible very seriously, it is God’s word. A living breathing word, best viewed through the cross of Christ. In my opinion, your position doesn’t fit through the cross to say that people in same sex marriages don’t fit into God’s plan of grace. You taught me better than that. To say they need to change their nature, who God created them to be – is to ask them to earn their salvation. Something God asks of no one, because it is not possible.
Post-script: I am a Lutheran woman in ministry, I’ve been ordained for more than 25 years. I’ve been married to the same man for 45 years. Clearly, these some of these issues affect me and some don’t other than I am called to share God’s steadfast love with all people.
Terry, of course people don’t choose to be “gay” anymore than any of us choose to have any of the sinful desires have because we are conceived in sin. Just because we have sinful desires doesn’t mean we’re supposed to affirm them much less act on them. Jesus calls us to crucify the desires of our sinful nature and live according to His loving plan for our sexuality – and that is either sex between 1 man and 1 woman within marriage or celibacy. Same-sex behavior is NEVER an option!
About 3% are genetic. The rest, I think, are choosing to associate with a popular movement.
In my Lutheranism, we take all the Bible as inspired. See my comments above about Paul distinguishing between what he says (not the Lord) that was relevant to his culture at that time. Those kinds of statements should not be taken as universal truth. Did you have my course on Church Management? Next month my wife and I will celebrate our 54th anniversary.
David–I have appreciated your thoughtful articles that focus on engagement in God’s Mission–Missio Dei. However, I grieve that your LCMS grounding comes out strongly in this article regarding committed same-sex relationships. I understand your need for the authority of Scripture, but have you not also come to appreciate that it is the Living Word, Jesus Christ, who interprets all Scripture for us? Do you also believe as Paul says, that women are saved through childbearing? Do you have any close relationships with any committed same-sex people? I am convinced they have a welcome in God’s reign. Sexual orientation for these people is not a choice. For freedom Christ has also unburdened those in committed same-sex relationships.
Neil,
In 1 Corinthians 7: 10-12 Paul clearly distinguishes between What the Lord says (not I) and What I say (not the Lord). In 1 Timothy 2: 8-12 about women in ministry he clearly states “I want.” “I also want. . ” “I do not permit a woman. .” Clearly that is Paul speaking to the culture he faced. 1 Cor 14: 34 can and should be read from that perspective. Here God is not speaking for all times.
The statement about child bearing is a few verses later in 1 Tim 2:15 is in the context of Paul speaking (not the Lord). Clearly Paul’s culture was chauvinistic. In our present culture we are trying to work our way past that.
Dave
It is sadly amusing to read all of these EXCUSES for sin. The woman who has usurped the pastoral office has no legitimate standing, so I ignore her. Don’t bother answering me, ma’am, I’ve already told you, you have no legitimate standing with me.
As to the rest of you – Jesus didn’t address racism either, so I guess your white supremacy is ok. Jesus didn’t address slavery, so that’s ok. Jesus didn’t address crack dealing, so that’s ok too.
THE DEVIL IS A LIE – and EACH of you is hell-bound if you don’t repent.
Now, we know that in the last days, there will be those who justify lies, hence it is unsurprising that there are those who boldly post doctrines of demons. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Law of God is eternal, what God condemned under the Old Covenant He condemned in the New Covenant. Christ died for all sinners, but He doesn’t allow unrepentant sinners to defile His Bride. If you are unrepentant, you are excluded and the wrath of God remains upon you. If you repent, you will be accepted in the Beloved. THAT’S the Whole Counsel of God. Repent and be saved, or rebel and perish.
Don’t be so hard on women in ministry. I think Paul’s statement on women addressed the culture of his times (I say, not the Lord).
Mary, I did not remove your post. I only do that if a post is SPAM or not appropriate. I looked everywhere for your post and then realized you posted it on my LinkedIn. I am going to re-post on here and I will reply shortly. Thanks for inquiring. I welcome discussion whether someone agrees with me or not.
Thanks,
Dave
1) Hi Pastor David, you’re very brave to ask such a controversial question? I come from a very large family who’s had same sex relationships in my immediate and siblings family when they were young. They no longer are in those relationships;& are happily married to men & never talk about their past unless theyre asked. Like yourself ministering in churches, my husband & I for a very long time; & as a church or as a large family We do not condone this; but discourage it according to Adonai Word. Adonai & Jesus state “Its the truth that sets you free”not people tolerating behaviour that Adonai has stated is an abomination. I have read all the comments & would just like to encourage you; Myself & You will give an account judgement day for our ministrys; everyone who has spoken to your question shall also as it is public & Adonai SEES.
I think you are following the three CCCs: Don’t Condemn, Don’t Condone. Do Care. Good.
2) Its quite simple 5 books of law written by Moses is straight from Adonai Elohim Yaweh Yud Heh Vav Heh; God’s true name & the 613 commandments apply to the whole human race, not just to the church or followers of the Messiah. In the last book of the bible Revelation Adonai Elohim Yaweh gave the message to the Messiah & that message came down to John. To the seven churches; all churches would pay to read,as it is for the church to take heed of today! The church & its leadership right around the world during this COVID 19 is being tested like every other individual in the world. Leaders Rulers Ethnicities etc “as to what is Important to Gods Will”. In Revelation Adonai WORD for now! Theres a clear message Adonai and the Messiah are coming soon for the Bride(faithful children of Adonai) before “Judgement Day”,& who! will be left behind is the question to ask.
I don’t take the Old Testament as equivalent to the NT. After all, we are in the New Deal, because the Old Deal did not work..
3) By the way the Messiah Jesus never went against His Father Yaweh Word but was in complete obedience to His Word & anything or anyone who says otherwise has got the whole context wrong according to the perspective of Adonai Elohim Yaweh on this subject So, Win the Lost, TIME is running out. Tell the truth according to ADONAI Holy Word & you cant go wrong. Adonai bless you abundantly.
Yes, but Jesus in obedience to his Father is basic to the New Deal
There are those who believe that the Bible clearly teaches that sexual activity between same-sex partners is sinful. Apparently, there are also those who believe that the Bible does not teach this. The first group of scholars can be further divided by those who believe in and respect the Bible (however imperfectly) and those who simply reject the authority of Scripture. It seems obvious to me that those who believe that the Bible does not condemn same-sex sexual activity are simply unable or unwilling to let go of their bias for the sake of reading comprehension. Perhaps it is because they really do believe the Bible, but they don’t want to admit they are wrong. So, they ignore the plain teaching of Scripture and/or suppress it. But it is hard to kick against the goads. Agree or disagree, the Bible says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. So, is this really about reading comprehension? Or, is it about temper tantrums?
I have more respect for the pro-gay scholars who admit that the Bible clearly classifies same-sex sexual activity as sin than I do for those so-called scholars who say that the Bible does not teach this. Apparently, you either have a problem with reading comprehension (in which case, you are no scholar), or you have having a temper tantrum (in which case, you shouldn’t be in the ministry).
This sounds harsh. I do not mean to be harsh. I am trying to be logical, and I’m trying to make a very simple point. Of course, there is grace and mercy for all sinners. And I confess that I have often in my life tried to defend myself when I had no defense. Thankfully, God is gracious. When we are too proud to admit it when we are wrong, we have a real problem. But, be encouraged! Where sin abounds, grace that much more abounds! He patiently shepherds with us, even when we are proud, obnoxious, immature, defensive, and throwing temper tantrums. But, we should repent and learn to confess when we are wrong.
So, let us reason together. You can reject Scripture if you don’t believe it (I’m not saying you should reject Scripture). Or you can humbly submit to what the Bible teaches. But let us give up this nonsense of twisting the Scriptures to make it say what we want it to say, just for the sake of accommodating the current zeitgeist.
Good analysis in the first paragraph. Agree with the second. The third is well said. Humbly submit to Paul’s teaching, but do it with as much love as possible for those involved.
Do the Scriptures, thinking primarily of Paul, speak against same sex relationships. Yes, of course. As I recall, Paul also spoke against women cutting their hair, wearing jewelry and having teaching/leadership positions over men. Ah-hem.
Please remember the churches in this country split over slavery. Ahhhh, so then should churches have NOT have taken a position on slavery because the position split the church?
Paul speaks of natural desires. Hmmmm, natural desires. Well, I think we tend to understand “natural” to be heterosexual. But the experience of many gays and lesbians is that their natural desire is same sex. Ooops. What if that is their natural desire? What does that mean?
If repentance is mandatory before I or you make it to the pearly gates. We ain’t a goin’ to make it! Sorry, there is no way I can repent for everything I have done. I don’t think you can either. Grace means God loves us, receives us, knows our hearts. Anyway. Period. Now, ain’t that Gospel!!
Susan, you make several points that need correction.
1. I’m glad you acknowledge that Paul condemns all forms of same-sex behavior. But as for “cutting hair” (1st Corinthians 11:1ff) the issue was not cutting hair per se but adopting the hairstyle of the local female prostitutes as a sign that they were rebelling against their husbands! Paul was condemning this behavior, and not short hair on women per se. So, when in 1st Cor. 11 Paul speaks of women having long hair by “nature” he is referring to the custom of Corinth where women would express their sexual purity and godly feminine nature by having long hair. Even though women can have short hair in our culture without it being a sign of sexual immorality and rebellion against their husbands, the principal of sexual purity and being respectful to your husband still apply. As for wearing Jewelry, Paul never condemns this per se but instead stresses that true beauty is not found on the outside but from a godly character – and this truth still applies today. As for Paul’s prohibition of women serving in the pastoral office, this is based on an unchanging Scriptural teaching and so still applies today.
As for slavery, the bible clearly condemns the kind of race-based slavery we had in the American South and those who twisted the Scriptures to say otherwise were in the wrong and needed to be rebuked.
When Paul speaks for “natural desires” in Romans 1:18ff, he does NOT mean any person’s particular “sexual orientation” but the fact that God created men to have sex with women and women to have sex with men – this is “natural.” In fact, even more, Scripture teaches that heterosexual behavior outside of marriage is also “unnatural” because God reserves sex between one man and one woman in marriage – which rules out same-sex behavior in ALL circumstances.
Finally, you misunderstand repentance. Repentance does not mean that we can now live sinless lives. But repentance DOES mean that we agree with God when His Word condemns our sin. If we affirm the sin God condemns and take pride in it (see Romans 1:32) the we reject His Word (see 1st John 1:8 & 10) and push away His mercy. So, even though repentant Christians continue to struggle with sinful desires and may fall into sinful behavior during moments of weakness, we also agree with God that our sin is evil, we trust in Jesus for forgiveness, and we strive, with God’s help, to turn from sin and live according to God’s will. But if someone is AFFIRMING and CELEBRATING a sin God condemns, such a person has no repentance nor does he or she have faith.
a. Note 1 Cor 7. Paul distisnguishes between “I say, not God” and “God says, not I” This refers specficially to women’s hair. This was his view, not God’s. What Paul says about women in ministry is clearlyl “I say, not God”
b. Up to half the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. Paul did not challenge that fact of life in that culture. I suspect he would understand Sousthern slavery.
c. Agree on the third and fourth paragraphs.
Dave, first, 1 Cor. 7 does NOT deal with “women’s hair.” That’s 1 Cor. 11! Second, I’ve explained this to you before, when Paul says “I, not the Lord” he does NOT mean that this is his mere opinion and we can take it or leave it. What he means is that Jesus didn’t speak to the issue directly, but that Paul, who speaks for Jesus, is now revealing God’s will on the matter. So you are in error about this. Third, in 1 Cor. ch. 14 where Paul prohibits women serving the pastoral office, he clearly teaches this is based on SCRIPTURE and then he adds that this is the LORD’S command. Dave, please reconsider your errors on this issue.
I didn’t say Ch 7 deals with hair. That is discussion is about marriage. But his principle is clear: Some things are my personal position, others things are God’s principles. In 1 Tim 2 he says repeatedly “”I want men, I also want women; I do not permit.” Clearly he was speaking, not God. He was addressing the cultural standards of his time. Conduct yourself befitting cultural standards. Keep the focus on the message; don’t let hearers be distracted by not respecting cultural standards.
I would like to see your defense for why Paul is speaking on Jesus’ authority. How would you support that? The authority he had was hard-earned, as declared in 2 Cor 10.
David, not only does Paul insist that his teaching on the prohibition of women in the pastoral office is “The Lord’s Command,” but your interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7 and 1 Tim. 2 go against the teaching of the church catholic on those texts – with the exception of liberal scholars in the past century. Read the Concordia Commentary on 1 Corinthians (with focus on ch. 7) and you’ll see what I mean. (See here: https://www.cph.org/p-690-1-corinthians-concordia-commentary.aspx ) .
Also, in 1st Tim. 2, even though Paul is speaking to people in a particular place and time (as he does in ALL his letters!), the context is clear that his teaching on the prohibition of women serving in the pastoral office is for ALL Christians of ALL times – and Paul’s appeal to Genesis chapters 2 & 3 makes this clear. According to your faulty way of interpreting Paul, we would have to treat most everything he says as his “mere opinion” – including what he says about requirements for the pastoral office in 1 Tim. ch 3! You fail to realize how faulty view of Paul’s words (I, not the Lord) in 1 Cor. 7 plays into the hands of those who want to ignore what Paul says about same-sex behavior.
Dave, please read the essays in this book to see what I mean: https://www.cph.org/p-19258-women-pastors-third-edition.aspx
In addition, read the appendix on “the affirmation of same-sex behavior and women’s ordination” in my book here: https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Their-Burden-Tom-Eckstein/dp/055779319X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Bearing+Their+Burden&qid=1593028474&sr=8-1
Dave, one other thing you need to understand. The reason Paul says “I, not the Lord” in 1 Cor. 7:12 is that in 1 Cor. 7:10 Paul quotes a direct teaching of Jesus that we can find in the Gospels. However, regarding Christians married to non-Christians, Jesus had no specific teaching on this issue and so Paul, as the Lord’s Apostle, them what GOD’S WILL IS on this issue! This is why Paul’s teaching on same-sex behavior is GOD’S WILL even though Paul gives on quotation from Jesus about the issue (because Jesus never explicitly addressed the issue of same-sex behavior). Paul’s teaching is JESUS’ teaching. In fact, that exactly the point Paul is making in 1 Cor. 14! There was was no explicit teaching from Jesus on women serving in the pastor office, but when Paul clearly prohibits the practice he then stresses: “This is the LORD’S command!” Dave, your take on Paul’s words “I, not the Lord” is way off base and leads to many other problems that you do not even recognize!
It is only when repentant that we will make it to heaven, forgiven by God’s grace. In 1 Cor 7, speaking about hair, Paul clearly distinguishes between what “I say and not God.” Sometimes he says, “God says, not I.” Hair, jewelry, and no lordship of men are clearly “I say, not God.” Paul’s declares (“God says, not I”) that same sex relations are unnatural.
Also, Paul, in NO PLACE where Paul writes about same-sex behavior does he say “God says, not I.” Again, you take on Paul’s words “I, not the Lord” in 1 Cor. ch 7 is completely ignoring the context!
i had a conversation with a Lutheran pastor who oversaw his congregation’s private school. From his comments, he certainly indicated that their enrolment policies accepted all children within reasonable expectation. He said they even had a kindergarten student who has two lesbian parents, and that they were willing to enrol their child in a conservative private school because they could see the quality of education offered. That is all well and good. But here was where the conversation became more pointed. Yes, the child is supported in the school regardless of family structure. Yes, it is great that the school is able to witness of Jesus’ love for the child. Yes, the mandate of the school and the church is being fulfilled. BUT, what happens when the lesbian parents come to that same pastor and ask for the child to be baptized in a Sunday morning worship service? What are the rules then? My point is that we live in a very complicated world, and we better be smart enough, wise enough, to know how to handle situations as they arise. I don’t know what the solutions are, but I like that we have the courage to talk about them on here.
All children are welcome in our school. We have had children of what might be same-sex parents. Our literature states our policy on same-sex relationships. What we ask is that they not make an issue of their identity. I baptized children of a woman whom I suspect was in a lesbian relationship. But I did not know that for sure. It was Don’t ask, Don’t tell. If we did have a couple who wanted to make their relationship a public issue, then we would have to get legalistic. We have a policy we could fall back on. Our lawyer thinks that is sufficient.
Oh how this saddens me for our church. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
I’m happy for those children. By virtue of their baptism, they are invited into the ministry of the church, so they will change the churches and schools that give them such a conditional welcome, by being who they are, raised by who they were raised.
But “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is not the gospel. It is not the shockingly welcoming love of Jesus, who dined with sex workers and tax collectors and healed the centurion’s lover.
I don’t want to assume it’s about wanting their pledges, but is that it? Is it a discomfort with being known as “that antigay church”?
Honestly, I think you would do everyone a favor to simply be openly homophobic and unwelcoming. Let people find the gospel at truly welcoming spaces.
Unfortunately conservative biblically-based churches have to deal with Paul’s view and can’t just simply dismiss it. The best we can do is Don’t ask, Don’t tell and hope no one makes an issue of gay rights.
What is bizarre about this thread is that it is entitled “Ministering to those in same-sex relationships” There is no ministry here. It’s all just condemnation and the absolute requirement that they somehow change the nature of who they are. There is no welcome. There is no acceptance. There is no grace. Just and only the hard edge of law. There is no place for them in your church. At all. So sad, and so representative of why conservative churches are dying. I prefer to worship Jesus.
The thriving community churches are mostly conservative. Yes, there is a ministry to those in same-sex relationships. But it takes wisdom and sensitivity based on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.