I don’t see a way we can affirm homosexuality as a good thing, regardless of context, and stay true to the clear teaching of the Bible.

I don’t believe that pretending ignorance is the right way to handle *any* sin. In my experience, it *is* the typical response to any sin with a low “icky” factor.

I think we long ago lost the credibility to shun practicing homosexuals, given that we routinely ignore public sins like greed, anger, materialism, or whatever. Picking and choosing those to shun gives homosexuals (and others) every right to pull out the mote-vs.-beam argument and smack us upside the head with it.

Is there a middle road? I’m thinking something along the lines of this progression, something that could apply to any sin.

1) I develop a friendship with someone.
2) I become aware that my friend practices a sin.
3) Depending on how serious the situation is, I may make a point to bring it up, or may wait for an opportunity to crop up.
4) When the topic is broached, I openly communicate my thoughts.
5) Understanding that I am not the Holy Spirit and my friend is not responsible to me for his soul, I commend him to the care of the Holy Spirit and pray as I see fit.
6) My friend accepts that my disagreement is not an attempt to control his life, but is motivated by concern for his spiritual and personal well-being. He prayerfully considers my perspective, but is bound by his conscience, not mine.
7) If my friend agrees a change is necessary, great. If not, I still don’t nag him and he doesn’t rub his sin in my face or nag me to change my mind about it. Every attempt is made to preserve the relationship without minimizing either individual’s responsibility.

I realize that there are situations where more aggressive intervention may be necessary, when an individual may not be fully capable of making a choice (physical addiction, for example). However, I think every effort needs to be made to respect each other’s personal responsibility.

I know my view is considered ‘not biblical’ in a hermeneutic which only allows contextualisation to go so far.

But the moral and ethical problem I have is that lifetime gay monogamy is the only alleged ’sin’ that doesn’t hurt anyone. Well, only if one sees ‘being in a gay relationship’ as ‘being harmed’. I have also seen gay people obviously growing in love for God and others in a way that people don’t grow in holiness if they are engaging in on-going unethical practice.

I’m tired of the idolatry of ‘family values’. We don’t know how or why the Jewish religion became monogamous but it’s quite clear to me that even in its prescriptions of the ‘godly’ use of sex and marriage that the Old Testament treats women as property and as instruments of breeding; the nature of the OT marriage relationship is very different from anything a Christian would recognise today. Insofar as ‘the family’ was a tool of his society to keep people enslaved in the entrenched power-base, Jesus warned against the family. I know others will disagree with me but it seems to me that the one uttering we have from Jesus on divorce was on justice grounds – a divorced woman was a social pariah (as she still is in some very orthodox Jewish communities today).

We have a handful of verses that talk about homosexual acts. Even if we could be 100% confident that they applied to lifetime monogamous gay relationships in the 21st century, it’s also true that both the Old and New Testament spend much more effort in asking us to be devoted to what we would call The Kingdom of God.

Isn’t justice for people starving in Zimbabwe at the hands of a ruthless leader – for example – more important than whether there is a ‘practising homosexual’ in my congregation? Biblically, I think that the answer is clear: absolutely yes.

If you read the rest of the paragraph rather than just the verse, it is clear that in the specific situation discussed there, the sexual situation under discussion was a) a punishment from God for immoral behavior having nothing to do with sexuality, and b) a situation where the people involved are clearly described as heterosexual to start with – the same sex passions were a change for them, and something contrary to their nature.

The Bible mentions people struck deaf, dumb or blind as a punishment from God. Does it follow that all handicapped people are sinners to be shunned, and that blindness is in all cases a sin to be repented? Floods? Locusts? The death of a child?

Similarly, there are times when God heals people, sometimes as a clear result of their faith or their good works. Does it follow that anyone who isn’t healed is therefore in all cases someone whose faith isn’t good enough?

This verse has nothing to say about naturally homosexual people. And, I grant that it doesn’t say anything positive about gay people, but it’s being misapplied.

> Let me be blunt, can we accept into our community
> of faith someone who is openly and unashamedly
> engaged in acts that we believe to be sinful?
> I think that the answer is painfully obvious.
> We accept people who are sinful in a myriad of
> ways: greedy, indifferent to the poor, violent,
> judgmental… Actually, I think these are the
> qualifications for being elders in some churches.

I have just recently had a very painful experience with elders of a church who engaged in a campaign of character assassination against a pastor they wanted to get rid of, so I am not at all starry-eyed about the saintlyness of elders, but as a generalization I believe that last sentence quoted to be unfair.

It is also my experience that we are not normally affirming of these sins you enumerate, nor do most folks engage in them “openly and unashamedly”; we tolerate them in others as long as they are not too obvious, and in that we may often fail our brothers and sisters by not calling them to repentance; or we tolerate them in ourselves by finding for ourselves extenuating circumstances–all the while knowing full well that we fall short of the glory of God in this regard.

AS I mentioned in my previous comment, the problem I have in this current debate, and I believe I am not alone in this, is the fact that in general, the GLBT community does not just want the church to tolerate them in their sexual orientation and the actions which result from it, but they want the church to affirm these things as good and pleasing to God.

When you have greedy people in the church, or adulterers, or those quick to judge everyone else, when the pastor preaches on these topics and denounces adultery or judgmentalism or greed from the pulpit, those guilty of these things do not normally complain to the press, or start a campaign for these sins to be affirmed as virtues.

And it is becoming increasingly difficult to stand up for the traditional Christian and Biblical view of human sexuality without being called names such as “homophobe” or worse, or being accused of being a repressed closet homosexual yourself. I have have yet to come across a greedy person in the church, who being challenged on it, turns around and says, “Ah, you’re just jealous because you’re repressing your own lust of money”, or the promiscuous person who meets a call for repentance and amendment of life with “Oh, you just want a piece of the action yourself but are afraid to admit it.” And if there are such, I cannot imagine most of the evangelical churches I know tolerating this any more than they will tolerate this current campaign to get homosexual activity affirmed as a good and accepted way to express one’s sexuality.

So there will be a definite difference between how we accept a person with same-sex attraction who wants to follow Christ and is willing to submit his or her sexual orientation to the judgment of God’s word, and how we deal with a person who considers his or her sexual orientation to be above judgement by anyone or even expects it to be affirmed.

I suppose I was taking Ron’s “sit down at the table” remark a tad too literal. In a sense this blog is bringing all parties to the table. As few posters here share any true fellowship (I’m assuming, you all aren’t getting to gether for drinks after this with out me, are you?) and don’t see how invoking 1 Cor 5:11 would be of any benefit.

Apples and oranges.

I want to be clear that I view sexual sin as a matter of repentance, and that all of us are under Hebrews 13:4 as God’s standard.

But I believe I Cor 5:11 speaks to a situation within a fellowship, described by I Cor 5:1ff, and doesn’t mean (again not being snarky) that I have to cut off all relationships or sit in personal judgement on things I don’t know about a person.

1 Cor 5:11 is one of my least favorite verses in the bible. Paul is calling us to tough love. He is saying that sometimes fighting for a brother’s sanctification is more important than remaining friendly with him. How much grace is allowed before a brother is shunned for unrepentance? I don’t know — I would like to dole it out forever. But there is the verse, and I cannot just ignore it.