Christianity and Homosexuality

[DC Al Fine]

Please understand though that God cleans all foods in acts. Also, evangelical protestant sects of methodist and presbyterian church's grew while the mainline declined (PCUSA, UMC)

That's true, but it had very little to do with homosexuality. I'm most familiar with Presbyterianism. As the PCUSA changed it's attitudes towards homosexuality, there has been a trickle of congregations into more conservative Presbyterian churches, perhaps two to three hundred, but far more left in the 1970's and 80's over failure to enforce the Westminster Confession, and the ordination of pastors who denied the resurrection. A lot of the growth in Evangelicalism, is better described as a realignment. Mainline Protestantism used to have a substantial conservative wing which more or less departed for Evangelicalism in the past 40 years or so.

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

With this in mind, I think you are being to charitable to the Mainlines. What you call individuality, I would call apostasy. That is, the Mainlines weren't just say, examining how Genesis should be interpreted in the light of modern science. Rather, they were throwing out the foundation of the faith.

This in turn was a major factor in the decline of the Mainlines as,
a) Conservatives left for other churches
b) They left little impetus for liberals and centrists to go to church. One can get warmed over humanism in other places and sleep in on Sunday morning.

[DC Al Fine]

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

Suggesting Jesus was not omniscient during the time of his ministry is not the same as suggesting he wasn't the son of God. Indeed, beyond the textual evidence in the Bible that at times he was not, there's also the fact that if he were omniscient, it renders the whole crucifixion and resurrection into a farce rather than a triumph. That's one of the reasons I'm an Adoptionist when in comes to my understanding of Christ's incarnation. That said, there are far better Bible-based arguments in favor of showing leniency to the remarried than speculation as to what Jesus knew.

I don't want to derail the thread on the question of omniscience. but I realise that I left Douthat's argument incomplete. He also pointed out that if Jesus got divorce wrong based on his non-omniscience/limits of his human nature, it raises the question of what else he may have gotten wrong.

Getting back to my larger point, it doesn't really matter what the specific merits of that particular argument are. What's more important is that the general line of argumentation leads to larger questions about the Christian faith that make gay marriage or women's ordination small beer.

[DC Al Fine]

The Bible was never meant to be taken literally obviously.
Can you find one passage in the Bible that says that it should all be taken literally?

That's not really addressing the debate. Even the most hardcore fundamentalist thinks that some bit of the Bible is non-literal (e.g. Jesus probably wasn't talking about actual events in some of his parables). The relevant question is what passages are literal and which ones are not.

If you believe the Bible is the innerant Word of God and must be obeyed (although I am not saying that I necessarily do, that is not the point), SSM is God's law.

Clearly Romans 13:1-2 teaches that a Christian must obey the rule of law.
SSM is the law of the land and therefore God's law.
Why do literalists feel free to cherry pick?

That's an... unusual interpretation of Romans 13 to put it charitably. You seem to be proof-texting a short two verses, when it is more relevant to read the entire Pauline argument. Paul also says in the same text that this why we have to pay taxes, and also commands us to do good. This raises the question of what do we do when the civil law and "good" come into conflict.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are all held up to us as positive examples in part because of their civil disobedience. Furthermore the church from it's earliest days has affirmed examples of disobedience. The early Christians were not supposed to offer incense to pagan deities or eat meat sacrificed to idols for example, despite cases of the civil magistrate compelling it.

But even taking our argument at face value. Where on earth does the law say Christian marriages are to perform gay marriages? Or what happens with different laws and locations? Is the Roman Catholic Church to affirm gay marriage in the West and put homosexuals to death in Uganda?

One final thought for now. The liberal Christian view is that God is still speaking. This is in line with true Christianity, with common sense, with logic, with all that is good. If you limit God's word to a finite collection of books which logically is what the Bible is, God isn't very smart.
John 21:25 clearly demonstrates that the infinite truth can't be limited to just the Bible.
Therefore, if you believe in the Christian version of God, then God is still speaking.

The bolded doesn't logically follow. Human beings are finite and have finite reasoning. Why wouldn't we receive a finite message? Furthermore I don't really get why people are so confident in this sort of argument. Its ridiculous for human beings to argue that an infinite being has to act a particular way. Unless you think you have some sort of message from God whether through scripture or infallible tradition or a vision direct from God, such speculation is ridiculous.

Secondly, even if God is still speaking today, how are we to know what constitutes divine revelation. "Common sense, logic, all that is good" change with the times. In 1925 you could reasonably argue that eugenics is God ordained according to your criteria. Personally, when God's "continuing revelation" happens to line up exactly with the speaker's contemporary secular liberalism, I raise my eyebrows.

[DC Al Fine]

Personally, when God's "continuing revelation" happens to line up exactly with the speaker's contemporary secular liberalism, I raise my eyebrows.

What about when it lines up with a speakers contemporary social conservatism. Are eyebrows raised then? Surely it should be as often taking a position of theological conservatism is reactionary.

Sure, but I deal prog Christians way more often than I do Mormons or certain kinds of Pentecostal, and even then their "revelation" usually has more to do with bigger issues like the Trinity.

[DC Al Fine]

I really don't understand the "We don't know what God did regarding homosexuality, so it might or might not be okay, but the Bible says don't marry or have sex or you'll go to hell" thing.

If we don't know what God says about homosexuality in and of itself, it makes no sense that God would create LGBT people and then deny them intimacy and commitment, unless you think homosexuality is some kind of ultimate test in self-denial.

I'm not really sure where you're getting your first point from. Most people quoting scripture against homosexuality would think that the Bible is inspired by God and that we most certainly do know "what God did regarding homosexuality".

Regarding your second point, I think this sort of question only addresses a relatively modern view of intimacy and marriage that unfortunately both liberals and conservatives have embraced to some extent. That is, many people on both left and right think Christianity places or should place family and marriage as the best way to live one's life, while St. Paul suggested celibacy and prayer instead.