Christianity QA » Christian Church » The Church and the Homosexual
Question:
ME: It should not be surprising that homosexual acts are singled out for attention in our time. This may be the first time in history that the Christian churches have seriously considered declassifying it as sin.
[One can disagree with a number of Prof. Boswell's conclusions (more so with his 1996 work, "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"); but one *cannot* reasonably disagree with the basic existence of the evidence itself; or with a full 100% of Prof. Boswell's conclusions. This makes his book (especially the earlier, more accepted one) a must-read for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss how our Church has or hasn't treated homosexuals in the past. ] Did Boswell make the same assumption, that has been posted here, that same-sex people who were close, loving friends (like Jesus and John) were also lovers?
Response:
prove the statement that the Christian church recognised gay marriages. there is not one shred of evidence to that lie.
Response:
Truth, says… prove the statement that the Christian church recognised gay marriages. there is not one shred of evidence to that lie
While marriage is a legal status as much as a religious one, there are Christian churches that bless same sex marriages. The United Church of Christ (Congregationalists) blesses same sex marriages, so do some Methodist, some Lutheran, some Disciples of Christ (Christian) and some Episcopalian churches. There are also Quaker meetings that bless same sex marriages. Ironically, the gay evangelical church, The Metropolitan Community Church, whose leadership –Rev. Troy Perry– has held silly Rev Moon style mass wedding as protests in Washington D.C., does recognize same sex marriages in its churches. Other faiths that celebrate same sex marriages include Unitarians, many Reformed and Reconstructionist Jewish congregations and some Buddhist temples. What religions do is really irrelevant. They are free to decide who can and can’t marry in their church. Marriage in our culture is most important as a civil institution. According to a congressional report created when Congress passed DOMA, there are over a thousand federal laws governing property distribution, benefits, access to programs, inheritance rights and financial responsibility that hinge on marital status. Gay taxpayers are denied these protections, rights and responsibilities while being required to pay for them. Governments in Western Europe are way ahead of the US recognizing same sex marriages. Civil marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark, Norway. They may soon be recognized in both France and Germany. Churches in these countries have not been required to recognize same sex marriages .
Response:
It should not be surprising that homosexual acts are singled out for attention in our time. This may be the first time in history that the Christian churches have seriously considered declassifying it as sin.
It isn’t. The statement is factually incorrect, on several levels. We can almost leave aside the built-in notion/bias of seeing homosexuality as always & everywhere "sin". (We probably shouldn’t leave that aside – it is a key issue – but it is discussed in other posts). Let’s just concentrate, then, on the Church’s historical record regarding homosexuals. The fact of the matter is that the Church was mainly neutral towards Christian gay couples (and in a few places, even positive) for much of the first 13 centuries of its history. The kind of widespread, overwhelming homophobia that we are accustomed to seeing today, only became thoroughly established in the Church around the 14th century or so. This is a matter for historical investigation and factual research, not for armchair opinions. The various ups and downs (including the anti-gay stuff, as well as the gay-neutral, or gay-positive stuff) are documented exhaustively (some would say boringly!) in Prof. John Boswell’s 1980 study, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century". One can disagree with a number of Prof. Boswell’s conclusions (more so with his 1996 work, "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"); but one *cannot* reasonably disagree with the basic existence of the evidence itself; or with a full 100% of Prof. Boswell’s conclusions. This makes his book (especially the earlier, more accepted one) a must-read for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss how our Church has or hasn’t treated homosexuals in the past. Just FYI & regards, Jeff *** To e-mail me, remove both capital Z letters from my address. "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not perish but have eternal life. It was not to judge the world…No one who puts faith in him comes under judgment…" — John 3:16-18 REB. A promise for all – including gay people. We break our Baptismal Covenant (see US BCP p.305) whenever we try to deny the morality, equality or existence of their gay marraiges. "[Even anti-gay St.] Chrysostrom notes that in derogating homosexual behavior among the pagans, St. Paul did not describe [gay] people who ‘had fallen in love and were drawn toward each other by passion’ but only [general] people who ‘burned in their lust…’." — Boswell, -Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality-, p. 117
Response:
It should not be surprising that homosexual acts are singled out for attention in our time. This may be the first time in history that the Christian churches have seriously considered declassifying it as sin. [Maybe homosexuals are forever condemned for the "person" they are] All have sinned, but forgiveness is given to all. "Be ye perfect" is a challenge to be better, not a prerequisite to enter Heaven. [Scripture repeatedly, and far more repeatedly than anything dealing with homosexuality, insists that NO one dare judge another] Yet Paul condemns specific behaviors. Perhaps we ought not judge the person, since we cannot see into the heart. But we cannot avoid judging behavior. If all behavior is allowed, then how do we bring up a child in the way he should go?
Response:
Stephen, Thank you for this contribution. You may know that I might not place the same stock in ontological thinking and/or Tradition as you – but that is precisely why I get so much from your contributions!! You call me back to giving some importance to our church Tradition and (along the way) give some good reminders or information about its nature and history. Thanks again, Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -One of the problems evinced at the Lambeth Conference is the bishops’ confusion, particularly from the continent of Africa, is the misunderstanding of ecclesial ontology. As Anglican, "we continue steadfast in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). This one verse captures Anglican ecclesiology better and more succinctly than any myriad of "statements" and pontifications that have ever since been made. But the truth of this nugget of biblical wisdom is that we are really, and truly, and foremost an episcopal, not a biblical, Church. This doesn’t mean we have abandoned Scripture; indeed, the converse is true. Scripture remains the normative means for proclaiming the Good News of God in Jesus Christ. But the propagation of that Good News is not by the Bible, but by the Church. Christ, after all, established the Church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ himself the chief cornerstone (Col. 2:20). From the Divine Word’s own ontology, the Father sent the Son, the Son sent the Apostles, and the Apostles sent the Bishops. It was the Sacred College of Apostles, the licit and proper continuation of the apostolic commission (Matt 28:20), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced for the Church, by the Church, the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, therefore, lacks ontological status; its status in the Church is a derivative gift of the Holy Spirit codified by the Bishops over the ages as a "sacred deposit." As both Catholic and Reformed Christians, we must never forget that we Anglicans retained the historic episcopacy precisely because it is the ONLY link to the authentic, uninterrupted apostolic commission upon which Christ founded the Church. It is precisely because of this continuity of apostolic succession that the Anglican Communion’s bishops congregate every ten years to access the welfare of the Church universal. What the African Bishops have apparently done is to forget their apostolic roots, subordinate the ontology of the Apostolic College to one of its historical artifacts, and become biblical literalism. This is very far afield from the apostolic commission, the continuity of the apostolic traditions, and the episcopal ontology of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What the African bishops seem to have done is invert the importance of Scripture over Church. Christ did not commission scripture, but he founded and established his Church. It is the Church, of which the Bishops are the visible heads, that continues to be a "leaven in the world." The Church, with the Bishops as its visible sign of unity and continuity, is the ontological gift of Christ through the Holy Spirit to our heavenly Father. Scripture, on the other hand, is but one of many, indubitably among the best, gifts of both the most Holy Trinity to the Church, and of the Bishops to the glory of God. After all, Scripture itself sets the parameters of its application in the Church: viz., for reproof, correction, training in righteousness, so that everyone may be proficient, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16). As our Teachers on earth, the Bishops have a singular obligation to accent the teachings of Scripture for the edification of the people of God. They have the duty and obligation to proclaim both the comforts and consolations of the Gospel, as well as announce its challenges and evocations. If the African Bishops had only asked the Communion to be mindful of biblical teaching in ALL matters, there would have been no controversy. But the Bishops singled out homosexuals with vitriolic wording, claiming that unless they had a clear, unequivocal message opposing homosexuality, that the evangelization of the Gospel on their continent could not continue! This explicit, unabashed explanation of the bishops’ motives is outrageous! Assuming for the sake of argument that homosexuals are intrinsically sinful (which I daresay may very well not be true), then the whole catena of sins Paul’s epistles identify needs to be included: viz., fornication, impurity, greed, idolater, alcoholics, deceivers, adulterers, etc. To single out one of many possible sins, a sin which is identified ONLY by the Apostle Paul is disingenuous and detrimental to the proclamation of the whole Gospel by the entire Church. The Bishops need to include his numerous lists of sins in their entirety, and not single out one sin from among many. By having done so, and then appealing to Scripture to support their bias, these African Bishops do what every other fundamental literalist does when s/he encounters a behavior OTHERS do but s/he doesn’t like: Claim God is for "us" and against "them." In other words, the bishops have chosen homosexual acts, and that necessarily includes homosexual persons, out of a lengthy list of potential sins, to be used as a "wedge" issue between "us" versus "them" in the evangelization of the African continent. If these Bishops need a scapegoat, stirred emotions, and a battering-ram for the evangelization of Africa, then they, like their fellow Protestant biblical fundamentalists, are misusing God’s gift to the Church, namely Scripture, as a divisive, rather than unitive, tool. Maybe homosexuals are forever condemned for the "person" they are, but it should not be left to ideologue Bishops with an overt agenda to use anti-homosexual sentiment to rouse converts to Christianity. Scripture repeatedly, and far more repeatedly than anything dealing with homosexuality, insists that NO one dare judge another, less one find herself committing the worst sin of all, the act of idolatry (Read Rom. 1 *and 2). As a body that is perhaps the most zealous in the reading of Scripture in its liturgy, we must not forget that Scripture is a gift to the people of God (the Church) to be used with dispassion, equanimity, and sobriety. The African Bishops’ action is one of the first times in recent memory where the Scriptures preempt apostolic continuity and unity, are elevated to a standard beyond its own measure, is used to divide and conquer — and all, according to the Bishops, so that their evangelization on the African continent will not falter. There is something terribly wrong with this picture. D. Stephen Heersink San Francisco "In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity." –Augustine of Hippo
Response:
One of the problems evinced at the Lambeth Conference is the bishops’ confusion, particularly from the continent of Africa, is the misunderstanding of ecclesial ontology. As Anglican, "we continue steadfast in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). This one verse captures Anglican ecclesiology better and more succinctly than any myriad of "statements" and pontifications that have ever since been made. But the truth of this nugget of biblical wisdom is that we are really, and truly, and foremost an episcopal, not a biblical, Church. This doesn’t mean we have abandoned Scripture; indeed, the converse is true. Scripture remains the normative means for proclaiming the Good News of God in Jesus Christ. But the propagation of that Good News is not by the Bible, but by the Church. Christ, after all, established the Church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ himself the chief cornerstone (Col. 2:20). From the Divine Word’s own ontology, the Father sent the Son, the Son sent the Apostles, and the Apostles sent the Bishops. It was the Sacred College of Apostles, the licit and proper continuation of the apostolic commission (Matt 28:20), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced for the Church, by the Church, the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, therefore, lacks ontological status; its status in the Church is a derivative gift of the Holy Spirit codified by the Bishops over the ages as a "sacred deposit." As both Catholic and Reformed Christians, we must never forget that we Anglicans retained the historic episcopacy precisely because it is the ONLY link to the authentic, uninterrupted apostolic commission upon which Christ founded the Church. It is precisely because of this continuity of apostolic succession that the Anglican Communion’s bishops congregate every ten years to access the welfare of the Church universal. What the African Bishops have apparently done is to forget their apostolic roots, subordinate the ontology of the Apostolic College to one of its historical artifacts, and become biblical literalism. This is very far afield from the apostolic commission, the continuity of the apostolic traditions, and the episcopal ontology of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What the African bishops seem to have done is invert the importance of Scripture over Church. Christ did not commission scripture, but he founded and established his Church. It is the Church, of which the Bishops are the visible heads, that continues to be a "leaven in the world." The Church, with the Bishops as its visible sign of unity and continuity, is the ontological gift of Christ through the Holy Spirit to our heavenly Father. Scripture, on the other hand, is but one of many, indubitably among the best, gifts of both the most Holy Trinity to the Church, and of the Bishops to the glory of God. After all, Scripture itself sets the parameters of its application in the Church: viz., for reproof, correction, training in righteousness, so that everyone may be proficient, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16). As our Teachers on earth, the Bishops have a singular obligation to accent the teachings of Scripture for the edification of the people of God. They have the duty and obligation to proclaim both the comforts and consolations of the Gospel, as well as announce its challenges and evocations. If the African Bishops had only asked the Communion to be mindful of biblical teaching in ALL matters, there would have been no controversy. But the Bishops singled out homosexuals with vitriolic wording, claiming that unless they had a clear, unequivocal message opposing homosexuality, that the evangelization of the Gospel on their continent could not continue! This explicit, unabashed explanation of the bishops’ motives is outrageous! Assuming for the sake of argument that homosexuals are intrinsically sinful (which I daresay may very well not be true), then the whole catena of sins Paul’s epistles identify needs to be included: viz., fornication, impurity, greed, idolater, alcoholics, deceivers, adulterers, etc. To single out one of many possible sins, a sin which is identified ONLY by the Apostle Paul is disingenuous and detrimental to the proclamation of the whole Gospel by the entire Church. The Bishops need to include his numerous lists of sins in their entirety, and not single out one sin from among many. By having done so, and then appealing to Scripture to support their bias, these African Bishops do what every other fundamental literalist does when s/he encounters a behavior OTHERS do but s/he doesn’t like: Claim God is for "us" and against "them." In other words, the bishops have chosen homosexual acts, and that necessarily includes homosexual persons, out of a lengthy list of potential sins, to be used as a "wedge" issue between "us" versus "them" in the evangelization of the African continent. If these Bishops need a scapegoat, stirred emotions, and a battering-ram for the evangelization of Africa, then they, like their fellow Protestant biblical fundamentalists, are misusing God’s gift to the Church, namely Scripture, as a divisive, rather than unitive, tool. Maybe homosexuals are forever condemned for the "person" they are, but it should not be left to ideologue Bishops with an overt agenda to use anti-homosexual sentiment to rouse converts to Christianity. Scripture repeatedly, and far more repeatedly than anything dealing with homosexuality, insists that NO one dare judge another, less one find herself committing the worst sin of all, the act of idolatry (Read Rom. 1 *and 2). As a body that is perhaps the most zealous in the reading of Scripture in its liturgy, we must not forget that Scripture is a gift to the people of God (the Church) to be used with dispassion, equanimity, and sobriety. The African Bishops’ action is one of the first times in recent memory where the Scriptures preempt apostolic continuity and unity, are elevated to a standard beyond its own measure, is used to divide and conquer — and all, according to the Bishops, so that their evangelization on the African continent will not falter. There is something terribly wrong with this picture. D. Stephen Heersink San Francisco "In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity." –Augustine of Hippo
no comment untill now