Sinners. That's what a lot of Christians call lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. As an openly-gay theologian and ordained minister with the Metropolitan Community Churches -- an LGBT-affirming Christian denomination that is open to all -- I unfortunately know all too well what it means to be labeled a sinner, as well as the incredible damage that this label inflicts emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually upon my LGBT sisters and brothers.
According to traditional Christian theology, we are all sinners. Since at least the writings of Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries, the doctrine of original sin has dominated Christian thought. According to this doctrine, Adam and Eve first sinned by disobeying God by eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The original sin of our first parents unleashed death into the world, and ever since, sin has been passed on, virus-like, through reproduction (and specifically sexual pleasure) to all subsequent human beings. This is why we are all in need of God's grace in Jesus Christ: to save us from original sin and its consequences of death and eternal suffering.
So, if we are all sinners, why are LGBT people singled out as particularly atrocious examples of sinners? The answer lies in what I call the legal model of sin. That is, sin has been traditionally defined as a transgression of God's laws, whether revealed in the Bible or understood according to natural law. According to this legal model of sin, those people who break God's laws are deserving of temporal punishment -- up to and including physical violence -- as well as eternal punishment.
The first legal model of sin is the Biblical model. According to many Christians, LGBT people are sinners because they disobey God's laws as revealed in the Bible. This is, of course, the favorite argument for many evangelical Protestants. Although there are over 31,000 verses in the Christian Bible, the vast majority of anti-gay prejudice in Christian theology is derived from only five verses: Gen. 19:15, Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:10. Borrowing from Phyllis Trible, the prominent feminist scholar of the Hebrew Bible, I call these verses the queer "texts of terror" because they are the source of much terror for LGBT people.
Although some people may feel a sense of security in looking to the Bible for definitive guidance on what constitutes sin for LGBT people -- even if such comfort is based upon 0.0016% of the total number of verses in the Bible -- the problem is that there is a wide spectrum of views among Biblical scholars and Christian theologians about how to interpret the Hebrew and Greek words of the original Biblical texts that refer to same-sex and gender-variant activity.
Take, for example, Gen. 19:15, the verse from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that is traditionally used to condemn LGBT people. In that verse, the men of Sodom insist upon getting to "know" their angelic visitors. The Hebrew word at issue here, yada, sometimes means "to have sex with," but far more often means "to know" in the Hebrew Scriptures. What if the men of Sodom were sinners because they were xenophobes (see Ezek. 16:56)? That is, what if they literally wanted to "know" the background of their visitors because they hated foreigners or strangers and wanted to inflict physical harm upon them? Even if yada is interpreted as "to have sex with," however, I think we can all agree that rape is sinful, whether it is between people of the same or different sex. And rape is not what same-sex couples are about today.
As we can see in just this one verse from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, scriptural interpretation is an extremely complicated matter, and one cannot simply treat the Bible as a divine statute-book that is self-interpreting, even assuming that one is fluent in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This is the reason why we have courts in the secular law context; the jurisprudence of original intent notwithstanding, the interpretation of legal statutes is rarely a simple or obvious matter.
The second legal model of sin is the natural law model. According to many Christians, LGBT people are sinners because they disobey God's laws as understood in the natural law. This is a favorite argument for many Roman Catholic theologians, and it finds its roots in the work of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Natural law, according to its adherents, is the innate sense of right and wrong that God has implanted into each of us, whether or not we are exposed to the Bible.
Take, for example, the natural law argument that homosexuality is wrong because it does not lead to procreation. According to natural law theorists going back to the Middle Ages, anyone can observe the animal kingdom and conclude that God's intended purpose for sexual activity is procreation. Because same-sex activity does not lead to procreation, it is a violation of God's natural laws and is thus sinful.
The problem with this natural law argument, of course, is that scientists and biologists now know that non-procreative same-sex activity occurs in over a thousand species in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, the natural law argument does not take into account the fact that infertile and elderly people can have non-procreative sex, and yet they are not considered to be sinners or intrinsically disordered. Again, natural law arguments are not as simple or as obvious as they may first appear.
I believe that it is time to shift away from a legal model of sin (whether Biblical law or natural law) and towards a christological model of sin. Under this model, sin is defined not by Biblical law or natural law, but rather by our opposition, as Christians, to what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. That is, sin is a mindset; it is a mode of existence that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the good news of the Word made flesh. In other words, sin is a matter of deliberately turning one's back on what God has done for us in salvation history.
For example, let's begin with the doctrine of revelation. According to Christian theology, God reveals Godself most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As such, it follows that sin is the closet, or the resistance to revealing ourselves fully to God and to others. Indeed, as feminist theologians have argued for decades, sin is not just a matter of pride and raising ourselves up too high, but it is also a matter of excess shame and hiding our true selves from others.
If sin is defined as the closet, then sinners are those people who use the institution of the church to deflect attention away from -- and cover up -- their own hidden sexual secrets and crimes, as we have seen repeatedly in the ugly sexual abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. Sinners are also the closeted fundamentalist ministers and preachers who virulently condemn LGBT people on the one hand and yet engage in hidden same-sex activities on the other.
By contrast, grace is defined as what God has done for us in Jesus Christ, which is coming out. For Christians, God reveals Godself most fully in the incarnation. Whenever we come out as LGBT people, we also become the living embodiment of God's revelation of the Word made flesh. We are able to love others fully because we realize that we are first loved by God. And that, for me, is what the good news is all about.
Follow Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/patrickscheng
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: The Values Voter Summit and the Idolatry of 'Family Values'
The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christianity and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That would be a good place to start.
RI.
Jesus, speaking of Satan said, "Hereafter I will not talk much with you:
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" [John 14:30 KJV].
What does "...hath nothing in me" mean?
-In Eve, Satan found a susceptibility to deceit and manipulation. Adam followed in her downfall.
-In Cain; a spirit of jealousy, provoking him to murder his own brother.
-In King David, a lust that overtook his judgement. Solomon was able to be lured away from righteousness by his many wives*1, and worshiped other gods.
-Satan exploited a bigotry in Jonah against the people of Ninevah, and "had that" in him.
-In one strong in Spirit- John the Baptist, Satan created doubt when imprisoned*2. In Peter, Satan exploited fear of harm as he denied Messiah three times.
But in Jesus of Nazareth, he found the brightness of His Glory as being the only begotten of the Father, filled with the Spirit without measure*3. He saw greater love than any man had before*4, so strong in Spirit, even the wind and the sea obeyed Him. Satan saw that Jesus lived by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. Satan found that in Jesus, dwelt the fullness of the Godhead, bodily*5, and that in Him was life, which was the Light of men*6.
Satan had nothing in Him,
--///ms
*1[1st Kings 11:4)
*2[Matthew 11:3]
*3[John 3:34]
*4[John 15:13]
*5[Colossians 2:9]
*6[John 1:4]
ALL the town’s people “from every quarter” are specifically identified in the incident: v. 4. Therefore, all the womenfolk, as well as the men “both young and old” are implicated. You fail to explain this.
Your argument crumbles even further. Though proffering his daughters to the crowd, Lot’s daughters were rejected not only by the men, but also the WOMEN – thus excluding female homosexuality.
When pressed on the point that the women refused Lot’s daughters, your unsupportable explanation was that the women “intended on raping Lot, instead!”
Either the entire population of Sodom was judged for homosexuality or it wasn’t. You cannot have it both ways!
Closing his house’s door behind him, Lot went outside to meet the crowd: v. 6.
Your claim that the women “intended on raping Lot” has no merit. Despite every opportunity, neither the town’s men nor its women (as you claim) laid a finger on Lot to s*xually assault him. Instead, the entire crowd demanded Lot to “Get out of our way, v. 9.” Furthermore, the crowd, pressed against Lot intending to break the door down to attack the two visitors, inside: v. 9.
In Gen. 19, neither the male nor female residents of Sodom demanded to “know” Lot or anyone else related to him by birth or marriage including “sons, daughters or sons-in-law, v.12.”
Your claim that Gen. 19 is God’s condemnation of homosexuality is warrantless.
[mstevens73] "A Response to Paragraphs 6 & 7 Concerning Activities At Sodom"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/sin-as-the-closet-grace-a_b_510437.html?show_comment_id=43947862#comment_43947862!
Furthermore, your failure to provide a reasonable response to my arguments, there, is a summary concession that God did not condemn the inhabitants of Sodom on the grounds of homosexuality.
Your theology and your exegesis of Genesis 19 are erroneous. Your supposed Biblical condemnation of Gay men and women is wholly unsupportable.
Your unsubstantiated Biblical arguments relating to Genesis 19 to condemn Gay men and women and the physical love they express between themselves in their committed relationships are groundless.
67. Does a career bank robber (such as Clyde Barrow for instance), say that, "I was born a bank robber? It is perfectly natural for me to be doing this?"
68. And even if he *was wired for bank robbery from birth, does stealing not remain a sin against God *1? ("Or to the Atheist... something that is very, very wrong?")
So then, the issue of being 'born a homosexual' is moot. If you acknowledge a Holy God, and you *want to be delivered from your first estate, there is a victory to be had in the atonement and resurrection power of Jesus Christ the Lord. He overcame the temptations of both the flesh and the world, and to be found in Him (by your confession of faith) is to be blameless before God. Listen to His words;
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things."
(Luke 24:47-48 KJV)
--ms
--\\\
*1 YHVH; God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac, Israel; Jesus of Nazareth - the Word made flesh
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" - John Adams
The "sin" of homosexuality is a figment of the Christian Mythologist's imagination.
Why not discuss the real issue here... the fact that you Christians support CHILD SACRIFICE!
Abraham was WILLING TO MURDER his INNOCENT child Isaac all because a VOICE IN THE SKY told him to.
Guess what? Deanna Laney heard that SAME VOICE in 2003... Too bad there were no angels to stop her from bashing her two sons' heads in with a giant rock.
Way to go faith!
[mstevens73:] Because it is a sin against God, that will prove to bear aweful consequences. All sin will, ultimately.
[Senseimilla:] Why not discuss the real issue here... the fact that you Christians support CHILD SACRIFICE!
[mstevens73:] This is absolutely a false charge, and baseless.
[Senseimilla:] Abraham was WILLING TO MURDER his INNOCENT child Isaac all because a VOICE IN THE SKY told him to.
[mstevens73:] Anyone familiar with this Biblical account knows that God[*1] never intended for Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, whom he had waited for many years. No harm ever came to Isaac. Rather, through this *example of this very special man, God revealed the plan for salvation for His creation, the future death of His own son, Jesus of Nazareth, which He would give.
[Senseimilla:] Guess what? Deanna Laney heard that SAME VOICE in 2003... Too bad there were no angels to stop her from bashing her two sons' heads in with a giant rock.
[mstevens73:] The fact of this matter, is that the official defense being offered by this woman in court is that she is insane, and this is probably the case. The lesson to be learned from such a tragedy, is that we cannot follow after God from what we *think or how we *feel. We must base our faith, and our actions on His word alone, which forbids murder.
[Senseimilla:] Way to go faith!
Human sacrifice: how about when Elisha called upon God to send a bear to eat some kids who were making fun of his shiny dome? or the cutting open of canaanite women and dashing the heads of their children against rocks? Or Jeptha's daughter? Where was the voice of God there?
And why is it ok for your god to tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, just because he says "April fools!" before he actually goes through with it? Its still a horrible thing to demand of a father. Sorry, your case holds no water.
Genesis 19 is NOT a Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
First, the previous five chapters in Genesis will provide a good sense of textual and historical context.
Second, the Jordan Valley city-states, in their struggle for resources and regional supremacy, constantly roiled in internecine conflicts.
Third, the book of Joshua, clearly speaks of scouts entering rival territories to identify strategic weaknesses in order to vanquish them.
Because Lot, an Elohim credent and foreign resident of Sodom, refused the town elders to scrutinize his out-of-town visitors, he exposed the entire town to possible capture – at best, or military annihilation – at worst.
This is why ALL the people, from every quarter of the town of Sodom, men and WOMEN, young AND old, demanded to “know” Lot’s visitors – a fact you refuse to acknowledge. They wanted to mess these potentially threatening visitors up! BAD!
Similarly, faced with perceived threats to U.S. safety, male and female American soldiers attached electrodes to Iraqi prisoners’ g*nitals, stacked them up nak*d, like cordwood and forced these prisoners to wear soiled women’s underwear over their heads. Also, five NY policemen r*ctally raped Hatian-born Abner Louima with a broomstick.
The motivation for the people’s behavior in Gen. 19, Abu Ghraib and New York was NOT homos*xuality, but unbridled rage, fear and a desire to use s*x as a means to humiliate and degrade perceived foreign enemies.
mstevens73 "A Response to Paragraphs 6 & 7 Concerning Activities At Sodom"
I posted a response to you at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/sin-as-the-closet-grace-a_b_510437.html?show_comment_id=43947862#comment_43947862
Their choice then, begs the question: Why do they make that choice over the more rational, and actually more logical choice of interpretation? When they answer that with some shred of personal integrity, they may then have some credibility. Until then, their willful prejudice could be dismissed....if it didn't cause so much trouble.
Meantime they conveniently ignore the more despicable act of Lot offering up his daughters for gang rape. They ignore the despicable that is there while ranting about what is not!!!!
I resist the temptation as much as possible to go tit-4-tat in a conference, when I have already addressed an issue. But (apparently) I could not resist the need to respond to Soulmentor's comment by simply saying that the "...act of Lot offering up his daughters" (in the Genesis 19) account, is the very *basis of the proof that this passage was about homosexuals, mentioned in [mstevens73 "A Response to Paragraphs 6 & 7 Concerning Activities At Sodom"]
--ms
In an earlier post you say Mary was a virgin who never had physical relations with anyone. You also say that her impregnation by God is proof, in itself, that Jesus was the Messiah.
Nonsense…
First, Mary was not a perpetual virgin. There is no Biblical or Talmudic justification that the word, "damsel" (Heb. transliteration, "'almah" = "young woman") is used exclusively of a virgin, as you suggest.
Second, there is no Biblical or Talmudic justification that the word, "man," (Heb. transliteration, "'iysh") is used exclusively as a human. It can also refer to "one," or the "great one."
Furthermore, Mark 6:3 mentions Jesus’ brothers: James, Joses, Juda and Simon, as well as his sisters. The Greek terms for “brothers” and “sisters” are not euphemisms for “cousins” or “in-laws.” Some propose these erroneous translations to suggest that Jesus had something other than a literal blood relationship to his siblings. Mary had to have relations in order to produce progeny.
Mary was engaged to Joseph (Luke. 1:31), and God violated God's own law (Deut 22:23-24) by impregnating her (Mat. 1:18) while she was engaged to Joseph. Therefore, God is a sinner worthy of death (Deut 27:26).
The fact that Jesus was conceived in violation of Mosaic Law is proof that he cannot possibly be the Messiah.
Oy...people certainly have a hard time reading!
However, since you brought it up, consider yet another reason why Jesus violated the Mosaic Covenant and Law and cannot be the Messiah:
You invoke Trinitarian doctrine: one God - three distinct persons. You say God, the Holy Ghost, impregnated Mary. However, can any one Person of the Trinity act independently of the other two Persons, or must they not act in full awareness of and collaboration with the other?
If the former is true, God is schizophrenic. If the latter is true, God the Son and God the Father were complicit with the God the Holy Ghost in impregnating Mary. Therefore, Jesus was guilty of incest, violated the Mosaic Covenant (Lev. 18:6-8), was born in sin and could not possibly be a perfect sacrificial atonement for our sins.
It's understandable, though, why you and so many others read into what is not written - and fail to read what is written.
If "believers" were to take at face value what the scriptures say (not only in this instance, but in so many others, as well) they would be forced either into acknowledging that they are believing the unreasonable or they would have to walk away from the whole pack of it and live life without those comforting, "Thus saith the Lord..." passages, assurances of eternal life and the “divine” authority to condemn others different from ourselves.
But if you're going to defend religion, at least get your (almost said "facts" - ha!) doctrines right.
A remarkable message is present in the Apostle John's first epistle. In the first chapter he writes[*1] that he brings a very special message to the church. But before he gives it, he states his own *qualifications for being the one to deliver the message. Speaking about Jesus of Nazareth he writes;
'...which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"
John was indeed *there... having walked with Jesus of Nazareth for a period of years. He continues;
"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)"
John, being so qualified, presents his message;
"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1st John 1:1,2,5 KJV)
Think of the implications of absolute purity in Spirit, absolute holiness and righteousness that are declared here as the attributes of God. This is the standard we cannot be measured against and stand.
But continuing in the Christ, we wear *His righteousness. So we put off anything unbecoming of this Messiah, with whom we have to do.
--ms
---
*1 (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)
No matter what God tells you.