As a minister and Bible scholar, I'm proud that the president has publicly endorsed marriage equality.
Some sincere and thoughtful people of faith are not convinced by clinical research suggesting that "sexual orientation" is deeply imbedded in the human psyche and largely beyond conscious control.
Others accept the research and believe that "sexual orientation" is a gift from God. They argue, however, that same-sex sex is prohibited by Scripture and tradition. This is the current position of the Roman Catholic Church, for example. It's not a sin to be gay, but it's a sin to have gay sex.
There are a handful of Scriptures that appear to say that same-sex sex is wrong, though on close examination, they turn out to be much less clear-cut than is often assumed, and none of them addresses the kind of mutually loving relationships at issue in the marriage equality debate. But even if these Scriptures were relevant to that kind of relationship, we'd still face a problem: How do you decide which Scriptures to use and which to ignore when you're making moral judgments?
Consider the oddly worded passages in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
"You (masculine, singular) must not lie with a male, beds of a woman. It's an abomination," and "a man who lies with a male, beds of a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They certainly must be put to death. Their blood is on them."
I assume that most of us -- whatever we think about same-sex sex -- wouldn't favor executing sexually active gay men. But on what basis would we make the decision that Leviticus is right about sex but wrong about execution?
How do we decide what to keep and what to ignore when we use Scripture to make moral judgments? Why would we say that it's an "abomination" for a man to lie with a man, but it's OK to wear a wool-blend suit, have a tattoo, eat hybrid fruit or have marital relations when the wife is in the "unwell" part of her monthly cycle -- that is, the days of her menstrual flow plus seven days of purification after that? Leviticus says that any married couple who has sex then should be "cut off from their people" -- a euphemism for execution. Why doesn't that apply to us, if the ban on gay sex does? How do we decide which Scriptures are relevant?
The 19th century slavery debate addressed this question. Both sides quoted Scripture. Measured by sheer volume, the pro-slavery side had a slam-dunk case. From start to finish, the Bible assumes and often supports slavery. Exodus says the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and God freed them. But in the very next breath, it legalizes the inhuman treatment of slaves: "if a man beats a male or female slave with the rod and he (or she) dies under his power, he'll certainly suffer punishment. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, the owner won't suffer punishment because he (or she) is his property" (Exodus 21:20-21).
Abolitionists won the moral debate, not because they had more chapters and verses on their side, but because they finally convinced people that, whatever particular Scriptures say, freedom is the heart of the biblical story. It's the criterion by which all Scriptures are properly judged.
Exodus 21 pales before the spectacular revelation of Israel's God as the God who frees slaves (Exodus 1-15). Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 -- "slaves, obey your masters!" -- fade in the light of Christ Jesus "who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized by force, but emptied himself ... and took the form of a slave..." (Philippians 2). Slavery, though explicitly supported by many Scriptures, is incompatible with the witness of the Scriptures as a whole: God identifies with slaves, the oppressed, the marginalized. God values mercy and love and desires that all people live in freedom.
It may be the case that a few passages condemn same-sex sex. Leviticus apparently does so for the same reason it permits polygamy and limits marital sex to the two weeks the wife is ovulating: sex and marriage in this worldview are fundamentally about procreation, producing able-bodied children for household labor.
We, by contrast, marry primarily for companionship and love. Children are an expression of the couple's love for one another, but procreation is not typically the primary reason we marry. It makes perfect sense to us that people who can't or don't want to have children nevertheless marry. We marry for love.
As we make moral judgments on this, we should consider the primary purpose of marriage for us today, accept the insights of research, and factor in our experiences of decent, loving same-sex couples who responsibly raise children, go to church, tithe their money and contribute to the well-being of our communities.
And we should read every Scripture through the lens of a biblical story that reveals a God who creates human beings in the very image of God so they can share power in the world (Genesis 1:26-27), who says "it's not good that the human be alone" (Genesis 2:18), who liberates slaves (Exodus 2-15), who rescues the oppressed, who sets captives free, who proclaims the year of God's favor for all who are excluded (Isaiah 61) -- the story Jesus chose to preach for his inaugural sermon (Luke 4). It's the story of a God who says, "let the foreigner not say 'surely I'm separated from God's people' (though other Scriptures require such separation), let the eunuch not say 'surely I'm just a dry tree' (though this sexual minority is explicitly excluded from the community by Deuteronomy 23). I will give within my house, within my walls, a power and a name that is better than sons and daughters! I will give an everlasting name that will not be cut off! My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples. I will gather outcasts besides those I have already gathered!" (Isaiah 56:3-8).
Extending legal recognition to the sacred commitments of loving same-sex couples is a natural progression, expanding the blessings of freedom enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And it is, in my judgment, the Christian and the biblical thing to do.
Perhaps you could explain your disagreement with him more directly. Ad hominem attacks are really, in the long run, quite dull.
Here, he is saying that we should pick and choose which scriptures to not use. We could fall into the logic that if we do not like what it says about out moral behavior, we discard it. This is troubling when a bible scholar and teacher is stating this.
Perhaps your point would be clearer if you offered comments on how you reached this conclusion.
I personally don't care who anyone chooses to be with but I made a decision to follow Christ and his commandents to the best of my abilities. If it were up to me I would say anyone should be able to marry whom ever. But , I feel God's word is clear about His feelings and whether I like it or not I will do what he wants of me even oppose same sex marriage. May not like it but I'll do it - for Him. And also I want to say thank you that you can enter a discussion in a mature and respectable manner on here unlike other posters I have
1 Corinthians 2:14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
One can hold every degree and award that mankind ever devised and not understand the purpose of Scripture or have a spiritual understanding and connection with the words of Scripture. That is only possible through God the Holy Spirit with faith in Christ Jesus.
MATTHEW 7:15 JESUS: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12
"A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart." Proverbs 18:2
Playing the game of “deciding what to keep and what to ignore when we use Scripture” is tantamount to spiritual suicide.
Right and wrong is only judged by God. He knows who His children are.
1 Samuel 16: 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee..."
I am not sure if this is an intentional misconstruing of Scripture or not. This time the error is selecting words that were taken out of an incompleted sentence and then taking it out of context.
You did not finish the entire passage of MATTHEW 5:29 when you wrote.… "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee..." In its entirety and in context, it conveys the intent of Jesus’ message. Here is the entire passage: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
It is quite obvious Jesus is stressing the ultimate damning consequences of a pet sin that could easily lead to the whole body & soul being thrown into hell. Jesus is not advocating “eye plucking” as a remedy for this particular sin. He knows removing an eye would not remove the temptation He is speaking of. Any sin can only be battled by applying the Word of God with Christ’s’ strength through faith and prayer.
1 JOHN 4:4 “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One [Jesus] who is in you is greater than the one [Satan] who is in the world.”
Honestly religious people, I know you're victims of indoctrination so it's not your fault that your rationality has been suppressed by fear and superstition, but really - surely in some moments of honesty you must wonder why it is that the vast majority of you HAPPEN to believe in the religion you HAPPEN to have been 'born into'.
Doesn't that strike you as just the tinest bit ...um...CONVENIENT?
Why are you an atheist for every other religion that you happen NOT to have been 'born into'?
There is a difference between the Bible and religion, I am not religious but I live the best that I can according to what the Bible teaches. If my Pastor taught something that was outside the realm of what the Bible teaches then I would find a different pastor that was still teaching true bible. For instance the sinners prayer is not in the Bible, and out of all the examples of people getting saved in the Bible there is not one that happened by accepting Jesus Christ as there Lord and savior. There also is not a place that condones same sex marriage. Every place that the Bible talks about Homosexuality it is opposed to it.
It is what the Bible says, that makes it right or wrong and no matter how many PHD's a person has the Bible is still the final say.
What far too many people fail to realize is that "RELIGION" is NOT about any god. Religion is a power tool fueled by fear and need and greed--the power of the few to tell the many how to live. And then there are the con artists -- the snake-oil salesmen/faith healers and the "give your money to god; send your check to me" clergy.
Many scholars believe that Jesus approved of homoseuxality in Matthew 19:12. Eunuchs at the time would have included male homosexuals. Jesus also spoke very highly of the (gay) Roman Centurion (found in Matthew and Luke).
This whole debate over greek idioms is inappropriate in this context. The Centurion, a godly man represents gentile believers. His young bondservant was paralyzed and needed healing. This is a story of faith, not a hidden encounter with a homosexual.
Pais is used rightly to mean young boy or boy under strict oversight and then Doulos was used to illustrate the bondservant nature of the relationship. This is not a sexual relationship but a mentoring / fatherly relationship.
How do you come up with such garbage??? Do you just write what you would like to believe??
Can you substaniate any of this tripe? NOT !
I am leaving now to wash my eyes with bleach !!!
And, no I wouldn't kill anyone for their sin. No, I'm not perfect. No, I don't make the rules. No, I don't change the rules. Yes, I have the freedom of choice too.
I can pass on the heterophobe comments.
The prohibition of homosexual relations, like the prohibition of idolatry and blasphemy, apply to all humanity. So do the prohibitions of theft and murder. Rabbi Lichtenstein compiled 66 universal commandments. The rest are for the Children of Israel, although open for adoption by others.
Dr. Lowery wrote: "As a minister and Bible scholar, I'm proud that the president has publicly endorsed marriage equality". I am quite sure that, were he alive, Jesus would invite Dr. Lowery for at least one more lesson! :-)