The Rush, a Song

And I never could have guessed
How big and bright and beautiful you were
It was always hit or miss
But everything has changed now that you’re here

And I would give it all up if I could
To feel the fire burning in my blood
The Spirit breathing life into my flesh
Sweeping my heart away in the sacred rush
In the glorious crush
Of the holy hush
I wanna feel the rush

I may never understand
How awesome always and everywhere you are
When I thought I’d reached the end
I take a second look and I find more

And I would give it all up if I could
To feel the fire burning in my blood
The Spirit breathing life into my flesh
Sweeping my heart away in the sacred rush
In the glorious crush
Of the holy hush
I wanna feel the rush

Everything’s turned upside down
The world I thought I knew
It’s all gonna have to change
Cause everything that once made sense
Is making room for you
And I won’t ever be the same

And I would give it all up if I could
To feel the fire burning in my blood
The Spirit breathing life into my flesh
Sweeping my heart away in the sacred rush
In the glorious crush
Of the holy hush
I wanna feel the rush

What's So Amazing About Advent? An Advent Wreath Liturgy (Week 4)

Throughout the advent season we’ve taken time
To rekindle our amazement
By remembering the amazing announcements

[light first candle]

The amazing acceptance

[light second candle]

The amazing anticipation

[light third candle]

And the amazing adoration

[light fourth candle]

That are all part of the Christmas story.

And is that all that’s amazing about advent?

Asks the dissatisfied in the crowd.

And the answer, of course, is: no.

There’s one last thing for us to be amazed at in advent:
The amazing arrival.

Because Advent is about waiting, of course
And what we’ve been waiting for throughout this Advent Season
Is the arrival of the Baby Jesus,
Born of a woman
Born under the law
To redeem those under the law
And make us all children of God.

Do you remember how amazing his arrival was?
In the dead of night, while lowly shepherds
Watched their flocks in the darkness
And proud kings slept soundly in palaces of gold,
While emperors dreamed grandiose dreams of ruling the world
And all the inns in Bethlehem
Were bursting at the seams because of it

A Virgin gave birth and a baby was born

Isn’t it amazing?

They wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger
Because there was no room for him in the inn
Angels announced him
Wisemen greeted him
Shepherds came and worshiped
While Mary pondered all these things in her heart.

Absolutely Amazing!

And so we light this final candle, the Christ Candle, tonight
To remind us all, that so long as he is with us in it
This world, his world, truly is an amazing place
And so long as he walks the road with us
Our way will be overflowing with amazement.

[light the Christ Candle]

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

A Theory of Everything, a song

I never knew that gravity could make you feel so light
I never knew that light could press you down with such a weight
I always thought each action had its equal opposite
I always thought each heartbeat was without its duplicate

When space and time collapse
And reference points collide
And everything is relative to you
When all my reason’s gone
And logic’s crucified
I find the source of everything that’s true

I always thought that two lines parallel can’t intersect
And rainbows shine only when there’s white light to reflect
And I was taught that equal poles would always push apart
And every circle brought you in the end back to the start

When space and time collapse
And reference points collide
And everything is relative to you
When all my reason’s gone
And logic’s crucified
I find the source of everything that’s true

Before we met I thought I knew
What my whole world was orbiting
Or anything could be so constant
As the speed of light. Before we met
I never guessed
The universe might be unravelling
But now we have and now I find
I’m having to rewrite my theory of everything

Before we met I thought I knew
What my whole world was orbiting
Or anything could be so constant
As the speed of light. Before we met
I never guessed
The universe might be unravelling
But now we have and now I find
I’m having to rewrite my theory of everything,
Everything, everything
You are my theory, my theory of everything

What's So Amazing About Advent? An Advent Wreath Liturgy (Week 3)

Last week we lit this candle as a challenge
for us to be a people who accept the Father’s will for us.

[light second candle]

And before that we lit this candle,
to remind us to be amazed
at the announcements of the advent season.

[light first candle]

But there’s still more to be amazed at in advent.

What else is amazing about advent?

Asks the curious in the crowd.
What about the amazing anticipation that happens this season?

Christmas, of course,
Is one of those few seasons where the waiting
Is perhaps more fun than the arrival.
Where the hustle and the bustle of preparing for the celebration
Rivals, almost, the dawning of the big day itself.

In this it takes its cue from the Christian story.

After all, hadn’t the people of Israel waited millennia
In eager anticipation of their Messiah?
Enthroning their kings and hearing from prophets
Building their temples and watching the signs
For the dawning of Emmanuel?

Amazing anticipation!

And in the days of John the Baptist
Didn’t they head on down to the Jordan River,
To wash away sin and clean up their act
To make straight the paths and get level places ready
In anticipation of his arrival?

Amazing.

And Mary and Joseph,
Knowing that it was none other than
The Son of God, the Maker of Everything
The savior of the world Himself
Kicking in her womb,
Still didn’t they have to wait the normal nine months
Filled with anticipation for the ordinary birth of their
Heaven-Sent Baby Boy?

Absolutely amazing!

Anticipation—the eager act of getting ready,
while we wait for a good thing to arrive—
this is a lost art in our instant-gratification world.

But it is also a serious Christian discipline.

Because whatever else it is,
The Christian life is always lived
In eager anticipation of God’s New Thing
The New Heavens and the New Earth
That he promises to give us when
that same Heavenly Baby Boy
Comes again a second time,
The Heaven-Sent Lord of All.

[light third candle]

And so, in the meantime, we light this,
the third candle of advent
To remind us to stay busy
And to stay amazed
As we anticipate that day.

Truth Be Told, a song

Everyone has dreaming that they
Think they have to hide
A little bit of longing
Tucked away somewhere inside
And I don’t wanna make assumptions,
I don’t wanna pry
But if you never spread your wings,
You’re never gonna fly

If the truth be told
And the world could see
All the secrets you hold
All your mysteries
They would set you free
If the truth be told
If I could be so bold
To tell you honestly
You’re a sight to behold
You can show it to me
It will set you free
If the truth be told

Everyone has disappointments
Swept under the rug
The whole thing would unravel
If you gave a thread a tug
And I can’t make you promises
Or give you guarantees
But if you don’t let the light in
You won’t ever get to see

If the truth be told
And the world could see
All the secrets you hold
All your mysteries
They would set you free
If the truth be told
If I could be so bold
To tell you honestly
You’re a sight to behold
You can show it to me
It will set you free
If the truth be told

Everyone has bruises too sacred
For the light of day
The scarring left behind
When your innocence was stripped away
And I can’t give you easy answers,
If you need to know the whys
But one day it will all make sense
When you look him in the eye

If the truth be told
And the world could see
All the secrets you hold
All your mysteries
They would set you free
If the truth be told
If I could be so bold
To tell you honestly
You’re a sight to behold
You can show it to me
It will set you free
If the truth be told

It All Depends: Toward an Integrative Perspective on Same-Sex Sexuality (X)

One of my favorite places in the Old Testament is Proverbs 26:4-5.

It’s right in the middle of a long list of proverbs helping us to envision what Wisdom looks like and how to walk in it, and it starts with this stark warning: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.” Fair enough: I’ve found myself in that trap often enough, of making myself a fool by trying to respond to someone else’s folly on their terms. So I can see the wisdom there.

But the very next verse (and in the Hebrew, it uses the same words in the same form and order, so there’ll be no missing it), it offers us the exact opposite advice, as an equally wise word to live by: “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will become wise in his own eyes.” Again, I can see the wisdom in that: sometimes you have to meet someone where they’re at, if you want to help them see the error of their ways.

So, both statements are words to the wise, but it does raise the question: which is it, Book of Proverbs? Should we answer a fool according to his folly, or should we not answer a fool according to his folly?

And with all the serenity of a quiet sea after a storm, Wisdom gives us a long slow look (I imagine her, too, with a twinkle in her eyes), and she says: well, it depends.

Who’s the fool? And what’s the nature of their folly?

Because there is something profoundly contextual about wisdom. It has absolute truths undergirding it, to be sure—the fear of the Lord is where it starts, according to Proverbs, and knowledge of the Holy One is itself understanding—but how that plays out in the real world of our lived experience, all depends on a thousand and one subjective realities that make the particular context in which we are trying to live wisely.

I have been thinking about Proverbs 26:4-5 a lot as I have worked on this series laying out the case for an integrative approach to same-sex sexuality and LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church. Not—let me be very clear—because I think of anyone as fools, regardless how this issue touches them or what side of it they are standing on. It’s just because in Proverbs 26:4-5, I hear the Bible saying something generally about wisdom that I often say, when people ask me how I see an “integrative approach” playing out in church life or discipleship.

It all depends.

One of the things I have learned as I have studied this issue, and especially as I have gotten to know LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones, is that there is no “one-size-fits-all” description of what it means to be LGBTQ+, what it looks like to carry that identity, or how it might impact your lived experience.

Some LGBTQ+ people are Christians who grew up in the church and are terrified of coming out because of the implications of what it might mean for them. Other LGBTQ+ people have next to no experience of the Christian church, and are somewhat baffled but mostly hurt by what they hear being said about them in many Christian circles. Other LGBTQ+ people are suffering profoundly from gender dysphoria, or suicidality, or just plain old loneliness and despair.

How do we respond to all these very different experiences, except to say that it depends on which experience we are responding to?

When I speak to Christians who are firmly settled in a non-affirming view, I often hear phrases like: “But the Bible says ‘it’ is a sin,” or “I just don’t agree with ‘the lifestyle.’” Such statements often leave me wondering: which of the many different experiences I described above (or the million-and-one other different experiences I might have described) do you mean when you say “it” is a sin? Which of those many different “styles of life” do you mean when you speak about “a lifestyle” with which you disagree?

Before we can say anything concrete about how to be integrative in the way I’ve been proposing in this series, we need to grapple profoundly with the highly contextual nature of what it means to be LGBTQ+, how each story is unique, and situated, and because of that, worth all the effort it may take to really understand it.

When we’ve done that kind of grappling, we will find, I think, that there is simply not a one-size-fits-all response, or position, or statement we can make about what the Bible says about “homosexuality” and how Christians ought to apply it in their lives and relationships. Each particular story will require a uniquely appropriate response, and integrating the teaching of the Scripture with the lived experience of LGBTQ+ people will always be highly contextual, profoundly personal, deeply individual.

That said, there are some practical things, by way of a consistent approach to these issues, that this series has suggested we can do. Before describing them, however, it might be helpful briefly to summarize how we got here. In this series, I have argued that, while the Bible does not give us explicit warrant to fully affirm same-sex marriage or same-sex sexual activity, and while the overarching orientation of the Bible when it comes to sex is exclusively towards heterosexual covenant unions, it is possible still to embrace LGBTQ+ people, to include them fully in the life of the community, and to respect and bless their relationships, and this without compromising our interpretation of the Bible or our commitment to its authority.

In brief: the Bible does not present same-sex sexuality as something that fulfills the creator’s intention for sex when he created human beings; however, the lived realities of the LGBTQ+ experience, and especially the pain, vulnerability, and distress LGBTQ+ people experience when they are unable to integrate their sexual identity with their sense of self, is such that compassionately embracing them, fully including them in community, and honoring their relationships does not, in and of itself, violate the Creator’s intention for us either.

Because this seems like an irreconcilable contradiction (the Bible never says it’s ok, but even so, it’s ok to make it ok for LGBTQ+ people), I have offered a few case studies of other ethical issues where we do just that: make something ok that the Bible never says is ok, or, indeed, clearly says is not ok. Divorce and remarriage, going to war, and using contraception are the ones I chose to look at. To these, if we had time, we might explore others: accumulating wealth, charging interest on loans, or (depending on your hermeneutics) freeing women to serve without restriction in the life of the church.

I have used the term “integrative” to describe our approach to these issues, because as far as I can tell, that is what we are doing: integrating the teaching of the Bible with our lived experience in the Creator’s world, a world that does not always fit neatly or simply into the straightforward categories of Scripture.

I have not tried to provide a comprehensive methodology for determining when an issue can be handled “integratively” like this, but taken together, these case studies suggest some common elements that may make such an approach justified.

1. If we are convinced that it would actually cause greater harm to adhere to the letter of the Law than it would to go against it (such as when Christians believe that remaining pacifist would cause greater harm than going to war);

2. If there are social developments or circumstances in our world that the Bible could not have spoken to and the original hearers could not have envisioned in the ancient world, which make a literal application of the Bible’s teaching untenable or uncompassionate (such as in the case of the Protestant embrace of contraception);

3. If we find ourselves in a situation where, in order to adhere to one biblical directive, we need to violate another (such as we see in the story of Ruth and Boaz);

4. If the issue in question is not a matter of Creed, to be resolved theologically, but is, rather, a question of Christian ethics, to be worked out ethically;

5. If there is reason to believe that when the Bible speaks about a particular issue, it may have something substantially different in view than how that issue occurs or is encountered in the modern world (people often make appeals like this when trying to make sense of the Bible’s “position” on slavery, arguing that slavery in the ancient world was a very different thing…).

I will leave it up to you to decide whether or not the question of LGBTQ+ inclusion meets any of these criteria, and, if so, to what extent. For my part, I am convinced that it meets all five, and I have sought an approach that welcomes, includes, embraces and honors, without denying what I understand the witness of Scripture to be.

I am tempted to say “It depends” when an impatient reader then asks me, “Ok, but what does that look like in real life?” Because in the end, it really does depend. For those of you who have stuck with me throughout this long and winding series, however, let me offer a few humble suggestions, here at the end, to help us imagine how we might actually begin to be integrative.

An integrative approach, I think, would leave LGBTQ+ people free to participate in the life of the community according to their gifting and calling, and would not make this conditional on their agreement not to seek or enter into a same-sex marriage relationship.

An integrative approach would continue to uphold the witness of the Scripture, that the Bible does not present same-sex sex as something that fulfills the creator’s intention, but it would leave the decision about whether to live singly or to pursue a same-sex covenant union up to the individual believer, per Romans 14, acknowledging that each person will give their own account to their own Master, and no Christian ought to “judge someone else’s servant,” as Paul so aptly puts it.

An integrative approach would provide spiritual support to LGBTQ+ Christians who, as a matter of faith, choose to walk a path of singleness and celibacy; and it would provide equal support to LGBTQ+ Christians who, as a matter of faith enter into a same-sex union.

A person (or church) with an integrative approach might refrain from performing same-sex marriages, as a position of conscience, though they would still honor such unions, respect them, and even bless them, as a gesture of solidarity (along the lines, perhaps, of how Pope Francis recently allowed priests to bless same-sex unions).

There are probably more points we could make, in terms of the boundaries and outer limits of what an integrative approach entails, but the more prescriptive we become, the less and less integrative we will be. Because at its heart, the integrative approach is profoundly contextual, eschewing cut-and-dry, one-size-fits-all approaches, and choosing instead to say (perhaps along with the author of Proverbs 26), a gracious, patient, compassionate, “It depends.”

<<< previous

Be Here Now, a song

I never saw you standing there
Cause though my flesh and blood was here
My heart was still a million miles away
I tried with all my might to hear
But even though your voice was clear
I never really heard you say

Be here, be here now
Each second holds the secret of eternity
Be here, be here now
The universe in every grain of sand
Each heartbeat is a window on your destiny
The ground beneath your feet your promised land
Each breath unlocks a door onto infinity
Don’t need to have it figured out to understand
Just be. Be here.
Be here. Be here now.

I had borrowed all my worries from tomorrow
And escaping from my sorrow I got trapped in yesterday
My heart was always spinning in a whirl
Trying earnestly to follow
But I couldn’t find a way (to)

Be here, be here now
Each second holds the secret of eternity
Be here, be here now
The universe in every grain of sand
Each heartbeat is a window on your destiny
The ground beneath your feet your promised land
Each breath unlocks a door onto infinity
Don’t need to have it figured out to understand
Just be. Be here.
Be here. Be here now.

And where I ever I go, you’re right where I am
You’re right where I need to be
Taking it slow, and taking my hand
And whispering gently to me

Be here, be here now
Each second holds the secret of eternity
Be here, be here now
The universe in every grain of sand
Each heartbeat is a window on your destiny
The ground beneath your feet your promised land
Each breath unlocks a door onto infinity
Don’t need to have it figured out to understand
Just be. Be here.
Be here. Be here now.

What's So Amazing About Advent, an Advent Wreath Liturgy: Week 2

Last week we lit this candle to remind us to be amazed
At the glorious announcement of God’s love for the world
That he made to us in the birth of his son.

[light 1st Candle]

But Advent is not only a time of amazing announcements
It’s also a time of amazing … acceptance.

What a strange thing to be amazed at!

Says the skeptic in the crowd; but even so, think it through:

When the angel announced to the Virgin that she would conceive,
Even though it meant scandal and shame
To bear a child out of wedlock
Not to mention the absolute terror
Of bearing in her body the fetal Son of God

She accepted her role—isn’t it amazing?—and answered in reply:

I am the Lord’s Servant, may it be to me as you have said.

The same is true of Joseph, when he learned that his fiancé
Would bear a child that wasn’t his.
Despite the disgrace that fell on him
He humbly accepted his place in the plan,

As Matthew’s Gospel puts it:

He did what the angel commanded
And took Mary home as his wife.

Isn’t it amazing?

But it is perhaps more amazing that we can fathom,
Because we celebrate an even greater acceptance
Than theirs this Advent season.
Because when the Triune God looked down
On a world weary with sin and blinded with darkness,
And knew that the only way to save it
Was to offer up God’s own very own life for its redemption,
The Son of God—even though he was
Equal to the Father in every way—
Did not consider his equality with God
As a thing to be used for his personal gain
Rather he accepted his place in the Father’s plan
And came to earth to die.

As the Scriptures say

He made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant
Being made in human likeness
And being found in appearance as a man!

Isn’t it amazing?

[light second candle]

And so we light this second candle of Advent to challenge us
To be like him in this:
to accept from the Father’s Hand
Whatever he has in mind
And whatever he wants do
To use us in his plan to show the world his love.

The Lorica of St. Patrick, a song

The Universals and the Particulars: Towards an Integrative Approach to Same-Sex Sexuality (IX)

I have always been fascinated by Renaissance artist Raphael’s 1511 masterpiece, The School of Athens. It depicts an imagined assembly of the greatest philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians of the ancient world, standing together in a sort of collage, discoursing, discussing and debating with one another about all the deepest questions of life.

At the centre of the painting, standing on either side of the vanishing point, are the two greatest masters of ancient Greek philosophy, Plato, on the left hand, and Aristotle on the right. Plato—whose philosophy focused on the overarching, absolute Forms of which all material objects on earth are merely shadows—points a single, insistent finger upward, in a gesture that perfectly reflects his central philosophical preoccupation: the epistemological necessity of immaterial, immutable universals that give meaning to all the particulars of life. By contrast, Aristotle—whose philosophical system emphasized the Particulars of the individual substances and entities we encounter—points a hand out horizontally, with splayed fingers to symbolize his insistence that truth and meaning is to be derived from the particulars of any given instantiation of an object in time and space.

I sometimes wonder if this portrait of two philosophers, one with a single finger pointing skyward and the other with splayed fingers pointing outward, isn’t a perfect metaphor for the difference between affirming and non-affirming Christians when it comes to the debate about what the Bible really says when it comes to same-sex sexuality. It certainly illustrates the tension I feel in my own heart as I have worked through this issue to arrive at the integrative position I’ve been advocating for in this series.

When I focus on the overarching “ideals” that seem to be in the background, forming the shadow whenever the Bible happens to talk about sex—with my single finger pointing upward, so to speak—I can’t escape the conclusion that its overarching vision is for sex to be contained within the bonds of exclusive, monogamous, heterosexual covenant relationships. I have spoken briefly about this in previous posts (see here and here).

When I point my hand outward, though, to look at the particulars of those places in the Bible where it happens to be discussing same-sex sex, I can’t escape the conclusion that whatever same-sex marriage is, as it occurs in the modern world, is not what the biblical authors were imagining or, indeed, condemning, when they said that people who engage in certain kinds of sexual activities won’t inherit the kingdom of God.

Each one of the biblical passages where same-sex sex is the topic of focus needs a full-length monograph to discuss properly, so I’m under no illusions that a blog post can do any of the data justice, but let me share a few thoughts about how I’ve come to understand some of the so-called “clobber passages” in the Bible (i.e. those passages that non-affirming Christians often reach for to justify their position, often “clobbering” LGBTQ people with rigid claims of absolute truth, in the process).

1. Genesis 19:1-28, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is very obvious to me that this story contains no explicit condemnation of same-sex sex generally. The reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, in the story, is because the men of the city intended to gang-rape a visitor, in horrific violation of the ancient world’s moral code of hospitality. Sodom and Gomorrah would have been equally deserving of destruction, according to the moral logic of the story, if they guests in question had been female. This is a point the parallel story in Judges 19 makes clear. This story does not necessarily condemn same-sex sex, anymore than the Bible’s stern words about heterosexual fornication and adultery means that all forms of heterosexual sex are wrong.

2. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, a man shall not lie with a male.

I am not personally convinced that this passage is only condemning homosexual cultic prostitution in the context of idol worship (a common take on the prohibitions against homosexual activity in Leviticus). I say this primarily because it occurs in a list of other prohibited sexual practices, none of which have to do with worship, and all of which seem more to do with procreation (i.e. regulating certain types of sexual relationships to ensure a safe and healthy propagation of the family line). Some interpreters appeal to the passage’s subsequent reference to “sacrificing children to the pagan god Molech” as evidence that the prohibition against homosexual sex is about idol worship, but I find this unconvincing. Most commonly in the ancient world, it was unwanted babies who were “given to Molech” like this, so the prohibition against child sacrifice appears on this list of prohibited sex acts, not because it’s talking about cultic sex, but because children are the natural and expected result of intercourse.

Nor am I personally convinced that because Leviticus 20:13 uses two different Hebrew words to describe the men who are engaging in sex (first it’s ish, “man” and then it’s zachar, “male”), this must mean that the passage is only prohibiting exploitative sex, or homosexual sex with minors, or some other kind of abusive sex. While it’s true that zachar can mean “male child,” this is not the most common usage, and it tends to mean that only when the sex of the child, specifically, is germane to the point (like in English, when we say “was your baby a boy or a girl?”). Given the emphasis on procreation in the passage, my sense is that it uses zachar, which emphasizes the maleness of a man in terms of his sexed body, to undesrcore the fundamental problem: a man having sex with a “male” will not procreate, because, in terms of procreation, only a female is compatible with a man.

Note: this is not to say that, because I believe Leviticus is speaking about male-male sex generally in these passages (and not specifically about cultic prostitution or abusive sex) I therefore believe it ought to be applied today, and that those who are in same-sex marriages today are “abominable to the Lord,” per Leviticus 18. I most emphatically do not believe that. But that is because I believe that through his death and resurrection Christ has completely fulfilled all the requirements of the Law for us, and by the pouring out of his Holy Spirit, he has set us into an entirely new relationship with Leviticus, as with the rest of Torah. In other words, it is for theological reasons, not exegetical reasons, that I do not believe Leviticus 18 and 20 should determine our response to same-sex sexuality today.

3. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, “men who have sex with men” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In brief, I do not believe the references to same-sex sex in these passages are describing anything like the modern day phenomenon of same-sex marriage, or LGBTQ+ sexual identities. The Greek terms in question, often translated as “homosexual offenders,” “men who have sex with men,” etc., are aresnokoitai, and malakoi. Literally these terms mean something like “man-bedders” and “effeminate ones” respectively. The first was ostensibly coined by Paul, and the second was not widely used to describe sexual behavior in the ancient world (more commonly it was used to describe men who were seen as weak, lacking in self-control, or “soft” in a derogatory sense).

Given the fact that Paul groups arsenokoitai with “slave-traders” in 1 Timothy, given the fact that in Greek the word malakoi could be used to describe men who were the “receptive” partner in a same-sex encounter, and especially given the fact that same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world always involved a power imbalance, was generally understood to be shaming for the receptive partner (but not for the penetrating partner), and typically occurred between men who also had heterosexual relations with their (female) wives, my sense is that Paul is referring here to particular sex acts that today we would think of as homosexual rape, homosexual fornication, and/or homosexual prostitution. These verses do not refer to same-sex covenant relationships, or even imagine them as a possibility. And to state the obvious: to prohibit homosexual rape is not to prohibit all forms of same-sex sex, any more than it prohibits all forms of heterosexual sex when we condemn heterosexual rape.

4. Romans 1:26-27, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

This passage is probably the most difficult to make sense of from an affirming perspective, and one of the main reasons I do not describe myself as “affirming,” even though I believe Christians ought to bless, respect, and fully include LGBTQ people in the life of their community. The literature on these few verses is vast, and I can only summarize, but suffice it here to say the following. Verse 27 uses the word “natural” (in Greek: phusikos) to describes heterosexual sex in this passage, and strongly implies that male-male sex is against nature (para phusis). (Note: it’s not entirely clear whether verse 26 is describing female-female sex; given the broader context it seems to be, but strictly limiting ourselves to what is said, it does not necessarily have to mean this, though verse 27 is clearly describing male-male sex). 

It is true that in the ancient world the concept of “nature” and what is “natural” had a broader meaning than just one’s biological nature. In 1 Corinthians 11, for example, Paul describes long hair on men as “unnatural,” even though today we would think of this more as a cultural matter than a biological one. Nevertheless, my sense is that the most likely interpretation here is that Paul describes male-male sex as “unnatural” primarily because it lies outside the “natural” male-female relations that “naturally” lead to procreation. Paul seems to have the creation story of Genesis 1 in his mind as he is dictating these words to his scribe, alluding to it in verses 20, 22, and 23 (Paul also has the Wisdom of Solomon in mind, though this ancient text, too, is deeply informed by the creation account of Genesis). If it’s true, though, that Genesis 1 is informing Paul’s writing, it’s also true that Genesis 1 culminates with the creator mandating humanity to “be fruitful and multiply,” suggesting that, whatever else sex given to us for, its most “natural” function is the propagation of the species.

Having said that, I think that if we are going to be strict literalists with the text on the meaning of “what is natural and what is not,” we also need to be strict literalists with the fact that Paul is clearly describing “lustful sex” here, and that the kind of sex these hypothetical people are having is “dishonoring” to one another’s bodies (that is, it is a form of degrading sex). The questions then become: (1) is all homosexual sex an instance of lust, by default? And (2) if there were forms of same-sex sex that were demonstrably not lustful, would they still fall under the general censure of Romans 1? 

I cannot speak for Paul on those questions, but my personal answer is “no” to both. In other words: all forms of homosexual sex are not lustful by default, and those forms of same-sex relationships that are not—that is to say mutual, exclusive, covenant same-sex relationships—should not be included under the censure of Romans 1. (I don’t know what Paul would say about them, if he could hop in the time-machine and get a glimpse of them; I’m just saying that they are not the same things as what Romans 1 is describing). I say that because: (1) the evidence that there were any same-sex sex relationships in the ancient world that were not “lustful,” “degrading,” and/or “abusive” is very weak, so it’s not likely Paul would have even imagined such forms of sex, let alone talked about them; (2) when Paul speaks in Romans 1:24 about people following the “lusts of their hearts,” he is not yet describing same-sex sex specifically, but all forms of lustful sex-acts generally (the topic of homosexual sex does not come up until verse 26-27, and there he talks both about women and men, suggesting that both women and men are included in the lustful sex-acts described in verse 24); and finally (3) I have known enough LGBTQ+ people, listened to their stories and experienced their relationships sufficiently to know, simply, that these relationships are not, lustful, or even, predominantly, about sex; at least they don’t have to be (anymore than all heterosexual relationships have to be lustful). Rather these relationships are about the same kinds of things that heterosexual people seek in physically intimate relationships: affection, companionship, mutual support, well-being, friendship, personal meaning, and more, all of it in addition to, and as an integral part of their sexual expression.

There is a lot more that could be said about each of the above passages, of course, but in very broad strokes, those are the reasons I have sought an “integrative approach” in my response to same-sex sexuality and LGBTQ+ identities. When I speak with Christians who are staunchly non-affirming, I often hear statements like, “But the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality…” What I hope this brief survey has shown, though, is that (a) these passages are not nearly so clear in their condemnation as we might have thought; and (b) the particular “kind” of homosexual activity in view may not have all that much to do with same-sex relationships as they happen today.

For these reasons, I have concluded that this is an ethical issue, and not a theological one (see here for my thoughts on that); and that as we do with other ethical issues (like divorce and remarriage, or the problem of war), we need to find a way to integrate the witness of the Bible with the world as we encounter it, and so find a wise way forward that is respectful of both.

In my next and final post in this series, I intend to get very concrete in terms of what this looks like in practice, but in general terms, I think it means the following things: (1) that churches should fully welcome LGBTQ+ people into the life of the community, leaving them free to serve in all levels of leadership and ministry, according to their gifting and calling, and this whether they are walking a path of celibacy or living in a same-sex covenant relationship; (2) that churches should respect and bless same-sex marriages, including those couples who are part of their community, even if, as a position of conscience, churches refrain from performing same-sex marriages themselves.

While this “integrative approach” may seem hopelessly compromised to some readers, and not nearly good enough to others, I have found it to be the best way to hold all of the relevant data and competing issues together. If our conclusions about the Bible’s teaching on same-sex sex were “The School of Athens,” you might say, an integrative approach is seeking a place right at the centre of the vanishing point, with one hand pointing upward, gesturing simply to the overarching ideals, and the other hand pointing outward, intent on respecting the particulars in all their complexity.

<<< previous                   next >>>