PREFACE
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called
for all presbyteries and other concerned groups throughout the
denomination to embark on a study relating to unity in the midst
of diversity. The divisive debate over standards for ordination
in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) requires the guidance of the
Holy Spirit at work throughout the entire Church.
In the year 2000, the 212th General Assembly of The Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) rejected by a vote of 453 to 71 an overture that
would have declared an irreconcilable impasse to exist in the
denomination in regard to its ministry with homosexual people.
In effect, this decision said "We choose rather to see differences
of opinion positively and believe that differences, in fact, have
the potential to make our unity in Christ even stronger.
A major part of the dilemma the church faces is the fact that
there are those who believe that persons who are homosexual, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered, do not choose this path any more than
heterosexual persons choose to be attracted to persons of the
opposite gender. There are also those who are convinced that
while having other than heterosexual orientation may be a given,
it can be altered in all cases; and, they add, all expressions
of sexuality other than heterosexual are sin.
These two contrasting opinions lead to the question of how a spiritual
ministry can best be provided. Year after year, much energy is
spent in debate and little compromise has been found.
Another facet of this situation is that very few presbyteries
and even fewer congregations have initiated the kind of study
that General Assembly has requested. And coming for a vote by
presbyteries in early 2001 is an amendment that would flatly prohibit
all Presbyterian clergy from participating in any ceremony that
emphasizes a committed companionship between persons of the same
gender; this would also prohibit Presbyterian clergy from offering
public prayers in their behalf during such a ceremony, regardless
of how they might believe their conscience is leading them.
The Bible study which you are now holding in your hands is intended
to help fulfill the General Assembly's request for study. I have
endeavored to provide a thoughtful study guide which encourages
the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. I have also endeavored
to break new ground in the ongoing discussion. Hopefully, this
new approach will be helpful and fruitful.
About the author: An alumnus of Albright College
in Reading, Pennsylvania, and of United Theological Seminary in
Dayton, Ohio, I have served Presbyterian congregations in the
Presbytery of Hudson River and the Presbytery of Cayuga-Syracuse,
both in New York State. During these pastorates, I have also
served on the following Presbytery committees: Evangelism; Church
and Society; Committee on Ministry; Judicial Commission; Committee
on Women and the Church; and others. In 1954, I was nominated
for membership in the nationwide Society of Biblical Literature,
where I continued as a member until retirement in 1994. From
1973 to 1994 I was also a member of an international organization
called the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Before
becoming a member of Lehigh Presbytery, I served as moderator
of the Cayuga-Syracuse Presbytery through the year of my retirement
in 1994.
My views of the Bible are best expressed by our Presbyterian "Confession
of 1967," paragraphs 9.27 through 9.30 in our Book of
Confessions, which is an official statement of our Church's
doctrine, and from which I now quote in full:
The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated.
The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the New, and is not itself fully understood without the New.
The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current.
The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.
God's word is spoken to his church today where the Scriptures are faithfully preached and attentively read in dependence on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and with readiness to receive their truth and direction.
This Bible study can only be understood in conjunction with
the references to Scripture upon which it is based. Divided into
seven parts, it can be studied a day at a time or a week at a
time. It is not intended as a substitute for previous studies,
but as complementary to what may have been already undertaken.
Each "Day" or unit should begin with prayer and close
with prayer. Rather than providing prescribed prayers, I invite
the reader to offer a prayer of his or her own, prayerfully seeking
an open mind, an open heart, and guidance from the Spirit of a
loving, compassionate God.
DAY 1
The Bible -- to be treated with care
Read Hebrews 4:12-16
Read John 1:1-18
Read Colossians 1:15-20
Comment
Although the writer of the letter to the Hebrews appears
to be describing the Scriptures (our Old Testament) as "sharper
than any two-edged sword," he adds that "Before him
no creature is hidden" and then tells how we receive grace
and mercy through Jesus. The Gospel according to John affirms
that Jesus is the "Word of God" made flesh, and that
the Scriptures ("the law of Moses") are subordinate
to Jesus, who reveals "grace and truth.") Paul's letter
to the Colossians emphasizes that Jesus is "to have first
place in everything."
When the Protestant Reformation swept through Europe, one of the
great doctrines that resisted layers of church traditions which
had accumulated during the Middle Ages was "sole Scripture"
- "only in the Scriptures." The Scriptures to which
they referred, of course, were both Old and New Testaments. They
called themselves "evangelical" because of their emphasis
on the "evangelists," that is, those who wrote the four
Gospels which told of Jesus, who revealed "grace and truth."
All the rest of the Scriptures had to be interpreted through
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
They realized that without the "spirit of grace and truth"
revealed in Jesus Christ, the Scriptures could be made to say
anything that anyone wanted them to say. And this is exactly
what has happened.
Scripture has been used to justify genocide (read Joshua 6:15-21).
Scripture has been used to justify vengeance (read Psalm 58:6-11).
Scripture has been used to justify slavery (read Exodus 21:20).
Read Micah 6:8.
-
Comment
It is easy, when expounding the doctrine of "sole
Scripture," to forget that all Scripture is perceived through
the lens of our own eyesight, and is colored accordingly. This
Bible study Is based on years of experience and research yet it
is filtered through the views of its author. It is important
to recognize and respect differences of opinion, arid you are
invited to agree or disagree with the author as we proceed together.
Our priority must be on "walking humbly" with God, as
Micah instructed us; and the arrogance of assuming that one's
own interpretation of Scripture is the only valid interpretation
must be avoided, if we are to fulfill the instruction given by
Micah. One does not handle any two-edged sword lightly or carelessly,
nor without considerable caution. We will try to fulfill all
these requirements as we proceed in this study.
Questions for reflection:
With what points discussed above do you agree? Why?
With what points discussed above do you disagree? Why?
DAY 2
Jesus the teacher -- what principles did he use?
Read Mark 1:21-28
Comment
It becomes clear that the method used by Jesus for interpreting
the Scriptures (our Old Testament) was very different from that
of the scribes (interpreters of the religious laws). What was
the difference?
The scribes were meticulous, to say the least. For example, when
one of the Ten Commandments stated that there should be a Sabbath
(a day for rest and renewal) once in every seven days, the scribes
went to great lengths to stipulate precisely what restrictions
that entailed. When Jesus disregarded those restrictions he was
rebuked. His reply provides strong evidence that compassion and
concern for the best interests of human beings were basic principles
upon which Jesus based his teaching:
Read Mark 2:23-28
Read Matthew 12:9-14
Read Luke 14:1-6
Read John 9:13-34
Comment
It appears that Jesus believed that compassion takes priority
when interpreting the laws of religion. Religious laws, religious
traditions, are intended to make life easier and more beneficial
for human beings than would be possible without them. When those
laws and traditions become burdensome they lose both their significance
and purpose.
Read Matthew 12:28-30
Read Matthew 23:1-4 and Matthew 23:23-24
Comment
Jesus had a keen appreciation for the purpose of religious
laws as they were originally intended. He sorted through those
that continued to have merit, and extended their original purpose.
But he did so not by adding meticulous details as the scribes
did, but by interpreting the spirit that had made them important
in the first place. The scribes certainly taught authoritatively;
but the people were astonished at what Jesus taught about righteousness
because he emphasized the spirit instead of the letter of the
law.
Read Matthew 5:17-22
Read Matthew 7:1-5
Comment
You have doubtless heard the expression, Words can kill."
Jesus took that very seriously. Referring to the Commandment
"Thou shalt not kill," he extended it far beyond its
original intention and included the hurtful spirit of anger and
insults which can kill the spirit.
The expression "You fool," before and during the lifetime
of Jesus, had nothing to do with a person's intelligence or lack
thereof. Those who broke the commandments of God were traditionally
called "fools." But Jesus taught that God alone has
the privilege to pass that kind of judgment. Those who called
other people sinners and condemned them to eternal punishment
were liable to condemnation themselves. Jesus knew that it is
too easy for people to judge other people on the basis of their
own feelings, while overlooking their own flaws.
Another of the Ten Commandments can be used to illustrate the
compassionate concern which was one of the methods of interpretation
which Jesus used: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
they neighbor." It could be argued that this commandment
should be interpreted as a ban against false testimony in court
as well as just plain lying about someone else. But it would not
be incorrect to say that Jesus would extend his principle of compassionate
concern for people much further than that, and include any misleading
statements about anyone.
And it is precisely at this point that we need to recognize how
deplorable and despicable it is to maintain stereotypes or allow
misleading statements that fail to be fair. The teachings of Jesus
are uncompromising: "Unless your righteousness exceeds that
of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom
of heaven."
Questions for reflection:
Do you think this is an accurate description of one of the
ways in which Jesus interpreted religious laws and traditions?
If not, why not? If so, why?
Think of some specific examples where stereotyping people is or
has been misleading and ultimately, as Jesus would interpret it,
could be bearing false witness against someone.
DAY 3
The Holy Spirit -- teacher of truth
Read John 15:26 to 16:15
Comment
As we have seen, the major emphasis of Jesus was on the
Spirit in contrast with obedience to laws that had lost touch
with humanity and become needlessly burdensome instead of helpful.
This emphasis is found throughout his ministry.
Another characteristic of Jesus was his ability to bridge the
gap between all classes of people and all kinds of opinions.
Consider his choice of disciples, who were from a variety of different
backgrounds and some of whom had seemingly irreconcilable opinions.
(For example, Matthew the tax collector collaborated with the
Roman Empire while Simon the Zealot vigorously opposed any kind
of collaboration with the Romans. No laws could possibly bridge
the gap between those differences! Only a miracle of spiritual
commitment would be sufficient.)
Jesus knew that if his friends lived by anything less than the
Spirit they would be driven apart. The wisdom of Jesus knew human
nature well enough to know that only a spirituality that placed
good relationships above strongly-held opinions would enable his
friends to stay together and be united as one. And that was one
of the greatest hopes that Jesus held for his followers.
Read John 17:20-21 and 1 Corinthians 13:1-3
Read John 3:1-6
Comment
To a teacher of the law, Jesus said "You must be
born again." In other words: You must return to the fundamentals
of religious traditions. You must start over again, and be reborn
into a faith that places the Spirit above everything else. Without
the spiritual bonding that rises above differences of opinion,
without the spiritual bonding that does not attempt to control
the opinions of other people. beliefs fall on barren soil. Truth,
according to Jesus, was not so much having the "final answer"
to opinions but being bonded together in a fellowship of compassion
and love.
Read John 3:7-10
Comment
Jesus recognized that his teaching would be difficult
to understand. In the passage from the third chapter of John,
Nicodemus exclaims, "How can these things be?" Rules
and laws. are tangible objects. They can be grasped, examined,
studied, and imposed on people whether they like it or not.
But contrasted with that, living by the Spirit is far less
tangible, uncertain, and open to subjective opinions that can
be anything hut reliable. Jesus took the words right out or the
mouth of Nicodemus when he said, "The wind blows where it
chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where
it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is
born of the Spirit."
It is a legitimate concern. And yet, laws present problems of
their own. Paul. from his background as a Pharisee, believed
that the entire edifice collapses if part is disregarded. If
one part of the law is set aside, then anything else can be set
aside as well.
Read Galatians 5:2-6
Comment
One problem our Presbyterian Church is presently ignoring
is that while one section of church law forbids the ordination
of non-celibate gay and lesbian people, the same section
adds: "Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged
practice which the Confessions call sin shall not be ordained
and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word
and Sacrament" (Book of Order, G-6.0106). Problems arise
when we turn to the Larger Catechism, for example, in the Book
of Confessions, and find the following sins: profane jests;
all needless works, words, and thoughts (on the Sabbath) about
our worldly employments and recreations; immodest apparel; lascivious
stageplays. Shall we inquire to what extent a candidate may tell
an off-color joke, play golf on the Sabbath, wear an immodest
bathing suit, or watch an R-rated movie or ribald situation comedy?
And how shall the boundaries between what is somewhat inappropriate
and entirely inappropriate be defined?
Questions for reflection:
Do you agree with the analysis of Jesus' teaching, that spirituality
should attempt to establish firm relationships across boundaries
that embrace widely different opinions? If you agree, do you think
these differences are best bridged by insisting that only your
opinions are legitimate, or by allowing different opinions to
co-exist with yours'
It's been said that the best way to deal with a problematic
law is to enforce every aspect of it without exceptions. What
is your opinion regarding this?
DAY 4
The Holy Spirit -- discerning fundamental values
Read Galatians 5:19-21
Read Romans 1:18-32
Comment
The world which New Testament Christianity encountered
was contrary to almost everything which Jesus had taught. Life
was cheap. Gladiatorial contests in public arenas were bloody
combats that frequently led to death Philosophers had emphasized
moderation in all things; but banquets had become exercises in
extravagant gluttony, and drunken orgies were not uncommon. Fathers
took their sons into brothels to teach them about sex. Children
were sexually abused and many people did not even consider it
a perversion. Military experience gave no incentive for tenderness.
Effeminate young men would do anything by way of providing sexual
favors with other men if the price offered to them was sufficient.
Married women were often relegated to the role of child-bearers
while their husbands engaged in liaisons with prostitute. And
while their husbands were occupied elsewhere, wives organized
sexual orgies among themselves, partying with women friends.
Although there were many decent folk who quietly lived their lives
with honor and self-respect, the Apostle Paul's tent-making work
would have brought him into public places where he could not help
but observe gross attitudes that plunged men and women alike into
human degradation.
The myths of gods and goddesses provided the "role models"
for human beings - and those "role models" were atrocious
A study of the ancient myths reveals much about human attitudes.
Gods and goddesses alike lusted for each other, for mortal human
beings, and for animals as well. Faithlessness prevailed among
the deities; they frequently abandoned their human worshippers
at a whim. especially if the right amount of incense or sacrifices
was not offered.
Life expectancy was short and frequently violent, and although,
as already noted, there were many who hungered to find some kind
of worthwhile meaning in life, all too often self-restraint was
a throw-away commodity. The passages you have just read from
Paul's letters to the Galatians and Romans enable us to share
Paul's feelings as well as his uncompromising critique of the
evils and faithlessness that permeated both human life and popular
beliefs about the deities
Read Romans 7; 7-;5 and Jeremiah 31:31-33
Comment
As Paul viewed it, the purposes of laws should have been
to provide a good life; instead, more often than not, they "imply
encouraged lawlessness as people rebelled against the restrictions
which had been imposed. The secret to a good life therefore lies
with the Holy Spirit which provides the spiritual renewal which
is so necessary in our life.
Read Galatians :5:22-25
Read 1 John 3:11-17
Read 1 Corinthians 13:4-13
Comment
Perhaps the fear of religious anarchy was the greatest
concern of those who preferred the tangibility of laws over the
intangibility of a spirit that moved like the wind, with a person
never knowing with certainty where it was going. Too many life
decisions could become subjective and almost any "vii could
be rationalized. Self-deceit, they realized, could provide an
excuse for almost any kind of behavior.
Paul provided an antidote to this genuine concern by carefully
defining the characteristics produced by the Spirit of God. It
is the purpose of the Spirit to enable God's people to discern
fundamental values that come from the heart. Other great teachers
provided similar definitive guidance.
Here, then, are fundamental values which are neither abstract
nor intangible. They identify true religion, and without these
values no doctrines, no theology, can be true to the Spirit of
God.
Questions for reflection:
It is now time to begin asking some very personal questions
about sexual orientation. If you are part of a discussion group
your right to privacy needs to be respected and these questions
should only be used for personal reflection.
Assuming that your own sexual orientation is and, since puberty. always has been entirely heterosexual, was there a time in your life when you consciously chose this orientation, or did it just happen mostly of its own accord?
In your opinion, are the "fundamental" values described
in this day's study equally important regardless of someone's
sexual orientation?
DAY 5
Biblical sexuality?
Read Hebrews 1:1-4
Comment
The need to return to Biblical values cannot be questioned,
but it may be worthwhile to recognize that if a total stranger
were to begin reading the Bible from Genesis, it could be difficult
for that person to find role models who would satisfy contemporary
needs. The author of the letter, to the Hebrews directs our attention
to the fact that Jesus has come after a long history when people
when people were part of the customs and attitudes of the
times in which they lived.
Procreation was of paramount importance throughout Old Testament
times, and sexual conduct reflected that need:
Read Matthew 19:3-12
Comment
Many churches, including our Presbyterian Church, no longer
adhere to a strict ban against divorce. But to this writer it
seems somewhat incongruous that some who have been divorced and
re-married, while wanting religious traditions to be lenient,
and wanting their new marriage blessed by the Church, are nevertheless
unrelenting in their opposition to providing gay and lesbian people
any support if they want to make solemn vows of faithfulness to
each other and request the prayers of a Presbyterian clergy --
especially when Jesus was silent about homosexuality.
Read Luke 7:36-47
Questions for reflection
In the last lesson the question was raised as to whether at
least some heterosexual persons have never made a conscious choice
about their sexual orientation. It became part of their life and
they could never be otherwise.
But if we are willing to grant that at least some heterosexually-oriented persons would not be able to make the transition into homosexuality even if they wanted to, in your opinion would it be appropriate to believe those homosexual persons who say they are just as unable to become heterosexual?
Is there ever a time when it is inappropriate to obey the following teaching of Jesus?
Read Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-38
Day 6
The celebration of faithfulness
Read Psalm 100:1-5
Read Genesis 1:26-28
Comment
One of the themes that runs through the entire Bible from
beginning to end is the faithfulness of God not like the
deities of the Greeks and Romans, which at a whim would forsake
their own people. And faithfulness is surely one of the qualities
of God's image in which men and women were created to be.
Another characteristic of God, which we have already noted, is
kindness and compassion; and this also is one of the qualities
of God's image which men and women are created to sustain.
Christian marriage depends upon faithfulness. But too often in
our sex-focused culture our focus is upon sex and little else.
And yet faithfulness embraces a multitude of values beyond simply
six. Faithfulness means providing spiritual support; faithfulness
means providing emotional support; faithfulness means being thoughtful
and caring; faithfulness means giving time and attention to the
other. We need to do more than follow the letter of the law. We
need to return to the wisdom of Jesus: "Unless your righteousness
exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" (symbols of the
rule of law). One of the temptations of the clergy profession
as well as almost all other professions and occupations is to
feel the pressures of work so much that the pleasures of companionship
with one's spouse is put on a back burner. Bringing balance into
life is seldom easy, but no one has ever said that a successful
marriage is easily accomplished.
Like the person attempting to take the speck out of another's
eye, we have been spending so much time and energy on the subject
of homosexuality that we might do well to ask ourselves if we
have done everything possible to enrich and support our heterosexual
marriages.
Many of the same ethics, taught by Jesus and elsewhere in the
Scriptures, apply to all persons regardless of their sexual orientation.
Corrupting the morals of a minor is equally wrong, whether committed
heterosexually or homosexually. Rape is equally wrong, whether
heterosexual or homosexual. Thoughtlessness, unkindness, exploitation,
abuse (verbal or physical) harassment, violence, unwillingness
to forgive: all are equally wrong, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Read 2 Samuel 1:1-26
Comment
The story of the friendship between David and Jonathan
is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. They had every
reason to be suspicious of each other: Jonathan was the son of
King Saul, and David was the rival for the kingship. The Bible
does not inquire whether their friendship included sexual contact
or not; it simply provides David's enigmatic lament: "I am
distressed for you, my brother (friend) Jonathan; greatly beloved
were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love
of women" (New Revised Standard Version).
Homosexual love in military life was encouraged throughout that
area of the world in those times; it was thought that by pairing
two male lovers the army would be strengthened because the men
would fight doubly hard not only to defend themselves but
their partners. But bisexuality, not homosexuality, was more typical.
At any rate, faithfulness is the main interest, not only in the
story of David and Jonathan but throughout the entire Bible. It
is something to be celebrated.
Questions for reflection
In my experience as a pastor, especially in the years preceding
my retirement in 1994, almost every marriage license I received
bore the same address for both bride and groom, indicating that
they were already living together. I never inquired into their
sex lives, but instead celebrated with them their willingness
to be committed to a partnership that went beyond the frailty
of a less-committed "relationship." Was I wrong, and
in my counseling with them should I have put my major emphasis
on matters of sexuality instead?
Recognizing that some heterosexual marriages have more expressions of human sexuality than others while perhaps some have none at all, and relationships between persons of the same gender may well follow a similar pattern, how far in your opinion should the Church become involved with interrogating heterosexual people about their sex lives?
Also recognizing that there are different points of view, in your opinion is it better to have a committed partnership than non-committed relationships, whether the people are heterosexual or not?
DAY 7
Back to the Holy Spirit
Read Genesis 38:6-10
Read Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 11:10-21; Leviticus 11:41-42; and
Leviticus 18:6-24
Comment
The prevailing concern throughout most of Old Testament
times was procreation. Although we now believe that one man should
be married to one woman, having children to replenish and increase
the population which was perennially in peril for being too small
was of vital importance. Because of the frequency of war, men
were fewer than women, and since people believed that it was a
God-given gift for women to bear children, one man having multiple
wives (with the children protected by the commitment of their
father to a marriage) was quite acceptable.
Sexually, if a man had wasted his semen instead of using it for
impregnating a woman, it was considered abominable. Masturbation
and wet dreams were considered threats to procreative potential
- and so were sexual acts because of the "wasted" semen.
The major emphasis of the book of Leviticus is with perfection:
God deserves the very best that can possibly be provided. Physically
handicapped men were not allowed to serve as priests, because
only physically perfect men were good enough. Perfect health should
be always maintained, if at all possible. Incest which could result
in less-than-perfect babies was detestable.
While there are other references to male homosexual conduct in
the Old Testament, none of them have anything to do with a partnership
that is committed and caring. The reference in Leviticus 18:22,
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman," must
be seen within its context: concern that every emission of semen
should have at least some potential for procreation.
Read Romans 1:18-32
Comment
In fairness to the Bible, this. passage must also be kept
within its context. Paul is not speaking anywhere of committed
partnerships of care; running throughout is a judgment against
conduct resembling that of pagan gods and goddesses who were no
store than the creatures of human imagination: "They exchanged
the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served
the creature rather than the creator. Whenever the word "homosexual"
or "homosexuality" is used in an English translation
of the Bible, it is used to denote two Greek words which
define homosexual prostitution and homosexual exploitation.
The Scriptures, and even Jesus himself, are silent regarding
a committed same-gender partnership. And, if we feel it would
be an invasion of privacy to inquire into the sexual practices
of heterosexually married people, in this writer's opinion it
should also be considered an invasion of privacy to inquire into
the sexual practices of same-gendered people who are providing
companionship for themselves within a committed partnership.
Read Luke 6:31
Comment
Left with so much silence from the Bible and from Jesus
regarding committed partnerships with persons of the same gender,
we can nevertheless draw at least some tentative conclusions from
values to which the Scriptures and Jesus unmistakably call attention.
It is clear that Jesus did not want to lay unnecessarily heavy
burdens upon people. And his values included the celebration
of faithfulness and the life of the Spirit. These next passages
from Scripture tell how the New Testament church dealt with seemingly
irreconcilable opinions:
Read Acts 11:1-18 and Acts 15:1-tO
For further reflection
Crucial decisions that would affect the entire future course
of Christianity were made on the basis of an inquiry about how
persons were reflecting the presence of the Holy Spirit. Is the
emphasis in the Church today still where it was in New Testament
times, or is the Church placing most of its emphasis on constitutional
laws?
Scripture celebrates the faithfulness of David and Jona-than without
inquiring into possible sexual involvements, even though sexual
involvements in military life were not only acceptable but encouraged
in the world of those times. Should the Church follow this Scriptural
example and cele-brate faithfulness instead of inquiring into
the private and intimate lives of people of the same gender who
wish to live together in a commitment of faithfulness?
Return to Day 4 and read again the values upheld by the Holy Spirit
- or just read Galatians 5:19-23 once again. Get to know people
who are not heterosexual but who nevertheless claim to be following
the way of Jesus Christ. Look in their faces. Look into their
eyes. Look to see if they have the same Spirit as heterosexual
Christians claim to have. Look for love; joy; peace; patience;
kindness and self-control even as they face persecution from society
at large and rejection by the Church. Try to do what Jesus
Christ would do: walk in their shoes live in their often-precarious
positions out there in the world.
Scripture says that God created human beings "male and female." But there are ambiguities. There are babies who are born with ambiguous male or female genitalia. It's not always as unambiguous as Scripture at first makes it appear. And sexual orientation is more subtle, far more subtle, than that.
If there are heterosexual people who could never make the transition
into homosexuality even if they wanted to, is it unreasonable
to agree that there are homosexual people who could never make
the transition into heterosexuality?
Could the words of Paul to the Church Council at Jerusalem have
a haunting relevance to those of us who are married heterosexuals
and are convinced that everybody should be like us: "Why
are you placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that
neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?"
-----------------
Acknowledgement needs to be made that differences of opinion doubtless may remain. Those differences of opinion should be respected. None of us owns a monopoly on the heart of God. None of us is infallible. And that is precisely the point. This is the reason for the following questions for reflection:
In your opinion, is it right to impose one particular interpretation of scripture upon those who, through careful study, arrive at a different viewpoint?
What precedent does this imposition of only one acceptable interpretation establish for you. when you are in the minority?
In Acts 5:38-39 the wise Jewish teacher Gamaliel offered this advice to those who were opposed to allowing Christianity to have a voice in their religious tradition:
"If this plan or this undertaking is of human origin. it will fail; but if it is of God, you will riot be able to overthrow them - in that case you may even be found fighting against God!"
The Church has tried church laws, and people are still outside pleading for their talents to be fully used and their desire for faithfulness to be blessed; is it not time to allow them in and evaluate what the Spirit may or may not accomplish through them?
You are free to agree or disagree with anything or everything in this Bible study.
Are you willing to give others this same freedom?