domingo, setiembre 14, 2003
[ 310. Opposing Viewpoints ]
Viewpoint 1: Christian should not accept homosexuality
by D. James Kennedy. Homosexuality. Mary E. Williams, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1999.
Recently, a leader in the homosexual rights movement asked to see me. Toward the end of our meeting he said one of the most astonishing things I've ever heard on the subject. "The Bible nowhere even mentions homosexuality," he stated.
Unfortunately, our time was over and I couldn't discuss with him what the Scriptures do say. Today the "gay lifestyle" has grabbed a lot of attention, and many people twist the Scriptures to justify the sin.
God's Word, however, is clear:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (Lev 20:13).
"God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another" (Rom 1:26-27).
"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you were," Paul added. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:9-11)
Visit to Sodom
One of the most familiar passages about homosexuality is in Genesis 19. The Lord and two angels, appearing as men, came to the city of Sodom at evening. Lot graciously invited them to spend the night in his home. But before they went to sleep, the men of the city surrounded the house. "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" they demanded. "Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:5).
Such flagrant wickedness is the reason the Lord destroyed the city (v12-13). Yet some today claim that this story has no relevance to the modern issue of homosexuality. The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, they say, or pride or disregard for the poor.
The people of Sodom were clearly inhospitable. They were proud, wealthy, and had no concern for the poor (Eze 16:49). But they also committed sexual abominations. It was this sin that caused their destruction.
A brochure from a pro-homosexual church asks, "Why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account [Sodom] fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?" That question ignores the words of Jude:
Jude 7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
The message could not be clearer. If the Bible does not teach that sodomy is a sin, it doesn't teach anything is a sin.
Hating Sin, Loving Sinners
How do people respond today when we say that homosexual behavior is a sin? They say we are homophobes, that we are filled with hate.
Someone has said that this accusation is like calling the Surgeon General a smokophobe. When he put the health warning on cigarette packages, did that prove he hated smokers? Most smokers probably have family members who have tried to dissuade them from smoking. Is that because of hate? No! It's because of love.
A study of First John makes it clear that we must not hate. "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness" (2:9). "Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth" (3:18). "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (4:8).
The Christian position is that we must love the sinner but hate the sin. I think robbery is a terrible sin, and I hate it. I think rape is a terrible sin, and I hate it. I think the same about murder and many other sins. But that doesn't mean I hate the people who do them. I have counseled with them and prayed for them and witnessed to them.
Likewise, I have counseled with some who have committed homosexual sin. I know some who have come out of that lifestyle. I know some who are still struggling to overcome it. And I know others who want to stay there. As followers of Christ, our prayer must be that all will be set free.
What Are the Facts?
Tragically, some today insist that people can't be set free from homosexuality. They say it is something they are born with, that there is nothing they can do about it.
The Kinsey Report claimed that 10 percent of American men were homosexuals. More reliable studies of recent years have put the total closer to 1 or 2 percent. One study showed that 2 percent of American men admitted some homosexual activity in the past, but not in the present. This suggests that there may be more ex-homosexuals in America than active homosexuals. So much for the lie that people can't change!
What about recent studies indicating that homosexuality may be genetic? Each of those studies has serious scientific flaws. But even if the studies suggest predisposing factors, they do not prove determinative factors. People have different kinds of personalities. Some are aggressive, others shy. Some have tendencies toward alcoholism or hot-headedness. That does not mean society should put its imprimatur on those things as being right.
Redefining Deviancy
Christians in America need to understand the goals of the homosexual activists. Now that homosexuals have gotten themselves into positions of influence, they are trying to move society in their direction.
The process involves two parts: D.D. Down and D.D. Up. The first means "defining deviancy down." When deviancy becomes prevalent in a society, people tend to make the definition of deviancy smaller. Otherwise, it is too uncomfortable to deal with. An example of this occurred several years ago when the American Psychiatric Society declared that homosexuality was no longer a pathological condition.
D.D. Up is the opposite. It means taking what has always been known as normal and defining that up into deviancy. As one writer explains, "That distracts us from real deviancy and gives us the feeling that, despite the murder and mayhem and madness around us, we are really preserving and policing our norms."
Do you know who the new social deviates are? Anyone who says that homosexuality is wrong or sinful. That's why homosexual rights activists march in front of churches with signs saying, "Stop the Hate." (They don't mention the threats or vandalism committed by some radical homosexuals.)
Churches are not the only target. Today there are psychologists and psychiatrists who seek to restore homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle. Attempts are being made to have such therapists declared unethical. They are abusing psychiatry, the activists say.
The homosexual agenda may be most dangerous in the public schools. One study suggests that 26 percent of 12-year-old boys have sexual ambiguities. By age 17, that drops to 5 percent, and by age 21 probably to about 2 percent. But in some schools young children are hearing that "Heather has two mommies" and "Johnny has two daddies"--and that it's perfectly normal. Talk about creating sexual confusion!
Taking Our Stand
When Lot resisted the demands of the men of Sodom, they accused him of being judgmental. "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge!" (Gen 19:9). We will probably hear similar accusations.
In addition, homosexual activists will work hard at convincing us that they are the victims in this controversy. The book After the Ball explains their strategy: "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will not be inclined to refuse to adopt the role of protector.... We must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image."
We must not let the ploys and accusations of the homosexual movement keep us from our responsibility to speak the truth in love. America is being conned, and the consequences are serious. May God give us the wisdom to wake up while we have time.
Viewpoint 2: Christians should accept homosexuality.
by Alice Ogden Bellis. Homosexuality. Mary E. Williams, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1999.
For many years, I was convinced that because the Bible had nothing positive to say about homosexuality--and because its few comments on the subject all seemed to be negative--the Bible had to be regarded as condemning all forms of homosexual practice. I was not homophobic. I liked many of the gay men and lesbian women I knew. Yet, intellectually, I found it difficult to read negative as positive.
Oddly enough, what began to change my approach to this issue--and to Scripture in general--was my study of women's stories in the Hebrew Bible. I was particularly moved by the Book of Ruth.
The Subversive Story of Ruth
Ruth is a sweet little story, but it is also highly subversive. Many scholars have concluded that the book was written in the post-exilic period, a period of Israelite history characterized by narrow exclusivism. Given this context, since Ruth was a Moabite, and the Moabites were among Israel's most hated enemies, she is an odd hero. Ruth's story undercuts the exclusive attitudes of her time, particularly the negative feelings toward foreign women, which we find expressed in Scripture in both Ezra and Nehemiah
(Ezra 9:12; Ezra 10:1-44; Neh 13:23-30).
Even more surprising is the fact that Ruth seems to overturn a biblical law which prohibits any Moabite from being part of the Israelite community for ten generations (Deut 23:3). According to the genealogy at the end of Ruth (Ruth 14:17), Ruth is the great grandmother of David. By this genealogy, David comes only three generations after Ruth. According to the law expressed in Deuteronomy, David was not legally a member of the Jewish community!
Of course, many scholars believe the Book of Ruth is a historical novelette, and that the genealogy at the end is an example of "creative" genealogy. Yet, whether historically accurate or not, its function is the same: to uphold God's inclusive love for all people--even foreign women, even Moabites. (This idea is explored further by André LaCocque in The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel's Tradition.)
Realizing that the Book of Ruth contradicts the law of Deuteronomy has changed the way I view Scripture. The Bible is not static but dynamic. It must continually be reinterpreted by the religious community to fit each new historical context--sometimes even to the point of doing a 180-degree turn.
Over the centuries, advances in various fields of knowledge have occasionally caused the Christian community to reevaluate its methods of interpreting the Bible. The discovery that the earth is not flat but spherical, and that it revolves around the sun, not vice versa, forced interpreters to grapple with the biblical image of a flat earth at the center of the universe. This and other scientific findings have led most interpreters to conclude that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and morals but not in matters of science.
More recently, women's changing roles have pushed interpreters to develop hermeneutical principles for understanding the negative material in the Bible regarding women. For example, it seems clear that statements such as 1 Timothy 2:9, which claims that braided female hair is immodest, need to be regarded as human, culturally bound pronouncements. Many scholars have concluded that passages which seem to offer specific advice to specific people, such as the admonition for women to remain silent in church (1 Cor 14:34), must be read in light of timeless statements such as Gal 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".
We have been forced to realize that the treasure of God's Word comes to us in an earthen vessel, that is, a document containing many human features. The struggle to discern God's eternal Word in the midst of the human words of the Bible is not easy. But once we admit the human element in the Scriptures, we have no choice but to seek to hear God's voice through the human voices, rather than assuming the two are identical.
Changing Attitudes
Just as changing attitudes toward women's roles have fostered new principles of biblical interpretation, new information and attitudes regarding homosexuality are nudging biblical interpreters to reconsider their existing hermeneutical principles and, in some cases, to form new principles. I would like to suggest three governing principles of interpretation that can guide us as we explore scriptural teachings regarding homosexuality.
The first principle is that biblical teaching must be viewed in light of its cultural context. For example, when we read the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28), we must keep in mind that at the time of this utterance, the Israelites needed to expand their population in order to survive and thrive. In today's world, where so many are in need, simply filling the world with more and more bodies is a recipe for destruction rather than survival.
Similarly, as Robin Scroggs noted in his landmark 1983 book The New Testament and Homosexuality, the kinds of homosexual relationships prevalent in New Testament times were pederastic and exploitative. Biblical material condemning such practices (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) should not be read as denunciation of the kind of monogamous homosexual bonds that exist today, but which were apparently extremely rare in Hellenistic times.
It is more difficult to determine the cultural background of the anti-homosexual laws in the Levitical code (Lev 18:22; 20:13). But we should keep in mind that these passages are included in a body of law that promotes kosher food laws (Lev 11; 20:25), prohibits sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19), and forbids wearing clothing made of a mixture of fibers (Lev 19:19). Christians usually feel free to ignore these laws, following Paul who taught that Christians were not required to follow Jewish requirements such as circumcision (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:15).
The Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis 19 is not really about homosexuality but rather about homosexual rape. Like all rape, it is more a matter of power than sex. In this story and the similar passage in Judges 19, the point was to humiliate threatening outsiders by treating them like women. The misogynist ideology behind the practice should be noted.
Informed Biblical Reading
The second hermeneutical principle I would stress is this: Biblical teaching should be read in light of later teaching on the same subject, the general direction of Scripture, and, for Christians, especially Jesus' teaching.
It is not widely known that within the Hebrew Bible, earlier laws are sometimes challenged by later teaching. For example, as Walter Brueggemann has pointed out in Using God's Resources Wisely: Isaiah and Urban Possibility, Isaiah 56:3 criticizes Deuteronomy 23:1, which declares that no eunuchs shall ever be part of the Israelite religious community. It is not enough to understand Deuteronomy 23:1 in its cultural context alone; we must also be aware of what Isaiah said on the matter. Since Isaiah came after Deuteronomy and both are in the canon, the teaching of Isaiah on this matter takes precedence over that in Deuteronomy.
In a similar way, Jesus reinterpreted laws governing marriage and divorce, as well as adultery. Jesus responded to these laws not with a new legalism but with an understanding of the purpose of marriage (Matt 5:27-28, 31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; John 8:3-11).
Unfortunately, we have no record of Jesus saying anything specifically about homosexuality. Yet Jesus did give us moral principles to guide us in all ethical matters. When asked about the most important law, he replied that the greatest law is that we should love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4, quoted in Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:29-30, and Luke 10:27. The second law Jesus gave is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves (Lev 19:18, quoted in Matt 22:39). It's difficult to derive a negative understanding of homosexuality from these laws.
Moreover, Jesus continued the direction established in several books of the Hebrew Bible by including those who were considered outcasts as part of God's people. The Old Testament Book of Ruth included the hated Moabites. Jonah extended God's love to the Ninevites. Jesus included the Samaritans (John 4:7-30), tax collectors (Luke 19:1-10), and "bad" women (Luke 7:36-39).
If Jesus were alive today, and a person were "caught" in a homosexual act and brought before him, what would he do? Would he tell the homosexual to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11), or would he turn the tables on the accusers by telling the story of "the good homosexual" (Samaritan) (Luke 10:29-37)? Perhaps, if the sexual act were exploitative or casual, Jesus might have told the first story, since he regarded the sexual union of two persons as a sacred trust not to be violated. But since there are many monogamous gay unions, it is equally possible that he would have told the second story.
The Spirit of Biblical Law
The third hermeneutical principle is that the Bible should not be read as a blueprint for living so much as an architectural school where we find the tools we need to build our lives. As in schools, certain basics will never change, but other aspects of the curriculum are endlessly reworked.
The biblical authors employed far greater freedom in interpreting their traditions than is generally recognized. When Matthew used Isaiah 7:14 as the basis for his Immanuel prophecy (Matt 1:22-23), he totally reinterpreted the text. It was not originally a messianic prophecy but a prophecy of deliverance from an immediate historical crisis. A young woman, already pregnant, would survive the crisis and bear the child. This was the sign of God's presence with the community.
Similarly, Jesus reinterpreted much Hebrew law, explaining that he came to fulfill it, that is, to bring it to its proper conclusion, not to throw it out (Matt 5:17-18; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17). He was criticized for his unorthodox behavior (Matt 12:1-8; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32; 6:1-5; 7:39). He in turn criticized the establishment for living by the letter of the law rather than by its spirit (Matt 23:23-24; Luke 11:42).
Jesus' creative approach can be seen in his response to the disciples' request that he teach them how to pray. Jesus did not teach them by rote. In spite of the long tradition of repeating the Lord's Prayer verbatim each Sunday, Jesus did not say to pray by repeating his exact words, at least according to the text in Matthew. Rather he told his disciples to pray "like this"--he gave them a model, an idea to emulate.
We may wonder if all this gives us the right to be as creative with the tradition as Jesus was. We may fear that this opens up a world of subjectivity. Does such an approach mean we must consider all interpretations to be equally valid? Somewhere I read of a woman who interpreted Paul's admonition to "put on the new man" (Eph 4:24) as a mandate for her to get a new husband. It seems that such "creative" approaches are clearly against the grain of the Spirit of the Bible. How can we know if our interpretations are right?
The short answer is we can't. There is no guarantee that any of us will interpret the Scriptures accurately. But there are some important indicators. As we evaluate and reevaluate our own understandings, we must pay careful attention to important clues such as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the consistency of our interpretation with the overall thrust of Scripture, and, in the long run, the acceptance of the Christian community.
It is true that the Bible never says anything positive about homosexuality. In spite of this, and after years of considering the matter, I have made a 180-degree turn in my understanding of the Bible on this issue. I have concluded that a positive attitude toward homosexual marriage and ordination of gay men and lesbians for the Christian ministry is not only consistent with Scripture but mandated by it.
Moreover, I feel that God has again made a way where there appeared to be no way. I marvel at the richness of the Scriptures, the subtlety of God, and the joy of new perspectives.
Shannon left at 6:38 p. m..
Comments:
Publicar un comentario
the guy
xuan shannon male single 030985.ntu cs year1 / vocalconsort tenor2 / hopesg nyc ntub1.
msn me.
his wishes
new clothes, new shoes, new bike, new friends, fantastic grades.his horizons
malaysia, penang. australia, brisbane/gold coast. thailand, hatyai. malaysia, genting. malaysia, johor. malaysia, melaka. thailand, chiangmai. australia, perth. canada, edmonton/cold lake. australia, rockhampton. thailand, bangkok. austria, vienna. czech rep, olomouc. austria, salzburg. germany, munich. switzerland, zurich.people.
andieboh.angeleighkhoo.
cathryn.
charmain.
cindytan.
chuanyangchee.
deana.
dereklim.
dingneng.
eddygoh.
erwinnah.
felixwang.
hanseltan.
hazelang.
henrylim.
joelcheong.
johnson.
keesiangchua.
koonylow.
layminglee.
liyantan.
mabeltan.
mandrictan.
marvinkhoo.
mervlee.
mingyangkoh.
nigelchoong.
nurshaikhah.
pastorbenlee.
qiuqungoh.
ricelim.
ruiwenlim.
samuelkwan.
sherleenng.
shiyun.
shuyifoo.
sikeng.
suxinchua.
suya.
wantinglow.
windcheong.
xuanlim.
yongjianchia.
zekegao.
ziliangchong.
tags
Visitors:
03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003
04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003
05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
Icons, Pictures, videos or anything here.
