The Questioning Christian

Kristof Column Tackles Traditionalist
Scripture-Based Claims About Homosexuality

Written by

D. C. Toedt III

in

, ,

A column in today’s NY Times by by Nicholas Kristof takes on the claim that homosexuality is bad because the Bible prohibits it. He gives some examples to show that the claimants themselves don’t even follow that rule.

Kristof seems to concede that, taken as a whole, Scripture doesn’t support homosexuality. (That’s also my view.) He suggests instead that, if traditionalists are going to rely on Scripture as the definitive statement of rules for life, then they need to explain why certain other, less-convenient scriptural passages aren’t equally binding.

For example: The old shirt I’m wearing at the moment is a cotton-poly blend. I’ve never heard a traditionalist criticize anyone for flouting the scriptural prohibition against blended fabrics. (Although my wife has criticized me for not having thrown out the shirt. )

Kristof’s argument is not new. We’ve seen it many times before, including in this posting. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a credible response from the traditionalist wing of the church. (My posting also levels a blast at those who claim that the inconvenient scriptural prohibitions were merely transitory “civil” or “ceremonial” laws, as opposed to permanent “moral” laws.)

Traditionalists seem to be amazingly obstinate about this. They refuse to face facts of the kind that Kristof outlines.

I have more than a faint suspicion that their stubborness is suborning the mission of the church: to change lives for God.

Comments

2 responses to “Kristof Column Tackles Traditionalist
Scripture-Based Claims About Homosexuality”

  1. nathan Avatar
    nathan

    I’m not sure if I consider myself a traditionalist but I do hold the view that, despite having same-sex attractions, pursuing a sexual relationship or sexual acts with persons of the same sex is not God’s best for me.
    I would agree with those who said that Kristoff makes his biggest mistake in the first sentence. We have no proof that “God makes homosexuals” at all, any more than we have proof that God makes line dancers, hockey players or individuals with foot fetishes. All of these pursuits and/or conditions develop over years of social/psychological influences, as well as some biological factors. (Also, I object to Kristoff’s use of the noun form “homosexuals” as a label).
    Leaving Leviticus aside, I don’t want to make Paul my lawgiver. However, I think the manner in which he addresses the issue of same-sex sexual acts in Romans 1 shows attention to a larger issue, not just the Jewish legal code in Leviticus. It seems to me, Paul chose to highlight same-sex acts as dramatically symbolic of the loss of direction of humankind. We are SO lost that even one of the most basic profound statements going back to Creation – “Male and female He created them” – becomes confused.
    Do same-sex attractions have much to do with gender identity? Some would say no. I say, yes, definitely. This is going on my own experience, and others that I’ve talked to.
    So, do I wear garments made of two different fabrics? Yes, but I see a different value at work here. Let us suppose that this prohibition is related to respecting the created order (leaving aside views about priestly duties). We might also say that the prohibition against eating lobsters has to do with this (a lobster is a sea-going animal with legs, thus appears to contradict the land-sea boundary set up by God). The Ancient Israelites start to seem picky to the point of obsessive-compulsive!
    However, the use of the body in sex is, I believe, something much more powerful and more relevant to us living under the new covenant. My body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. It also relates to the human community.
    re: other passages that seem to support same-sex relationships. I have to say that I don’t think the case for the roman centurion and his “lover” is very strong. Even if true, it’s hardly enough to go on. I tend to put the David and Jonathan thing down to a cultural misunderstanding, modern Anglo-culture men unable to relate to a culture where male physicality does not necessarily mean homo-eroticism, and men could speak of eachother in passionate terms without the implication of being “gay”. The same problem comes up with John leaning on Jesus’ breast.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    First of all, every one of the Bible verses that gay people get hit endlessly over the head with as “evidence” refer, specifically, to men, not women (with the possible exception of Romans 1 – but even Augustine and Irenaeus didn’t interpret that as referring to lesbianism). I’m a gay woman and I take exception. In any case, it’s pretty clear that the issue is not “homosexuality” per se, but some sort of male-male behavior.
    Second, what are gay people supposed to do, in this case? Marry heterosexuals? That doesn’t sound like a very good idea – and of course, no heterosexuals ever volunteer for this duty, do they?
    Or maybe we’re supposed to “change” our orientations? Not much good evidence exists for that being possible. The original founders of Exodus fell in love with each other and left the organization.
    I know! Let’s insist that all gay people be celibate for life! That sounds like it would be easy and fun – for somebody else, anyway.
    Being gay is not about “sexual acts.” If it were, gay people would marry heteroseuxally like everybody else and then “sin” by committing these “acts” – and go to confession afterwards and be forgiven. Being gay is about being attracted, emotionally (and thus sexually) to individuals of one’s own gender. It’s about falling in love and wanting to make a life with someone. If it were just about sex, the “gay rights” movement would never have happened. Who would need it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts