I also have a few responses for you, given what you have wrote.

You wrote, “I don’t think I’ll respond to the Old Testament commentary, since issues of Covenant and Law make contemporary interpretations of OT commands (such as the one to execute sinners) prohibitively difficult.”

I think you are heading in the right direction with this statement, but fail to follow the thought through to it’s larger – and more important – conclusions. The issue is an interpretive one, to be sure, but it does not make the interpretation of such OT commands like the execution of homosexuals prohibitively difficult, it makes the entire idea of Covenant and Law difficult, and that sort of difficulty, when followed through to it’s larger conclusions will lead you and me back to the very place where we are right now (i.e., developing our own ethic because there is not one perpetually living between the covers of our bibles that we can excerpt and apply to our lives without more than a little modification). Think on this for a bit before your respond, Dave. Also, if you can find an applicable sexual ethic in the bible, please show me where it is and how it can be applied.

Also, concerning Wink’s interpretation of Paul/Romans: You raise great points, but I’m not sure that Wink is suggesting that there is no room to doubt the claim that homosexuality is genetically influenced, at all. I don’t even think that the point he’s trying to make, Dave. Further, I think that such a charge misses the importance of the text(s) themselves. It is possible that Paul (and many, many other 1st Century religious people) operated with a limited understanding of human sexuality. Dave, what do you do with the fact that in the 1st Century men believed that their “seed” was the source of all life and that women simply were the houses that incubated “it?” Do you not disagree with this understanding of men/women/procreation? Do you not think that this way of thinking about male/female physiology had very real effects upon psychology and behavior in that setting? Consider, if you will, all the stories about women in the bible who were depressed and desperate because they could not “incubate their husband’s seed.” There are many stories in the Bible about this and the point I’m trying to make is that these women were seriously affected by 1st Century understanding of procreation in very, very negative way and this negativity produced very real personal and social consequences. Read the stories about these women.

What does that have to do with anything? Simply: I do not find it a stretch to believe that the same sort of cultural misunderstanding concerning homosexuality would 1.) Be totally possible and 2.) Be accompanied by the same very real personal and social consequences that are totally present in the texts we possess. After all, if such consequence can be applied to women and their physiology and psychology as a result of a limited understanding of that very physiology and psychology, then why is it so difficult to see the potential for it to be applied similarly to homosexuals in the same century? Perhaps Wink could have chosen better phraseology than “There is no doubt,” but I don’t think that his choice to say in the manner he said it minimizes the larger point that he is making as much as you seem to be indicating that it does, Dave. Also, the point isn’t so much about the technical details of sexuality as much as it is the way that their understanding on issues influence the texts they wrote and how we apply “authority” to these writings. Also, if you need a real-time example of how this sort of misunderstanding of sexuality can result in very horrible circumstances, just do a Google post about the homosexuals being hunted and killed in Iran. It’s just one example of how a misunderstanding of human sexuality can lead to very detrimental beliefs and consequences, and it is culturally driven. Don’t the Iranians who are perpetuating these crimes have access to all the material you cite about sexuality and homosexuality? Don’t these Iranians have even more information than you accredit to Paul? Isn’t it interesting that in spite having access to all this information on human sexuality and homosexuality, that these Iranians still act in a very detrimental way? You can’t see that occurring in the 1st Century? So, to summarize my point, I’m not sure that Paul’s lacking technical understanding of sexual orientation is the point as much as I think that his (Paul’s) willingness to write as if he does have a complete and exhausted understanding of it, when, in reality, he probably did not, or, and this is the big point, he refused to.

Re: the natural selection stuff: Again, I think you are misreading Wink and his use of the concept of “What Paul thought was natural.” Wink is pointing to a theological statement, not a scientific one. Further, I’m not sure how the natural selection comment is at all relevant to this discussion. I also think that the argument re: the extinction of homosexuals as a result of their genetics not being passed on to their children due to the inability to procreate assumes a bit of science that you have already claimed is not available to either side of this debate yet. These sort of comments aren’t even helpful in this case. Remember, Dave, Paul is operating in a theological framework, not a scientific one, as you see it. In fact, I think your superimposition of your 21st century scientific worldview onto Paul actually says a lot about interpretation, and that is the big point of the discussion we are having.

Again, Dave, I must that I deeply appreciate the time and work you have obviously invested into this issue. I wish more believers did so. That said, I’ll be waiting for you to point out an applicable sexual ethic (be sure to do the language work too, Dave. It’ll save us a lot of time).

So as you can see, condemning others is not Christian like. Only God can change someone, and remember not everyone is elected, or is the WORD revealed to them. As Paul said: “Some were given to reprobate minds” I can ramble on and on..

To cut it short…Homosexuality is a sin, as is aldultery, lying, stealing, etc. The best we Christians can do is to PRAY so that they can see the light, NOT stand around corners with GOD HATES FAGS posters. Jesus loves you, Gay or not GAY. Remember the thief on the cross…God Bless You ALL.

I don’t think I’ll respond to the Old Testament commentary, since issues of Covenant and Law make contemporary interpretations of OT commands (such as the one to execute sinners) prohibitively difficult.

I do take issue with the handling of Paul’s words to the Romans. Hermeneutically speaking, I believe in the necessity of interpreting scripture within appropriate cultural matrices where possible. Understanding the various cultures that influenced Biblical texts can be enriching. However, I think that it is possible to abuse this principle, and I think Dr. Wink’s analysis of Romans 1 exemplifies this abuse. He says: “No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does.” No doubt? Is Dr. Wink suggesting that there is no room to doubt the claim that homosexuality is genetically influenced? Is he suggesting that homosexuality universally accepted as irreversible and permanent? [It is very telling to observe the difference in his approach to this Romans passage from his analysis of the OT passages. Namely, where he seeks to question our cultural interpretation of the OT passages, here he is actually directing his skepticism at Paul. This is a very significant point to which I shall return.] Suffice it to say that his argument seems to be based on what he presumes to be Paul’s deficient understanding of human physiology and/or psychology in contrast to what he suggests to be a commonly-held contemporary view of the same. Is it unsettling to anyone else that he would base his argument on this kind of claim? The issue of human sexuality is hardly the subject of any universal agreement. While there are studies that suggest that it can be influenced by genetic markers and while common sense suggests that environment is a factor, there is not any scientific consensus as to the exact nature of homosexuality. Even among my homosexual friends there is a great deal of disagreement on this issue. No one has definitively proven that such a thing as a “gay gene” exists. No scientist has conclusively proven that a particular combination of environmental factors is responsible for differences in sexual preference. There is simply not enough evidence to support the claim that Dr. Wink is making. And since his argument is based primarily on this faulty assumption, it does not bear scrutiny.
It is ironic that his cultural analysis of Paul’s perception of homosexuality should be incorrect, as well. Namely, he states: “Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases.” On the contrary, there is a glut of literary evidence and documentation which refers to homosexual preference, dating as far back as history has been recorded. Certain types of homosexual behavior were systematized and widely accepted in secular cultures. One of the most prime examples of this would be the institution of pederasty in ancient Greek culture. It was entirely common for an older man to take a young boy as a lover and to serve a pedagogical role in the context of an erotic relationship. Sometime these unions continued as both men aged, although social norms dictated that a dominant/passive construct be continually applied to the relationship. One might be tempted to say that this differentiates the homosexuality of antiquity from that of modern societies, since modern relationships tend to be (ostensibly) more egalitarian. However, the most basic observation suggests that homosexual relationships still a) tend to have a more dominant/masculine and a more passive/feminine partner and b) are statistically more likely to exist between partners with significant age disparity.
So it is clear that Paul’s world had certainly been exposed to institutionalized homosexuality and to the concept of reciprocating, long term partnerships between homosexuals. This was occurring thousands of years before Paul wrote the first word of Romans, and was certainly occurring during his lifetime. To suggest that our modern psychosexual understanding is inherently superior to his or that he was somehow not erudite enough to be aware of the social norms of societies concurrent to his is foolish – and it belies an arrogance that would seem to be counter to the general ethos of emerging theological interpretation. It is a kind of temporal ethnocentrism that recollects obese American tourists leaving candy bar wrappers in the sand at the Giza Pyramids. Don’t mess with Texas, ancient Pharaohs.
Dr. Wink goes on to say: “Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple.” This statement exegetically avoids Paul’s intent in the Romans passage. The degree to which a relationship is lustful is not the core of the issue for Paul here. It is clear that his emphasis is on lust manifesting itself in the context of homosexual union. To suggest otherwise is semantically dishonest. The degree to which a person faithfully does something does not determine its propriety or holiness. And, considering the greater-than-50% rate of divorce in our country, I’m not sure that having an integrity that matches that of heterosexual couples is the greatest argument, either…
Concerning nature: “And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species.” This brings us to the place in this argument where I feel most strongly. What do we observe of sexuality in nature? What do we observe to be the “big picture” concerning creation? It is true that “homosexual” behavior has been documented in some animal species. The observation that this is a tool for species preservation is not widely agreed upon and suspect at best. Dr. Wink, himself seems to concede this point. In fact, many male animals that engage in homosexual activity do so aggressively as a part of ritualized dominance and hierarchy. This should resonate with Dr. Wink’s interpretation of the Sodomites desire to have homosexual relations with outsiders. In human culture, sex is very frequently used for the same purposes in heterosexual and homosexual contexts. There are several countries in Africa where systematized rape is being used as a weapon of war right at this moment. Because Dr. Wink, himself, argues that the Sodomites behavior is not indicative of the type of relationship for which he is advocating, then his argument from nature does not stand, since it would appear that homosexuality in animals occurs for similar (non relational) reasons. Indeed, to view homosexual activity as an advantage in the process of natural selection seems kind of silly. Within the framework of Natural Selection, species which do not effectively procreate are not competitive and do not survive. I don’t believe that there is a pair of male hippos somewhere in the wild living in a committed erotic partnership…
This brings us back to Paul’s argument. What does he mean when he says that homosexual relationships are contrary to nature? Does Dr. Wink believe that Paul is trying to make a definitive zoological statement? On the contrary, I think that Paul’s understanding of what constitutes a natural sexual relationship comes more from a place of common sense than anything else. **disclaimer adult content** Quite frankly, it is clear that male and female animals correspond physiologically. No one can argue this. The male and female sex organs are exclusively compatible. That they can be stimulated in other enjoyable ways does not argue for homosexuality as an equally valid alternative nor does it suggest encouragement for homosexual development as a part of natural selection. I’ve heard people argue that nerve endings and sensory receptors in the rectal sphincter (says what?) are built-in’s which support homosexuality as a natural development. I’m not a medical doctor and so can’t comment too much on that except to say that it hardly seems to support such a claim. The bottom line is that the human body is designed for reproduction, and from the perspective of natural selection the pleasure receptors that make sex enjoyable seem to be a physiological encouragement for procreation that serves the function of species propagation. Based on that understanding, homosexual activity seems to be kind of an evolutionary dead end. Pun intended.
Of course, from a conservative Christian perspective, we can bypass all this natural selection stuff and skip to the much less complex concepts of “male and female He created them” and “be fruitful and multiply.” Clearly God has designed male and female to be compatible and to have physical, spiritual, and emotional unity. Our temperaments, instincts, drives, and our bodies are equal parts of a whole which is greater than either part on its own while not diminishing the individual at all. This is the mystery and joy of marriage. While two men or two women may experience abundant happiness and satisfaction in a committed relationship, they can never attain the kind of harmonic symmetry of a husband and wife. Good luck proving or refuting that statement with anything other than circumstantial evidence -I’m simply arguing from logic. If you prefer to take it out of its Western conceptualization, consider the incongruity of a Yin Yin or a Yang Yang. Although not inherently referring to sexuality per se, the Taoist concept of two equal but intrinsically opposing forces working in tandem to create harmony and balance has historically been applied to the male and female relationship (among other things). I say this only to demonstrate that it is not just Judeo Christian culture which draws such lines of demarcation. Where Eastern and Western philosophies generally are incompatible, this is one example where they are in relative agreement.
At the end of the day, this conversation is as much about authority as it is about anything else. Where is our authority, as Christians? There was a time when it was the Institution of the Church. The reformation changed that, and it became Sola Scriptura. I her book “The Great Emergence,” Dr. Phyllis Tickle argues that we are currently in the midst of the next great cultural shift as a culture and as the Church, and to her argument I add that what we are experiencing now is the outplaying of Sola Scriptura. Namely, in reacting so strongly to the abuses of church hierarchy, our culture has shifted too far in the other direction, like the opposing bearing in a Newton’s Cradle. The authority of scripture has been reduced to mere personal interpretation, and the trustworthiness of church leaders has been degraded. This is why Dr. Wink can make statements like the ones to which I have reacted above. He applies tenuous cultural observations to the OT passages, removing or avoiding the concept of the fulfillment of the Law as accomplished by Jesus so as to create a false ultimatum (if you believe the OT says homosexuality is evil then you have to believe that Christians should execute homosexuals…) which fails to understand the Biblical narrative as a whole (again, surprising considering the prevailing ethos of emerging theological modes). Where he cannot so easily debate the message of Paul, which he himself calls “unambiguous,” he denies Paul’s authority based on a presumption of Paul’s ignorance of 21st century “pschosexuality.” I find this to be common in conversations with folks who argue that “there is no sexual ethic in the Bible.” They will argue that you must be misunderstanding scripture, while implying that they believe it but disagree with your interpretation. Then, when a passage such as Romans 1 is introduced into the discussion, the tone invariably shifts away from differing interpretations of scripture toward disagreements over its authority. At the end of the day, a person who reads scripture with a presupposition is generally going to find ways to support it, regardless of the issue. This foments all sorts of abuse of the text from the support of slavery to birth control anathemas to capital punishment. And, incidentally, we are nearly incapable of reading without presuppositions.
I deny the claim that the Bible does not have a sexual ethic. Even as the scripture says that the “Law is written on the hearts of men” and that the invisible qualities of God can be plainly seen,” simple common sense demonstrates that male and female –whether created or evolved- are meant to go together. Marriage is proscribed as a union between a man and a woman. Man and woman are given to one another to help one another, and are made/evolved to have different but complimentary characteristics. Heterosexual unions have a distinct evolutionary advantage as well as an almost universal cultural advantage. To me, these simple observations are the best evidence for the true nature of things. If we become consumed with trying to find the verse which states “thou shalt not be gay,” we will be disappointed. It’s not there. But just because every single possibility is not discussed at length in the Bible does not mean that it does not speak to everything. In the absence of commandments, there is the narrative, there is the understanding of how things have come to be, there is abundant exposition of the character of God and of the nature of humanity. There are principles and there is common sense. The square peg does not go in the round hole, no matter how much easier things would be if it did.
Young men and women of this emerging generation, we mean well. We want to love everyone. We want to lead lives of grace, and this seems to be incompatible at times with the topic of sin. It is way easier to accept or ignore things than to deal with them. And the reality is that for many people (or maybe for all of us at certain times) the reason that we want to be peacemakers has as much or more to do with our own self-worth as it does with loving another person. The question of “what will they think of me if they know I think homosexuality is a sin?” becomes as influential to us as “how can I deal honestly with sin and still love this person?”
I agree that we should not make it our business to condemn others. The scripture has stern words for us on that topic. The question is, what is our responsibility concerning sin? It seems clear from scripture that confronting sin is not the same as condemning a person. It also seems clear that Christ’s redemption brings pardon for the previously condemned. I agree that a faith that condemns is not much of a faith. I also believe that a love which does not deal honestly with sin is not much of a love.

I’ve written and dialogued pretty extensively on this topic, so I hope you’ll forgive my long post. This is an issue close to me, as I have many gay friends and many of them are Christians. I also have friends who were gay and have since renounced their homosexuality and are in very healthy, happy heterosexual relationships. I suppose that is a topic for a different conversation…
Thanks be to God that there will be an eternity where we don’t have to figure these things out anymore. Grace and peace.

I must also say that I believe Christians take this idea too far. I do believe homosexuality is a sin, but to say a homosexual cannot be a Christian is like saying person who commits any other sin cannot be a Christian. Heck, if that were the case I couldn’t be a Christian.

According to Ezekiel 16:49-50 the sins of Sodom that so riled God weren’t of the sexual nature:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
– arrogant,
– overfed
– and unconcerned;
– they did not help the poor and needy.
– They were haughty
– and did detestable things before me.”

Certainly this is of note.

One of the questions that I think gets missed is the nature of dignity. What if God’s principle concern is not a specific law against a certain action, but the consequence of the action on us. When we harm ourselves, God is concerned for us. You could apply this determination to any action which has an adverse consequence.

What I think is debatable and is not answered by Wink is the distinction of when is someone actually a homosexual. Is sexual drive for someone of the same sex really the evidence necessary to make that qualification? Ted Haggard explored openly the vague nature of the question. Many sexoligists suggest that human beings live in a spectrum of sexuality, not an either or world.

When we apply the first distinction of concern for consequence to the question of homosexuality, the only person that really has to answer it…is the homosexual. Is the choice producing someone of productive consequence? Is the choice producing life? I think every individual has to answer that same question, not just homosexuals.