Link to..
| Wherever you are on life's journey, you are welcome here! |
| Riviera United Church of Christ |
| 451 Riviera Drive NE ● Palm Bay, Florida 32905 ● 321-723-3963 |
GOD’S LOVE HAS NO STRINGS ATTACHED
FOR ANYONE.
The Bible tells us that God is love and that God loves all
humans. The Old Testament refers to God’s love for us
as steadfast love. This matches up nicely with Paul’s
assertion in the New Testament that nothing can
separate us from God’s love. Indeed in the Gospels,
Jesus tells us to love like God does, without condition.
As the church was wrestling with who should be allowed
into the community, Peter was shown by God that we,
“should not call anyone profane or unclean.” All of this
can be understood to mean that God loves everyone
without regard to human hang-ups (including those
relating to homosexuals). In other words, God’s love has
no strings attached. God loves everyone, and the
Church should too.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
FULLY ACCEPTED NON-HETEROSEXUALS
– MODERN CHRISTIANS SHOULD TOO.
In the Book of Acts (8:26-39) God sent Phillip to meet,
convert, baptize and welcome into the early Christian
community an Ethiopian Eunuch. This person would be
considered transgendered and non-heterosexual today.
This non-heterosexual individual was the very subject
and aim of God who guided Philip to baptize and
welcome the Eunuch joyfully and eagerly into the
community of Christ. The early Christian community fully
accepted non-heterosexuals – modern Christians should
too.
HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN
INCONTROVERTIBLE PART OF CREATION
IS IRREFUTABLY GOOD.
Modern medical, psychological, and science communities
overwhelming agree that homosexuality is not a disorder
or a disease. These conclusions are based on clear,
convincing evidence and reason, through the gifts of
science and logic that God has given us. These
conclusions mean that Homosexuality is a part of
creation not a deviance from it. Genesis 1:31 tells us that
when God completed creation, “God saw everything that
[God] had made, and indeed, it was very good.” This
verse literally and inescapably means that ALL of
creation is good. It also means that homosexuality, as an
incontrovertible part of creation, is therefore irrefutably
good.
THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
WAS NOT WRITTEN TO CONDEMN
HOMOSEXUALITY.
The first purportedly anti-homosexual text in the Bible is
in Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this
story the towns’ men want “to know” the foreign
messengers that Lot has taken in. The literal meaning of
“to know” means just what it says. So one could read the
story to mean that the men just wanted to know the
foreigners. But literalists don’t read it literally. They (and
others) read “to know” as a euphemism for sexual
intercourse. Fair enough, but in the ancient world, such
sexual intercourse in a story like this is about control and
power. For a man to forcibly penetrate someone without
consent was to make them subordinate by making them
womanly. Those who choose to read “to know” as an
ancient euphemism for sex must also accept the ancient
meaning that the men in the story seek to forcibly and
violently make the messengers subordinates. Simply put,
Genesis 19 is about condemning rape, and cannot fairly
be said to prohibit consensual homosexual relationships.
Accordingly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does not
condemn homosexuality.
ANCIENT PURITY LAWS OF LEVITICUS
WERE INTENDED TO APPLY IN ANCIENT
ISRAEL, NOT TO US.
Although many purity laws are ignored by modern
Christians, some nonetheless seek to invoke Ancient
Israel’s purity laws to claim homosexuality is unclean and
therefore forbidden in America. Specifically invoked are
Leviticus 18 (22) and 20 (13) which expressly prohibit a
man “l[ying] with a male as with a woman...” These laws,
however, are in chapters that expressly assert the laws
there are only applicable in Israel (e.g., “Say further to
the people of Israel [or any who] who reside in Israel…”
Lev 20:2). Consequently, the prohibitions were never
meant to apply outside of Israel and we don’t live in
Israel. In addition, the whole premise of these laws was to
keep males from being made unclean and we don’t follow
other ancient Biblical cleanliness laws so there is no
reason to otherwise follow these.
LESBIANISM IS NOT ADDRESSED, AND
THEREFORE NOT PROHIBITED BY ANY
TEXT IN THE BIBLE.
Romans 1:26 is the only verse in the Bible that some
church leaders claim condemns Lesbianism. But that
verse nowhere refers to Lesbians. What it mentions is
heterosexual women having what Paul thought was
unnatural sex. “Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were
consumed with passion for one another.” Unlike his
reference to men (in the next verses), Paul does not
indicate he is talking about women having same sex
intercourse; that’s because his condemnation is aimed at
heterosexual women who were having, “natural
intercourse” and then exchanging it for “unnatural
intercourse” in the same way that men were having sex
with men. In other words, it is about women choosing to
have non-coital sex with men in ways Paul thought were
unnatural. Paul is not addressing intercourse between
female adults, but types of acts between women and
men.
FOR ANYONE.
The Bible tells us that God is love and that God loves all
humans. The Old Testament refers to God’s love for us
as steadfast love. This matches up nicely with Paul’s
assertion in the New Testament that nothing can
separate us from God’s love. Indeed in the Gospels,
Jesus tells us to love like God does, without condition.
As the church was wrestling with who should be allowed
into the community, Peter was shown by God that we,
“should not call anyone profane or unclean.” All of this
can be understood to mean that God loves everyone
without regard to human hang-ups (including those
relating to homosexuals). In other words, God’s love has
no strings attached. God loves everyone, and the
Church should too.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
FULLY ACCEPTED NON-HETEROSEXUALS
– MODERN CHRISTIANS SHOULD TOO.
In the Book of Acts (8:26-39) God sent Phillip to meet,
convert, baptize and welcome into the early Christian
community an Ethiopian Eunuch. This person would be
considered transgendered and non-heterosexual today.
This non-heterosexual individual was the very subject
and aim of God who guided Philip to baptize and
welcome the Eunuch joyfully and eagerly into the
community of Christ. The early Christian community fully
accepted non-heterosexuals – modern Christians should
too.
HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN
INCONTROVERTIBLE PART OF CREATION
IS IRREFUTABLY GOOD.
Modern medical, psychological, and science communities
overwhelming agree that homosexuality is not a disorder
or a disease. These conclusions are based on clear,
convincing evidence and reason, through the gifts of
science and logic that God has given us. These
conclusions mean that Homosexuality is a part of
creation not a deviance from it. Genesis 1:31 tells us that
when God completed creation, “God saw everything that
[God] had made, and indeed, it was very good.” This
verse literally and inescapably means that ALL of
creation is good. It also means that homosexuality, as an
incontrovertible part of creation, is therefore irrefutably
good.
THE STORY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
WAS NOT WRITTEN TO CONDEMN
HOMOSEXUALITY.
The first purportedly anti-homosexual text in the Bible is
in Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this
story the towns’ men want “to know” the foreign
messengers that Lot has taken in. The literal meaning of
“to know” means just what it says. So one could read the
story to mean that the men just wanted to know the
foreigners. But literalists don’t read it literally. They (and
others) read “to know” as a euphemism for sexual
intercourse. Fair enough, but in the ancient world, such
sexual intercourse in a story like this is about control and
power. For a man to forcibly penetrate someone without
consent was to make them subordinate by making them
womanly. Those who choose to read “to know” as an
ancient euphemism for sex must also accept the ancient
meaning that the men in the story seek to forcibly and
violently make the messengers subordinates. Simply put,
Genesis 19 is about condemning rape, and cannot fairly
be said to prohibit consensual homosexual relationships.
Accordingly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does not
condemn homosexuality.
ANCIENT PURITY LAWS OF LEVITICUS
WERE INTENDED TO APPLY IN ANCIENT
ISRAEL, NOT TO US.
Although many purity laws are ignored by modern
Christians, some nonetheless seek to invoke Ancient
Israel’s purity laws to claim homosexuality is unclean and
therefore forbidden in America. Specifically invoked are
Leviticus 18 (22) and 20 (13) which expressly prohibit a
man “l[ying] with a male as with a woman...” These laws,
however, are in chapters that expressly assert the laws
there are only applicable in Israel (e.g., “Say further to
the people of Israel [or any who] who reside in Israel…”
Lev 20:2). Consequently, the prohibitions were never
meant to apply outside of Israel and we don’t live in
Israel. In addition, the whole premise of these laws was to
keep males from being made unclean and we don’t follow
other ancient Biblical cleanliness laws so there is no
reason to otherwise follow these.
LESBIANISM IS NOT ADDRESSED, AND
THEREFORE NOT PROHIBITED BY ANY
TEXT IN THE BIBLE.
Romans 1:26 is the only verse in the Bible that some
church leaders claim condemns Lesbianism. But that
verse nowhere refers to Lesbians. What it mentions is
heterosexual women having what Paul thought was
unnatural sex. “Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were
consumed with passion for one another.” Unlike his
reference to men (in the next verses), Paul does not
indicate he is talking about women having same sex
intercourse; that’s because his condemnation is aimed at
heterosexual women who were having, “natural
intercourse” and then exchanging it for “unnatural
intercourse” in the same way that men were having sex
with men. In other words, it is about women choosing to
have non-coital sex with men in ways Paul thought were
unnatural. Paul is not addressing intercourse between
female adults, but types of acts between women and
men.
PAUL CONDEMNS SEXUAL ASSAULT, NOT
CONSENSUAL GAY RELATIONS IN
ROMANS.
In Romans (1:26-27) Paul wrote, “Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the
same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse
with women, were consumed with passion for one
another. Men committed shameless acts with men and
received in their own persons the due penalty for their
error.” With respect to men, Paul is most likely
addressing non-consensual sex acts (which are
shameful) by otherwise heterosexual men on men. He
probably does not call them unnatural acts because his
reference is not to consensual relational intercourse, but
sexual assault. Wealthy Greco-Roman men proved their
power and domination by penetrating lower class males
of any age. Paul may have left out the “unnatural” label
for the men’s passion because he was not criticizing the
victims who had no choice in the acts; rather he was
criticizing the wealthy for their acts of penetration of
unwilling males. Paul is condemning male-on-male sexual
assault and rape, not consensual
Gay relations.
IN CORINTHIANS, PAUL IS
CONDEMNING OVERSEXED MALES
AND APPEARS TO CONDEMN THOSE
WHO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 modern translations indicate that
Paul wrote, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!
Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,
sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
(NRSV) Some church leaders focus on the terms “male
prostitutes” and “sodomites” claiming they mean a clear
condemnation of Gays. But those two terms are
translations made through a modern homophobic lens.
The King James Version does not use “male prostitutes,”
it uses the word, “effeminate.” The King James Version
also does not use “sodomite,” it uses the curious phrase
“abusers of themselves with mankind.” The English is
confusing because Paul wrote in Greek. The Greek word
translated as “male prostitute” is malakas which literally
means “softy.” In Paul’s day, it was a derogatory term for
men who had so much sex they depleted their male
prowess. They’re “effeminate” because of too much
sexual activity – of any kind. So the term malakas
denotes being oversexed in general; it does not
condemn homosexuality. The Greek word translated as
“sodomite” in the modern text is arseno-koites – which
literally means “man penetrating.” Some scholars think
that Paul may again be referring to the Greco-Roman
practice that allowed elite males to penetrate anyone to
show their dominance, but no one knows exactly what
Paul means by this term. Meaning that it cannot be fairly
concluded that it refers to homosexuality. Paul condemns
oversexed males and also appears to condemn those
who commit sexual assault, but it cannot be said that he
clearly condemned homosexuality in these verses.
n I TIMOTHY CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO
CONDEMN GAYS.
A vice list is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 that, in Modern
English translations, refers to sodomites and so some
church leaders claim it clearly condemns Gays. But the
translations are made through a modern homophobic
lens. As mentioned in Number 8, the Greek word
translated as “sodomite” in the modern text is arseno-
koites – which literally means “man penetrating.” The
author of Timothy may be referring to the Greco-Roman
practice that allowed elite males to penetrate anyone to
show their dominance, but no one knows exactly what is
meant by this term and it cannot be fairly concluded that
it refers to homosexuality. Accordingly, I Timothy cannot
fairly be said to condemn Gays.
CHRISTIANS CAN BELIEVE BIBLICAL
PROHIBITIONS MAY BE IGNORED.
So there you have it; nine reasons that show God’s love
has no strings attached for LGBT. And you know what?
Even if there were verses in the Bible that deem
homosexuality unclean or impure, such provisions may
be ignored. Why? Well for one thing, Peter was shown
by God that we “should not call anyone profane or
unclean.” Another reason is that there are lots of non-
harm-to-others prohibitions in the Bible that churches
ignore. For instance, no one seriously argues that we
have to treat as sinners and second class citizens those
who violate Biblical prohibitions against: charging interest
on loans; hiring clergy with disabilities; letting women talk
or lead at church; treating aliens differently than citizens;
divorce; or, more to the point, other purity prohibitions
like shaving, body piercing, eating pork, wearing mixed
fibers, “unnatural” heterosexual sex, not washing after
emissions or marrying who the Bible says we must marry.
We don’t hear a clamor about these laws because we
have decided that they no longer apply and so ignore
them. They don’t relate to harm, but to “cleanliness.”
Finally, Paul in Romans 1 does not list homosexuals as
worthy of death but does list the gossips, slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil,
rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless
and the ruthless. No one clamors that Paul must be
literally followed in this regard, as he himself indicates
that we are not to judge others because of that list!
Since Christians have long chosen not to comply with
other Biblical laws, Christians can also similarly and
safely choose to ignore Biblical prohibitions against
homosexuality, assuming they exist. (#4 - #9 suggest
that none exist.)
CONSENSUAL GAY RELATIONS IN
ROMANS.
In Romans (1:26-27) Paul wrote, “Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the
same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse
with women, were consumed with passion for one
another. Men committed shameless acts with men and
received in their own persons the due penalty for their
error.” With respect to men, Paul is most likely
addressing non-consensual sex acts (which are
shameful) by otherwise heterosexual men on men. He
probably does not call them unnatural acts because his
reference is not to consensual relational intercourse, but
sexual assault. Wealthy Greco-Roman men proved their
power and domination by penetrating lower class males
of any age. Paul may have left out the “unnatural” label
for the men’s passion because he was not criticizing the
victims who had no choice in the acts; rather he was
criticizing the wealthy for their acts of penetration of
unwilling males. Paul is condemning male-on-male sexual
assault and rape, not consensual
Gay relations.
IN CORINTHIANS, PAUL IS
CONDEMNING OVERSEXED MALES
AND APPEARS TO CONDEMN THOSE
WHO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 modern translations indicate that
Paul wrote, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!
Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,
sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
(NRSV) Some church leaders focus on the terms “male
prostitutes” and “sodomites” claiming they mean a clear
condemnation of Gays. But those two terms are
translations made through a modern homophobic lens.
The King James Version does not use “male prostitutes,”
it uses the word, “effeminate.” The King James Version
also does not use “sodomite,” it uses the curious phrase
“abusers of themselves with mankind.” The English is
confusing because Paul wrote in Greek. The Greek word
translated as “male prostitute” is malakas which literally
means “softy.” In Paul’s day, it was a derogatory term for
men who had so much sex they depleted their male
prowess. They’re “effeminate” because of too much
sexual activity – of any kind. So the term malakas
denotes being oversexed in general; it does not
condemn homosexuality. The Greek word translated as
“sodomite” in the modern text is arseno-koites – which
literally means “man penetrating.” Some scholars think
that Paul may again be referring to the Greco-Roman
practice that allowed elite males to penetrate anyone to
show their dominance, but no one knows exactly what
Paul means by this term. Meaning that it cannot be fairly
concluded that it refers to homosexuality. Paul condemns
oversexed males and also appears to condemn those
who commit sexual assault, but it cannot be said that he
clearly condemned homosexuality in these verses.
n I TIMOTHY CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO
CONDEMN GAYS.
A vice list is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 that, in Modern
English translations, refers to sodomites and so some
church leaders claim it clearly condemns Gays. But the
translations are made through a modern homophobic
lens. As mentioned in Number 8, the Greek word
translated as “sodomite” in the modern text is arseno-
koites – which literally means “man penetrating.” The
author of Timothy may be referring to the Greco-Roman
practice that allowed elite males to penetrate anyone to
show their dominance, but no one knows exactly what is
meant by this term and it cannot be fairly concluded that
it refers to homosexuality. Accordingly, I Timothy cannot
fairly be said to condemn Gays.
CHRISTIANS CAN BELIEVE BIBLICAL
PROHIBITIONS MAY BE IGNORED.
So there you have it; nine reasons that show God’s love
has no strings attached for LGBT. And you know what?
Even if there were verses in the Bible that deem
homosexuality unclean or impure, such provisions may
be ignored. Why? Well for one thing, Peter was shown
by God that we “should not call anyone profane or
unclean.” Another reason is that there are lots of non-
harm-to-others prohibitions in the Bible that churches
ignore. For instance, no one seriously argues that we
have to treat as sinners and second class citizens those
who violate Biblical prohibitions against: charging interest
on loans; hiring clergy with disabilities; letting women talk
or lead at church; treating aliens differently than citizens;
divorce; or, more to the point, other purity prohibitions
like shaving, body piercing, eating pork, wearing mixed
fibers, “unnatural” heterosexual sex, not washing after
emissions or marrying who the Bible says we must marry.
We don’t hear a clamor about these laws because we
have decided that they no longer apply and so ignore
them. They don’t relate to harm, but to “cleanliness.”
Finally, Paul in Romans 1 does not list homosexuals as
worthy of death but does list the gossips, slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil,
rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless
and the ruthless. No one clamors that Paul must be
literally followed in this regard, as he himself indicates
that we are not to judge others because of that list!
Since Christians have long chosen not to comply with
other Biblical laws, Christians can also similarly and
safely choose to ignore Biblical prohibitions against
homosexuality, assuming they exist. (#4 - #9 suggest
that none exist.)
| Click the speaker to hear two members speak of their experiences with LGBT and about RUCC's "Open and Affirming" mission! |
Link to..
