In Disaster, God Revealed as Obscure

I will keep this brief. The situation in Oklahoma is terrible. In this moment, we should not seek to explain God; we should suffer with those who suffer and mourn with those who mourn.

Piper’s now-infamous tweet quoting the book of Job is the exact opposite of the message of that book. Job questioned God; his friends explained God. God responds, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.”

In Job’s suffering, God spoke out of the whirlwind — He revealed Himself as obscure. In disaster, God reveals to us that we don’t understand God. Our explanations are meaningless and perhaps even angering.

Yet even still, we should continue to love our brothers who try to explain our suffering, just as Job did for his friends. This is a hard thing for me, especially, because I really dislike Piper’s teachings. Even still, the foremost commandment is to love.

Love our brothers and sisters who are suffering in Oklahoma. Sit with them in silence, questioning, and frustration. Love also our brothers and sisters who try to explain their suffering, even as much as they anger us.

A Response: Discerning the Bible’s Stance on Homosexuality

This is the first post in a back-and-forth between me and Robert Fuller at A Particular Atheist. I am a firm believer in subjecting ideas to criticism. Atheists are particularly good critics for Christians if they are sufficiently knowledgeable simply because they have no religious obligations to support our ideas. You might even gain a friend out of the ordeal (here’s to my friend Dan in the UK!).

Robert’s first question for me is important: how do I reconcile my beliefs about homosexuality with the Bible? If you haven’t read my stance on the subject just yet, please read A Christian Defense of Homosexuality.

I have seen many attempt to maintain that scripture is infallible while also supporting homosexuality. This line of reasoning goes as such: scripture says <insert some Greek term such as “arsenokoitai”>, which we translate to homosexual, but it really means <insert other term such as “someone who exploits boy prostitutes”>. At the time that I changed my view on homosexuals, this is what I believed. It got me past the theological wall I had to jump in order to start seeing gays and lesbians as they are. There is a varying degree of merit to such a view, so let me cover it for a moment before I get to my objections.

Consider a few excerpts from Romans 1:21-27.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened…. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones…. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The line of reasoning in the pro-LGBT/Biblical-infallibility mindset is that the passage deals with people who trade their natural sexuality for the opposite sort. As it is clear that gay and lesbian men and women are not making any such trade (here is an APA pamphlet to anyone reading who is unclear on this), this passage in Romans didn’t apply. This advice would apply instead to gay men trying out women, straight men trying out men, etc.

But as I considered that passage in Romans more carefully, I realized that Paul is writing his thoughts on how homosexual behaviors come to be. Certainly, the passage is not specifically about the origin of homosexuality, but I have little doubt that, if Paul were to give a more focused explanation of homosexual behavior, it would bear resemblance to what he describes in Romans. I don’t think it makes much sense to try to modernize Paul’s writings.

We must realize that Paul — and all the other Biblical authors — carried with them the prejudices and opinions of their respective time periods and cultures. To pretend otherwise is to make gods of the authors, as though they were not flesh and blood humans subject to all the imperfections of everyone else. To quote the article linked earlier, the authors’ perception of gay sex was “conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to those of modern times to provide an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality as homosexuality is currently understood.”

That’s another way of saying that the Bible just can’t talk about this issue adequately, and whatever it does say is likely wrong, because it has made its judgment based on insufficient evidence.

Many people are uncomfortable saying this. I regularly receive accusations of heresy or something of the sort. Only a few years ago, I would have been uncomfortable, as well. But if we keep in mind that there were several hundred years of Christianity without the Bible as we know it, then it seems no problem to consider Christianity as something other than an entity which derives its existence from correct interpretation of a specific collection of ancient texts.

There are a number of more specific historical details I could cover, such as the formation of the modern literal interpretation of scripture, but I will leave it to the reader to seek out further information. I want to discuss a number of specific details from Robert’s post.

“Your post is an admirable defense of homosexuality, something that shouldn’t even need defending.”

I disagree with the bolded portion: homosexuality would need defending no matter what. It is the natural tendency of humans in general to categorize strange things as “other.” If it hadn’t been Christianity, it would have been another aspect of culture which likely would have stigmatized the LGBT community. Even in increasingly-secular Europe, homosexuals still face significant discrimination, though one might argue that it is fallout from religious influence. Yet even ancient Greece and Rome stigmatized effeminacy to a significant degree and looked down upon adult homosexuality, particularly the passive partner in the relationship. It would seem that minorities in all societies need some defending, and we should not presume to pin this entirely on religiosity.

“My hope for homosexual Christians is for them to leave the religion that follows a book which says they should be put to death.”

Honestly, there are many shameful things in the Bible, especially were we to consider them as having come from the mouth of God. I discussed them to some degree in a previous post. People who take an infallible stance on scripture have far worse problems than merely their stance on gays and lesbians.

Do you think you being a Christian, who I presume quotes & reveres the same Bible as Westboro Baptist Church and the countless hate groups whose names contain the word “family”, lends credibility to them and others who use the Bible to justify their anti-gay stances?

Quite the opposite, actually. If there were no Christians preaching a different message, then Westboro and others would have a monopoly on the Christian message, thereby bolstering their legitimacy. There need to be voices saying that we should not use the Bible in such a manner, and it will mean a lot more coming from a Christian than from an atheist.

Yet this leaves the question of how we should use the Bible if it is not the literal, inspired word of God. How do we use other books? Does their non-infallibility preclude their use? There are many interesting ideas to consider out of the Bible, and I look to them as guidance in my life. Even Romans, which contains some of the questionable comments about homosexual behavior, is an admirable book about the unity of the church. The driving argument — that people of all nations are united as one in the church — is something healthy for us to consider as Christians even today.

It was my understanding of Christian virtue and redemption which led me to write my defense of homosexuality. It is that same understanding which urges me to be a force for restoring good order to the world, even if it is only in a very small way. Rather than set up a series of theological barriers which prevent us from seeing the world, I would propose that the purpose of Christianity is to break down all artificial barriers between us and truth. That requires constant self-analysis and evaluation.

I hope this clears up my position on the subject to some degree, though I am sure there is more to say. With my wedding coming up very soon (!!!), it will be difficult to write further for just a few more weeks, but I look forward to this ongoing dialog!

State of the Blog!

Hi everyone. It has been a while since I last updated. Life gets to you sometimes, and there’s not much you can do. And life will continue to get to me for at least another few weeks here as I am getting married on June 8th! “Getting to me” in this case is a good thing, but it certainly won’t help me write blog posts.

So although I probably won’t be on here to update with any regularity until after I’ve settled into my new home with my lovely then-to-be-wife, I do want to throw out a bone for everyone to chew on until I actually churn out some meaningful content. Aside from some back-end reorganizing tasks, there are some big things coming through the pipe with this blog.

I’m going to kick off some meta-blog projects

“What is a meta-blog project?” you might ask. It is a term I just created to describe some of the things I want to do, that’s what. There are a good number of Christian bloggers who advocate similar positions to my own, but as it stands, we appear as individual dissenters making up whatever we want in order to suit our emotivist fancies. The Christian position which may support gay marriage, raise its eyebrows to Biblical literalism, and deny the infallibility of Scripture seems like heresy to some, and with these ideas so foreign to many people, it is only right that they should be skeptical.

In reality, though, it is what we have learned from others that has led us to where we are, and I count it as important that we stand together, diverse as we may be. The concrete details of the project are still in the works, but I have a general idea of what I want to accomplish. I can’t understate the importance of standing together. We are not crazy, and we are not heretics, but unless we unite, we will forever appear as a bunch of lone would-be prophets shouting at the world.

First on the agenda is to have a back-and-forth review process of sorts. Blogs are notorious for just being some guy’s opinion, not something which has to stand up to any sort of critical review. I don’t mean to say that we should replicate the scientific method in the blogosphere, but there are a lot of good things which can come from the opinions of multiple people. This may be content review prior to publishing or just a more visible back-and-forth between bloggers.

Second is to have an identifiable network of contributors. I don’t mean that we all write articles through the same blogging service; rather, I mean to suggest that we announce our  participation in the project and perhaps tack up a small symbol with a link to a central page describing the project.

This is a pretty huge undertaking, and it’s going to take a lot of cooperation and technical knowledge, but it will be a worthwhile endeavor which may have the potential to transform the Christian landscape in America for the better.

Watch out for more news on the project! Also, if you are interested in participating, please comment below or contact me otherwise. In addition to needing bloggers, if you want to contribute to ideas for web design, a logo, or perhaps some guiding philosophies, you’re also welcome to post.

The way WordPress handles comments, if you comment, I will get your email address if you use your real email to make the comment. It will remain private. I will message all interested (BCC) with further details to try to kick off the first phases of the project.

Stick around! There are some exciting things underway. If you would like to keep abreast of information on these things, don’t forget to subscribe.

Molinism: a middle ground?

The following post comes from a friend of mine in the student-run philosophy organization at my university. I don’t agree with his views, but I want to share this, because it’s well-written and a good challenge to the more liberal view of scripture I hold. Critical thinking is quite important for our beliefs, and this is certainly a fine example.

An introduction: this is on the Christian philosophical viewpoint of Molinism, which tries to provide a middle ground between the conservative and liberal views on the inspiration of Scripture. The basic premise is that God created the world so that its human authors, of their free will, would create the best possible account of God’s will when they wrote the books that would become the Bible.

A General Liberal View-

I certainly can’t account for all views that might come under this category, but the following description seems adequate enough to me to get the line of thought across (same with the conservative account). This view sees the Bible as a collection of writings throughout history by fallible men working with influence from their own culture and background in an attempt to record what God had revealed or done, if He had revealed or done anything at all and they are not simply mistaken.

On this view then, the Bible is the human record of God’s revelation, instead of being itself the revelation from God.

Strengths-

1. Contradictions and apparent historical errors in scripture are not problematic because these are the errors of men rather than God.
2. Seemingly immoral acts and commands on God’s part can be explained as man mistakenly believing they had God’s support and errantly recorded accordingly.

A General Conservative View-

The more conservative view is going to usually be along the line of thought that God is ultimately the author of Scripture, and because He is perfect and truthful, then Scripture too is completely perfect and true. The human authors were either inspired to write what they did or some may have been given direct words from God.

On this view, the Bible is primarily God’s work for man, rather than man’s work for man with God as its subject or original influence.

Strengths-

1. We can use the Bible as an ultimate source for determining and testing doctrine in a stronger way than the liberal view.
2. It makes sense of how the Bible seemed to be understood by its own authors, the early church, and Christ.

It is important to realize though that on this view, errors, contradictions, and seemingly poor teachings in scripture have to be defended and explained, which can be difficult in some cases and tedious in conversation with those who would disagree.

A Molinistic Perspective-

I think there is a more moderate perspective that can be taken which would give us the strengths I’ve noted from both views.

Understanding Molinism­-

In Molinism, God has as His fundamental knowledge, “Natural Knowledge”.

N

And N is- God’s knowledge of how all things could be. In terms of possible worlds, it is His knowledge of all the possible worlds He could, so to speak, choose to create.

God also has what we can call His “Free Knowledge”.

F

And F is- God’s knowledge of what will be. He knows which possible world is actual and He knows the future.

Then in addition to N and F, God will also have His “Middle Knowledge”.

M

And M is- God’s knowledge of how every free creature would act in every way things could be. In terms of possible worlds, God knows for any possible world he might create, how the free creatures will freely choose to act in each of those possible worlds.

On this view, the logical order by which God creates is,

N implies M implies F

In between M implies F is God’s divine decree (D) of which possible world to create. F is contingent in that God’s knowledge of what will happen depends on which possible world He chooses to create.

Thus,

N implies M implies D implies F

It is important to remember that God will only create one of the possible worlds that meet certain criteria. For example, it is likely that God would only create a possible world in which the greatest number of people receives salvation.

Relating to the Bible as God’s Word-

If we take Molinism to be true, then what we can say is;

God chose to create the possible world in which the biblical authors freely choose to write that which best conveyed to us what He intended to be His message/word for us and in the way closest to how He wanted it to be conveyed.

1. What this means for inerrancy­, apparent errors in Scripture, and seemingly immoral acts of God-  On this view, if we were to find overwhelming evidence that the Bible contained some contradiction or historical error, we would be able to acknowledge it while still saying the Bible is the word of God. It would simply mean there was no possible world which God could have actualized, that was consistent with all His criteria, in which none of the Biblical authors made a mistake or taught something that was not true.
2. What this means for the Bible as a source for testing doctrine- On this view, since the works of the Biblical authors is what God intended to be His word for us, then  we should presume that beliefs or teachings contrary to its teachings are false and that it is  useful for learning truth. However, if we find that an argument against a particular teaching is overwhelmingly strong, such that it would be irrational to hold on to the Biblical teaching, we still have the option of explaining it in the way we do errors.
3. What this means for inspiration- God could still have, in some cases, inspired or directed some of the authors in a more direct way if He so choose. For example, if we read “The Lord says,” from a prophet this may be a good indicator that God gave more direct guidance. God’s knowledge of how He would further freely act in the world is within F, because it is only after D that He knew how He would act in the world. He could only know this after D, because a person endowed with M does not have knowledge of how they would themselves freely act in any possible world. Since the true propositions regarding M are counterfactuals, if He had M of Himself the truth of such counterfactuals would be outside His control, in the same way His N and M (with regard to others) are outside His control, and this would destroy His freedom.

This Molinistic perspective is an attractive one because it allows us to take the strengths of both the general types of views I mentioned without their relative weaknesses. The major problem with this view is that it requires acceptance of Molinism. However, for the person already favorable of Molinism, this need not be an issue.

A Brief Look at Two Points in Chris’s The Existential Freedom of Uncertainty

1. “To be a True Christian, one had to accept a particular set of doctrines which really weren’t up for debate. Until then, you fell into this other category of Baby Christian or even non-Christian. Among the requirements for True Christianity was believing that the Bible was the directly revealed Word of God, infallible and inerrant in its original texts.”- The line of thought Chris is referring to here I would say is mistaken and ought to be done away with. Though I do myself affirm that the Bible is the word of God it is not at all a required doctrine for being a Christian (there are far too many persons ready to respond to Christ and many who have truly repented before God that struggle with this doctrine in order to say otherwise). The fundamental truths that Christians must affirm are that God exists, He sent His divine son Christ who died for us, and He raised Christ from the dead. Other doctrines, such as Biblical Inspiration and the like, may be important and even required to be classified as “orthodox” or “creedal”, yet are certainly not necessary to be considered Christian. I see “orthodox Christian” as a subgroup of the larger “Christian”. It is for this reason I would even consider Mormons to be within the group of “Christian”, though outside the group “orthodox Christian” (and this is not something one need be ashamed of).

2. “So here’s the test: do the teachings of the Bible reflect those of contemporary cultures? If the answer is unilaterally “no,” then we can say that it would have been extremely improbable that anyone wrote the Bible of his/her own free will. If the answer is yes, such as if the Bible were to reflect the myths of the area…, then we should say that it is extremely likely that the authors wrote very much out of their own preferences and personal moral judgments.”- On the Molinistic perspective, if we say “yes” to this test, we are not committed to the position that God did not guide the Biblical authors. It would indeed be the case that the Biblical authors “wrote very much out of their own preferences and personal moral judgments”, and yet it would also be the case that the conclusions they freely derived and recorded were the conclusions God intended for us to take as His teaching since He selected the possible world where they taught these things. God knew the circumstances of all the possible worlds the authors could write in and what conclusions they would derive relative to their cultural backgrounds, and He actualized the possible world in which the authors would write what He wanted to be His teaching even if there was still room for the background culture to improve. The accuracy of the background culture that influenced the authors’ teachings does not say anything about whether or not the teachings are what God intended for us. An understanding of the background culture would only help with interpretation of the teachings. The only way in which this would lead us to saying a teaching is false, is if we use the background culture to help interpret a teaching from the Bible that is overwhelmingly false, and thus would be explained in the way I previously noted the Molinist could.

Top 5 Challenging Bible Facts

To some people, especially those who come from conservative churches, my beliefs seem to come out of left field. I must be crazy or want to start my own religion or something. Quite the contrary, actually, but there are a lot of things that I take for granted sometimes which many people just don’t know. Here are 5 things that I wish I had known earlier about the Bible. I’m going to give you a very broad overview of some somewhat small but very challenging facts and positions. I’ll leave you to research them further.

We don’t know who wrote any of the Bible

Most of the common thought on who wrote the Bible comes from tradition. This includes the thinking that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Moses wrote most of the Old Testament when he was with God on Mt. Sinai, Paul wrote most of the epistles, etc.

On the contrary, there is no really solid evidence for any of that, and the church assigned names and authors to the books long after their authorship. Now, of course, many of the epistles bear Paul’s name, but many people wrote pseudonymously at that time, so it’s very possible that someone was writing in the spirit of Paul while not actually being Paul. Paul may have in fact written a few of the epistles, but in no case is a book’s authorship ever certain.

A lot of the Bible didn’t happen

There was no Adam. We know this from genetics. There was no flood. We know this from geology. There was no Exodus. We know this from archaeology. When each of these fields got started, everybody was scrambling for proof of the Biblical account, but it wasn’t there. Not only was there a lack of evidence, but there was actually strong evidence for contrary positions.

We don’t even know how much of the New Testament actually happened. There are contrary genealogies of Jesus in different gospels. Christians are unanimously in agreement with the idea of Jesus’ historical death and resurrection, but we really don’t know where to draw the lines elsewhere.

The previous point isn’t a problem for theology

Many Christians feel that it is absolutely necessary to confirm the historicity of the entire Bible, but honestly, it’s not. This is a very new idea within the Christian faith, and it runs contrary to much early Christian thought. Christians in Alexandria, for example, believed very strongly in an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Origen, and many others shared varying degrees of allegorical interpretation.

A better understanding of ancient genres of literature makes this even less of a problem when we realize that no one really wrote history books. There were a few historians mostly commissioned by the Roman government, but what we sometimes call “history” when we read the Bible is actually more like a mythic origin story to give the Jewish people a sense of identity.

The Bible wasn’t meant for you

Some of my readership probably includes pastors, philosophers, and/or clergy, so this isn’t entirely true, but the Bible was not meant for the common person to pick up and read. Most everyone was illiterate, and they depended on the priests to study the Bible and give spiritual direction. And there is so much heavy philosophy underpinning many of the books of the Bible that it honestly requires an academic person to read properly.

That may grate against our modern democratic ideals of equality, but equality of value does not mean equality of skill or role. We sometimes forget that, and it leads to the absurd conclusion that everyone should be a theologian. This is so entrenched that it might sound offensive, but consider this: does everyone need to be a rocket scientist? A computer engineer? A doctor? We do need theologians, but honestly, we need far more people to stop worrying that they’ve got all the beliefs straight and get out there, live their lives, and love people as Christ would love.

The Bible has some objectionable material

This one took me a long time to accept. In fact, I might have only really come to terms with it within the last few weeks. The fact is, though, for all our fancy methods of interpretation, our apologetic strategies, our impassioned sermons about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, our carefully-crafted Statements of Belief, etc., there is really a lot of stuff in the Bible for which there is no excuse.

Taking women as sex slaves/unwilling wives is pretty abhorrent, and we can’t really wish that away by saying, “Oh, that was for the ritual purity of the Hebrew people.” No, it wasn’t. I can’t say exactly why it’s in there, but there is really no good possible reason. But it extends beyond just taking women as slaves to prejudices about women, slaves, homosexuals, foreigners, and a long list of other things.

__________

So one might think, “What now?” Well, if you were a Christian beforehand, you’re still a Christian now, but if you accept these things, you’re free to live your life without fear of having to cross every t and dot every i on the True Christian Theology Checklist invented by modern conservative Christians. You’re free to learn to love in a way that doesn’t involve making sure you did everything precisely according to specification. That doesn’t mean we cease striving for perfection and let our morality slide into oblivion; rather, it means that we actually have to work to discover what it means to love properly.

I hope you will take the time to research some of this. If you have any questions about any of these issues, feel free to ask in the comments below, and maybe I can point you in the direction of some good sources. Thanks for reading, and God bless.

The Existential Freedom of Uncertainty

Infallibility, inerrancy, and revelation… many Christians subscribe to variations of these doctrines and may even see them as requirements of the faith. I recall past conversations in which fellow Christians and I were discussing new believers who believed in Jesus but just weren’t sure about accepting the Bible wholesale. To be a True Christian, one had to accept a particular set of doctrines which really weren’t up for debate. Until then, you fell into this other category of Baby Christian or even non-Christian. Among the requirements for True Christianity was believing that the Bible was the directly revealed Word of God, infallible and inerrant in its original texts.

Now this sounds great and pious, and I would love it if this were the case, because it would make things really easy. What’s the answer to [fill in the blank]? Let’s see what God says! This is the notion behind Biblical counseling, wherein we view the Bible as a series of prescriptions for our individual ailments called “sin.” The question we must ask, though, is whether or not this is a good way of thinking about the Bible. If we should destroy these doctrines, then we will come to a place of uncertainty. What would we do at that point? How would we go about being Christian?

The most troublesome part of the doctrines in question is revelation, because it entails the other two doctrines. If God directly revealed the text of the Bible, then the Bible must be infallible and inerrant, because God does not lie, nor does he make mistakes. But the idea of revelation says some very strange things about the Biblical authors. Essentially, it invents this special epistemological state in which the authors of the Bible suddenly receive a burst of pure knowledge, and they transcribe this knowledge onto the scrolls which we would later collect into the Bible.

This supposes that all social prejudices and limitations of knowledge disappeared long enough for the authors to write down what God had revealed. Further, it supposes that whatever God revealed was not so terribly offensive to the people who ultimately received it that they were willing to listen. Judging from the violent reactions to the abolition of American slavery, though, I can only imagine what would have happened if this had occurred long ago. I can only imagine how the people would have responded if the women stood up for themselves as persons, even amid a revelation from God. Yet if God revealed the scriptures, then His word should transcend culture to reveal what is right.

So here’s the test: do the teachings of the Bible reflect those of contemporary cultures? If the answer is unilaterally “no,” then we can say that it would have been extremely improbable that anyone wrote the Bible of his/her own free will. If the answer is yes, such as if the Bible were to reflect the myths of the area, if it advocated tribalism and patriarchy, the taking of slaves, the poor treatment of women, racial superiority as a justification for war, etc., then we should say that it is extremely likely that the authors wrote very much out of their own preferences and personal moral judgments.

The way I frame this test obviously indicates where I side on this. The former Christian apologist in me would have screamed, “But the Old Testament law was for the ritual purity of Israel, and we don’t have to pay attention to that, anymore!” Oh really, self? In what way is taking women as sex prisoners — but in some cases only the virgins — a part of ritual purity? In what way is this ever okay?

I am not trying to convey a modernist sentiment suggesting that we here in current times are so much less of moral monsters than those in ancient times. They acted in accordance with what they understood just as we do, today — we just know more, at least in many regards. What I am saying, though, is that if God really wrote the Bible, God would object to such practices. What we find, instead, is that in addition to some truly wonderful material, the Bible also contains misogyny, slavery, homophobia, and all the sorts of backward practices which we should expect to find in the writings of a culture living in the Near East.

I can’t offer a solid, consistent replacement for how we look at the Bible, but I find that the resulting confusion gives us a previously-inaccessible authenticity. With clear-cut guidelines of how to live our lives, which values are the right ones, etc., we would just say, “Here, do this. Be this way.” In fact, this is what happens in some circles. Consequently, there is no struggle for capital-J Justice, because Justice is this thing right here, this thing which we can point to instead of striving to attain. Thus the pursuit of Justice is a matter of conquest rather than internal contemplation. Certainty precludes us from making meaningful decisions and exercising our freedom of will. Love would have clear-cut definitions, and choosing to love would have little moral meaning, because the right decision would just be so obvious.

It is not that I think there are no answers to these ultimate existential problems, but certainty of their solutions demolishes meaning to life itself. With this in mind, we should read the Bible differently, not looking to it for all the right answers but instead recognizing that the Biblical authors were struggling to understand what is True and Just and Loving in the same way that we are, today.

A Christian Defense of Homosexuality

I write this in contrast to a letter which argues that accepting homosexuality denies God’s hope for homosexuals.

In discussing homosexuality with Christians, you will generally find that most of them agree that the Church has treated the LGBT community wrongly, and I would agree. I have had multiple conversations of the sort in very recent memory. But unless you’re in a church community which actually accepts homosexuality, you will find that everyone has their own pet caveats for why it’s not okay, even though the Church is not treating homosexuals as it should. You will hear comparisons of homosexuality to addiction to pornography or alcohol. You will hear slippery slope arguments, like how will we say no to one night stands or even bestiality if we can’t say no to homosexuality.

I know that I personally used to offer these sorts of arguments, and I may have even devised a few of my own. As a church, it seems we come up with every other method of rectifying our relationships with people of homosexual orientation other than to realize that maybe calling their sexuality “sinful” is damaging in and of itself.

Many Christians to whom I have spoken, however, will readily accept that homosexual desires do in fact develop on their own through no fault or moral failing, which is at least an improvement on calling it a choice. In fact, the Catholic church acknowledges this much, but it requires that homosexuals not act on their desires and live lives of celibacy. The argument here is that there are many natural desires which are not conducive to Godly living, and we must train our emotions such that we do not act unethically. I agree this far. I do not agree that training people to live Godly lives includes completely disallowing homosexual desires to manifest in any sort of homosexual action.

We don’t do this with other sorts of desires. There is a right time, place, and manner for anger, sadness, erotic affection, and for every other sort of natural affection which we have — unless, one might say, that erotic affection is homosexual in nature. Yet there is no evidence that anyone can reappropriate homosexual desires into heterosexual desires. This is the unanimous opinion of every major health organization in the United States as well as the World Health Organization and others. There is no solution for someone of homosexual orientation trying to live up to conservative Christian expectations of complete abstinence except for a life marred by unfulfilled sexual desires.

Whereas Christianity would help the man with anger problems to find the right way of being angry, there is apparently no right way of having homosexual desires. Any way of expressing them is sin to the conservative position. This is a hopeless position to maintain. We would say to the homosexual, “You will live a life of frustration with no chance of God restoring right order to your emotions.” But this is not the message we offer to anyone else. The alcoholic, the adulterer, the liar, the thief — all of these have hopes of moving in the direction of righteousness by training their emotions to align with God’s, but not the gay man.

Because we have learned that some men and women are homosexual through no fault or sin, we are in a better place to understand them than we would have been in the first century AD or any time prior. It’s not that we are functionally any smarter, but we have in fact built up knowledge over time. The ancient people were not stupid, but they did not have the knowledge we have and would have written the Bible in accordance with the way they understood things to be.

If, in fact, homosexuality was a disordered desire which one could rectify with the right sort of heterosexual desire, then I would have no problem saying that homosexuality was a sin. This is the assumption of the Biblical writers, but there is no evidence supporting this position.

I argue that homosexual Christians should learn to order their desires in the same manner as all other Christians, that they express love and commitment alongside any sort of eroticism. That is the Christian ideal for all sexual desire. That is my hope for homosexual Christians, that they are able to live lives where they can express their homosexuality in a healthy manner and in a way which glorifies God.

For us to put forward anything less is to deny the hope of Christ, and no creative reasoning will allow us to escape this conclusion. If there is no right expression of homosexual desire, then there is no hope of restoration.