do you think the church doesnt want homosexual preachers because they are homophobic, or do you think it is because a sermon from a homosexual preacher would not be credible. in other words, people might think how can one tell us about god's word, when one is living a daily rejection of it?
I'm coming in a bit late here, and I unfortunately do not have time to read the 11+ pages of discussion, but I read some of the beginning and the end. (Does that count as the Cliff Notes version?
)
First, my opinion of the study. A study of 96 individuals is not large enough to be representative of 10% or so of humanity that is homosexual. Furthermore, most research confirms that humans are plastic/flexible in their sexuality. That is, most humans can be convinced by culture to express sexuality in either homosexual or heterosexual ways, despite their inherent sexuality being on a continuum of one or the other or both (bisexual) or neither (asexual, and yes, this forgotten group does exist). Many people realize they are bisexual or homosexual only after years of acting as heterosexual because they may not recognize those options as viable, not only consciously but also subconsciously. Likewise, a person who is inherently somewhere in the middle of the spectrum (i.e., perhaps not bisexual, but on neither pole) may have a conversion to conservative Christianity, Judaism, or Islam that leads them to reject homosexuality in favor of heterosexuality. The point is, 96 people is not a sufficient sample size to prove much of anything with regards to sexuality. There have been countless studies of hundreds of cultures, and scientists the world over still haven't figured out what exactly goes on with human sexuality and what part is natural versus what is cultural. We do know, definitively, that homosexual acts exist in other mammals and birds. We also know that approximately 10% of people tend to have strong homosexual tendencies (outweighing heterosexual ones) and this is cross-culturally the case. Both of which lead to the logical conclusion that homosexuality is, in part, a natural urge for some people under all circumstances, and for a greater number of people in certain, limited circumstances.
Second, none of that amounts to a hill of beans with regards to what Christians think about practicing homosexuality. There seems to be three relatively popular beliefs: (1) the conservative belief that homosexuality in both thought/urge and action is sin (and homosexuality is often presented as somehow a *greater* sin than others), (2) the moderate belief that homosexuality in thought/urge is natural and unavoidable for some people (and is not a sin) but the action is a sin (so basically homosexuals should remain single and celibate), and (3) the liberal belief that homosexuality is natural in both thought and action, sexuality is people's personal business as long as it is consensual between adults, and the Hebrew laws against it were, like rules about eating fruit from trees five years old or greater, bound to that time and culture (and therefore not applying to us, since we live under Christ's grace). Of course, there are varieties. But that's the basic three arguments I see going 'round and 'round. I tend to think #1 is unjust, since it is clear that some people are born homosexual and realize this at a very early age.
What gets me is the attention that homosexuality gets as a sin in Christianity. If you're going to be a Biblical literalist and care about enforcing ALL the rules, well... I know of no Christian groups that do this very well, though the Amish at least make serious attempts. After all, you have to realize that homosexuality was chastened in the OT about as often as wearing mixed-fiber clothing, and lets face it, 2000 years later very few of us Christians are carrying banners and shouting at people who have linen-wool blend suits on. We don't attack one another for eating shellfish. And don't use the cop-out that homosexuality matters because Paul said so, and he said the other stuff didn't. Paul also said women were to be silent in church, that women were to wear headcoverings, and that we shouldn't wear jewelry or make-up or braid our hair. Even Paul was picking and choosing, and perhaps this makes since due to the hundreds and hundreds of rules governing behavior in the OT. It is staggering.
My point is, the Bible actually doesn't say THAT much about homosexuality. It says far more about healthy eating and doing away with poverty. Yet it is homosexuality that is THE issue in so many American churches. Why? Well, if you want my honest opinion, it's because homosexuals are a minority group. It is easy to pick on them for being sinners and feel better about oneself as having scratched one more sin off the list of stuff you won't ever do, generally through no real work of your own. It is not easy to pick on people for eating shellfish, or shaving (yeah, men aren't supposed to shave in the OT), or failing to wear a headcovering, or... the biggest sin we partake in here in the good 'ole USA- contributing to poverty by consuming a ton of the cheapest stuff we can find.
Seems to me that we all live a life that rejects the Bible's teachings, if by "rejection" you mean "daily sinning, including doing things the Bible commands us not to do." This is why we are called to LOVE. Instead of focusing on the wrongs of others, we love God and we love each other.
In love,
Path/Kim
