Sermons

FILTER BY:

← back to list

    Jan 25, 2015

    Part 3: Homosexuality and the Scriptures

    Passage: Luke 10:25-37

    Speaker: Rev. Vivian McCarthy, Pastor

    Series: Modern Problems

    Category: Current Events

    Keywords: current, homosexuality, modern problems, scripture

    This week we explore the topic of homosexuality as it is written in the scriptures. If it's in the Bible then it's really clear; or is it?

    Reference: When Christians Get It Wrong by Adam Hamilton.
    I am indebted to the author for giving me a plan for this sermon in the layout and content of his chapter on homosexuality. Direct quotes are cited, but the content heavily relies on Rev. Hamilton’s work.

    Heard this before? The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

    If only it were that simple! Many of you have shared with me that as you read scripture – the same scripture – over and over, you are likely to hear something different or new each time, as do I. Scripture is complex and simple, inspiring and instructive. And if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes we have difficulty seeing some of the biblical material as relevant to the times in which we live.

    Let’s begin with a biblical story that says this better than I just did. In the 10th chapter of Acts, a centurion by the name of Cornelius had a dream – or a vision. An angel spoke to him, telling him that God had recognized his generosity and his sincere prayers and that he should send for Peter. So he did.

    Unbeknowst to Peter, of course, Cornelius’ friends set out to find him. Peter went up to his roof to pray, and he got hungry. As his meal was being prepared, Peter had a vision. He saw something like a large tablecloth or sheet being lowered to earth by its corners, full of things like animals and snakes and birds. Then Peter heard a voice inviting him to kill the animals and eat them. He was horrified! He was a good Jew who knew the law and that most of what was on that tablecloth was classified as unclean and therefore forbidden – and he said so. But the Voice said, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened 3 times in the vision!

    Imagine Peter coming out of that dream. He must have been in the process of just shaking off what he must have thought was a bad – or at least icky – dream when the messengers from Cornelius arrived.

    To make a long story short, Peter went. He shared the Gospel story with Cornelius and his household and the whole household was baptized – absolutely scandalous for him to baptize uncircumcised Gentiles into the faith!

    Peter realized on that day that “the rules are changing!” He realized that what Adam Hamilton calls “God’s eternal and timeless will” was not always well represented in human-devised laws, even laws that were written in the Sacred Code of the day.

    I remember one of my early – maybe even the first – Disciple Bible Study groups that I have led over the years. One of the men in the group got a little wrapped up in trying to figure out when it became all right to eat meat. His question was prompted by one of the stories in Genesis, and he was determined to find the place in the Bible that would show why it was okay to eat meat.

    I’m not sure I was able to answer that question articulately! There are quite a few rules or prohibitions that are in the Bible but no longer practiced by people who wish to live God’s way. These rules are no longer seen as necessary or relevant to “God’s eternal and timeless will.”

    There are 326 passages in the Bible about slavery. Most of them condone slavery – at least tacitly, although some of them in the New Testament counsel slave owners to treat their slaves well. Slavery is no longer seen as okay. We find the owning of another human being to be abhorrent and definitely not in keeping with God’s laws, even though it can be supported scripturally.

    There are quite a few scriptures about women that are no longer seen as within “God’s eternal and timeless will.” Some of you have talked to me about how those who see women as “less than,” especially when that prejudice is coming from churches who discriminate against women in some way or other. It is clear to most of us here that they are not being faithful to God’s best desires for the world.

    Dietary laws, ritual practices (including many that refer to how women are unclean especially during the menstrual cycle), interactions with all kinds of people who are considered unclean, unworthy, different from us, or sinners are a few examples of laws that do not pass the test today. Most of us give little or no thought to why we no longer keep those laws, although there are both Christian and Jewish sects that rigidly observe and maybe even enforce them to this day.

    You have heard me say a number of times that scripture is first among the four “tools” for United Methodist theological and ethical thinking and decision-making: scripture, experience, tradition and reason. I believe John Wesley’s words were something like “scripture is chief among them.” I firmly believe that. Through Scripture, God continues to speak to me and countless others.

    Neither I nor the UMC believe that God guided the hands of those who wrote down the scriptures. There are religions and denominations that believe the Bible to be inerrant – dictated by God and therefore free from any outside influence. I believe that scripture is inspired by God but it was written by human beings who were the products of their culture and language and that culture and language influenced some of the things that they wrote. I believe that has influenced how we continue to practice legalisms that no longer speak in our world – and never did reflect “God’s eternal and timeless will.”

    I’d like to share with you a paragraph from an Adam Hamilton book that I found very helpful for today. He wrote:

    When it comes to sexual matters, there are passages that I believe do capture God’s timeless will – passages that forbid adultery, sexual immorality, and promiscuity. So, on what basis do we decide that some things are still binding and others are not? I suggest that we decide this by evaluating passages in the light of Jesus’ two great commandments: love God with all that you are, and love your neighbor as yourself….The question is not whether I believe in biblical authority; the question is how I interpret the Scripture.

    There are 8 scriptural references that some people consider as references to homosexuality – 8 in the whole Bible.

    The first 2 are actually one story told in both Genesis and Judges, and one of the NT stories is connected to this story as well. It is a story of violence and rape and the sin of inhospitality which I’m not going to go into this morning. If you want to read it, I can share the passages with you.

    The next 2 passages are from the holiness code in Leviticus. The passages call homosexual relationships an “abomination” and condemn the people involved to death. The Holiness Code contains many laws that probably had a purpose in biblical times but no longer make sense or are not meaningful in today’s world. Adam Hamilton articulates this very well, so I’m going to read 2 paragraphs from his book:

    It is in the holiness code that we read, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). Regardless of where you stand on the issue of same-sex intimacy, do you think this verse capture the timeless will of God? Is it God’s will that gay and lesbian people be put to death? Few Christians would suggest that this punishment should be applied to gay and lesbian people, so they have already determined that a portion of this Scripture should be set aside.

    If we agree that we shouldn’t put gay and lesbian people to death, then aren’t we saying that at least part of that verse is more a reflection of Israel’s views on homosexuality than of God’s timeless will? Even if we think the first part of the verse has meaning for us today, doesn’t that mean we already are trying to sort through which part is and which part isn’t in each of these categories of Scripture?

    The last 3 passages (in Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy) speak to uncommitted, unloving sexual liaisons and/or to temple prostitution – not to committed, loving, supportive and sustaining, life-giving relationships.

    I would hope that no one would condone exploitative, unloving, promiscuous sex. That kind of sexual act or activity is not life-giving but tears at the fabric of relationship. It is destructive, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. It is not loving of God or of neighbor in any sense of the words.

    I believe that God’s timeless will is that humans live in relationships that reflect the unconditional love of Jesus. That lifestyle, if you will, is healthy for all of us, and there are numerous homosexual couples who live that lifestyle – not a lifestyle that we imagine or ascribe to them.

    Just as Peter was completely astounded at the insight from his vision, I am sometimes astounded that my view of the scripture has changed so much over time. As I have learned to take a more objective view of culture than I did when I was very young, it has made me question when it seems that scripture – and theology – is culture-bound and not God-inspired. This is one of those times.

    Part of my personal opinion when I was younger had to do with the fear of displeasing God or believing something that was abhorrent to God. I didn’t question the stance. However, I came to know a number of individuals and couples whom I not only liked but admired – kind, loving, creative, generous, Godly people – and I began to question in my own heart and mind.

    Please understand that I am clear that there are other committed Christians who will not see it this way. I hope that we will be able to agree to disagree and allow there to be grace as well as respect between us.

    Jesus told the lawyer, “The greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God with you heart and soul and mind and strength. And a second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself.” He didn’t say we have to agree with each other or be like each other. He said we have to love. Thanks be to God.