There has been an exchange of unusual quality over at TitusOneNine concerning the issue of same-sex relations and the classic “shellfish” argument. By this I mean those who take the more “liberal” view (same-sex relations are not inherently sinful and those who engage in such – especially in “committed” relationships – should not be disqualified from ordained leadership in the church) have done a better-than-usual job of explaining and defending their view. Ross and D. C. (their monikers) have made some cogent points.
The bottom line is still this:
#67 Rick in Louisiana makes a very thoughtful reply, including among other things:
(Do those who say such also concede that the Bible never ever teaches that same-sex relations are fine? I hope so. I hope they have the honesty and intellectual rigor to say “the Bible does not support us on the matter of homosexual behavior – we just think the Bible is wrong on this point”. And to their credit some do say this.)
Yes, I’ll concede that. When the Bible speaks explicitly about homosexuality, it always speaks against it. You can quibble a little about definitions and cultural practices and so on, but when all is said and done, the Bible condemns homosexuality. [emphasis added]
That is not entirely correct. (And this is quibbling but the point must be made.) The Bible does not condemn “homosexual-ity” but more precisely same-sex relations. (The Bible does not condemn heterosexual-ity but does have some things to say about adultery.)
I occasionally discern in Scripture… I am not sure quite what to call them… little hints? vectors? that perhaps somehow – exactly how we might debate – those who (a) experience same-sex attraction or more precisely (and less clearly) (b) engage in same-sex relations just might somehow be welcome in the covenant community.
Cracks in the plating. The metal plating of my conviction(s).
To whit check out Isaiah 56:4-5:
For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant– 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.
The passage as a whole is about how those who have been excluded from the covenant community (or people of God) will no longer be excluded. This includes (a) foreigners and (b) eunuchs. Focus on eunuchs for a moment. Men who (looking back at the Torah) have had testicles and/or penis removed. Sexually… damaged? Such that among other things they cannot produce children.
We might legitimately (and perhaps correctly) note that eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals (again to be more precise those who experience and act upon same-sex attraction). Eunuchs do not engage in same-sex relations. They do not normally engage in any kind of sexual relations. But I could not help but think of gay-lesbian-bisexual persons when I read this text. And more importantly note the vector of the prophecy. That those who have been excluded will one day be included.
This is not the only time or place I have noticed a verse or two that just might subvert the larger sexual ethic. I do not deny or reject the sexual ethic. But honesty requires me to note those places where at least I pause and wonder.
