Mennonite Weekly Review

Comments

• Thanks, Ardie, for sharing these stories.

  - Forrest Moyer (jun 19 at 10:48 a.m.)

• As I was reading Ms Goering's article, I was reminded of I Samuel 15 where God, through his prophet Samuel, instructs King Saul to utterly destroy all the men, women, children, oxen, sheep, camels and asses of the Amalekites. Saul and the people destroyed nearly everything but spared King Agag and the best of the sheep, oxen, fatlings, lambs and all that was good in direct disobedience of God's command. Perhaps, Saul reasoned, with help from Satan, who presents himself as the Angel of Light, that God would understand and look with favor on their decision to save the best of the animals to be used to sacrifice unto the Lord in meaningful worship. Saul apparently was pleased with their decision and had a good feeling about everything before he met Samuel.

  Upon Saul's return from battle, Samuel confronts him about the obvious disobedience and asks "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to harken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry".

  One can rationalize the GLBT issue up and down, back and forth and highlight 'good works' of pastors who are gay as points of justification, but the bottom line is what does God say? How can gay pastors teach sound Bible doctrine and address other sin issues that are stated in the Bible when they, themselves, do not live sound Bible doctrine? On the GLBT issue, Satan presents himself as the Angel of Light and still uses his old line which continues to be quite effective, "Hath God said"?

  Nowhere in Ms. Goering's article do I read any scripture references supporting her GLBT comments. However, the letter in MWR May 4 issue from the five Iowa church men addressed the GLBT issue very clearly from a Bible perspective. Perhaps the lack of scripture references by Ms. Goering was an oversight and will be provided at another time.
  

  - A.Dale Welty (jun 21 at 10:34 p.m.)

• Thanks for the article, Ardie. Well written.

  As to the above comment. Jesus also said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He said of those working in his name that he did not know, "He who does good works in my name is not against us, but with us." Jesus repeatedly refuted scribes and pharisees who were steeped in scripture and misusing it to support elitism and rigidity.
  

  Jesus said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. I say again that it was Paul and the Pentatuch. But Paul was referring to those who worship false gods. Where are those Christians who were born GLBT, who have only known and worshiped Father, Son and Holy Ghost, been worshiping false idols? And as for the Pentatuch, when was the last time you ate a cheeseburger, enjoyed pulled pork, or a shrimp dinner?

  Now Dale, you too have much answering to do. You keep bashing around scriptural quotations about God punishing this and that--none of which are remotely related to said issue. Do you really think God is calling us to annihilate GLBTs as Saul was called to annihilate the Amalikites? If this is really your argument, then we truly have nothing to talk about. If this is not your argument, then this is a poor choice of scripture indeed.

  Meanwhile, you yourself dodge any questions about how God could have created GLBTs in the first place if he finds them so abhorrent. If God created them this way, and I am convinced that this be the case, Dale, and I stand convinced that it is, then I can only see as the exclusion of GLBT from worship, leadership, and marriage, as nothing less than base discrimination that fails to acknowledge the wholeness of God's creation.

  For too long, scripture has been abused to promote despotism, racism, sexism, and slavery. Each of these uses of scripture--seen as quite correct and incontrovertible at the time--has been discredited as quite the opposite. You must ask yourself, Dale, as should the Iowa pastors: Is your usage of scripture similar? If you do not think so, then in what way is it different?
  

  - Jim (jun 22 at 8:17 a.m.)

• The folloiwng are my responses to Jim in paragraph sequence:

  You should also have quoted Jesus in this same context when he told the woman to go and sin no more. I am certain she left as a woman with a renewed mind than when she was brought into the presence of Jesus.

  The purpose of my refering to I Samuel 15 was to remind all readers that God expects obedience to his verbal and written word. The emphasis I wanted to convey to readers was the principle "To obey was more important than sacrifice" Sorry you missed it. It seems you were quick to attach an incorrect meaning that I was suggesting all GLBT people should suffer the same fate as the Amalikites. Not even close. I do not appreciate someone taking what I say, distorting it and then responding to the distortation they created.

  Regarding what I eat, I Cor 10:31, "So whether you eat (cheeseburgers, pulled pork, or shrimp) or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God".

  Apparently you believe that GLBT people are predesinated by God at conception or birth, therefore their GLBT lifestyle should not be considered sin. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if they were predistinated as homosexuals? Genesis 2:24 "man and his wife shall be one flesh". Matt 19:5 "and they twain shall be one flesh". Mark 10:8 "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh". You state Jesus said nothing about homosexuality? To me the preceding two quotes from Jesus indirectly addresses the homosexual issue. Perhaps you can explain how homosexual partners become one flesh in a same sex marriage. To whom do verses in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6 apply if God predestinated all GLBT people as acceptable?

  Lastly, we are all born with a sinful nature, but when we choose to become born again into the faimily of God, the blood Jesus shed on the cross cleanseth us from all sin. The Holy Spirit now resides in the blood cleansed heart. We are no longer to be conformed to the lifestyles of the world but we are transformed by the renewing of our mind. that we may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. We are now new creatures in Christ and our name is entered in the Book of Life. It would be very sad to have people, living a homosexual lifestyle, being accepted as members of a church, learn too late their names were never entered into Heaven's Book of Life beliving they were exempt from certain Bible teaching because they were predestinated to live as homosexuals. If one's eternal destination is of serious consideration, choosing to believe religious leaders who told them they were not violating the inspired Word of God, in my opionion, would be extremely foolish.

  - A. Dale Welty (jun 24 at 2:39 p.m.)

• I appreciate this response. It sheds some of the sarcasm of previous arguments. To be sure, I still profoundly disagree with much of what Dale writes here.

  Apologies if Dale believes I misinterpreted what his major arguments were. My major criticism is his choice of scripture, which renders such an interpretation all too logical. I Samuel 15 does, after all, deal with what could perhaps be called a divinely inspired genocide. Moreover, such verses have been used in justifying very real violence against those who are different from us or with whom we otherwise disagree (consider Muslims and Jews for one, GLBT people for another). With so many passages in the Bible to bring home the importance of obedience, this is one that ought not be used. Again, I do not believe Dale called for violence in his argument. His choice of scripture was simply a poor one with implications that could and ought NOT be overlooked.

  As for the arguments about Sodom and Gomorrah. There was much wickedness going on in those cities. Theft, corruption, greed, and dishonesty had become the norm, while charity, hospitality, and compassion were all but abandoned. Jesus said Jerusalem was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah for its lack of hospitality or openness for him and his disciples. Why the bill for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction must constantly be laid at the feet of homosexuals is quite beyond me. Again, blaming one group in particular for the downfall of a society tends to result in dire consequences for that group. The gap between casting a group into a role of "other" and ceasing to care for it altogether is not wide. Suspicions soon crop up, and violence is rarely far behind. (Remember how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on homosexuals in American society, for example?)

  I have given my views sufficiently elsewhere about why Paul's letters are not the best source for judgment in this matter, and are often misinterpreted where they are, so nothing further here. The above comment, however, does seem to be taking a very revisionist stance about Jesus' thoughts on the matter. In the context of the passage, Jesus was asked about divorce and remarriage, not about homosexuality. His answer was about divorce and remarriage. Nothing more, nothing less was present.
  

  How does one define "one flesh?" Is it not the bonding of two people who love each other so closely that they are willing to dedicate their lives to each other and be faithful until death--or at least until the end of life on this earth?

  Dale talks about the need to show our love toward homosexuals through excluding them until repentance, rather than give them a false hope of being saved. This sounds much more like fear than love. Fear that people who are different will somehow corrupt us, fear that bringing a new group into fellowship will somehow lead to the dissolution of all we have dear. Ultimately, it is the fear that the grace of God is not wide enough to accommodate all, that by extending salvation to others, there might not be enough left over. God's love, God's grace, and God's mercy are infinite. There is no beginning, there is no end.

  - Jim (jun 27 at 6:35 p.m.)

• Jim, I will respond to three things in your comments.

  You mentioned lack of hospitality on the part of those living in S & G as reason for destruction. Well, according to Genesis 19, Sodom men were extremely hospitable. They demanded that Lot bring out the two visitors so they could show them a good time. Lot said no, but you can have my two virgin daughters instead. You can't be more hospitable than that.

  Secondly, in all scripture, the reference to one flesh in a marriage relationship is between a man and woman. In creation, God created woman out of man for a help meet(appropriate) for man. God did not create a second man and tell Adam, here take your pick. Homosexual supporters are, in effect telling God that his creation of man/woman does not meet their special needs as well as a same sex relationship, therefore, a same sex relationship to them is a necessary supplement to God's man/woman creation.

  Thirdly, In Matthew 7, Jesus states clearly that wide is the way that leads to destruction and many will go that way and narrow is the way that leads to life and few will find it. God's love, grace and mercy in this life are limitless and available to all, but many will choose to reject it.
  

  - A. Dale Welty (jun 28 at 11:31 p.m.)

• 1) You seem to be confusing tactical rape for hospitality in this case, Dale. I would hope this is extremely inappropriate sarcasm.
  

  The Sodomites were about to execute tactical rape, humiliation, and torture on the messenger angels, whom they knew were there for the final survey for righteous individuals before the town's destruction. Remember they threatened Lot with worse if he resisted. They would then send the beaten, humiliated angels back to God as a warning not to mess with Sodom. (Look at the Eastern Front in World War II to see this barbaric tactic in full use for intimidation, or to a much reduced extent in more recent conflicts. Look at any mobster film to see similar intimidation tactics at play against undesired messengers).

  There is not enough evidence in Genesis to prove the point that homosexuality was the primary crime in Sodom and Gomorrah. Evidence elsewhere, including from Jesus himself, would indicate a far more sinister picture, where thievery and deception were the norm.
  

  Through this all, though, your analysis begs the question. Do you honestly consider homosexuality synonymous with rape? The two, I assure you, are quite separate.

  2) From my standpoint, which holds that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, GLBT are not to be separated from the rest of God's creation, and thus are not telling God that God's creation is inadequate.

  GLBT seek the same rights and privileges that the rest of society enjoys. Currently, GLBT have the "special treatment" of having to deny who God made them to be in order to participate fully in worship. Let's lay this "special needs," and "special privileges" nonsense to the side.

  3) I am aware of Matthew 7. However, it is also accompanied by a warning to not pass judgment against others, lest we be subjected to the same judgment. This, combined with the scriptural tendency to be harshest against those who profess to know all the answers and hold the keys to heaven, would suggest that perhaps it is our tendency toward intolerance that puts us in gravest danger. Again, I say it is not God I fear in this matter, but humanity.

  - Jim (jul 1 at 6:01 a.m.)

• Jim, If you disagree with me on the reasons S&G were destroyed, you also disagree with many Bible scholars, ministers and teachers who know the scriptures better than I. Further, God speaks clearly in Lev. 18:22, on the homosexuality issue, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination". I have this last question for you. What do you think God meant in that one verse? God says "I change not". Jesus said, "I and the Father are one".

  - A. Dale Welty (jul 1 at 11:46 p.m.)

• Dale, it depends on the Bible scholars you are talking about. I would fully expect that the scholars, ministers, and teachers to which you pay attention would disagree with me. However, there are also many Biblical scholars, teachers, and ministers who would support my statements. Nevertheless, this is not a numbers game. Were the Pharisees and Scribes not Bible scholars also?

  I have already given my views on Leviticus. Without even the slightest qualms, we daily do many things listed as abomination in Leviticus. You yourself have stated that not everything in Leviticus must be followed. God may not change, but you cannot tell me that our understanding of God has remained constant.
  

  - Jim (jul 2 at 6:53 a.m.)

• And this can be interpreted differently: Check James 1:19-25. Then also apply verses 26, 27. There is something in this for all of us. "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

  - Carl L. Smeltzer (jul 2 at 7:07 p.m.)

• "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination". Lev. 18:22

  Does this really condemn intimacy between two men or treating a man as a woman? The verse's context of separating different kinds would suggest the separation of men and women is the more important issue here as suppose to what happens between two men.

  The misogynistic undertones of this passage should really make us question if we ever want to raise Leviticus 18 in relation to homosexuality. It would be comforting to say the verse does not condemn a man being treated as a woman because women are lesser beings but because men and women are created differently by God. If that were the case, where in Leviticus is the condemnation of a woman being treated as a man?
  

  Homosexuality became an issue as women's roles in the Mennonite church were changing. Have the sexists attitudes of the church not just taken a new supposedly more pc direction? We're not against women's equality, we just cannot have men being treated as women. We're simply trying to be faithful to Genesis. Really?

  - Jonathon (jul 4 at 11:42 a.m.)

• Intriguing. I have not heard that interpretation before. Could you elaborate?

  - Jim (jul 4 at 9:38 p.m.)

• If you are interested in an interpretation of Leviticus that argues 18:22 is addressing a gender offense, Daniel Boyarin's "Against Rabbinic Sexuality : Textual Reasoning and the Jewish Theology of Sex" in Queer theology Rethinking the Western Body is a decent article. His basic argument is that in ancient Judaism woman was understood as the "orifice-bearer"; consequently, to treat a man as though he had an orifice would be to devalue the man. Whatever a person's stance on homosexuality may be, there are only a handful of radicals that would accept that women are lesser than men. The gender offense explicitly relies on a hierarchical understanding of gender because it does not address women being treated as men. If you are interested in an interpretation of Leviticus that argues 18:22 is addressing a gender offense, Daniel Boyarin's "Against Rabbinic Sexuality: Textual Reasoning and the Jewish Theology of Sex" in the book Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body is a decent article. His basic argument is that in ancient Judaism woman was understood as the "orifice-bearer"; consequently, to treat a man as though he had an orifice would be to devalue the man. The gender offense in Lev 18:22 explicitly relies on a hierarchical understanding of gender. The man is devalued by being treated as though he had an orifice like a woman. No such offense occurs if a woman is treated like a man. In fact, it is impossible for a woman to act as a man according to the logical of the text because she is assumed to be incapable of penetrating another person, male or female.
  

  If women and men are held to be equal, how do we apply the condemnation of lying with a man as with a woman? Clearly, it can no longer be considered degrading. The original context does not suggest that the integrity of a man was compromised by intimacy with another man; penetration was the issue, so where is our condemnation of intimacy coming from? The issue gets more complicated if we apply a little queer theory. What does it even mean to lie with a man “with a woman’s lying” (Boyarin’s translation) in a modern context? The plain reading of Leviticus that is suppose to condemn same-sex relationships is only possible through an oversimplified and anachronistic assumption that the original context recognized a distinction between homo/heterosexuality.

  Gender is also an important component in the Mennonite conversation about same-sex sexuality but it has not always been recognized as such. In the 70’s and 80’s there is a lot of conversation about dysfunctional families creating feminine men and masculine women. Consequently, teaching gender conformity was considered “a cure” for homosexual inclinations by many people in the church. This cure is essentially the way most ex-gay programs work.

  All of that to say, the category of “gay” is very problematic when it is defined by sex alone. Sex, gender, and sexuality cannot be separated as though they are distinct characteristics that have no or limited impact on each other. How we understand gender affects how we think about sex and sexuality and vice versa. I would argue that the “official” documents on same-sex sexuality in the Mennonite church have not made any effort to separate themselves from the misogynistic assumptions behind biblical passages. It should cause us to think twice before we declare someone unfit to be a pastor because they are in a relationship with someone of their own sex.
  

  - Jonathon (jul 7 at 4:54 p.m.)

Comment on the article Former pastors who are gay

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.