tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post2615004537483310460..comments2023-06-28T11:56:24.073-04:00Comments on The Lamb's War: Seeking God's Word Together - Ohio Yearly Meeting 2011Micah Baleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06849915973708989620noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-84887750183664987822011-11-16T05:07:53.565-05:002011-11-16T05:07:53.565-05:00There are two types of Scriptural sources for deri...There are two types of Scriptural sources for deriving the view that same-sex relationships are wrong. First, there are the implicit Scriptures, which talk about the marriage relationship, and in doing so, describe the relationship as between a man and woman. Second, there are the explicit Scriptures, such as those which describe a man lying with another man as sinful (e.g., Levitius 18:22) and say that “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” are not to inherit the kingdom of God (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9).<br /><br />But the Scripture, as a whole, is simply not clear. First, there is no single word in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek that lends itself to a simple word-for-word translation of “homosexual.” The word appeared in the English language for the first time in 1912 and in the Bible for the first time in the 1946 Revised Standard Version in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Second, Biblical texts do not deal with homosexuality as a psycho-sexual orientation determined at birth or developed as a relationship between consenting adults. Third, no Biblical text presents an extensive discussion of same-gender behavior or same-gender relationships. Fourth, there is no reference to homosexuality in the four gospels or in the words of Jesus as recorded anywhere.<br /><br />What’s more, the implicit Scriptures do not foreclose the sanctity of same-sex relationships. They simply describe the marriage situation as it then existed; that is, they reflect a cultural norm, not any religious truth, that marriages were heterosexual. This also explains the patriarchal nature of marriage as it is described in the Scripture (Col. 3:18–4:1; Eph. 5:21–6:9; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7)—a view of marriage which is generally rejected now as an antiquated sentiment of the time. Moreover, to the extent we are going to read between the lines in implicit Scriptures, much could be made also of same-sex relationships in Bible which are discussed in a positive light (e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, etc.). <br /><br />The explicit Scriptures are also a product of their time. Almost by historical necessity, they most likely address a very different situation than what we are talking about when we refer to same-sex relationships today. The difficulty of transporting ancient phenomena to today’s society is evident by the varied and inconsistent translations of the words “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” into English; indeed, if 1 Corinthians 6:9 were to be so easily and simply applied today, why have translators juggled nearly a dozen different translations in English alone for use in modern times? And if “arsenokoitai” meant to cover all homosexual acts, then why did Paul bother also listing “malakoi” in 1 Corinthians 6:9?<br /><br />What many are calling God’s will or tradition today is simply a misuse of the Scripture to advance cultural and societal norms of human design. This is nothing new; it is the very apostacy of which George Fox in his day spoke: “When I had opened that state, I showed also the state of the apostacy since the apostles’ days; that the priest have got the Scriptures, but are not in that Spirit which gave them forth, and have put them into chapter and verse, to make a trade of holy men’s words[.]” (Fox, 1652). Friends, “[y]ou will say, Christ saith this, and the Apostles say this; but what canst thou say?” (Fell, 1694). I ask that you seek the Truth in the Light and to “distinguish this from man’s natural conscience, for conscience being that in man which ariseth from the natural faculties of man’s soul, may be defiled and corrupted.” (Barclay, 1831). As we know, “the mind being once blinded or defiled with a wrong belief, there ariseth a conscience from that belief, which troubles him when he goes against it.” (Ibid.). I suggest to you, Friends, that the objection you may have against same-sex relationships is founded in your conscience—tainted by society, culture, and dogma—and not a calling from Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-75203126137775415322011-08-22T16:25:57.040-04:002011-08-22T16:25:57.040-04:00I'm glad that William reminded us of the strug...I'm glad that William reminded us of the struggles of the Early Church as they awaited the Continuing Revelation that their Living Teacher would give them, on emotionally-charged and divising issues such as circumcision, ethnicity, and diet. The disciples had to keep learning how to listen, and then respond in faithfulness. The Way Forward wasn't always obvious when the challenge first came up. There is much that is instructive in looking at those constroversies, and how they were managed before Imperial Rome took over the church.<br /><br />But a question I would have for William and any else willing to comment: When you say we should "welcome LGBTQ folk into our meetings whether we affirm them or not" I wonder what is your distinction between "Welcoming" and "Affirming"? <br /><br />I know that many of our congregations (Quaker and beyond) have worked their way toward becoming "Welcoming and Affirming," but I'm always interested to know what Friends may mean by that. Be polite and nice, but don't expect leadership from "them"? Take a "Don't ask, don't tell" position? Agree to disagree about anything having to do with sexuality? Say "You can worship but you can't marry"? <br /><br />I expect we won't get a single unified answer to my inquiry, but I think it's worth asking.<br /><br />What does "affirming" mean to YOU, Friend?<br /><br /> -DHFDavid H. Finkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817925960778922467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-64289355771504561682011-08-22T09:51:45.052-04:002011-08-22T09:51:45.052-04:00@Liz - There were some gay folks present at OYM th...@Liz - There were some gay folks present at OYM this year, but none of them were members, as far as I am aware. <br /><br />OYM is fairly strict about asking visitors to refrain from speaking to our business (unless, of course, they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to give vocal ministry). I would see value, though, in having gay Friends speak to these questions outside of business sessions. <br /><br />I think that such speakers would be able to speak with more authority if they were unashamedly Christian and could justify their beliefs by Scripture. That's how we roll in OYM.Micah Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849915973708989620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-83375133387503705542011-08-21T23:54:34.795-04:002011-08-21T23:54:34.795-04:00Thanks for this follow-up, Micah.
A question I ha...Thanks for this follow-up, Micah.<br /><br />A question I have is this: Were there any Friends among you during annual sessions who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer? <br /><br />if so, did any of them speak? What did they offer (realizing that the GLBTQ community is not a monolithic group)?<br /><br />If not, did the yearly meeting discuss/consider inviting any GLBTQ Friends--or I suppose non-Friends--to speak with you, either individually or as a whole? <br /><br />It seems to me it is easy to dwell in the hypothetical, theoretical, or unknown if we never have direct interaction with the very people we wonder about.<br /><br />Blessings,<br />Liz Opp, <a href="http://thegoodraisedup.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">The Good Raised Up</a><br /><br />PS. I am also writing about GLBTQ people and the question of marriage equality at <a href="http://equalityiscoming.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Equality Is Coming</a>.Liz Opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09802348848085930901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-53470420854006290012011-08-18T15:25:01.991-04:002011-08-18T15:25:01.991-04:00Correction: How can we stay faithful to our core ...Correction: How can we stay faithful to our core testimony of equality withOUT affirming LGBTQ persons?<br /><br />Apologies for the typo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-60319212033450017832011-08-18T15:23:36.358-04:002011-08-18T15:23:36.358-04:00I cannot understand how anyone could believe that ...I cannot understand how anyone could believe that LGBTQ persons would want to join in a meeting where they are not affirmed. How welcome would you feel if a core aspect of your existence and identity is considered a sin? How would an teenager, coming to terms with their sexuality, feel if they heard homophobic messages, and would that not make them more vulnerable to depression, anxiety and even suicide? How can we stay faithful to our core testimony of equality with affirming LGBTQ persons?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-22046122477967286592011-08-17T13:21:05.657-04:002011-08-17T13:21:05.657-04:00I am glad to hear Ohio Yearly Meeting is continuin...I am glad to hear Ohio Yearly Meeting is continuing to wrestle with this issue and to discern the will of Christ. Too often, on both sides, Friends write off one another and seek separation rather than unity through corporate discernment of the Lord's will.<br /><br />The early Church had its disagreements too. Timothy and Paul had a little bit of a falling out, and Peter firmly believed gentiles could not become Followers of the Way until Christ gave him a prophetic vision reveling the contrary. Christians throughout history have never agreed on everything, but it is essential that we agree Christ Jesus is our Lord and savior and will guide us into the Kingdom. <br /><br />Maybe we don't need to all have a similar understanding of homosexuality, and we should be willing to wrestle together with this issue until we receive a clear vision of unity, and if we do not, then maybe we should accept our differences. Either way, I do believe we should welcome LGBTQ folk into our meetings whether we affirm them or not and should be willing to be in loving dialogue with them if we do have concerns. It's a tough line to walk, but it may lead us more further into the Kingdom.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12578207071566118866noreply@blogger.com