Very interesting……I appreciate the kind words and thoughts on the topic (and a little education too)

I am on the run to get to work but I am looking forward to checking out you blog site more.

More talks to come….

Blessings!

I find homosexuality one of the most difficult issues to discuss because it is very charged with familial, and identity issues. When people often say they are gay they are speaking about much more than just their sexuality; they are often talking also about their lifestyle, culture, network, and outlook. These are hard things to wade through. I wrote a few years ago for an exegetical paper Rom. 1 some content that I think makes the Romans 1 passage very clear in its meaning. Here is a snippet.

The word in the passage that has received the most attention recently is nature, physis. Women, according to our passage, exchanged the natural function (a sexual term) for that which is contrary to nature, likewise the men left the natural and burned in their desire for one another. If one is reading an English Bible, the text could be construed to have nothing to do with the homosexual lifestyle at all. One might say, “I have always been attracted to men; I did not exchange heterosexuality for homosexuality; it is natural for me to be gay.”

In much Greek thought what is natural is that which ought to be, so the regular order of nature is what ought to be. Paul, in fact, borrows a phrase from Greek moral philosophy, para physin, contrary to nature. Greek ethicists, especially Stoics, classified acts etc. as either according to nature (kata physin), or contrary to it (para physin). Plato condemns pederasty as contrary to nature, one of Plutarch’s characters calls homosexual union unnatural (Richard Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (Spring 1986): 193). Philo and Josephus, roughly Paul’s contemporaries, both regarded homosexuality as contrary to nature. The phraseology is what is key here, not the opinion of homosexuality. It was current in Paul’s day to make moral judgments using the labels, “according to” or “contrary to” nature.

Those that look into the Greek clearly see that “nature” does not mean, “what comes natural,” this is a modern day use of the word, it is speaking toward telos. It is talking about the intended function and purpose of something, in this case, human sexuality.

Now my comment is getting quite long so I will just say great post and great blog.

Anywho, I highly agree with your definition of the difference between welcoming churches and affirming churches. I’m not sure what I said that confused the two but I will review the post (later today, I’m running out the doof right now) and see if I can fix that.

Also, for everyone else’s benefit, if you’re interested in this topic, Kevin and I were part of a LONG conversation online on this topic awhile back at http://www.revoultionnyc.com under the community link.

Also, full props to Kevin. On my other blog concerning my beliefs on homosexuality is a link to the great debate on homosexuality that presents both sides. This was a site Kevin pointed me too some time ago.

Now Kevin, I do hope that you visit some of the other blogs on my site and not just focus on “the topic” =)

Since we’ve been through this before, I’ll hold off on writing my thoughts about the whole “is homosexuality a sin” issue.

But I will point out that you appear to be confusing welcoming churches with affirming churches. A welcoming church is simply one that allows LGBT people to attend, even if they believe that there is a sinful element to homosexuality. An affirming church is one that not only welcoming LGBT people but also accepts their relationships as equal to heterosexual ones.