David Ker has jumped into the ferocious waters of the issue of homosexuality by commenting on Ray Boltz coming out. Here’s what I commented on the subject:
Presumably if we want to do the subject justice, we’ll need to get beyond the Levitical code, which includes a great deal that is considered to be of no ongoing relevance by the vast majority of Christians.
If we focus on the New Testament, we find Paul using a couple of terms that certainly are not obvious correspondents to the modern English word “homosexual”. We also find him talking about what is and isn’t “natural”.
The same terminology is applied to homosexuality by philosophers and other authors in the same era. What makes homosexuality “unnatural” is that it places a male (who is by nature active) into the passive role: in essence, it places a man in the role of a female, which was considered demeaning to a male.
I can (to at least an extent) understand those who do indeed consider women inherently inferior and passive, and a man taking on any traditional women’s role demeaning, continuing to find Paul’s view of homosexuality persuasive. But to the extent that a great many Christians no longer find Paul’s assumed cultural view of women persuasive or binding, isn’t it appropriate to rethink same-sex relationships, given that Paul’s view of them was based on those same cultural assumptions?
As for Ray Boltz, even though many are dismayed, I think there will also be many who would like to say to him “Thank you for giving to the Lord” all the more because he had the courage to be honest about this.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In