So here I am six months after I began to keep this blog, and I am one big mess! I used to be a very easily defined Conservative Christian--an Evangelical through-and-through. Now, although I would be quite comfortable at a pro-gay rally or in any setting where the issue was being discussed, I'd be in big trouble when the topic turned to the war in Iraq or President Bush (whom I still like) or other social issues. I'm no longer a clear-cut conservative, at least not in the social sense of the word, but I am far from being what I used to be years ago: a staunch liberal. Yikes!
As I've studied the issues surrounding homosexuality and the church/Christianity's position on it, one thing that's happened is I've come to see the Evangelical approach being based, not surprisingly, on the Bible. And I find that approach flawed, to say the least, for at least two reasons. One, if we are supposed to follow what the Bible says from cover-to-cover, we're doing a poor job of it. Rather, it seems, we are selectively applying its dictates. Two, are we correctly interpreting the biblical passages, especially the proof-texts in Leviticus that (purportedly) pertained to homosexuality? That seems problematic. There's also another factor, which is the dependence and even (dare I say it?) worship of the Bible. Isn't it Jesus we are to worship? And why is it that seemingly sane men and women can fixate on the book as God's Word while abhorring the authority of men, as Protestants are wont to do? I could be wrong but wasn't it a group of men who put the sixty-six official books of the Bible together? And isn't that the authority of men? And what, pray tell, did human beings do prior to that moment? In fact (and I need to research this more so I could be wrong), aren't the books of the Old Testament considered non-canonical, at least in some quarters? So, this hybrid-mix-of-a-person is quite confused.
Meanwhile, I keep thinking about gay men and women who're being what their sexual nature tells them to be. And wondering why we'd deny them that right. And I'm wishing that the nutjobs on both sides of the issue would just shut up. :-)
As I've studied the issues surrounding homosexuality and the church/Christianity's position on it, one thing that's happened is I've come to see the Evangelical approach being based, not surprisingly, on the Bible. And I find that approach flawed, to say the least, for at least two reasons. One, if we are supposed to follow what the Bible says from cover-to-cover, we're doing a poor job of it. Rather, it seems, we are selectively applying its dictates. Two, are we correctly interpreting the biblical passages, especially the proof-texts in Leviticus that (purportedly) pertained to homosexuality? That seems problematic. There's also another factor, which is the dependence and even (dare I say it?) worship of the Bible. Isn't it Jesus we are to worship? And why is it that seemingly sane men and women can fixate on the book as God's Word while abhorring the authority of men, as Protestants are wont to do? I could be wrong but wasn't it a group of men who put the sixty-six official books of the Bible together? And isn't that the authority of men? And what, pray tell, did human beings do prior to that moment? In fact (and I need to research this more so I could be wrong), aren't the books of the Old Testament considered non-canonical, at least in some quarters? So, this hybrid-mix-of-a-person is quite confused.
Meanwhile, I keep thinking about gay men and women who're being what their sexual nature tells them to be. And wondering why we'd deny them that right. And I'm wishing that the nutjobs on both sides of the issue would just shut up. :-)
