Because God blesses homosexual marriages

Reflections by Justin Lee, director of Gay Christian Network (USA), freely translated by Francesco.

As many of you know, I am rather conservative in my theological opinions. I believe that the Bible is authoritative, that sex is for marriage, and that promiscuity is harmful to all those involved. For many years of my life, I have also believed that any homosexual behavior was wrong - whether they were anonymous occasional relationships of serious relationships.

I thought, based on what I had read in the Bible, that even the most loving and monogamous homosexual relationship was evil in the eyes of God. But, studying the Bible, over time my vision on this topic has changed. Today I believe that homosexual behavior is appropriate within the boundaries of a serious, loving, monogamated, permanent relationship (which lasts all life), and focused on Christ. Essentially, I am arguing that a marriage focused on Christ is a good thing, regardless of the genre of the people involved. [1]

Io e Ron non siamo d’accordo su questo punto, e questo ci pone su lati opposti di un dibattito che sta dividendo la chiesa (cristiana in generale, ndr). Tradizionalmente, la chiesa ha condannato le relazioni omosessuali, e molti Cristiani credono che dovrebbe continuare a farlo. Ma un numero crescente di Cristiani crede che la chiesa abbia commesso un errore e che la sua posizione dovrebbe essere riformata. In questo saggio, mi riferirò a questi due divergenti punti di vita cristiani rispettivamente “la Visione Tradizionale” e “la Visione Riformata”.

Io supporto la Visione Riformata. Ciononostante, credo comunque che la vasta maggioranza dei comportamenti omosessuali attraverso la storia sia stato peccaminoso. (Secondo me, anche una grossa parte di quelli eterosessuali lo è stato!) Penso che gli scrittori biblici fossero assolutamente corretti nel condannare i comportamenti omosessuali a cui assistevano nelle loro culture – non solo perché questi erano collegati ad altri comportamenti peccaminosi (come l’idolatria), ma anche perché gli atti specifici erano sbagliati in sé.

The passages that mention these acts (often called "bastoned passage" [because they are used to "beat" homosexuals, editor's note], but I don't care about this term) could be interpreted in two ways. They could condemn only those specific acts and situations, or could condemn all homosexual behaviors of all time, regardless of the situation. For example, when the Bible speaks negatively of the "taxation of taxes", we understand that it is not talking about modern IRS agents. (Employees of the Revenue Agency in Italy.) Tax debt collectors in the time of Jesus were often corrupted and they enjoyed the most money of the necessary. Therefore when the Bible speaks of the "taxation of taxes", it is not condemning all the debt collectors of all eras; He is condemning the specific behaviors of tax debt collectors in those times.

The "homosexual molesters" (from 1 Corinthian 6: 9, translation of the English "Homosexual offenders" which is found in most of the translations in English. For Italian, apart from the inaccurate "homosexual" which has entered some versions of the second half of the '900, most translates with "sex maniacs" or "nor effemate, nor sodomiti". of "sodomites". are condemned for the same reasons that the taxation of taxes, or are all homosexual relationships to be condemned for eternity?
The reason I feel I can give a definitive response is that I believe that the traditional vision is internally inconsistent and is in contrast with the key versions of the Scriptures. I am convinced, however, that the reformed vision is the only way to provide a reasonable and consistent standard to interpret the Bible in its whole.

Four traditional reasoning: the great "Why?"

Before examining the problems that I consider to be intrinsic of traditional vision, let's take a look at the various reasons why people condemn homosexual relationships. Traditional visions are not all the same, and some topics are better than others.
Obviously, some believe in traditional vision as a traditional vision. I heard people say "Two thousand years of tradition of the Church cannot be wrong." But this approach ignore how often the tradition of the Church has been wrong: when astronomers challenged the traditional interpretations of 1 chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 104: 5; when abolitionists put in question the biblical support of slavery; When Martin Luther posted his 95 theses by challenging the Catholic Church (this topic is obviously not valid for Catholics, editor's note); When liberal Christians began to suggest that interracial marriage was not a sin in the eyes of God - in these and many other cases, social pressures were the catalyst to reform the traditions of the Church. Without a doubt we are the body of Christ, but we are too human a body, and we are still growing spiritually.

This does not mean that there have not been deviated reformers. It goes without saying that not all those who question tradition are right. But when we actually put tradition in question, we need that we are able to ask ourselves "why": why exists this tradition? What is the goal of this rule? Where does this belief come from? Here are the four most common answers I feel about why.

Topic #1: "Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality."

This topic is formulated in different ways, by clichés (e.g. "God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve") (it is a game of words that in English rhymes between "Adam and Eve" and "Adam and Steve", editor's note) to the more vulgar ones (e.g. comments on our "pipes"). The topic is the same: God designed our bodies to interact in a certain way, so we shouldn't use them in any other way.
It is certainly true that God designed our bodies with heterosexuality in mind; This is how new human beings are created. I don't think anyone denies heterosexual sex is the way our bodies are built to work. Maybe this means that using our bodies in other ways is a shame?

God designed our ears and the mouth so that we could communicate - we listen, and we speak. All cultures on earth communicate in this way. But some people are deaf, sometimes because they are born like this and others because something happened to them. In both cases, they cannot communicate in the way we do it, and for this reason they are forced to improvise with what they have. Most of the deaf today use the language of the signs to communicate, and although it is not for this reason that our hands were designed, the makeup works. None of us would ever call this "sin".

The reasoning "you shouldn't do it because it was not the project of God" is actually more an excuse than a real reasoning. If something becomes sin just because it was not part of the original project of the creation, we should condemn the wheelchairs, the make -up, the open -hearted operations, the bicycles, the balancer, the pre -packaged foods ... well, you understand.

Topic #2: "Sex is for procreation."

Some people argue that procreation is a necessary aspect of sex, so the sexual pleasure of all kinds experienced without being open to procreation is a shame. This belief, once widespread, is now primarily taught by the Catholic Church and is rejected by most Protestants.
The Bible never asserts that sex should always be used for procreation. In fact, the Bible is clear in saying that sex is also for other purposes; It forms a link between people (1 Cor 6:16) and is a marital responsibility (1 Cor 7: 3-5). Procreation is only a part of the reason for sex, and many couples do it regularly without ever conceiving (sometimes by choice; other times not).

According to the official teachings of the Catholic Church, sex is sin every time is not "open to procreation". But the Church applies this teaching inconsistently. Married couples can have sex even when they know they are infertile, and fertile ones deliberately plan their sexual encounters in times they know will not lead to conception (practice known as "natural family planning"), provided that they do not use condoms or other so -called "artificial" contraception methods. Why should the sex of a sterile couple be considered "open to procreation" while the one with a spective? Can it be considered natural family planning only because it is less effective? (If condoms were less effective, could they be acceptable?) Is there really something "open to procreation" in a couple who knows their infertility due to physical deformities, age, medical conditions, previous operations, or any other reason?

I know many extraordinary Christians who are Catholic, but with all the respect due, I believe that this position is inconsistent and without biblical foundation. After all, this derives mainly from the teachings of Sant'Agostino and is never mentioned in the Bible. (For Protestants, the principle of only scripture is worth, so the moral laws must be obtained exclusively from the Bible, while Catholics also recognize a privileged status to the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Catholic tradition, editor's note) but if we want to use this topic, we should also condemn sterile heterosexual relations with the same vehemence.

Topic #3: "There are no examples of homosexual marriage in the Bible."

This topic is clearly better than the first two. Essentially, he says that: if extramarital sex is wrong, then homosexual sex could only be allowed in a homosexual marriage. But, the reasoning continues, there is nothing similar to a homosexual marriage in the eyes of God; All weddings in the Bible are heterosexual.
I agree with the first half of the reasoning; I think sex should be reserved for marriage. Whether we like it or not, sex creates one bond with the other, and that bond is very difficult to break, if not impossible. When people have sex without a commitment, this can have negative psychologically and emotionally negative effects when the relationship ends. (Cameron Diaz's character in Vanilla Sky asks his ex, "You don't know that when you go to bed with someone, your body makes a promise, whether you want it or not?")
Occasional anonymous sex can be even more harmful, without mentioning potential venereal diseases. The long -term promiscuity is in a loss of respect for oneself, a devaluation of sex, and potential damage for others too. For this reason I agree with the idea that sex should be present only in a marital relationship, where the physical link is connected to a relational (marital) bond and is not just a side effect.

And yes, it is true that there are no homosexual weddings in the Bible. But this is what we would have expected anyway. Homosexual weddings were not part of the cultures in which the Bible was written, so obviously we would never expect to see stories of man and women with companions of the same sex. [2] Especially in ancient Israel, the marriage was above all, if not only, linked to the rights of inheritance, and this was in bizarre practices such as the Levirate marriage (where men are obliged to marry the widow of a dead brother, and produce heirs for him-Deut 25: 5-6; Gen 38: 8) and the polygamy ordered by God himself (Exodus 21: 10 SAM 12: 7-8).
Even more shocking, the master of slave could buy wives for these and then keep his wife and children for himself after freeing the slave (Exodus 21: 2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut 22: 28-29). We could still say many things about these practices and the reasons that justify them, but we would go off topic. The point is: examples of biblical weddings reflect culture both in what include and in what they exclude.

Many things are not mentioned in the Bible, or because they were not part of the culture of time (e.g. online pornography) or because they were not particularly important problems for biblical authors (e.g. masturbation). In these cases, we use the general biblical principles to face the question, entrusting us to the Holy Spirit as a guide. I will affirm later that there are good biblical reasons to support homosexual relationships despite the fact that no one appears in the scriptures.

This particular traditionalist reasoning has a further defect. These should be topics as to why homosexual relationships are a shame; But this topic does not answer the question. He moves the problem from "sex" to "marriage", but does not let us know why God would condemn a loving, monogamous marriage, focused on Christ between two people of the same sex. To get an answer to this question, we must move to the fourth (and last) topic of traditional vision ...

Topic #4: "Because god says." (or "there Is a rule against this.")

Yes, everything is reduced to this. It does not matter how long, complex, or sophisticated, all the traditionalist Christian arguments are made to which I can at least be based on this basic principle: God has a rule against homosexual relationships, and even if we cannot fully understand the reason behind it, in the end we should simply obey, just as Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

I am not fully comfortable with this answer, since it makes arbitrary God seem, and I do not believe that God is. According to this reasoning, if God tells me to do something, then I want to obey him. Therefore if God really says so - if there really is a divine law against homosexual relationships - then we must follow it. But is there?

The evidence of the rule

Basically, the proof for a rule contrary to homosexual relationships consists of a group of verses where homosexual behaviors are condemned. These are used as "trial texts" (test in the sense of decisive, editor's note) for traditional vision. (A test text is a verse or passage cited frequently or to which we refer as a direct source for a particular problem or theological question. The test texts can be useful sometimes, but we must be careful and read them in the appropriate contexts, or they can lead us off the road.)
If you have already read a lot on this debate, you will probably find most of these topics, so I will not remain too long on these. In any case, I think we should briefly review the steps and understand which type of tests they provide us.

Test text #1: The story of Sodoma (Gen. 19)

This step is more often mentioned by people who have not actually read it. Of all the test texts, this is the most irrelevant and the least useful.
According to a popular belief, "God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality." If you go to read the passage on your own, you will see that things have not really gone like this. Sodoma and Gomorra were destroyed by God for a series of reasons (Ezekiel tells us that they were "arrogant, supercharged and indifferent" and that "they did not help the poor and needy," among other reasons [Ezekiel 16:49]). Just like any other city at the time of the Bible, these were populated mainly by heterosexuals; Lot found the husbands for his daughters there.

L’unica ragione per cui le persone oggigiorno pensano che Sodoma fosse una “città gay” è quel passaggio in Genesi 19 dove due angeli vengono ad ammonire Lot dell’imminente distruzione della città, e gli uomini della città rispondono a questi visitatori formando una folla inferocita intorno a loro e minacciandoli di stupro. Giudici 19 ci racconta una storia molto simile riguardo una folla cittadina che minaccia di stupro un visitatore nella città di Gàbaa (o Ghibea che dir si voglia, ndr), anche se in quella storia finiscono per assassinare la sua concubina invece di lui. Questo vuol forse dire che ai tempi della Bibbia, il paesaggio era costellato ovunque di “città gay” che amavano stuprare uomini? Ovviamente no.
Una minaccia di stupro di gruppo deve essere interpretata come un atto di violenza umiliante – un modo di dire al visitatore, “non sei benvenuto qui; siamo noi a comandare qua.” (Immagina per un momento di essere in prigione, e che una banda di uomini grossi e BURLY minacciasse di stuprarti. Non penseresti che questi siano gay e che ci stiano provando con te; capiresti che ti stanno minacciando con la peggior punizione immaginabile!) Nonostante questo possa sembrare estraneo alle nostre orecchie, tutto ciò aveva senso per i primi lettori di questi testi. Generalmente, gli studiosi tradizionalisti seri non usano comunque la storia di Sodoma come prova. Usano, però, i seguenti passaggi.

Testo di Prova #2: Idoli e Conseguenze (Romani 1:18-32)

Of all the test texts, this is the longest and most complicated. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul speaks of a group of people who "knew God" but "nor did he glorify him as God nor did he make him thanks." Their hearts are obscured, and begin to venerate idols. As a direct result of this veneration, they begin to show homosexual behavior (which they did not show before). Finally, they become depraved and God loses them for a list of sins.

Most traditionalists read this step as if it refers to all humanity, with the veneration of the idol used as a metaphor rather than specific event. In their reading of the passage, Paul essentially is saying, "people (in general) have turned their backs to God (represented by the veneration of idols) and as a result, they became sinful (including homosexuality)." However, I do not believe that the language of the passage actually supports this interpretation.

Paul begins by talking about all humanity, without doubt, but moves quickly towards a specific example as a demonstration of the forfeiture (Fallenness) of humanity. The specific example is one that his Roman readers would immediately find familiar: the cults of fertility in Rome, where men and women participated in orgies who included heterosexual and homosexual rites. Remember, Paolo wants a vivid example of the forfeiture for his audience, something to which everyone can nod in agreement, because he is preparing to overturn all this on them in the next chapter. In classical Rome, "homosexuality" as a general phenomenon would not have been the vivid illustration that he sought (unlike today, where many conservative shepherds use it for this). [3] The cults of Roman fertility, however, were a splendid example that served exactly for its purpose and did not need an explanation.

Note that Paolo speaks of homosexuality in relation to fertility rites (seek the "for this" in v.24 and the "because of this" in v.26), and not in the list of sins at the end of the passage. This is our clue that Paolo is not mentioning it as "another example of sinful behavior." Why, then, does Paul give so much importance to the homosexual aspect of these rites? For two reasons: 1) to highlight "innaturality" to move away from God; and 2) To describe the rites in the most disgusting way I could think, to unite everyone in saying, “Yes! How it is disgustingly immoral! "

Now let's not be wrong; Paolo has nothing positive to say about homosexuality in this passage. Clearly he sees it as a bad thing, or at least, as something "shameful" and "unnatural". We have to recognize it. At the same time, we must recognize that homosexuality is not the point of the passage, although some Christians try to use it that way. It is mentioned for a specific reason in relation to equally specific acts that were familiar to its public.

So this step is negatively talks about homosexual behavior, but on the other hand, it does so in a context already clearly of sin. Paul says that homosexuality is "shameful" and "unnatural", but says the same thing (using the same Greek words) about men with long hair in 1 Corinthian 11:14, and generally we consider this a cultural aspect. (At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the '70s, many conservative shepherds mentioned this verse against hippies and men with long hair in general, editor's note) is it a prohibition for eternity, or is it a question of context, as with tax debt collectors? Based on what we have seen so far, it is difficult to say. I would not put too much emphasis in any of the interpretations without many other concrete reasons that support it.

Test text #3: "Arsenokoitai" sinners (1 Cor. 6: 9, 1 Tim. 1:10)

Apart from the Romans, the only further reference to homosexuality in the New Testament is found in two steps known as the "Lists of the vices", in which Paolo randomly mentions the "Arsenokaitai" as a group of sinners. Still today are written rivers of ink into the debate on how to translate this word, because it appears only rarely into ancient writings. Even the translators of the NIV (New International Version, the most accurate English translation of the Bible, ed) do not seem to have found a solution; It is translated as "homosexual harasses" in 1 Corinthians, but as "perverted" in 1 Timothy.

The word arsenokoitai is a word composed in Greek, and the parts of the word refer to "male, man" and "bed", probably indicating a reference to some kind of male homosexual behavior. The same Greek ("male" and "bed" words appear in the Greek translation (La Septuaginta, or "version of the seventies", the Greek translation of the Old Testament, editor's note) of the Levitician pass that I will discuss later, who tells the men of not lying ("read") with another man ("male"), thus giving Manforto to this theory. On the other hand, we must be careful not to make too many assumptions; Greek compound words do not always want to say what would seem logical meant. "Cyclops" in Greek is a compound word that literally means "round eye", but we know from the ancient literature that the cyclops were mythological giants with a single eye - which makes sense once we understand the connection, but we would certainly not have understood it without all the literary references.

Despite everything, I am rather sure that we can assume that the Arsenokaitai of Paul's times were men involved in some types of homosexual behavior. But what kind of behavior? This is practically impossible to define with certainty. Whatever it is, it should have been something quite common and known to the public of Paolo; These are very short lists of common sinners (eg thieves, avari, liars, etc.) that everyone would have understood immediately. The most credible explanation is that Paolo refers to a common practice in the Greek culture of time - married men who had sex with young boys.

The extramarital relationships of men with boys in ancient Greece are sadly famous even today. The archaeological and literary testimonies prove that these relationships had been common in Greece for centuries, despite being despised by many while practiced in public. This could be one of the ideal objectives of Paolo's vices list, and would explain why, in both lists, he mentions the sin of the Arsenokoitai separately and following that of adultery - because technically, according to Greek thought, having as a companion a boy did not constitute adultery.

Another proof of this interpretation is the Greek word Malakoi, which appears next to Arsenokoitai in the passage of 1 Corinthians. Malakoi literally means "the soft, delicate", and could be translated simply with "morally soft, permissive". However, many scholars believe that "Malakoi" and "Arsenokoitai" must be taken together, so that Malakoi would be young men at the service of the arsenokoitai.
For this, the Jerusalem Bible (another version of the Bible in English, editor's note) translates Malakoi with "catamites" (ie young boys who prostitute themselves, or "prostitutes"), the translation New American Catholic says "Prostitutes boys", and the New International Version writes "Prostitute men". [4] Personally, I don't think "prostitute/or" is the best word to use to describe these relationships, but at least it transmits the idea of ​​a sexual relationship outside the marriage without having to enter an entire lesson of ancient history. That's all for the New Testament, but there is still a step of the Old Testament that we have not considered.

Test text #4: The Abomination (Levitico 18.20)

In the book of the Levitician of the Old Testament, God gives Moses a long list of rules for the Israelites. Today we still follow some of these rules; Others instead not. The most famous of all is the verse 18:22, which he says, "Don't lie with a man like Gei with a woman" (New International Version). NIV continues with, "this is detestable", but the even more famous version of this step is in King James Version (one of the oldest English versions, ed), who writes "This is an abomination".

Now, before you begin to go crazy or to think that God you hate you, please understand that "Abominio" in Hebrew refers to everything that was forbidden to the Israelites. For example, Levitico 11 states that the eagles are an abomination, and so also the owls, storks, various types of aquatic creatures, "and everything creeping that crawls on earth", just to say some. The locusts, just to say, are not an abomination.

In any case, abominable or not, the prohibition of sex between males is rather unequivocal. And at the beginning of the passage, God makes us know why these rules are given to us-because he wants to keep the Israelites pure and separated from the political cultures that surrounded them (Lev 18: 1-4). This helps to explain why the Israelites are forbidden to shave (Lev 19:27), tattoo (Lev 19:28), wear clothes made of different fabrics (Lev 19:19), or have sex during the cyclium of a woman (Lev 18:19). It also helps to explain rather strange comments on sacrificing children at Molech (Lev 18:21) and eating too quickly from a tree (Lev 19:23); And because the Israelites cannot have sex with a woman and her daughter (Lev 18:17) but absolutely nothing is said about extramarital sex or on having more sexual partners. Outside the context of keeping the Israelites separate, all this would be a truly bizarre collection of rules.

I have heard people cite Levitico to prohibit homosexuality and tattoos, but apart from these, people do not go to look in Levitico for a moral guide. This type of approach really seems to me "at random", taking and choosing the steps as if they were dishes at a buffet.

Respond to test texts

As we observe these steps, we are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, here are three examples of condemnation of homosexual behavior - in Levitician, in Romans, and in the vices lists. On the other, both examples of the New Testament describe situations that even people of the reformed vision like me would consider sin, and the Levitician pass requires a particularly selective reading because "functions".
Unfortunately, we are at the point where the term discussion usually. It's not particularly satisfactory, isn't it? We remain with a handful of questions, some "perhaps", and very few answers.

The topic presented by the traditional vision coming from these passages is rather weak, but it is more than enough to make many disturbing and conflicting homosexual Christians feel. There is something in the stomach that says, "oh well, but if homosexuality is nothing wrong, then why all that negativity in the scriptures?" For most of us, this is counterbalanced by a feeling in our hearts that says that love relationships focused on Christ are good, regardless of the genre. The final result? Total confusion and frustration.

Obviously, this is not the only problem that should make us feel so hard. For example, sometimes we could try to make a study of some passages of the New Testament who speak of the role of women in the Church. Try to read 1 Timoteo 2: 11-15 or 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 and then tell me that you do not feel any strange feeling of the mouth of the stomach.

If we want to be frank, the only reason we are having this debate on homosexual relationships today instead of the women's permit to speak in the church is that the standards of our culture have changed. A few decades ago, the length of the hair had a strong cultural aspect, and many Christians quoted 1 Corinthians 11:14 to show that men should keep their hair short.
Today, very few of us would use this type of approach. Similarly, the majority of us has no problem to justify the steps on the "due silence of women" with a cultural explanation - something about the time of Paul the women were causing problems by interrupting the functions, or teaching things without the necessary education, or violating the cultural norms and thus putting the church in a bad light for the Gentiles. I have heard all the types of explanations for this prohibition of Paolo, often by the same people who then refuse to apply the same logic to the test texts on homosexuality.
But we are honest. If we seriously want to be "not of this world" and follow Christ at any cost, how can we get closer to the Bible with constantly change criteria, always trying to adapt it to our cultural preconceptions? This is what the Church has done for many and many years.

Unless we begin to request that women wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11: 3-13), we will need to find a clear and coherent way to determine which steps of writing we are required to follow, and which are not. And this must be a criterion that can be applied in every culture and in any context, not something that allows us to reinterpret everything every tot of years to satisfy our desires. We will talk about it later.

First of all, we suppose we have decided to interpret these steps in the manner of traditional vision - as a condemnation of all homosexual relationships for eternity, no matter how loving, monogamous or committed they can be. Even if we accepted this initial premise and the test texts, would the traditional vision exceed a deeper scrutiny?

Defects of Traditional Vision

I have an extraordinary respect for Ron and the other traditionalist Christians I know. I have no doubts about their sincerity or on the depth of their beliefs. But I am unable to share those beliefs because I believe that the reasoning is defective. I believe there are intrinsic problems for the traditional vision that go much more deeply of the simple interpretation of the test texts on homosexuality.

To explain what I mean, imagine for a moment of being all traditionalists. This means that not only do we condemn the homosexual behaviors present in the scriptures, but that we condemn all homosexual relationships, as far as these may seem splendid.

So for example, suppose we meet two couples - one homosexual and a straight one. These couples are both Christian and equally devoted. All two made the commitment to remain together and be faithful to each other for the rest of their lives. Both couples have a certain complementarity, so the strong points of each person and his weaknesses are balanced by those of his partner. Both pray together; In both, one serves the other equally; In short, in every respect, these couples are identical. The only difference is that one is gay and the other heterosexual.

According to the traditional vision, we should celebrate and admire one of the two couples, while we should condemn the other as an evil in the eyes of God.

We can also see it in another way. Suppose my friend Billy meet someone and fall in love with this person, whom we will call Sam. Billy and Sam pass months, perhaps even years, to know each other, and becoming closer and closer to each other and to form a durable bond, to promise to remain together forever in marriage to God. So Billy comes to me to tell me and I, as a traditionalist, I answer saying, "what immoral and disgusting! You and Samuel are doing an atrocious thing before God! " Billy widens his eyes and then replies, “Sam stands for Samantha. He is a girl. " Immediately, my opinion changes. “Ah well, then it's splendid! Best wishes! What a blessing! "

In this case, neither Billy's commitment, nor his motivations, nor his relationship with Christ, not even his specific actions have changed. Everything is exactly the same, except one thing: Sam went from male to female in my head, and this has distorted the relationship, from disgusting and immoral to holy and beautiful - despite both cases, Billy's actions and motivations have always been the same.

Isn't there anything unnerving in this? It doesn't seem right. But as traditionalists who are, we should remember ourselves, "there is a rule that says that it is done so. It is not to me to decide; It is to God. God says that homosexual relationships are a shame, so I am. "

But now we have an even bigger problem. We built the whole traditionalist topic on an important premise: the idea that all people are necessarily male or female. In this way we can distinguish between "holy" and "sinful" relationships. But if you find out that Sam is not male or female? What would we do?

Despite their rarity, gender anomalies exist. Many people have anomalies who do not allow them to classify them or as males nor as females. Some have both types of genitals; Some have deformed them; others have bodies that do not correspond exactly to their chromosomes; or chromosomes that are neither XX nor xy; And still others have bodies that do not correspond to their brains. It is a field that becomes more complex with the study. The majority of these then manages to find a way of publicly identified as male or female, but their bodies could be more similar to the opposite genre, or somewhere in the middle.

The vast majority of us is simply happy not to face these problems, so we keep them out of our thoughts. But this is a really real problem that afflicts real people. It is not their fault to have been born with these difficulties, and this is the only life that has been granted to him. So if they fall in love with someone who loves them just how they are, how can we recommend them? We cannot simply consider them "an exception to the rule" - if we really believe that the genre brands a clear difference between a holy wedding and a life in sin. No, we have to find some way to make a distinction, but how? Is it enough to look at the genre with which they identify themselves? Even when their body was very different from this kind? Should we be based on his genitals? On chromosomes? And when was this an ambiguous case?

Even if we found some sorts of criteria to judge these ambiguous cases, wouldn't it seem rather arbitrary? And in any case we should go on stating that the genre is crucial for God - so crucial as to keep you out of his kingdom if you happen to marry someone of the wrong sex.

But this is only the first problem to face. The second is even more twisted. We based our traditional vision on the idea that we must follow the biblical criterion to establish just and wrong, even when this did not seem to make sense. Although the test texts on homosexuality could have been explained in other ways, and despite none of these refer to the homosexual marriage or an exclusive relationship between the two of any sort, we have still decided that the most honest reading of these verses affirmed that homosexuality is wrong.

The point is that, if we applied this reasoning to other steps, we would end up with incredible headaches. For example, we observe a step previously mentioned, 1 Corinthians 11: 3-10. The pass says: (CEI version)

However, I want you to know that of every man the head is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered, lacks about his own boss. But every woman who prays or prophesies without veil on the head, lacks about her boss, since it is the same as if it were shaved. So if a woman does not want to put your veil, you also cut her hair! But if it is ashamed for a woman cutting her hair or shaving, then she covers herself.
The man must not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; The woman instead is the glory of man. And in fact not man derives from the woman, but the woman from man; Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for men. For this reason, the woman must bring a sign of her dependence on the boss because of the angels.

And now? It no longer makes sense to say that these are only cultural precepts without accepting the same reasoning on homosexuality at the same time. In fact, it would be senseless to affirm a cultural interpretation here, when Paul clearly tells us that the reason for these precepts is because of the order of creation and "because of the angels". Whatever this can mean, it doesn't seem cultural at all, right?

And what to say about Romans 13: 1: (CEI version):

Each is submitted to the established authorities; Since there is no authority except from God and those who exist are established by God.

I was right by reading an article where a conservative shepherd used this verse to prove that both the American revolution and the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr were sins. Using our current interpretation method, we should agree. In addition, we should even condemn those actions of those German Christians who resisted the Nazi government. It can't be so, it's not true?

When we reduce ourselves only to this, nobody consistently applies the verses of the Scriptures, literally, word for word, giving a direct application to today's problems in all cases. Any honest Christian must admit that there are at least some passages that are not applicable today; b) are still valid but do not mean what they seem to mean at first sight; OC) are revoked by other passages or biblical themes.

The problem is, how do we learn what are the right ones? As I said before, we need a clear, coherent criterion that can be used in every situation.

But this is another bad news for traditional vision. I have been studying the question for several years, and I have not yet found a single supporter of the traditional vision that can give me a clear and coherent criterion to explain why we should consider proof texts on homosexuality for weddings of the same sex valid, but do not follow the texts on topics such as slavery, women in the church, hair length, money loans, and so on. A good part of traditionalist Christians are content to simply change their criteria over time, on a case -by -case basis, supporting a cultural reading of some steps and a literal of others, without any reason to do it, if not their a priori conviction what the Bible should say.

The criterion closest to the clear and coherent being that it has seen on the side of traditionalists is the book by William Webb entitled Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Mr. Webb understands that this is a problem for traditional vision, and his book (published in 2001) is an attempt to solve it - to give us a clear and consistent criterion to explain why the Church has changed their mind about slavery and (up to a certain point) on women, but because it should not do it on homosexuality. When someone showed me this book recently, I thought, “Finally! Someone on their side recognized the problem and wants to find a solution! "

The point is this, though. Webb's attempt to formulate a "clear and coherent criterion" is a list of eighteen several criteria, none of which is particularly clear. I admire him for making the effort, but somehow I don't think he has achieved his goal - especially considering that I could easily use his eighteen criteria to formulate a rather solid thesis of the reformed vision. But in my opinion, the real "coup de grace" for traditional vision is a crucial step in Romans.

Romans's problem 13

Romans 13: 8-10 writes: (CEI version):

Do not have any debt with anyone, if not that of a mutual love; Because those who love his fellow man have fulfilled the law. In fact, the precept: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not desire and any other commandment, it is summarized in these words: you will love your neighbor as yourself. 10 Love does no harm to others: full fulfillment of the law is love.

This is one of the texts that I think we should reread several times to fully understand the size of the message that Paul is transmitting. In my book, it is at the top of the ranking of super-leftover steps that every Christian should know, together with Giovanni 3:16. If you were not yet familiar with this step (and even if you had already been), seriously, reread it.

Paolo makes an incredibly courageous statement. He says that any existent commandment It can be summarized in the rule of loving others. [5] What a concept! In other words, Paolo is saying that if we lived our lives with a true spirit of love, implementing in really loving ways, we would automatically take all the laws of God. We would have no need for specific rules.

For example, adultery is an intrinsically non -loving act. If you lived the love for the spouse, you would keep your vote without anyone telling you. Likewise, you wouldn't kill anyone if I loved him, and you wouldn't steal anyone. And if we really love someone, we don't want the things he has; On the contrary, we are happy when good things happen to him, and we don't envy them.

We could literally examine every commandment of God and show that everyone is simply the extension of the basic principle of living a life of love and service. ("Love" here of course does not mean romantic love; it means that deep, durable, unconditional love that comes from God.)

But it awaits - the very definition of traditional vision states that even when two relationships are equally loving - even when they are motivated by the same disinterested desires and by the generous hearts themselves - one of the two can be considered a shame only because of the sex of a person. Traditionalists say that this command comes from God. But if it comes from God, then why contradicts the rule that Paul gives us - a rule that is valid for any other commandment?

Incidentally, this passage of Romans 13 is not just a few dark and random passage. Paolo builds a topic on the law, grace, sin, trying to explain to what the revealed word makes to all his book of the Romans. Paolo uses the word "law" 74 times in twelve chapters! The step I just mentioned by Romani 13 is the conclusion of his extraordinary reasoning; It is the last time that "reads" is mentioned for the rest of the book.

In his letters, Paolo was worried about two problems in the church. At one extreme there were Christians who did not live as such. They were indulgent, they behaved badly, and made the image of the horrible church. At the other there were those Christians so obsessed to follow all the commands of the law that were placing a terrible weight on themselves and others.

It is to this second group that Paolo refers to Colossians 2: 20-23: (CEI version)

If therefore you died with Christ to the elements of the world, why let yourself be imposed, as if you still live in the world, of the precepts such as 21 "do not take, not to taste, do not touch"? All things destined to disappear with use: they are in fact the prescriptions and teachings of men! These things have a semblance of wisdom, with their affected religiosity and humility and austerity regarding the body, but in reality they only need to satisfy meat.

So what can we say about God's law in the Bible? Doesn't it provide us with a large amount of such rules? Paul resolves this apparent contradiction in Galatians 3: 23-25: (version The Bible of joy)

Before the coming of Christ we were protected by law, held as in a protective case, pending that faith in the Savior who was to be revealed. We can also put it in another way: the laws that God gave to Moses have done us as a teacher and guidance, until Christ came who reconciled us with God through our faith. But now that Christ has come, we no longer need those laws.

We no longer need those laws! Can you believe it?

Not under a New Law

I think this concept was too radical for many Christians, because apparently as soon as Paul wrote these words, people began to seek ways of minimizing it. For example, some Christians will declare that the ancient testament can be divided into "moral laws" and "ritual laws", and that we are no longer under the supervision of ritual laws, but we continue to be under moral ones.
The reasoning presents many defects, one of which is the fact that the same ancient testament does not contain any distinction between "moral" and "ritual" laws; Whenever any law breaks this is called "sin". (For various examples to see Lev 5: 1-6.) The only way in which it "distinguished" between the two laws was deciding from the beginning which laws should still be valid and drawing the border according to this. Secondly, even if there was this distinction, Paul does not say "we are no longer under the supervision of ritual laws". Point.

Similarly, some Christians will affirm that what Paul means by "law" is only the law of the Old Testament, and that he is giving us a new law in the New Testament. But this does not correspond in any way to what Paul actually affirms; Paolo is very clear in saying that we Christians are not under the law - be this of the Old or New Testament. He is not trying to remove a law for renting a new one; He is trying to show us that in Christ, we are free from law.

But being free from law is not the moral of history. Paolo also wants to make us understand that we must also avoid the other extreme; We must not sin. Galati 5: 13-14 says: (New Version Revised 1994)

Because, brothers, you have been called to freedom; only do not make freedom an opportunity to live according to the flesh, but through love, serve each other; Since the whole law is fulfilled in this single word: "Love your neighbor as yourself"

We observe that Paolo deals with both extreme aspects in this step. First of all, we are called to freedom, and this means that we are no longer linked to the rules and regulations of the law. But on the other hand, he says, sin is always a very real possibility for us, and we should not use our freedom before the law as a license to sin. Just as we should not be bound by law, we should not be bound even by sin.

Some critics of Paul must have worried that without the rules of the law, we would not have been able to discern what is or Not a sin. but this is the Reason why paul makes us know The alternative: we must "serve Each other". and it Still reminds us, "the whole law can summarize in One commandment: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

According to Paolo, if we live a life with love and spirit of service, we will do everything that the law requires us. No further rules are needed.

This idea does not fully derive from Paolo, however. Even in the Old Testament, God affirms through his prophet Hosea "I want and not sacrifice" Mercy "(Osa 6: 6). The sacrifice, of course, was a part of the law that God had given them, but what does God mean by "mercy"? Well, according to the biblical exegesis Zondervan NIV: (the most famous version of the Bible commented in the Anglophone world)

[The Jewish word] can refer to a correct conduct against others or loyalty towards the Lord or both - the sum of the things that God requires to his servants. [...] The same Jewish word is translated with 'love' to v.4. (In the current version of the CEI, in fact, the word is not "mercy" but "love" in both cases, ed)

So what God wants above all is love-towards our neighbor and to Him. And Jesus repeated this desire when he tells us that his two greatest commandments are "loved God" and "love your neighbor" (Marco 12: 28-34). Do you see how everything begins to get clearer?

Jesus and the Shabbat

Jesus himself gives us the best of the examples on how to understand the scriptures on this theme. For the Jews, one of the most important commandments ever was to honor Shabbat, which meant do not do any job from the Friday sunset to that of Saturday. Throughout the ancient testament, God uses Shabbat as a sort of unit of measurement to determine if the people of God is experiencing as he should.

Then in Matthew 12, Jesus and his disciples are walking through wheat fields, and disciples are collecting wheat. The religious leaders confront Jesus on this, asking, "Why do you allow your disciples to break the Shabbat?" Then Jesus himself publicly cares for a man during Shabbat, and this makes religious leaders even more angry.

Now if I had been Jesus, I would probably have replied saying, “Well, he is not exactly to work. So technically I'm not violating the shabbat. " What surprises, however, is that Jesus does not use this topic. Implicitly accept the opinion of the Pharisees according to which Shabbat's law is violating, but he replies stating that sometimes it is good to violate the word of the law!

To justify his statement, Jesus recalls the example of David, who ate consecrated bread when he had no more food, despite the fact that only the priests were allowed to eat consecrated bread (Matthew 12: 3-4). It also points out that their own common sense would say to save a sheep who fell in a well during the shabbat, although inevitably this would be considered work (Matthew 12: 11-12). In verse 7, Jesus cites writing as proof: (revised version 1927):

And if you knew what it means: I want mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

Remember that sentence? Note well, Jesus here is arguing on a principle that expects religious leaders to already know. This step does not only concern the shabbat; It concerns the law in general and how Jesus expects to read the Scriptures.

The purpose of the rules

But if Jesus is telling us that we are allowed not to follow the rules in certain cases, what does it mean? Is God regretted about sin, becoming an increasingly permissive year after year? Well no. God detests sin and cannot have anything to do. But God also knows, in his infinite wisdom, that the mere rules are not always sufficient to determine what sin is. Casuistica involves great differences.

We humans can also understand it. Killing another human being, for example, is both a shame and a horrible crime. But there are situations in which we would not consider someone responsible for killing, for example in case of self -defense. Other times we could also approve this action.

Reflecting us, I am sure that we could get to formulate an enormous examples of behaviors to be considered wrong in one case and righteous in another. To take this into account, human laws contain all specific cases and long arguments even for the simplest crimes, and the judicial system contains numerous adjustments to allow man to be temporarily to have, interpret, or even ignore the word of the law. Nobody would like to be judged in court by a computer, because we know that only a human being has sufficient reasoning ability to observe the shades present in each situation, even the most exhausting. A computer would pronounce a judgment based on what the law establishes exactly, while only a person can judge the situation and apply the law consistently with his intention.

If even us, with our miserable understanding of good and evil, can we understand that the rules can be inadequate, then why should we expect God that God will not succeed? As Jesus demonstrates in the Shabbat accident, God judges our actions on a case -by -case basis, taking into account our hearts, our reasons, of the home, not rigidly applying a group of rules. Jesus gave many examples of situations in which the rigid approach to the rules of the Pharisees was in conflict with the holistic and global one of God.

Ma se Dio non ci giudica basandosi su un gruppo di regole fisse, allora perché proprio Lui ci diede delle regole?

Le regole nelle Scritture hanno valore. Hanno un intento. Nemmeno Gesù volevo sbarazzarsi della legge; in Matteo 5:17 dice: (versione CEI):

Non pensate che io sia venuto ad abolire la Legge o i Profeti; non son venuto per abolire, ma per dare compimento.

La legge non è stata abolita. Ma concentrandosi sul compimento di essa, Gesù ci ricorda che le leggi esistevano con un proposito, non tanto per dare un regolamento. Quando questo proposito viene compiuto, la regola specifica non è più applicabile.

Anche le leggi di Dio, come quelle umane, hanno un proposito. Pensiamo alle leggi umane che seguiamo nella vita di tutti i giorni; ognuna di esse esiste per una ragione. Le regole del traffico esistono per evitare incidenti. Persino le regole dei giochi da tavolo hanno un obiettivo: rendere il gioco divertente.

All the laws of God are motivated by a goal. For example, animal sacrifices were an essential part of the cult of the Israelites. I don't think there is anything intrinsically pleasant for God in seeing massacring living creatures, but spreading the blood of some chosen animals was a way of showing the severe consequences of sin for God, and gave the Israelites a way of being forgiven for their transgressions. But as we see in Jews 10: 1, "having the law only a shadow of future goods and not the reality of things" (CEI version) and in Colossians 2:17, "all these who are shadow of future; But the reality is Christ instead! "

When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, he gave extreme fulfillment to the rule of animal sacrifices. His death and resurrection made the only purpose that could have all the rules of the Old Testament on sacrifices - the final reconciliation of God with the people of God. Consequently, sacrifices were no longer necessary. It is not that the laws had been abolished, but they had become irrelevant once their goal had been achieved. They had been made.

This helps to explain why God seems to change his mind so often in the Bible. Try to compare Deut 23: 1-3 with Isaiah 56: 3-8; Or Levitico 11: 1-47 with Marco 7:15. In cases like these, God gives a commandment for a particular reason (e.g. eunuchi are excluded from demonstrating the holiness of God). Once the commandment is no longer necessary to achieve the goal, it becomes obsolete. So other considerations (such as compassion) take its place.

Interpreting the Bible in this way - observing the reasons behind every commandment rather than taking the word word for word - corresponds exactly to the approach of Jesus to Shabbat ("Saturday (Shabbat) was made for man, not the man for Saturday" [Marco 2:27]). This explains why the criteria of God seem to change with the change of cultural situations, despite God in itself it is immutable. And it provides a solid explanation of why the veil on the head is no longer necessary for Christian women, that is, because they would not serve the same intent as when Paul recommended it.

Gesù fa anche un altro passo avanti. In molti casi, afferma, aderire al principio piuttosto che alla legge scritta è in realtà moralmente più alto. Seguire i principi dietro ogni comandamento ci mostra che l’adulterio può avvenire nel nostro cuore (Matteo 5:27-28), che l’odio non è migliore dell’assassinio (Matteo 5:21-22), e che persino fare beneficenza sia inutile se fatta per le ragioni sbagliate (Matteo 6:1-4). Più e più volte, Gesù ripete che Dio è più interessato ai principi sottostanti che alle regole in sé.

Alla luce di questo, l’insistenza della Visione Tradizionale nel continuare a seguire la regola in assenza di un principio sottostante mi colpisce, sembrando non solo incoerente, ma anche antibiblica. [6]

Nella chiesa primitiva, uno dei temi caldi su cui si dibatteva fra Cristiani era la circoncisione. È difficile per noi oggi capire perché la circoncisione fosse così importante per loro, ma al tempo, la chiesa si divideva, le persone perdevano le staffe, e molti temevano che la fede non sarebbe sopravvissuta se “l’altro lato” avesse vinto. Vi suona familiare?

The very first Christians were Jewish, of course. Jesus was Jewish, and taught in Jewish courts. The only scriptures that the first Christians had were the Jewish scriptures - what we call the ancient testament today. The Jewish Scriptures taught that God requires obedience, and possibly the most important sign of this loyalty was the pact that God made with Abraham - the covenant of circumcision. Each male born in a Jewish family was to be circumcised as a sign of devotion to God (Gen. 17: 9-14). If a non -Jewish wanted to convert and become acceptable for God, he had to take residence between the Israelites and be circumcised, no matter how old it was (Exodus 12:48). This was the commandment of God.

The scriptures could not be clearer in requesting the circumcision of all those who wanted to venerate God. So when the first Christians began to reach the Gentiles with the good news, they expected these kinds to do the same thing that God had requested to the previous converted. The question was not if the Gentiles could become Christians; It was a question of deciding whether the Gentiles could be Christian without first having been circumcised.

The Gentiles were in the same position as many homosexual people today. I doubt they had vast theological knowledge or a global understanding of the scriptures to be based on; Everything they knew was that they believed this Jesus, and in any case they would not let anyone get closer to a knife. The pro-city group was perhaps much more pious and much better in mentioning the scriptures to try their position, and I imagine that they presented a quantity of topics regarding tradition and the need to maintain sacrifice and suffer for Christ. And despite all this, they were wrong.

Well, Paolo believed that this question was much more important than mere circumcision. In Galatians 5: 2-6, he says: (CEI version):

Here, i Say paul vI: if you make you Circumcise, christ will not help You. and i declare once again to anyone who is circumcised that he is obliged to observe all the law. You have nothing more to do with christ You who seek justification in the law; you have lapsed from grace. In fact, by virtue of The spirit, we await from faith the justification We hope. Since In christ jesus is not the circumcision that counts or the non -circumcision, but the faith that operates through charity. (In other versions it translates "love" instead of "charity", Editor's note)

For Paolo, circumcide the Gentiles was not only useless - it was absolutely a sin. Why? Because it meant essentially to report them under the law - and Christ had died to free us from this law.

Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in being circumcised. Paolo's point is that we must not allow ourselves to let ourselves be combined by the idea of ​​following the rules only because they are rules, thinking that they are a prerequisite for pleasure to God. "What matters only," Paul reminds us, "is the faith that is expressed through charity" (or "love", see above, editor's note)

Clues in the scriptures inspired by the spirit

Not long ago, there were many churches that taught how slavery was an institution supported by God. They closed their eyes before the bad fruits that brought the slave system, and ignored everything the Bible said about the love for others, and on the equality of all men. They found that handful of verses that mentioned slavery (after all, it was part of the culture in which the Bible was written) and applied them to today's world, without admitting that they were based on a culture no longer relevant for us.

The abolitionist movement had an uphill battle in some aspects because there were no specific verses that said, "slavery is evil". Instead, they had to rely on the global message of the Scriptures, and this is certainly not easy to do. However, abolitionists also found some verses of help. One of the best was in Galati 3:28, which says: (CEI version)

There is no Jew or Greek; There is no slave or free; There is no male and female, because all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Now, when Paul wrote this, he probably did not consider him as part of a reasoning against slavery as an institution. He was stating that whoever you are, when you become a Christian, your identity is found in Christ, and nothing else should divide us. But the abolitionists argued that Paul was writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that there was a deeper meaning here, a meaning that not even Paul himself included. It is an extraordinary reasoning, and I agree 100%.

(The following paragraph refers to the fact that the English version translates "neither male nor female". The Italian translation is consistent with the Jewish text, editor's note), however, there is something really interesting in this step, and it is that generally it is not translated exactly. There is a small grammarian of Paul in these verses, and most of the translators are not sure of how to make it in English, so you fly.

If we observe the greek text, what really says the step is:

There is neither Jew nor Greek; There is neither slave nor free; There is no male and female, because all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Identical to the CEI translation. I included this part only for completeness, since it is present in the original essay, editor's note)

The choice of words is very bizarre. Paolo does not say "neither male nor female" as he does with the other two groups; He says "there is no male and female". Why say "e" instead of "nor"?

My suspicion is that this is the umpteenth example of the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through Paul's words. The "male and female" phrase brings us back to Genesis, where God creates Adam and Eva as the first couple, and we are told that "male and female created them". Many Christian traditionalists have taken to mention this sentence, saying that if God created them "male and female" then this means that every couple for the rest of humanity should be made up of male and female, and that any deviation would be a shame. It is a very common topic; We feel it continuously.

This is why I think it is so interesting that Paolo wrote this step in this way. First he says, "there is no Jew or Greek", and the problem of inviting the Greeks (or the Gentiles) in the Christian community was the first great controversy of the Church. Then he says, "neither slave nor free", and we know that the question of slavery and the integration of races was another huge obstacle that the Church had to overcome to be what God wanted. Finally Paolo says, "there is no 'male and female'", and this is the phrase that we continue to feel in today's debate on homosexual couples in the church.

If we truly believe that the Holy Spirit has inspired the authors of the Bible, there is a need to be careful to grasp those "set" clues in the scriptures that could speak to us in a way that the original authors would not have expected. Paolo did not have the faintest idea of ​​how this step could alter our modern vision of slavery or homosexuality, but I think that grammatical "error" here is a clue for us and that God knew exactly what he was doing. Another interesting step is 1 Timothy 4: 1-6: (CEI version):

The Spirit openly declares that in recent times some will move away from the faith, listening to lies and diabolical doctrines, seduced by the hypocrisy of impostors, already focused on their conscience. They will forbid the wedding, they will impose they refrain from some foods that God has created to be eaten with thanks to thanks by the faithful and by those who know the truth. In fact, everything that has been created by God is good and nothing is to be discarded, when you take it with thanksgiving, because it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. By proposing these things to the brothers you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished as you are by the words of the faith and the good doctrine you have followed.

Still, I'm not suggesting that Paolo had homosexual marriage in mind when he wrote these words. But I think it is interesting that I say that I have received specific instructions from the Holy Spirit that in later times, Christians will prohibit people to get married and there will be a need for their mistakes to be shown.

Paolo, of course, was one of the greatest supporters of celibacy for Christians; He believed that remaining single and celibate was ideal (1 Cor. 7: 8). But Paolo did not believe that everyone was asked to remain celibate, except for anything else because "it is better to get married than burning with desire" (1 Cor. 7: 9). And while Paolo says practically nothing of the benefits of marriage in his letters, even he is forced to agree with the Holy Spirit in saying that forcing someone to get married is worse than a bad idea; It is the sort of things "taught by demons".

If nothing else, this step serves as a reminder to remind us that being too restrictive and calling sins things that are not equally harmful to Christians how to do the opposite (being lewd and morally relaxed, editor's note).

The final topic

Obviously, as long as there is a difference of opinions in the Church on this question, there will always be abundance of good reasoning in both sides. Ultimately, I believe that we are looking for the most important test: the result of a relationship. In Luke 6: 43-44, Jesus says: (CEI version):

“There is no good tree that makes bad fruit, nor bad tree that makes good fruits. In fact, each tree can be recognized by its fruit: no figs are collected from the thorns, nor is graped from a bramble grapes ".

In fact, sin always shows itself. Sin is like the monkey paw in WW Jacobs' famous horror history; He promises good things, but he never gives them. We sin because of the good that we think that it will derive, but in the end, the negative consequences of our sins are greater than any other positive deriving from these.

If homosexual relationships were sin, we would not need a theological debate to tell us; It would already appear clearly from the fruits of these relationships. Of course, the result of many homosexual relationships through history has been bad. It is enough for us to see how Paolo describes the fruit of the actions of the Romans in Romans 1! The same can be said of today's secular gay community; A promiscuous lifestyle, "discotecaro", full of drugs, alcohol, and short -lived relationships bring emptiness and despair as fruit. After all, today's gay culture is famous for being "melodramatic", isn't it?

But if you are lucky enough to meet a couple who have Christ in the center, you will see something considerably different. In fact, these relationships bring a good fruit. The fruits of the spirit abound in these relationships - love, joy, peace, patience, and everything else. We can discuss how much we want on the meaning of this and that verse; The fact remains that I personally know of monogamous homosexual couples, focused on Christ whose relationships are the living proof of the blessing of God. The bad trees cannot bring good fruit.

We may always have questions, but in the end, we will simply have to accept the evidence of God's work as the only necessary proof. It was the decisive factor for the first Christians (acts 11: 15-18), and I believe that one day it will be the decisive factor for the Church also on this issue.

Conclusion

I wrote this essay in response to those among you who wanted to know why I believe what I believe. But remember, this essay is only a human opinion, and even if my opinions have formed through years of prayer and study of the Bible on this theme, the defective interpretation of the things typical of a human remain.

If this is an important theme for you, please don't base your ideas on things like "Justin" or "Justin believes this and that". Take all the time necessary to study the Bible on your own. Read the steps I mentioned, in their context, to understand them at best. Read the reasoning from both sides of the debate, don't be afraid to ask difficult questions.

But above all, pray. Pray every day for the guidance of God in your life and for the wisdom and humility to admit when you are wrong. If you find yourself disagreement with your Christian companions, remember that they are always your brothers and sisters in Christ. And that they could still have something to teach you.

Follow Christ at all costs. Nothing is more important than this.

______________

1 For this essay, however, I use them in an interchangeable way, and I often say "gender" instead of "sex" to better distinguish from the other sense of "sex", that is, sexual acts.

2.    Ci sono alcune prove che suggeriscono che il “servo” del centurione, guarito da Gesù in Matteo 8:5-13 fosse in realtà il suo amante. Non viene detto niente di negativo su questa relazione. Similarmente, alcuni dicono che altri personaggi biblici (come David e Gionata) fossero in relazioni omosessuali. Penso che le prove nella maggior parte di questi casi siano scarse, ma anche se queste fossero relazioni romantiche, non le considererei assolutamente “matrimoni”.

3.    Ovviamente, c’era l’omosessualità a Roma, ma in generale, come in Greca, era una questione di relazioni oltre a quelle già esistenti ed eterosessuali. Il discorso di Paolo sullo “scambio” dell’uno per l’altro è piuttosto conveniente applicato all’odierna comunità gay, ma non sarebbe potuto essere applicato effettivamente all’attività omosessuale del pubblico Romano.

4 This, however, does not make much sense, if we consider that in 1 Timoteo the step mentions only one of the two groups (arsenokaitai) without the other (Malakoi). If Arsenokoitai and Malakoi really refers to the active and passive roles, it would be really strange for Paolo mention only the active partners without including the passive. On the other hand, it is much easier to believe that Paolo is referring to "men who seek prostitutes" without mentioning the prostitutes in themselves, or that he speaks of "men who have sex with boys" without mentioning the boys.

Until a few centuries ago, Malakoi was translated as "effeminate" or "weak" - both terms showing the lack of understanding of the term "soft" in Greek.

5. I think it is right to assume that Paul wants to include "to love God"; It is certainly implicated even if not affirmed in words, and the two commandments are linked everywhere in the scriptures. Here Paolo is focusing on how we interact with others on Earth.

6

 

Original text: Homosexuality & Christianity: Justin's View