Do I think that St Paul is referring only to loving monogamous homosexual relationships? No. But I see little reason to interpret the words as not including such relationships.

Yes Im happy to read Romans 2 when I read Romans 1.

I too think it would be foolish to extrapolate an entire gay-excluding theology based on Romans 1. I dont think many do that, and I dont think Vines claims that people do that. I think a theology about homosexuality tends to be based on quite a few verses, rather than just one.

You ask what a “Biblical authoritative” reading of Romans 1 would be. Well I think one where Paul and the Holy Spirit are not interpreted as being wrong. Im not aware of anywhere else in Scripture, where Vines says the Bible is wrong.

Claiming that St Paul is not addressing the questions we are asking about same-sex marriage, does not mean that Vines is not interpreting St Paul as being wrong.

The reason this is confusing is that on the one hand, Vines says St Paul is not wrong, but on the other hand he portrays St Paul as being wrong – or at least being very misleading. And by interpreting St Paul that way, Vines does degrade the authority of the Bible.

Where does Vines portray St Paul as wrong? In my hard copy version, on p. 102 Vines begins “Paul’s words indicate … that they were capable of heterosexual attraction.” And he continues further down the next page; “As the failure of the modern ex-gay movement has shown, however, that isnt the case for gay people.”

I don’t see a contradiction, as you attempt to point out. What is the “Biblical authoritative” reading of Romans 1? I think it is foolish to extrapolate an entire gay-excluding theology based on it, which it what I hear Vines and others saying.

Paul is not wrong, he is just not addressing the questions we are asking about same-sex marriage. That doesn’t degrade the authority of the Bible in my mind. It just is yet another example where the Bible does not have every answer for life.

What does it mean to respect the authority of Scripture? Does it not mean we let the text change us? Yes it does. But do we simply listen to what the text says, or do we need to interpret it only through the ahistorical lens of Matthew Vines?

Yea, Matthew admits that first video needed some refinements. It has been remarkable to connect with Matthew and watch how his arguments have become more and more robust, as he faces each challenge. I respect him and love him for walking into the hurricane, going where angels fear to tread!

I think we should define the “authority of Scripture”. What does that mean?

I have utmost respect for Matthew and the others I have worked with at the TRP. They respect the authority of Scripture far more than those who go around gay-bashing.

What does it mean to respect the authority of Scripture? Does it not mean we let the text change us? Or do we just conform to the church authority and what they say Scripture teaches?

I think the Wesley quadrilateral is important here. By what authority do we live by? As a Christian, I live by the authority of reason, experience, Scripture and tradition. Actually I live by the Karcher petnagram, which is reason, experience, Scripture, tradition and Holy Spirit :)

It is a great misnomer to say “I only live by the Bible.” We all bring our eisegesis to the table of exegesis. My primary contention is that we have patience with each other, and allow people to form their own convictions and challenge each other in civil debate. That is my great prayer for this series “Have the Conversation”. I envision one day travelling to various churches/groups and presenting these thoughts, sparking conversations around the country.

Some have said that the first gentile convert was of a sexual minority. IE the eunuch of Acts 8:26–40.

But if this series is based on the Reformation Project, then we have a lowering of the authority of Scripture from where Christendom has traditionally held it to be. Although Vines claims to hold to a high view of Scripture, the claim is flawed not only by the fact that his work tends to cite and be based on the works of those who dont hold a high view of Scripture, but because he has shown that he himself at times does not maintain a high view.

In his viral video, Vines teaches that the author of Romans believed homosexuality to be an excess of lust on the part of heterosexuals. This is to say that Paul did not understand that homosexuals are not heterosexually attracted. IE it’s to claim that people who authored the Bible did not understand the reality of human sexuality. That claim brings into question the standard Christian notion that the entire New Testament was “god breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), ie that god guided the authors in what they wrote. If St Paul doesnt know what he’s talking about in Romans 1, is it reasonable to take the rest of the epistles as authoritative, especially on matters unseen, such as the afterlife?

The authority of Scripture is an important basis for this conversation. But it would seem to me that in order to maintain that, this series should distance itself somewhat from the teachings of the Reformation Project.

When did you decide to be straight?
How will you react if your son or daughters comes out to you?
What if Jesus allows gender and sexual minorities at His Wedding?

When I was questioning homosexuality, one of my friends posed this question: Was a heterosexual preference a prerequisite JC imposed for salvation? I dont think so.

Another thing is there so much vehemence between affirmers and non affirmers and so little dialogue. How many Christians actually have lgbtq friends? Make a friend and then talk about the issue.

Regardless of being non-affirming or affirming, can anyone here subscribe to what the ubf echelon teaches in this area? Why or why not?

“As the Bible records that there were about 120 members of the upper room in the book of Acts (Chap. 1), UBF tends to maintain a maximum of 120 members per chapter. In doing so, UBF stresses Jesus’ value on quality more than quantity and seeks to follow his example. Dr. John Jun mentioned that the central UBF HQ is located in the state of Illinois where homosexual marriage is tolerated. “As all 50 states of the U.S.A. probably will go in the same direction and since this is a sign of the end of the world,” he emphasizes, “we need to be the salt and light of the world and should not be indecisive or unclear by maintaining some kind of middle/neutral position.”

source

The ubf teaching is that gay people are a sign of the end of the world and ushering in tidal waves of sin, AIDS, corruption and immorality. I have seen these exact things in ubf lectures.

So ubf teaching is a 1.5 on the Karcher Gay Acceptance scale. I wonder if JJ would say we should kill gay people? Such flawed ideology is why I will remain the loudest ubf critic.

“we need to examine what your view is” Yes, please do this. I have expressed my views in 2 articles. I’ll share 2 more articles soon.

I think I was crystal clear with my view and my intention.

My view is that I am fully affirming and fully inclusive toward all gender and sexual minorities, and promote such inclusion in the context of marriage. I am explaining why in light of the concerns others have expressed to me.

My intention is just what I said: “I am not going to hide or filter my purpose in having these conversations. I and many others are working to develop a Bible-based, gospel-centered approach to gender and sexual minority inclusion in the Christian church.”

As a straight, cisgender person, I can muster enough grace to have civil conversation with people in the non-affirming positions of tolerance or acceptance. But most gays/others cannot do this. What right do we have to ignore whether a person is gifted with celibacy and demand and entire class of people be celibate? That is a form of oppression and even slavery.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of a gay person though, we can see how unhealthy and damaging it is to tell a person: you must be celibate and never have any hope of sharing any kind of intimacy with another person. This is why suicide rates are so high among gender and sexual minorities.

Surely some in your #3, #4 category might have the definitions you expressed: gays should become heterosexual or kept at a distance. But the word tolerance, by definition, means that even if I disagree with you, I will not act disagreeably toward you. I will not try to make you heterosexual or marginalize you, but based on my conviction I cannot agree with you or embrace your position.

What Fr. Barron is saying in his video is that some affirming Christians/gays have regarded anything but celebration and whole-hearted endorsement as intolerant and/or hateful, which is not necessarily true. Right?

1. condemnation (inhumane) – gays should be killed
2. hatred (un-Christlike) – gays should be hated/excluded
3. tolerance (non-affirming) – gays should be straight/changed
4. acceptance (non-affirming) – gays can stay gay but at a distance
5. celebration (affirming) – gays are gay and have gifts for service

I am in in the 5th category, but I understand not everyone will celebrate with me and my friends. I am willing to be respectful toward everyone, but conversation seems only possible with people in the 3, 4 and 5 categories.

I often resort to extreme words when dealing with people in the first two categories.

1) a respect for Conscience
2) a mutual handshake

“Can we make a deal? Those who do not affirm samesex marriage are not bigots or full of hatred automatically. Can we agree that those who do affirm samesex marriage are not going to hell automatically?” – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2015/07/12/have-the-conversation-on-lgbtqia-part-1/#comment-18805

Love and tolerance is always called for. Hate and intolerance is never ever called for, regardless of which “side” one is on.

Barron makes a good point that celebration should not be expected of one who is tolerant. Thus one who tolerates but does not celebrate a particular position/side should not be accused of being intolerant or hateful.

This is an excellent Catholic response, in my opinion:

“The temptation to see the court decision in black and white terms is also evident among some of those who see the court’s action only as one more attempt to marginalize the church and diminish religious freedom. We should resist this temptation as well. The church must vigorously defend its freedom; the state has no natural or constitutional right to compel religious believers to perform actions that compromise our consciences. There will be many more debates and decisions in the years ahead, however, involving contestable questions of religious freedom and the public interest. In engaging in such debates, Catholics must be careful not to develop a “Masada complex” that would reduce our self-understanding to that of a besieged minority. Such a narrow self-perception is contrary to the generous, expansive nature of the good news we seek to share.”

(Source: http://americamagazine.org/issue/after-obergefell)

We all know our bodies are gendered. But it has been discovered that our brains are also gendered. Most of us are born cisgender. This means our brain-gender and our body-gender match.

In the case of a transgender, their brain-gender and body-gender do not match. For a transman, his body is female but his brain is male. It seems from what I’ve read, that transpeople often self-identify with pronouns matching their brain gender.

The bottom line in all this, and the premise of my New Wine book, is that the wineskin of “male and female” binary thinking is bursting. Such a thought fabric simply cannot describe human nature fully and in a healthy way for all people. Humanity does not fit into pure male and pure female.

I contend there is a kingdom of God reformation at play here, based on Galatians 3. There is no “male and female” division or category in the kingdom of God.

Every opening paragraph of every ubf lecture I’ve read is full of red flag of cult control. That one you mention is a classic example. RW is dictating the emotional and spiritual reality to the ubf members around the world. He is the authority and speaks as a dictator of truth. As you point out, no one at ubf feels they can raise any valid challenge or question him.

In regard to the topic, it is a very shallow and weak argument to claim that the USA is like Sodom due to accepting samesex marriage. Does anyone even read Ezekiel? The whole of Scripture needs to be examined before making such absurd claims.

If anyone is fearful of God’s judgment on the USA because of the SCOTUS ruling, I would ask them to look at Canada. Samesex marriage has been legal since 2005.

You mentioned: “my response HAD TO BE (in my opinion) to accept him and help him live and no longer try to hurt himself.” This tells me you are of sound mind and are healing well from your time at ubf, where we were conditioned to reject anyone different from us.

Beka, thanks for sharing this. The situation is heartbreaking.

Are Christians in North America ready to have this dialogue? Some are. But sadly, many are not.

For example: I was astonished by the opening paragraph of this Sunday message delivered at Chicago UBF a few weeks ago.

http://www.chicagoubf.org/ubftvorg_chicagocubf2013/wp-content/uploads/Heb2015/messages/Heb11_17-29m.pdf

No doubt, the speaker (RW) sincerely believes he is standing up for truth clearly revealed in Scripture. Perhaps he believes he is being courageous and countercultural and prophetic, calling an immoral nation to repentance. But honestly…

* How much courage does it take to speak like that in front of an audience of people who already fully agree with you? (If anyone in that audience didn’t agree, they have probably learned to shut up about it because they don’t want to be labeled as difficult or dangerous or liberal or humanistic.)

* The speaker’s use of declarative statements, and his attempts to sound authoritative, do nothing to advance the conversation, but only serve to shut conversation down. If anyone disagrees with him — or even if they generally agree with him, but realize that nuance and sensitivity are required to talk about this issue today — the message that they hear is: You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, the issue been FULLY AND FINALLY SETTLED, and this church and community are NOT FOR YOU. The demonization of those who do not agree as godless, immoral, etc. is unnecessary and often not accurate.

Christians who speak like this, regardless of what positions they take, are doing far more damage than they realize. People who speak like this will continue to lose credibility. They marginalize themselves and blame others for it.