BHP journal: The Witness of Jesus

Argh! Am I starting each entry with "this was interesting" just to feign I'm reading this with an open mind?

But this was interesting. Interesting indeed!

Of course I started off wondering, is he going to claim that Jesus said anything at all about homosexuality? And no, he doesn't...

Although there are one or two places where reference to same-sex intercourse is remotely possible, the collective body of Jesus tradition includes no statement to the effect that same-sex intercourse is good or bad.

Like you, I was curious about the "one or two places" he mentioned, one was getting a millstone tied around your neck if you cause a little one to stumble, possibly referring to pederasty, which is interesting, and the other was also something about children. He thought neither passage was likely referring to same-sex relationships and I agree.

But his argument in this chapter was, just because Jesus didn't say anything about it directly doesn't mean he wasn't opposed to it. That's fine, and it brings up something else really interesting about the chapter.

Apparently, he ponders whether or not what the gospels say actually represent the words of Jesus. Here's an example:

Can the dialogue in 10:2-9, or something close to it, be traced back to the historical Jesus?

In other words, he's open to the possibility that the gospels contain words of Jesus that the historical Jesus did not say.

This is interesting. I assume Gagnon is an evangelical, but maybe he's not, or maybe it's not important. But I just find it mind-boggling that people who claim to be Christians of any type that say loving same-sex relationships are forbidden by scripture, then back up and say you can't believe the bible when it says that Moses wrote the law, and you can't even believe some of the words of Jesus. Honestly.

And this brings me to my second point. Because he cannot trust what the bible says when it comes to the very words of Jesus, it's not what the text of scripture that is most important, it is creating a picture of what Jesus must have thought.

I'm sorry, I'm not going through life basing major decisions on trying to mind-read people who lived two thousand years ago, even Jesus and Paul. I'm interested in the words of scripture. If you say they can't be trusted, or that only you can tell me what to trust and not to trust, I'm just not interested in what you have to say about homosexuality.

Moving on.

Gagnon had some compelling things to say about Jesus affirming the creation account, "they are no longer two but one flesh." And this is fine and good. I just don't see it as something that completely excludes the possibility of some type of same-sex relationship allowed by modern Christians. One might argue that this would forbid same-sex marriage. To me this doesn't make same-sex relationships, "less than" - it just means this isn't the type of relationship in view with the created order and the commission to populate the earth. (Of course I think in their own way same-sex relationships can be a very special part of all of that.)

I just think when you attempt something like,

An alternate pattern of sexuality requires an alternate creation myth.

You're really trying to push things too far. Especially if you don't take the bible at face value.

And this was helpful,

No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality).

I've heard some non-affirming people reference this when Jesus says something about sexual immorality that it would have assumed same-sex relationships. First, nah - again, too much of a reach. I'm sorry. And second, if it does include that, it also includes all the baggage of Sodom, pederasty and everything else that goes along with it.

He had a good section on "don't assume Jesus was sexually tolerant." And he goes into what Jesus says about divorce and lust as examples that Jesus didn't seem to be backing off on what the law had to say about sexual immorality, in fact he added to the law at times. It was presented very well. It may have even moved the needle for me about what I think the historical Jesus and the gospel writers may have been like. It's so easy to drift towards this image we create of Jesus and what we think he must be thinking as he looks down on us now, and then projecting that to what he must have been like on earth, and extending that to all the biblical writers.

Jesus may have been a little bit of a jerk!

But it doesn't move the needle for me in terms of affirming same-sex relationships for modern Christians. Jesus didn't mention it.

Then he goes on to say some awkward stuff about having a homosexual over for dinner.