A church in Tucson that goes by the name, “The Cool Church” has come under fire for its Biblical stance against homosexuality this week in the local newspaper. See this link for article. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/190018.php. The article has fueled much rhetoric from both sides of the argument. I would say that most Christians feel that the acceptance and embracing of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle is an issue being societally stuffed down the throats of those who oppose it.
While I may have methodological differences with how “The Cool Church” carries out its mission, I stand firmly with them in our agreement that the Scriptures clearly indicate that a practicing homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with the lifestyle of one committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. And in spite of differences in how the liturgical aspects of church services are carried out, ultimately as followers of Jesus Christ, I’m quite positive that it is our desire as well as "The Cool Church" to see those who walk in darkness come to the truth of the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
The following is a comment I sent in to the newspaper in response to a blog by the religion editor. http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/desertbeliefs/4747/
There are two central arguments that must be considered regarding this subject. What must be first considered is whether or not the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God. Historical Christianity attributes all scripture as being divinely inspired, using men who were prompted by and devoted first to the Hebrew God for the Old Testament scripture, and to the same God through Jesus Christ for the writings of the New Testament. If God is the divine author of the Bible, then the words written in the Bible are true, and they are not ours to interpret at our own discretion. If God is not the author of the Scriptures, then we are free to interpret in whatever subjective way we see fit. In light of that, there are rules of interpretation (hermenuetics)which still allow for a normative literal interpretation of Scripture. For example, prophesy, for the most part, tends not to be literal, but rather uses pictorial language to paint general ideas and principles. Sin, however, is almost always presented directly, specifically, and, dare we say, literally. If God is the author and final authority, and what the bible says is true (in absolute terms, not as a post-modern construct of our own desire) then based upon scripture references in Gen. 19, Lev. 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, and Jude 7, same sex sexual activity is sin. If the bible is only the words of man, it is open to preferential subjective interpretation, and we are all just players in pluralistic polytheism.
Which leads to the second problem. Pluralism is based upon all different ideas having equal validity. If that is the case, then those who are opposed to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds have just as equal footing at the table as any other viewpoint. If the voices in opposition of homosexuality are to be silenced, those in favor of homosexuality are guilty of exclusivity just as much as those they are trying to silence. If you claim that any who are in biblical opposition to homosexuality are intolerant and therefore are wrong, you are also practicing intolerance against their viewpoint. You can't have it both ways. You can't point the finger of intolerance at others without becoming guilty of intolerance yourself.
Finally, in addressing an issue in the blog itself,
the writers of scripture (especially during the first century)were fully aware of what same sex relationships were, as they were writing in the midst of a Greek and Roman culture that generally accepted and embraced homosexuality as a cultural norm. So the first century writings of the church were still in opposition to same gender sexual relationships whether the words of God or the writings of men.
