American pastor Kevin DeYoung has just published a
book called What does the Bible really teach about
homosexuality? It's billed as a pastoral, compassionate
and humble book, which looks at some of the key
passages on homosexuality, and then argues (with
grace, compassion and so on) that "homosexual
behaviour is wrong".
De Young might argue he's said nothing controversial.
He is simply stating what has been considered the
church's view on the subject for the past 2,000 years.
However, he is now writing into a context in which a
significant number of Christians disagree with that point
of view ( this article gives a good example of how divided
opinion is in the US). There are many who believe their
very different reading of those passages is equally
biblical. Matthew Vines' book God and the Gay Christian
for example states that "Christians who affirm the full
authority of Scripture can also affirm committed,
monogamous same-sex relationships." There are many
more who don't actually know what they think. They
may know what the Bible says, but they're unclear what
it means.
So what do we do? I genuinely believe that a good place
to start is to look at what both 'sides' actually believe,
rather than caricaturing their position (eg all
conservatives are homophobic bigots, all liberals have
thrown the Bible out of the window and been swept
along with culture).
Those that have decided might think that giving both
views equal weight is dangerous, as it suggests that
both are equally valid (when clearly one is truth and the
other is heresy). But I think there is nothing to be feared
in investigating the arguments presented from the 'other
side'. Doing so prevents us from becoming blinkered,
and serves to sharpen our position and use of
terminology.
And since this is perhaps the definitive pastoral and
missional issue of our time, simply not knowing
probably isn't good enough. Below I've listed a basic
version of how each 'side' of the debate classically views
those famous passages which directly reference same-
sex behaviours, presented without any intent of bias. It's
also worth noting that there are many other passages
which can be used to support both lines of argument;
but these are the most popular and – as Kevin DeYoung
has proved – the biblical territory on which this
conversation is most often held.
Note: in the list below I have decided to use the
imperfect labels 'traditional' (to describe a pro-celibacy
position) and 'progressive' (meaning pro-same-sex
relationships). I acknowledge that some may find these
imprecise, and therefore unhelpful. However, they are
terms which we all understand in the context of this
debate, and are probably the best way of presenting an
unbiased explanation of the two general perspectives. I
also understand that there are various versions of both
positions, and that this is at best an approximation of
how each group responds to Scripture in each instance.
Genesis 1-2
The key phrase: 'The man said, "This is now bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh"...For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and
they will become one flesh.' (NIV)
A traditional view: The creation story clearly sets up the
family unit as one man, one woman. They're to be
companions for one another, and they're told to 'be
fruitful and multiply' (1:28), in order that the human race
might flourish and the world become populated. God's
intention is that Adam and Eve should have a family,
who should in turn pair up with members of the opposite
sex, and have a family of their own, and so on. There's
no hint of a space in this worldview for same-sex
relationships. If gay and lesbian people can't change
their orientation, they should therefore remain celibate.
A progressive view: The creation story is poetry (based
on ancient Babylonian ideas), rather than a literal
account – otherwise the next generation after Adam and
Eve's would have been an incestuous one. Therefore, not
everything written in it should be interpreted as literal
fact and commandment. In addition, while this might be
God's plan for many of us, there are a number of people
in the world for whom 'being fruitful and multiplying' is
not an option, including those who are unable to have
children, and those who are called to singleness and/or
celibacy; raising the question of how these verses
should be interpreted by those who experience same-
sex attraction.
Genesis 19:1-11
The key phrase: 'They called out to Lot, "where are the
men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so
that we can have sex with them."' (NIV)
A progressive view: The culture of Sodom was depraved,
but not because of homosexual activity. Their desire
was to dominate these visitors sexually – as was
common after victory in battle; putting the vanquished
foe in the place of a woman. When the Bible talks
variously elsewhere about Sodom's sin, it describes it
not as homosexuality, but injustice (Isaiah 1:10-17;
Ezekiel 16:48-49). Simply put, this wasn't about
homosexuality but brutality.
A traditional view: The fallen city of Sodom was so
depraved, that when strangers came to town, the men of
the city immediately called for them to be brought out so
that they could have sex with them. This demand for
homosexual sex was another sign of how deplorable the
culture of Sodom had become, and history now
remembers this through language – sodomy became a
word to describe homosexual sex; a hallmark of a fallen
culture.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
The key phrase: 'If a man has sexual relations with a
man as one does with a woman, both of them have done
what is detestable. They are to be put to death' (20:13,
NIV)
A traditional view: Sexual activity between two men is
strictly prohibited in the 'purity code' handed out to the
Israelites. While Christ's sacrifice removes the 'death
penalty' mentioned in 20:13, the rule is still consistent
with biblical teachings in the New Testament.
A progressive view: Leviticus is full of rules involving
subjects as diverse as mildew, tattoos, and where to go
to the toilet, none of which are followed by non-Jews (or
indeed by many Jewish people) today. ( However,
conservative theologian James M Hamilton Jr writes, in
his essay 'How to condone what the Bible condemns:
Matthew Vines on the Old Testament', that "Read in
context, the commands against same-sex relations in
Leviticus 18 and 20 mesh perfectly with the moral order
of creation presented in Genesis 1-2, correctly
interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-5". A progressive
view might also argue that in a culture where women
were treated as property, the 'abomination' here was the
act of a man being 'reduced' to the state of a woman by
having sex with another man.
Deuteronomy 23:17
The key phrase: 'There shall be no LovePeddler of the
daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
(KJV)'
A progressive view: The NIV translates very differently to
the KJV – the verse becomes 'No Israelite man or
woman is to become a shrine prostitute'. There's
obviously a world of difference between these two
interpretations of the Hebrew word 'quadesh.' A liberal
view is therefore that this verse has no bearing on the
discussion around same-sex attraction.
A traditional view: The King James Version of this verse
implicates all gay men, whether they're engaged in
casual sex, or in a committed monogamous
relationship. Since Israel is a term for God's people – a
family into which all have now been included – this
applies beyond simply the Israelites themselves.
Romans 1:26-27
The key phrase: 'Men committed shameful acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty
for their error' (v27b, NIV)
A traditional view: In Romans 1:18-32, Paul talks about
God's wrath against the sinfulness of humanity, which,
without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, would send all of
us to an eternal death. He lists many of those sins
which would otherwise separate us from God, and
includes – loudly and clearly – descriptions of both gay
and lesbian sex. In an article for The Gospel Coalition,
Kevin DeYoung writes of this passage that, "for Paul, the
biological complementarity of the male-female union is
the obvious order of things. A male-male or female-
female sexual pairing violates the anatomical and
procreative design inherent in the one flesh union of a
man and a woman."
A progressive view: In all his letters, Paul is writing to a
specific group of people, at a specific time
( traditionalists would counter here that the principles he
lays out are meant to outlive that cultural context ). Here,
progressives say, Paul is writing in the context of a
hedonistic culture where orgies were common.
Heterosexual people 'abandoned' their natural, God-
given sexual orientation and acted as if they were
homosexual; one interpretation of the original Greek is
that the problem is that they were not homosexuals, but
heterosexuals acting in violation of their created order.
By the same logic, it would be sinful for a homosexual
person to engage in heterosexual sex. It's also important
to note here that these orgies took away the structure of
committed, long-term relationships, and abused God's
intention for sex.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
The key phrase: 'nor adulterers, nor men who have sex
with men... shall inherit the Kingdom of God (NIV).'
A progressive view: The two Greek words which are
translated here 'as men who have sex with men' are
makakoi (translated in the KJV as 'effeminates' and
arsenokoitai , but there are a wide variety of
interpretations among scholars of both words. The latter
is used in different ancient manuscripts to refer to
temple prostitutes and even child abusers. The exact
meaning has arguably been lost to history – meaning
it's unethical to interpret this as a condemnation of
homosexual relationships. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 involves
the same issue of translation with the word arsenokoitai .
A traditional view: Paul includes, in another list of
unrighteous people like the one found in Romans 1, 'men
who have sex with men'. He also includes drunkards
and the greedy in this list, although they seem to get off
more lightly in Christian culture. Nevertheless, Paul
defines all these people as 'wrongdoers' whose sin –
were it not for the sanctification of Jesus (v11) – would
prohibit their entry into the Kingdom of God.
Whatever conclusions you might personally draw on
these passages, surely the important point is that all of
us takes the time to read and pray through Scripture for
ourselves, rather than simply relying on the scholarship
or compellingly-worded opinions of others. The chasm
of opinion between the two sides of the debate means
consensus on the question is unlikely, but in the
meantime, 'I don't know' is becoming an increasingly
hollow response to those outside the church, and to the
LGBT community.
source: www.christiantoday.com/article/explainer.how.the.bible.splits.christians.on.homosexuality/53031.htm

What's he saying?

The bible does split anything.The bible is so clear on homosexuality as wrong.People can twist it the way they want but it doesn't make it right.

I wonder why Paul will refer to Temple prostitutes when the people he wrote to had no biz with shrines/temples besides, it is easy to spot the manipulation of the 1 corinth 6:11 ref using two hyphens that were not there but their inclusion alters the meaning! If read in the light of the context, it renders Paul's writing that passage superfluous. If we are washed, it means if we go into those things, we will be defiled!
Moreover, the commands in leviticus are divisible thus: some when violated are described as abominable/detestable while others do not have this qualifier. Christ did not come to make God accept/delight in abominable acts! Rather, He came to deliver us from them. Hence if we persist therein, judgement remains sure!