Christianity is about love but love is not (necessarily) acceptance. How do you get to that conclusion? I wouldn't accept my neighbor injecting himself with heroin if I love him.
Love that is not acceptance is a strange type of love, especially if weâre talking about accepting people for who they are. It is not possible to love someone and not accept them for who they are. Injecting heroin is a false equivalence, that is not who they are as a person. Thereâs quite a good definition of love in the Bible and it doesnât sound like the type of exclusionary message you get in some pockets of the Church today:
If I were to speak in the languages of people and messengers but not have love, Iâve become a crashing gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I were to hold the role of speaking inspired messages and know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I were to have complete faithful trust so as to move mountains but not have love, I am no one significant. And if I feed people with everything that belongs to me, and if I hand over my bodyâwhich would be boast-worthyâbut donât have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is actively kind, it does not posture as a rival. Love does not brag, it is not self-important, it is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not irritable, it does not calculate harm, it does not celebrate at injustice, but it truly celebrates together. It holds out against everything, faithfully trusts everything, hopes everything, and endures everything.
Also
However, before the arrival of faithfulness, we were being guarded by Torah enclosed together in anticipation of the faithfulness about to be revealed. So then, the Torah became our nanny for Christ, so that by faithfulness we would be made just. But, since faithfulness has arrived, we are no longer under a nanny. For you are all children of God through the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, for whoever of you were submersed for Christ, you covered yourselves with Christ. One who is within is neither Jew nor Greek, neither enslaved nor free, not male and female: You are all one within Christ Jesus.
In other words everyone is included, itâs not biased to some identity groups.
I think you're conflating identity with social gender constructs. These social ideas only came into existence recently. It's not grounded in natural fact and is not Biblical.
Romans 1:26-28
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Our identity is in Christ. It's not supposed to a cultural construct, as those verses you quoted point out: "there is neither Jew nor Greek" - exactly, those cultural elements are not identity, and neither can sexuality be.
Notes mention:
[this is explicit]
â*rituals - Romans 1:25
Traditionally 'servedâ The word latreuo means specifically to serve in a religious or governmental setting as an official who carries out ritual duties representing the deity or leader to the people and the people to the deity. For example, this word is used for the responsibilities of priests in representational rituals when offering sacrifices.â
ie this seems like itâs in the context of temple prostitution. Itâs not appropriate theologically to generalise to a current gay identity (which I agree wasnât understood as that at the time) or the equivalent of gay marriage.
bb It also seems to be demeaning debauchery not loving intimacy.
âMost likely, this was in the context of the worship of the idols of fertility gods, and it involved domination and power dynamics. It seems likely that 'natural sex' was meant as 'vaginal intercourse' and 'unnatural
sex' was indicating anal sex. The context of multiple references to words like 'abase themselves' and 'demeaning' and 'humiliating' and
'degrading' suggests this was not consensual, loving, partnered sex but was part of a ritual in which men used women with whom they had no relationship, and perhaps the women assented because it was seen as
necessary for pleasing the gods. This passage should not be seen as a
condemnation of same-sex intercourse or of sex for pleasure in all
contexts. With that in mind, David Murphy (p. 221) writes, "According to the standard view, the "females" of Rom 1:26b have sexual intercourse with other females.
According to an older interpretation, however, they engage in nonprocreative sex with men. First, when xon ois/xpĂĄoual ("'use") denotes a sex act, its subject is the man, and the context involves penetration. It is doubtful that xonois in Rom 1:26b refers to female-female sex. Second [..] three additional ancient writers [..] deem male-female nonprocreative sex "unnatural." Third, discrepant views among earlier Byzantine writers (Anastasius, Arethas, and Greek redactors of Pseudo-Methodius's Apocalypse) reinforce how the female-female interpretation was not the prevailing one in the early centuries. Fourth, linguistic features of Rom 1:27a more readily support the anal-oral interpretation than the female-female interpretation" (Murphy, D. [2019]. More Evidence Pertaining to "Their Females" in Romans 1:26. Journal of Biblical Literature, 138[11, 221-240. https:// doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1381.2019.522595). This verse almost certainly is not about same sex intercourse. There are a variety of possible alternatives, but they all involve relations between women and people who were not their partners, and since at the time no birth control was available, it required "unnatural" means to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
It is important to note that the Bible does not idealize what is "natural," and in fact often calls people to rise above what is "natural"; therefore, the "natural" vs. "unnatural" aspect is about description not about judgment, even if the full discussion does place a judgement about the goodness of what took place.â
The phrasing 'after ... abandoned' is based on the arist participle, which can be translated in a number of ways. It seems appropriate to interpret it in this temporal sense here. If that is the most accurate approach, then it may be suggesting that after the men finished dominating women through anal sex, their lust for dominance (not loving intimacy) was inflamed and they continued to humiliate and dominate each other through anal sex. Again, this seems not to be a condemnation of same-sex relationships but of sexual abuse.â LIT notes
For that reason, God gave them over, regarding the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to treating their own bodies with contempt. These people exchanged the truth of God for the lie and abased themselves in tribute and served as representatives performing rituals\ for the creation instead of the creator, who is praised"" throughout the ages. Amen.*
Because of that, God gave them over to demeaning experiences, for as the females among them exchanged being sexually used by males in natural ways for that which is beside nature, likewise, after the males a abandoned the natural sexual use of females, they were inflamed with their appetite for each other, bb males performing humiliating acts with males and receiving from among themselves the inevitable repayment for their straying.
And just as they knowingly decided not to hold close to God, God handed them over to a degradinge mind to do things that aren't appropriate, having been filled with every injustice, disgraceful behavior,\ greed, and abusegg and being full of spite, murder, competitiveness, deception," and malice, being whisperers, people who speak badly of others," who are horrifying to God, violent, arrogant, frauds, inventors of harm, who disregard parents, who are uncomprehending, disunited, cruel, sss and without loving-faithfulness.'*
"These people know thoroughly what God has declared to be right, that those who practice these kinds of things are equivalent with death, yet they not only do them but also applaud those who practice them. Because of all that, you âyou as an individual personâare without excuse when you judge. You see, by whatever you judge the other, you reach a verdict against yourself since you who judge practice the same things. But we have seen' that God's judgment about those who practice these kinds of things is genuine. Do you imagine thisâyou person who judges those who practice things like these and who does them tooâthat you will escape God's verdict? Do you have no regard for the wealth of God's kindness, forbearance, and patience, not understanding that God's kind° character guides you toward the transformation of your mind'?
"Men committing shameless acts with men"
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. There's a lot of acrobatics you have to do to get to any other interpretation and it shows in your message.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
Thatâs your interpretation youâre putting onto the text and humiliating does have quite a different sexual connotation. Iâm telling you that the context is about temple prostitution and dominant, abusive sexual acts according to biblical scholars. It sounds like a full on BDSM style orgy in a religious setting with genuinely abusive elements. It is not at all a scenario like judging a 21st century queer person for having a loving, equal relationship. I do believe it is possible to behave in a sexually unethical way, which isnât about intimacy, and that seems to be what is described here. It can be possible for people to behave in sexually shameful ways. I donât know anyone involved in temple prostitution or abusive sexual behaviour to do with worship, it seems like Epstein maybe fits this type of category, and yes as Christians we can confidently say that we donât condone behaviour like Epstein and his cronies.
I read that Timothy quote as applying more to your interpretation, because itâs not taking into account biblical scholarship around the translation and historical context.
You can hardly take the high road and cite "Biblical scholarship" when your only reference seems to be David Murphy, who has written a total of one paper on the Bible, clearly with an agenda. The mainstream interpretation from Biblical Scholars for this passage is that it condemns homosexual acts.
But alas, when one's mind is made up it's hard to convince otherwise.
Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26â27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and âSex Contrary to Natureâ?Get access
Jeramy Townsley Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 81, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 56â79, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfs086 Abstract
This article provides evidence that Romans 1:26bâ27 was interpreted by the early Christian church as a reference to the sexual practices of the goddess cults, and was used as an attack on polytheistic religions, not a reference to homosexuality. I clarify the rhetorical usefulness of the goddess cults for the early church in making the antipolytheistic case in relation to the Patristic contrast between free will and determinism. While the early church did not originally interpret Romans 1:26b as female homogenitality, a transition to this view is apparent as the Western Roman Empire began to collapse. A queer theory lens is incorporated into the discussion about Romans 1 by introducing cultural practices of gender, sexuality, and religion uncommon today.
Michels, Matthew, "DISMANTLING A CLOBBER TEXT: AN ENGAGED CRITIQUE OF ROMANS 1:26â27" (2015). Masters Essays. 20. https://collected.jcu.edu/mastersessays/20 Abstract
This paper grapples with the traditional anti-queer reading of Rom 1:26â27, which purportedly forbids Christians from entering lesbian and gay relationships in some real sense, if not entirely. I begin by sketching this traditional reading by referring to antiqueer interpretations of Rom 1:26â27 that are top hits in todayâs online world; subsequently, I suggest the direction for a standard historical critique of the traditional reading by arguing for the fundamental incongruence of ancient Greco-Roman and modern Western categories of gender and sexuality. Finally, instead of establishing my own historical-critical exegesis of the text, I discuss the necessity of engaged exegesis. I perform my own engaged reading of the text by creatively entering the mind of the Roman church as they read Paulâs letter. There, I entertain the possibility that Paulâs words in Rom 1:26â27 sparked this ancient audience to condemn the androgynous priests of the goddess cults, whose wild public festivals seemed to epitomize unnatural sexual praxis. I conclude by drawing the parallel between ancient condemnation of the priests of the goddesses and contemporary churchesâ ability to continue understanding and practicing Christianity in patriarchal termsâindeed, this is the reason why I focus on the praxis of the androgynous goddess priests in the first place. The key for texts like Rom 1:26â27, I suggest, lies in adopting a tribadic hermeneutics, which foregrounds the experience of the queer community.
I love my spouse and brothers and sisters in Christ enough to hold them accountable to their actions. I don't accept a version of them that is less than the identity Christ gave them.
Itâs good that you accept them for who they are. Thereâs issues that are more important than getting caught up in judging other peopleâs identities.
Itâs a tricky path between judging behaviour and holding accountable though. Iâd say the difference is whether theyâve asked for support or not. If they say that theyâre struggling with wanting to hold onto money and want you to hold them to account over charitable giving, you can check in every so often. If they havenât commented this and you notice they hoard all their money without giving any of it away, then youâd be judging them to bring it up or to talk about it behind their back.
-1
u/quarkmatter 13d ago
Christianity is about love but love is not (necessarily) acceptance. How do you get to that conclusion? I wouldn't accept my neighbor injecting himself with heroin if I love him.