"Bulletin Inserts"

Related to the Sermon Presented May 1, 2005

THE ROCHESTER DECLARATION

(This declaration was accepted by consensus at a gathering in February of 158 American Baptist men and women from 14 states, 49 associations and 11 regions. Five members of ABC/WI churches participated in the summit held in Rochester, NY.)

We reaffirm that the Old and New Testaments are the sufficient ground of our faith and practice and, under the experience of the Holy Spirit, we need no creed or confession.

We rededicate ourselves to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and call our entire denomination to the common task of sharing the whole gospel with the whole world. We call upon all American Baptist Churches to be welcoming communities of faith where every child of God is included. Individually we espouse soul freedom, endeavoring to live by the moral and ethical principles taught by Christ and revealed in scripture, realizing that God is the ultimate and sole judge of our thoughts and actions. As worshipping communities, we celebrate being worthy trustees of God's creation. We uphold freedom of religious expression, expect no conformity to any creed or binding confession, and strive for justice within all human relationships.

We affirm the denominational leadership that God has imparted to us who support our Baptist principles of soul freedom and local church autonomy and commit ourselves to be the "Bridge-Builders" that our General Secretary (A. Roy Medley) has called us to be.

Assumptions to Begin the Biblical Discussion

Human beings are sexual beings and our sexuality is a gift of God.
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament share an assumption that heterosexuality is theologically
normative.
The words homosexual, gay and lesbian do not occur in Scripture. They were not in the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary. They were not used in the King James Version of the Bible, but were first used in the Revised Standard Version (1946, 1953.)
The words sodomy and sodomite are coined as derivatives from the ancient city of Sodom. The word abomination traditionally has been used in scripture, with its basis in the Levitical Code, as reference to homosexual activities.

The Old Testament and Homosexuality

Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 18:16 -19:29

When Lot occupied Sodom, its reputation for evil was well established. Because Sodom and Gomorrah were evil places, God reveals to Abraham a desire to destroy these cities. Finally in chapter 19, God sends two angels or messengers to Sodom. They go to determine if the city is actually as wicked as the general outcry suggests.

Traditional Interpretation: Lot invites the messengers to dinner. By nightfall the males of Sodom gather outside his home and demand that the male messengers be sent out that they might have sexual intercourse with them. Lot refuses and instead offers his two virgin daughters who are promptly refused by the males of Sodom. The males are angered and break into Lot's house, but the messengers strike the Sodomite males blind. This act is proof that Sodom is an evil city - worse than Abraham imagined. The specific sin at the dinner hour is the intended sin of homosexual rape.

Revisionist Interpretation: Old Testament references to Sodom (Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:49-50) never identify the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as homosexuality. The sins of adultery, lying, an unrepentant heart, greed, prosperous self-centeredness, are the sins that merit destruction of the city. Not until Hellenistic or Greek influences penetrate Jewish thought in the later New Testament books do we find an explicit connection between Sodom and homosexual practices. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't condemn the homosexual act as a perversion but as a sin against the biblical virtue of hospitality. The people of Sodom misused visiting strangers, who were considered as special messengers of God. This was also a violent act of attempted rape!

The Rape of Gibeah: Judges 19:22-25

Traditional Interpretation: Another incident like the former where village ruffians desire to rape a male dinner guest. The host refuses and offers both his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine. They refuse the old man's virgin daughter, but rape and kill the concubine. The men who attack aren't homosexuals. They rape and kill as an act of violence toward a member of the opposite sex.

Revisionist Interpretation: Sexuality isn't the issue here. The issue is violence and rape.

The Holiness Codes: Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

Traditional Interpretation: The Levitical laws in the Holiness Code are priestly laws that call Israel to its highest and best, and are expressed in the formula, "This is the thing which the Lord has commanded." God's transcendent holiness is communicated through the law. In both 18:22 and 20:13 homosexuality is judged an abomination to the Lord. It is more than a prohibition against homosexuality and idolatrous acts, it includes anything that would appear idolatrous and take away from the holiness of Israel's relationship with God. Specifically, the prohibition against homosexuality as an abomination occurs because homosexual acts violate the holiness of the creation act itself and the divine will.

Revisionist Interpretation: The Levitical law and the Holiness Code refer to the abomination of idolatry. To behave in a homosexual way is to violate a cultic sexual code. The word abomination is used to refer to idolatrous activities with other gods. Homosexuality is condemned because of its association with idolatry. If we take this text legalistically, homosexuality cannot be separated from the Israelite Holiness Code against the common twenty-first century practices of eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics and having marital intercourse during the menstrual cycle. We need to understand the prohibitions within the limited historical and theological context in which these passages are written.

Another insight is that these prohibitions are part of the purity code of ancient Israel rather than the moral code. The moral code (10 Commandments) is binding on all people at all times but the purity code comprises what we commonly call kosher rules for Orthodox Jews. The purity code condemns such practices as eating shellfish, eating pork and even touching the skin of a dead pig (football).

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY

There are some basic moral and sexual assumptions held in common by Old and New Testament writers. 1. Both testaments assume that heterosexuality is normative for creation and assume that heterosexuality is essential for the sanctity of marriage. 2. Old Testament teachings on marriage, adultery, and homosexuality essentially are accepted by New Testament believers as foundational to the new Kingdom. The New Testament contains little attention to homosexuality in its writings.

Jesus doesn't mention this topic.
The most extensive discussion about sexual behavior comes from the writings of Paul directed to the Greco-Roman world, specifically at Corinth and Rome.

The Gospels

In dealing with topics of adultery and divorce, Jesus states that heterosexual marriage is normative (Matthew 19:4-5, Matthew 5:27-28 and Mark 10:2-9.) Further, the only alternative Jesus offers to heterosexual marriage is celibacy or making oneself a "eunuch" for the Kingdom (Matthew 19:12.) When Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, he doesn't focus on the sexual character of Sodom's sin. Rather he uses the two cities as an example of what happens to those who reject God's mighty works of redemption on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:23-24). Sodom and Gomorrah become graphic, negative reminders of what is in store for those who reject the gospel (Luke 17:29-30.)

Romans 1:26-27

Traditional Interpretation: The purpose of this passage is to identify the taproot of sin-namely, human idolatry and wickedness, our rebellion against God. Paul depends on the Book of Wisdom here. The context of this writing is "sinful behavior." The dishonorable passions refer here to unnatural or homosexual acts.

Revisionist Interpretation: This view is that "natural" is descriptive of the traditional or customary practices within a given culture or society. One could assume that unnatural could refer to anything from adultery and its variants to any behavior including overt homosexual rape. The warning here is to be careful not to isolate this passage from the larger theological context within which Paul writes.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Traditional Interpretation: The context of this pastoral letter is the Corinthian church in theological and moral disarray. The letter addresses practicality and specificity on sexual matters. We must conclude that Paul had specific acts and unrighteous attitudes in mind. Beginning with the RSV, the word homosexual has been used in his catalogue. The English is based upon a compound of two Greek words, the passive (malakos-"pervert," "effeminate") and the active (arsenokoites-"sodomite"). The traditionalists link these two words as a prohibition against both the passive homosexual partner and the active homosexual partner. The traditionalists hold this to include all homosexual behavior. This is included in a list of specific sins: idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, and robbery.

Revisionist Interpretation: This passage is aimed at pederasty, a practice of sexual activity between adult males and boys. Pederasty was practiced in the Greco-Roman world. Here, a male teacher often took a young boy and personally tutored him. In such a close relationship, it was not uncommon for the teacher to exploit his position of authority by either seducing the boy or coercing him into sexual relations. Even if one defines malakos as self-indulgent, narcissistic self centeredness, the proper understanding of arsenokoites is restricted in its meaning of application to male homosexual prostitutes.

Note: when the NRSV of the Bible was released, the translation of these two words changed from "homosexual" in the RSV to "male prostitutes" in the NRSV.

Another point: most of the references in the writings of the church fathers to homosexual behavior do seem to condemn the exploitation of boys rather than homosexual orientation or committed, loving homosexual relationships.

1 Timothy 1:8-11; Jude, verse 7

Traditional Interpretation: This passage is addressed to non-believers. The traditionalists claim that the theological and behavioral reference here is to male homosexual behavior.

Revisionist Interpretation: This interpretation is that same-sex abuses refer to specific kinds of acts rather than to the condition of being homosexual. It refers to same sex abuses. If a non-Christian is told to cease to be homosexual, it places them under the law rather than under grace. Homosexuals cannot earn salvation by sacrifice of their sexuality any more than heterosexuals can. The sin in both the Old and New Testament is one of violence and violation of one's being.

Sources:

Of Sacred Worth by Paul A. Mickey. Mickey is Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Duke Divinity School. He holds a bachelor's degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. (primary source)

Speaking My Mind by Tony Campolo. Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University in St. David's, PA. He is an American Baptist.

Scriptures of Value to Remember

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven' give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back." Words of Jesus

John 13:34-35 "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Words of Jesus

Return to top of page

Home \| Weekly Bulletin \| Ministerial Staff \| Newsletter \| Sermons \| Directions \| Special Events \| ABC-USA \| ABC of WI
"Bulletin Inserts" Related to the Sermon Presented May 1, 2005 THE ROCHESTER DECLARATION (This declaration was accepted by consensus at a gathering in February of 158 American Baptist men and women from 14 states, 49 associations and 11 regions. Five members of ABC/WI churches participated in the summit held in Rochester, NY.) We reaffirm that the Old and New Testaments are the sufficient ground of our faith and practice and, under the experience of the Holy Spirit, we need no creed or confession. We rededicate ourselves to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and call our entire denomination to the common task of sharing the whole gospel with the whole world. We call upon all American Baptist Churches to be welcoming communities of faith where every child of God is included. Individually we espouse soul freedom, endeavoring to live by the moral and ethical principles taught by Christ and revealed in scripture, realizing that God is the ultimate and sole judge of our thoughts and actions. As worshipping communities, we celebrate being worthy trustees of God's creation. We uphold freedom of religious expression, expect no conformity to any creed or binding confession, and strive for justice within all human relationships. We affirm the denominational leadership that God has imparted to us who support our Baptist principles of soul freedom and local church autonomy and commit ourselves to be the "Bridge-Builders" that our General Secretary (A. Roy Medley) has called us to be. Assumptions to Begin the Biblical Discussion Human beings are sexual beings and our sexuality is a gift of God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament share an assumption that heterosexuality is theologically normative. The words homosexual, gay and lesbian do not occur in Scripture. They were not in the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary. They were not used in the King James Version of the Bible, but were first used in the Revised Standard Version (1946, 1953.) The words sodomy and sodomite are coined as derivatives from the ancient city of Sodom. The word abomination traditionally has been used in scripture, with its basis in the Levitical Code, as reference to homosexual activities. The Old Testament and Homosexuality Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 18:16 -19:29 When Lot occupied Sodom, its reputation for evil was well established. Because Sodom and Gomorrah were evil places, God reveals to Abraham a desire to destroy these cities. Finally in chapter 19, God sends two angels or messengers to Sodom. They go to determine if the city is actually as wicked as the general outcry suggests. Traditional Interpretation: Lot invites the messengers to dinner. By nightfall the males of Sodom gather outside his home and demand that the male messengers be sent out that they might have sexual intercourse with them. Lot refuses and instead offers his two virgin daughters who are promptly refused by the males of Sodom. The males are angered and break into Lot's house, but the messengers strike the Sodomite males blind. This act is proof that Sodom is an evil city - worse than Abraham imagined. The specific sin at the dinner hour is the intended sin of homosexual rape. Revisionist Interpretation: Old Testament references to Sodom (Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:49-50) never identify the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as homosexuality. The sins of adultery, lying, an unrepentant heart, greed, prosperous self-centeredness, are the sins that merit destruction of the city. Not until Hellenistic or Greek influences penetrate Jewish thought in the later New Testament books do we find an explicit connection between Sodom and homosexual practices. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't condemn the homosexual act as a perversion but as a sin against the biblical virtue of hospitality. The people of Sodom misused visiting strangers, who were considered as special messengers of God. This was also a violent act of attempted rape! The Rape of Gibeah: Judges 19:22-25 Traditional Interpretation: Another incident like the former where village ruffians desire to rape a male dinner guest. The host refuses and offers both his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine. They refuse the old man's virgin daughter, but rape and kill the concubine. The men who attack aren't homosexuals. They rape and kill as an act of violence toward a member of the opposite sex. Revisionist Interpretation: Sexuality isn't the issue here. The issue is violence and rape. The Holiness Codes: Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13 Traditional Interpretation: The Levitical laws in the Holiness Code are priestly laws that call Israel to its highest and best, and are expressed in the formula, "This is the thing which the Lord has commanded." God's transcendent holiness is communicated through the law. In both 18:22 and 20:13 homosexuality is judged an abomination to the Lord. It is more than a prohibition against homosexuality and idolatrous acts, it includes anything that would appear idolatrous and take away from the holiness of Israel's relationship with God. Specifically, the prohibition against homosexuality as an abomination occurs because homosexual acts violate the holiness of the creation act itself and the divine will. Revisionist Interpretation: The Levitical law and the Holiness Code refer to the abomination of idolatry. To behave in a homosexual way is to violate a cultic sexual code. The word abomination is used to refer to idolatrous activities with other gods. Homosexuality is condemned because of its association with idolatry. If we take this text legalistically, homosexuality cannot be separated from the Israelite Holiness Code against the common twenty-first century practices of eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics and having marital intercourse during the menstrual cycle. We need to understand the prohibitions within the limited historical and theological context in which these passages are written. Another insight is that these prohibitions are part of the purity code of ancient Israel rather than the moral code. The moral code (10 Commandments) is binding on all people at all times but the purity code comprises what we commonly call kosher rules for Orthodox Jews. The purity code condemns such practices as eating shellfish, eating pork and even touching the skin of a dead pig (football). THE NEW TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY There are some basic moral and sexual assumptions held in common by Old and New Testament writers. 1. Both testaments assume that heterosexuality is normative for creation and assume that heterosexuality is essential for the sanctity of marriage. 2. Old Testament teachings on marriage, adultery, and homosexuality essentially are accepted by New Testament believers as foundational to the new Kingdom. The New Testament contains little attention to homosexuality in its writings. Jesus doesn't mention this topic. The most extensive discussion about sexual behavior comes from the writings of Paul directed to the Greco-Roman world, specifically at Corinth and Rome. The Gospels In dealing with topics of adultery and divorce, Jesus states that heterosexual marriage is normative (Matthew 19:4-5, Matthew 5:27-28 and Mark 10:2-9.) Further, the only alternative Jesus offers to heterosexual marriage is celibacy or making oneself a "eunuch" for the Kingdom (Matthew 19:12.) When Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, he doesn't focus on the sexual character of Sodom's sin. Rather he uses the two cities as an example of what happens to those who reject God's mighty works of redemption on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:23-24). Sodom and Gomorrah become graphic, negative reminders of what is in store for those who reject the gospel (Luke 17:29-30.) Romans 1:26-27 Traditional Interpretation: The purpose of this passage is to identify the taproot of sin-namely, human idolatry and wickedness, our rebellion against God. Paul depends on the Book of Wisdom here. The context of this writing is "sinful behavior." The dishonorable passions refer here to unnatural or homosexual acts. Revisionist Interpretation: This view is that "natural" is descriptive of the traditional or customary practices within a given culture or society. One could assume that unnatural could refer to anything from adultery and its variants to any behavior including overt homosexual rape. The warning here is to be careful not to isolate this passage from the larger theological context within which Paul writes. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Traditional Interpretation: The context of this pastoral letter is the Corinthian church in theological and moral disarray. The letter addresses practicality and specificity on sexual matters. We must conclude that Paul had specific acts and unrighteous attitudes in mind. Beginning with the RSV, the word homosexual has been used in his catalogue. The English is based upon a compound of two Greek words, the passive (malakos-"pervert," "effeminate") and the active (arsenokoites-"sodomite"). The traditionalists link these two words as a prohibition against both the passive homosexual partner and the active homosexual partner. The traditionalists hold this to include all homosexual behavior. This is included in a list of specific sins: idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, and robbery. Revisionist Interpretation: This passage is aimed at pederasty, a practice of sexual activity between adult males and boys. Pederasty was practiced in the Greco-Roman world. Here, a male teacher often took a young boy and personally tutored him. In such a close relationship, it was not uncommon for the teacher to exploit his position of authority by either seducing the boy or coercing him into sexual relations. Even if one defines malakos as self-indulgent, narcissistic self centeredness, the proper understanding of arsenokoites is restricted in its meaning of application to male homosexual prostitutes. Note: when the NRSV of the Bible was released, the translation of these two words changed from "homosexual" in the RSV to "male prostitutes" in the NRSV. Another point: most of the references in the writings of the church fathers to homosexual behavior do seem to condemn the exploitation of boys rather than homosexual orientation or committed, loving homosexual relationships. 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Jude, verse 7 Traditional Interpretation: This passage is addressed to non-believers. The traditionalists claim that the theological and behavioral reference here is to male homosexual behavior. Revisionist Interpretation: This interpretation is that same-sex abuses refer to specific kinds of acts rather than to the condition of being homosexual. It refers to same sex abuses. If a non-Christian is told to cease to be homosexual, it places them under the law rather than under grace. Homosexuals cannot earn salvation by sacrifice of their sexuality any more than heterosexuals can. The sin in both the Old and New Testament is one of violence and violation of one's being. Sources: Of Sacred Worth by Paul A. Mickey. Mickey is Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Duke Divinity School. He holds a bachelor's degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. (primary source) Speaking My Mind by Tony Campolo. Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University in St. David's, PA. He is an American Baptist. Scriptures of Value to Remember Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven' give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back." Words of Jesus John 13:34-35 "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Words of Jesus Return to top of page
Roundy Memorial Baptist Church
	Last Updated 05/01/2005