The Problem with Christus Victor? (part 1)

I read this very interesting post over at "Covenant of Love", written by Derek Ouellette. You should check it out. I copied the entire response here, and included the link to Mark Galli's original post. I hold to Christus Victor as my primary but not exclusive model of the atonement. 

Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, wrote an article titled The Problem with Christus Victor. As someone who believes Christus Victor ought to be the umbrella atonement motif for the Christian faith, this post is a response to that article.

Mark writes:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness.

“do tell me if you see otherwise”, I take that as an invitation to discussion. I hope to “tell” Mark “otherwise” before this post is through and show how that perception can easily go both ways.

Some Significant Points:

There are a few things I believe that are significant to point out in this discussion. I believe it is significant that the Church Father’s held to the Christus Victor atonement motif unanimously up to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy of the fifth century, at which point it began to fall out of favour in the Western Church. It believe it is significant that the Eastern Church has always held to the Christus Victor motif from the time of the Father’s of the Church up to this very day. I believe it is significant that the Augustine/Pelagian controversy was virtually unheard of in the Christian East and remains a non-issue (notice the connection between that fact and that the Orthodox still holds to the Christus Victor motif). I believe it is significant that since the Reformation the dominant atonement theory in the West has been Penal Substitution. I believe it is significant that Protestants who react against the growing return to the Christus Victor motif seem to be most concerned with how they perceive that it raises “works” (global concerns and social agenda’s et cetera) above or against personal guilt and a personal need for forgiveness.

There is more going on beneath the surface of Mark’s article then just which atonement motif one prefers. It’s amazing how many “issues” raised by Protestants go back to the Augustine/Pelagian controversy and exposes the Protestant terror of anything that smacks of smuggling works-based salvation in through the back door.

Mark’s View of the Christus Victor View:

Mark correctly draws out some of the strengths of the Christus Victor “model”: That this view emphasizes Christ as the victor, that in his death and resurrection he overcame the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, and death. But before long the article takes a decisively wrong turn:

While the model assumes humanity’s guilt for getting ourselves into this predicament—beginning with the original sin of Adam and Eve—the theory’s anthropology (view of humanity) emphasizes not our guilt but our victimhood, at least the way it is often discussed today. (emphasis mine)

That emphasis sets the direction of the article. One is left with the impression that there is a problem with the Christus Victor motif itself, when in reality Mark is concerned with “the way it is often discussed today“. The problem throughout the article is that Mark does not do a good job separating the Christus Victor motif from “the way it is often discussed today”. As the title itself suggests, it is the motif itself that has serious problems.  So in the readers mind Mark  appropriately  chucked out the baby with the bathwater. While acknowledging that the Christus Victor motif is biblical, according to Mark it is just one of those things we “Protestants” should be cautious not to over emphasize. We shouldn’t talk about it very much. Yet Mark’s double standard is that it is somehow okay for the Eastern Church to emphasize Christus Victor, just not us Western Christians.

Here, I’m simply suggesting that Christus Victor may not be a theory that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, should tie their wagons to.

And why is that? Because, according to Mark, 1) “it’s clearly a secondary atonement theme in the New Testament”, and 2) “at least for today’s Protestants, it has an uncanny tendency to downplay a sense of personal responsibility, which in the end, sabotages grace”.

Is Christus Victor Secondary?

Mark acknowledges that the Christus Victor motif emphasizes the role of Christ’s atonement in regards to the whole cosmos. That being said it is difficult to reconcile his claim that it is secondary and that God is really (perhaps we might say, merely) concerned with individual sin, until you see that Mark has qualified his statement with the phrase “New Testament” by which it seems he means “Pauline Epistles and Hebrews”. (A very Protestant approach to the “New Testament”.)

It is significant that in discussing the role of the atonement of Jesus Christ Mark does not turn to the Gospel’s at all. It is also significant that when he speaks of the Christus Victor model he does so in terms of Christ’s death and resurrection, but not in terms of Jesus’ life and actions throughout his ministry which, incidentally, happens to be termed “The Gospels”. This is a Penal Substitution approach to the atonement applied to the Christus Victor motif. Furthermore the long held belief by Christians that the first reference to the atonement is in Genesis 3:15 happens to be a Christus Victor, not Penal Substitution, reference. When the rest of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in on the subject, the idea that Penal Substitution theory is dominant cannot be sustained.

Major themes running through both Testaments include Egypt and Exile, where the great atonement themes in the Egypt event with the sacrifice of a Lamb, the beginning of the passover with the blood spilled on the door posts so that the angel of death can pass over, are all within the context of deliverance, redemption, freedom and victory, and in fact the term “righteousness” is often used synonymously as “vindication” and in the context of military deliverance and victory as in the case with Deborah. The ongoing atonement for Israel’s sins are all conceived within this framework. The continuing sin of Israel landed God’s people right back into bondage in Exile in need of redemption, freedom and deliverance again. It needed another Lamb with spilled blood to end the Exile and defeat the principalities and powers of the air.

Christ’ work throughout his ministry in the Gospels is a testimony to this defining redemption motif.

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news [Gospel] to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, torelease the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” – Luke 4:18-19

Jesus’ mission was summed up in that Isaiac prophecy as he said himself. Through his ministry he did those very things including casting out demons everywhere he went, forgiving sins (yes!) and commanding, “go and sin no more” because it is not just that you have been forgiven of your personal sin, but that you have been set from and are no longer bound to them. In regards to an individual, this is what Christus Victor emphasizes against the raising up of the Penal View. Not just that you’ve been forgiven, but that now you can “go and sin no more” because the chains have been broken.

Is it any wonder John could write:

“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” – 1 John 3:8

Of course this verse is in the context of personal sin, but that’s just it. Mark’s claim that Christus Victor fails to address personal sin and personal responsibility is simply wrong. “He who does what is sinful is of the devil” says John immediately before the one I just cited, but Jesus came to “destroy the devil’s work” so that you do not need to be of the devil any more. You’ve been forgive, of course, but you’ve also been set free. In fact, John’s point actually addresses the danger of raising the Penal View above the Christus Victor motif: if you claim to be forgiven but are still in sin, it means you have not been set free and are still “of the devil”.

Jesus told the disciples that he has given them authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the wiles of the evil one. When they returned from the mission field he sent them on, he hold them that he saw Satan falling from heaven. We are told by John that “the world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19) and Jesus called Satan the “prince of the world” (John 14:30) and Paul refers to Satan as “the ruler of the Kingdom of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). Is it any wonder that the central message of Jesus throughout his ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God in which Jesus says, “the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12 ESV).

Obviously the Penal Substitution view is not the dominant atonement teaching when all of the scriptures are allowed to weigh in. In light of this fact, I find it astounding that Mark would make this statement:

With “no extensive discussions of Christus Victor anywhere in the New Testament—one begins to wonder how much stock we should put in Christus Victor. In short, should we be so quick to marginalize substitutionary atonement?”

The whole of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, discuss Christus Victor. Is that extensive enough for you? The substitutionary atonement theory should not be marginalized, but it should be put in its place and not at the expanse of the complete work of God in redemptive history.

Does it Sabotage Grace?

Earlier I made the connection between Protestant fears of Pelagianism and Christus Victor. This is where I think Protestants tend to overreact and scurry away from anything that – to us – smacks of sneaking works based salvation in through the back door. We’re so scared of slipping into one heresy (works based salvation) that we run fool-headed into another (antinominism).

Where Mark sees Christus Victor as potentially sabotaging Grace, I see Penal Substitution theory as sucking Grace dry of its substance. The Grace of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the hole Gospel including his ministry, his death and his resurrection and ascension. It is not just about how “I am forgiven so that I can go to heaven” as is often emphasized by those who preach the Penal View exclusively. That cheapens Grace. It is about how God has set us free from the powers of Sin, Satan and Death – the three enemies of the Cross. It is about how “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus]. Therefore go and make disciples” (Matthew 28:18). So even the Great Commission is wrapped up in the Victor motif. It is about taking the Lord’s Prayer seriously that “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”, it is about taking the Beatitudes seriously, it is about taking Grace and the Gospel seriously.

Where Mark sees the Christus Victor motif as emphasizing human’s as simple victims that need to be set free, the Eastern Church sees the Penal Substitution theory as emphasizing Christ as the victim. Both are an exaggeration. For the Penal View the idea is not that Christ is the victim, but rather the he is the Vicarious One. For the Christus Victor motif, humans are not so much mere victims, as they are in need to redemption from sin, death and Satan. This of course includes, but is not restricted to, Penal Substitution.

Returning to the quote at the start of this post.

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness

The perception goes both ways:

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion [the Penal Substitution theory] don’t pepper their talks and prayers with personal [freedom] from sin or the need for divine [deliverance].

Thinking about Lent

It is fascinating that Mark concludes his article with this:

Something to think about, anyway, especially during Lent, when many of us ponder the great mysteries of sin and atonement.

In my home city a 40 Day Prayer Vigil for Right For Life has been taking place this Lent, and it is significant that Protestants make up less then 5% of the Christians who are actively involved in this event. But with the dominant view of the atonement being what it is in Protestant teaching still today, (that I have been forgiven frommy personal sins so that I can go to heaven, i.e. Penal Substitution), is it any wonder that Protestants are not always front-liners in matters of contemporary social Kingdom agenda concerns. That is best a matter for those who believe that Jesus’ mission is bigger then me and my heavenly future.

One of Mark’s primary concerns in the article is how many who hold to Christus Victor polemically distort the Substitutionary View. I think he’s right, and so from one who holds to Christus Victor as the dominant atonement motif, I want to address the concern and add a corrective measure. It is unfortunate though that in reacting to an overstatement on the part of the Victor adherents, Mark himself would make so many overstatements.

Covenant of Love, Christus Victor pt 1

I will post part 2 when it becomes available. Thanks for reading. Check out Derek's blog. 

--Nick

Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Times Prophecy, a (not so) brief review

Tackling anything remotely theological these days is no small task. From Mark Driscoll’s “Real Marriage” to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins,” there is always something currently charged in the air within Christendom. And the nature of prophecy as it applies to the future is no less controversial. It deals with the creation of a new interpretive lens and collapses in a culmination at the very gates of Revelation.

Simply put, “Conditional Futurism” is the lens of which prophecy is conditional. Or, rather, that while the word and purpose of the Lord never alters, the outcome of the word of the Lord can vary. Prophecy, according to author James Goetz, is often if not always conditional, and based upon cause and effect.

“If this, then this.”

He cites abundant Scriptures, and often it seems his case is simply to let Scripture stand on it’s own. At the very beginning of the book, Goetz simply quotes God’s words in Jeremiah 18:7-8 which state, “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” See also the story of Jonah and Ninevah for another example.

James realizes that this theme of conditional prophecy is not limited to a few isolated texts. Rather, James begins with Genesis and the Mosaic Covenant and works through the Davidic Dynasty to the Gospels and finally ends up at the always open gates of Revelation. The work is consistently engaging and offers quite a bit of support, always deferring to Scripture and often allowing Scripture to speak on it’s own.

There are some elements that I do think James could’ve engaged with in a stronger fashion. There are several different types of prophecy used throughout Scripture, and for the layman who knows little of the finer points, it would’ve been helpful to include a chapter or section exploring the various methods. Very easily, this could lead to a flattening of typology in various prophetic methods. I am not certain James does indeed flatten said typology, but I do think this is an area that could’ve used greater explanation.

“If I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right — if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, returns what they have stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and do no evil — that person will surely life; they shall not die.” Ezekiel 33:14-15

The single strongest part of the entire book comes in two chapters near the end. The first chapter is an exegetical study on the letters of 1 and 2 Peter, with specific preference placed on the harrowing of hell, or Christ’s descent into hell. Here. James offers multiple interpretive methods, pulling from Aquinas, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen and Augustine. After showing several interpretations, James delves into his perspective on why these passages support postmortem salvation. Not only was postmortem salvation considered a valid option, it was indeed a dominant option within the early church fathers as the Apostles. Sees the Apostles Creed. James concludes this strong section with his belief that Jesus’s descent included the gospel being proclaimed and salvation being offered to all who dwelt in hell. This is the most controversial part of the entire book, and also the most interesting. Though I already had a fairly strong belief in the possibility of postmortem salvation based on my own research, James’ exegesis has swayed me even closer to embracing the view. For modern theologians who propose the harrowing of hell belief, see Jurgen Moltmann’s “Descent into Hell” and Hans Urs von Balthasar’s “Mysterium Paschale.”

Within this chapter includes several far more speculative elements. James touches on the nephilim in Genesis 6:1-8, and his findings are fascinating. James draws from the Book of Enoch and and Scripture, concluding that indeed some fallen angels who disregarded their charge to guard humans and instead married women. He makes this claim that these spirits within Peter were human angelophanies based on the following evidence:

It is consistent with modern and ancient understandings of mammalians reproduction. It is consistent with Numbers 13:31-33, which says that the sons of Anak descended from the nephilim. Their appearance, according to Numbers, was like grasshoppers. This also includes Genesis 6 and the judgments that befell the human race, which makes sense if these beings are indeed human of some sort. This includes the wickedness of both pure human and the offspring. All of the wickedness could include these “spirits.” You also have Hebrews 13:2 which says that some people showed kindness to angels while thinking those angels were human. This seems to be a possibility for the spirits imprisoned and that Christ’s appearance offers conditional salvation. Simply put, I’m not convinced by this, but I do find it compelling enough to do my own research. In fact, I would argue that I am indeed excited to further explore the idea.

“Therefore, your majesty, be pleased to accept my advice: renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.” Daniel 4:27.

The final chapter deals with judgment and the book of Revelation. This is by far the most complex chapter in the entire book. James begins with his research into the “kings of the earth,” showing the complexity of the phrase throughout. It is used 14 times in the book of Revelation, and it offers multiple perspectives on their meaning. Revelation 1:5 tells use that Christ rules the kings, while Revelation 17:8 tells use that the prostitute instead is their ruler. I’m not of the opinion that Scripture contradicts itself, so we have to be very careful how to interpret everything within this incredibly symbolic book. It is this research that leads James to conclude that the gates of Revelation never close and the kings of the earth are shown entering, and this is consistent with postmortem salvation for those who choose it. I’m not convinced that Revelation teaches the potential postmortem salvation of those outside the gates because of various factors (the second death being one), but it does not strike me as outlandish to believe what James proposes. And his conclusions is gracious enough to allow for future distinction.

Conditional Futurism doesn’t demand postmortem conversion, but it is consistent with it and I believe that James, whether or not he is ultimately successful in his writings, has indeed made it a priority to respect Scripture and maintain a biblically systematic consistency. For a wider case, I recommend Gregory MacDonald’s “The Evangelical Universalist.”

James has kept his personal life uninvolved from the scholarship shown, and for mostly good reason. It is very easy to write off an individual if they proclaim passionately a biblical view one disagrees with. Though this can make for a dry read given how much data is being presented, it does allow the reader to simply wrestle with the data itself and not the passion of the writer. This is entirely subjective, and I believe it worked in a positive manner.

However, in the final chapter after James has worked through objections to postmortem salvation and the kings of the earth, he delves into some brief personal revelations about his past resignation from his ministry due to his belief in postmortem conversions. He gives examples of Carlton Pearson who became an inclusive universalist, which James believes is incapable with conditional futurism as conditional futurism depends solely on Christ for salvation. James also touches on Rob Bell’s “Love Wins,” which he believes is feasible with conditional futurism. James is an exclusivist it seems, and everything from postmortem salvation to universalism must be filtered solely and exclusively through Jesus Christ. Opponents will and should appreciate this exclusive emphasis.

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” Ezekiel 18:23.

Overall, this book was refreshing. It lacks emotional manipulation and offers countless Scriptures to wrestle with. It offers a unique perspective on the “spirits” in prison, and makes a compelling case for the nature of angelic beings. James’ case for postmortem salvation is strong and I am now confident in openly expressing my support of his conclusions on that topic. I’m not entirely convinced of “conditional futurism” as the lacking elements above show, but I do believe this is a reasonable approach to Scripture and I believe there is room for further dialogue on this topic.

To the conversation here, and to the conversation in the beyond.

4 stars out of 5.

--Nick

Site of review, The Christian Manifesto

--resource publications an imprint of Wipf and Stock publishing--

"Ask a Gay Christian. . ."

Rachel Held Evans interviewed Justin Lee, director of the Gay Christian Network. Its a very respectful dialogue with some hard questions and answers. Below:

Last week I introduced you to Justin Lee, the director of The Gay Christian Network (GCN), a nonprofit organization serving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians and those who love them. Justin is also the director of "Through My Eyes," a documentary about young gay Christians, and the co-host of GCN Radio, a popular podcast on issues of faith and sexuality. He blogs at Crumbs from the Communion Table. 

Hundreds of questions rolled in from a wide variety of perspectives, with the top three questions “liked” over 100 times.  Justin certainly rose to the occasion, answering your questions thoughtfully and humbly. I hope you find his responses as helpful as I did. 

***

From Justin: Hello, everyone! I'm honored to have this opportunity, and I'm so grateful to Rachel for making it possible. Thanks, Rachel! 

As soon as I read through the questions Rachel sent, two things were immediately obvious to me: First, you guys are passionate about this issue and have a ton of great questions! Second, some of the questions were really long. Yikes! I don't want to bore you all to tears, but I also know that short, bumper-sticker answers to deep questions aren't very helpful. So I've tried to be concise, I've edited a few of the questions for brevity, and I'm committing right now to stick around here for at least the next week to keep answering questions in the comments.

Anything I don't get to or that needs more space, I'll address on my own blog, Crumbs from the Communion Table.

Now, on to the questions!

From (reader) Justin B.: Before you came to peace with your sexual orientation, did you ever try to "cure" your homosexuality, whether through prayer or some type of program? I'd also be interested in hearing more about your story, such as when you first discovered you were gay, how long you waited before you told people, that kind of thing. 

This is the perfect question to ask, and it's a question I think we Christians should be more in the habit of asking the people we encounter in our lives: "Tell me your story."

Why was the woman at the well so impressed with Jesus? It was because he knew her story. That alone made her eager to listen to him and bring others to do the same.

Our God is a personal God, and as the Body of Christ, we have an obligation to represent God by taking an interest in people's lives and stories. Right now, the church's reputation (especially in the gay community) is that we're a bunch of holier-than-thou jerks who are quick to preach and dole out advice but slow to take an interest in people. That's a reputation we need to reverse. Yes, we are called to take moral stands on issues, but we ought to be known first and foremost for our love.

My story is long, but here's the short(ish) version.

I grew up in a loving Christian home, accepted Christ at a young age, attended a Southern Baptist church, and generally had a pretty awesome upbringing.

From the time I was young, Jesus Christ was—and continues to be—#1 in my life. My relationship with Him was life-giving in every sense of the word, and that's why I considered it so important to live out my faith. I got the nickname "God Boy" in high school because I was the Bible-toting goody two-shoes Christian who didn't smoke, drink, curse, have sex, or shut up about God!

My view of homosexuality was this: God created male and female for each other. Our bodies were designed to fit together in that way, and the Bible made it clear that while sexuality was a gift from God, using our sexuality in ways that were outside of God's design for it was a sin—whether that meant premarital sex, adultery, or homosexuality. My pro-gay friends called me a "homophobe" for this view, but I didn't hate or fear gay people; I simply believed that they were making a sinful choice with their lives, and that by speaking out in a loving way, I could call their attention to it and help bring them back to God. That's what we're supposed to do as Christians, right?

I, of course, wasn't gay. At least, that's what I thought.

But I did have a secret I was going to take to my grave.

Like other guys my age, when I'd hit puberty, I had begun to experience sexual attractions. No surprise there. But one thing was different: while all of my guy friends were starting to notice girls for the first time, I was starting to notice guys.

At first, I didn't worry about it. I figured this was just part of the process and that my attractions would eventually switch to girls. But they didn't. Instead, the feelings just kept getting stronger and stronger. Even if I could make it through the school day without thinking about guys, I'd go to bed at night and dream about guys. I'd wake up each morning feeling dirty and disgusted with myself.

Straight guys, do you remember what it was like to be 16 years old with raging hormones, completely unable to get your mind off of girls no matter what you did? Well, that was my life too, except it was my male classmates who made my hormones go wild, not my female classmates.

As you might expect, I was horrified by this. I couldn't tell anyone, and I didn't know what was wrong with me. It got to the point that I was crying myself to sleep, night after night, begging God to take away these feelings.

It wasn't until I was 18 (and dating a beautiful girl I had no attraction to whatsoever) that I finally realized there was a word for people like me: "gay."

Even then, though, I was convinced it was a phase. I was sure that God didn't design me to be gay, so I looked into every Christian ministry I could find that offered to help gay people become straight. I was completely convinced that an "ex-gay" ministry, combined with therapy and prayer, would help me become attracted to women and put these other feelings behind me. After all, God can do anything!

The hard truth was that it doesn't work that way. Yes, God can do anything, but that doesn't mean God does do what we expect. I met so many people who had faith to move mountains and who had prayed and struggled their whole lives to become straight, but their attractions had still never changed. Even the national leaders and "success stories" of these change ministries privately admitted to me that they hadn't become straight. Yes, some of them had married a member of the opposite sex, but the "happily heterosexual" face they showed to the world was not the reality. I heard more tragic stories behind closed doors than I can possibly convey.

As I turned to my church and the Christians I respected most to get their support, things only got worse. Christian groups kicked me out or turned their backs on me when they learned that I was gay, even though I told them that I didn't want to be and that I hadn't even acted on my feelings! I learned that that one magic word, "gay," had the power to make Christians turn unkind and uncompassionate without even realizing they were doing it. That was the realization that led me to create a safe space on the internet for people who want to live out their faith and explore these difficult questions, even if they come to conclusions that are different from my own. That's where The Gay Christian Network came from.

From KMR: When you first realized you were gay, what verses in the Bible did you struggle with the most?  And how did you reconcile them in order to find peace?

There are a handful of passages in the Bible that directly address homosexuality in some form, and all of them are pretty negative.

In Genesis 19, the residents of the wicked city of Sodom threaten to gang rape two foreigners (actually angels in disguise). They don't succeed, but that threat of male-male rape is why we have the term "sodomy" today.

In Judges 19, an almost identical story takes place in the town of Gibeah. Again, a (male) foreigner is threatened with gang rape, but in the end, the crowd rapes and murders his (female) concubine instead. The ending and other context suggests that Sodom and Gibeah probably weren't gay cities, but did use threats and violence to intimidate foreigners.

In Leviticus 18-20, the death penalty is prescribed for a man who "lies with a man as with a woman." This is part of a set of rules given by God to Moses to keep the Israelites set apart. Some of the rules we Christians still follow today; others we don't.

In Romans 1, Paul is making an argument that all of us are sinners in need of grace. As an example of the folly of turning from God, Paul references a group of people who turned from God to worship idols and engage in "shameful" and "unnatural" behavior including gay sex. Some scholars view this as an indictment on cultures that fail to condemn homosexuality in any form; others argue that Paul is making an obvious allusion to the orgy-like rites practiced by the fertility cults of his day.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, Paul offhandedly uses an obscure Greek term when listing groups of sinners. Some scholars have translated it as "men who have sex with men," but others scholars dispute that translation. Adding to the confusion is a second term that appears in only one of those passages. The new NIV argues that these two terms should be taken together to refer to active and passive partners in male anal sex; the 1980s NIV translated the word as "male prostitutes"; and other Bibles and scholars have all sorts of different opinions.

All of these passages address sexual behavior, so when I first realized I was gay, none of them seemed relevant to me. I was attracted to the same sex, but I wasn't sexually active and I didn't have any plans to be. My plan was just to find a way to become straight so that I could be attracted to a woman and get married.

Once I discovered that it was unlikely I would ever become attracted to women, I realized with despair that this meant I would have to be celibate and alone for the rest of my life. I was willing to do it if that was God's call for me, but the idea of being alone my whole life was a scary, sobering thought. Some people deal well with that; I'm not one of those people.

It made me wonder: what was God actually condemning in these passages? Was it the relationship itself that aroused God's anger, or was it just the sex? Could God approve of a loving, non-sexual but committed relationship between two people? As I studied these passages, another question arose I was almost afraid to even ask: Was it even possible that these passages were condemning issues of the day like idolatrous orgies and temple prostitution, and not loving, Christ-centered relationships at all?

I wrestled with that question for a very long time. On one hand, it's easy to see how each of those passages actually addresses an issue other than committed relationships. On the other hand, I couldn't deny that all of the passages that explicitly mentioned homosexuality did so in a negative light. Then again, if we say that commandments for women to wear head coverings or be silent in church are culture-bound and don't apply anymore, isn't it possible the same could be true in this case? If so, how do we know? If not, how do we know? Are we all just reading the Bible to confirm what we already believe?

In the end, I decided that I needed to be consistent in my approach to the Bible: whatever standards I used for deciding this needed to be the same standards I would take to other issues. I spent years prayerfully studying how Jesus and the New Testament writers used Scripture, what the Bible has to say about the nature of sin in general, Jesus' teachings about the law and the Sabbath, Paul's teachings on sexual morality and marriage, and how the early church resolved controversial issues of their day. The more I studied, the more convinced I became that we Christians had applied a different standard to the homosexuality texts than we had to other Scriptural texts, and that condemning Christ-centered relationships solely based on gender was actually inconsistent with biblical teaching.

This conclusion shocked me, and I recognize I'm still in the minority, albeit a rapidly growing one. Some of my very close friends have prayerfully come to the opposite conclusion, so I don't pretend this debate is at all settled. I can honestly say, though, that after all this prayer and study, I am fully convinced of my position, and I believe that my approach to Scripture now is far more consistent than it was before.

I suspect that this will point spark hundreds more questions: What about Adam and Eve? What biblical passages support gay relationships? Couldn't this approach be used to justify any sexual sin? There's way more to talk about than I have space for! A few years ago, I wrote some initial thoughts on the subject, and I'll be writing more about this on my blog, so hang onto those questions!

From Karl: Is it possible in your view for someone to disagree with you - to believe that the Bible consistently teaches sexual activity is intended for heterosexual marriage only - and for that person to not be a bigot, homophobe, motivated by ignorance or fear?

Absolutely! Some of my best friends disagree with me on this issue. I recognize that we are all fallible human beings, which means that either (or both) of us could be wrong, but that doesn't mean we aren't sincerely trying to seek the truth.

There are bigots who use religious language to justify their hatred, but that doesn't mean that anyone who has a view I disagree with is a bigot. There are also many compassionate, loving Christians who sincerely want to be able to give their blessing to their gay friends' relationships but are unable to because they believe the Bible forbids those relationships. I absolutely respect that.

The same is true on the other side. There are many people who claim they believe the Bible but haven't really made any attempt to see what it has to say on the subject; they're just content to have any excuse to do what they want. But I'd hope that anyone who knows me can see that I am not one of those people. I am sincerely seeking to do God's will with all my heart. If I am wrong, I am sincerely wrong. I'm not just looking for excuses.

All of us, on both sides, need to be willing to assume good motives for those we disagree with. We don't have to agree with each other to make a genuine attempt to understand each other.

From Laura: As a theology student, I often have real problems with the theology I find in gay-affirming writing, teaching, and churches. Phrases like "I deserve to be happy" and "If God made me this way why should I be ashamed?" really don't jive with my theological convictions. Do you feel any major theological tensions between orthodox faith and the rhetoric of the community of gay Christians? And if so, how do you go about correcting theological error in a community that is already so wounded and vulnerable because they have grown up battered by "biblical" teaching? 

This is a really great question.

I, too, get frustrated with a lot of gay-affirming theology. A lot of it is poorly thought-through and doesn't reflect a Christian outlook.

For example, I hate the argument that "God made me this way [attracted to the same sex] so it can't be a sin [to have a same-sex relationship]."

That's a terrible argument. As Christians, we believe that we have all kinds of inborn temptations and desires that are wrong for us to act on. Just because someone is born with a certain desire doesn't mean it's automatically okay for them to follow through on it.

I actually do believe that there are great Bible-based arguments for the church to support people in committed same-sex relationships. This, however, is not one of them.

(By the way, I should point out that there are many, many gay Christians out there with really strong Christian theology, so the theology you've read doesn't reflect us all.)

The reverse is also true, of course. I hear lots of people on the other side make equally poor arguments, such as, "People can't be born gay, because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin." That's just the same terrible argument in reverse, and it ends up with well-meaning Christians accusing gay people of being liars when we say we didn't choose to be gay. That only pushes people further away from the gospel and makes the church look like it's in denial.

Your second question is where it gets especially tricky. You're absolutely right that a lot of gay people are incredibly wounded, having been theologically "battered" over and over by misguided Christians. I cannot possibly convey how much damage Christians have done to our own cause by approaching the gay community in hurtful ways.

This damage, then, makes it very difficult for churches to offer even appropriate and loving correction—the kind we all need. Have you ever seen a dog that's been abused its whole life? They run and cower in the corner if you even try to approach them to pet them. A lot of us feel like that when dealing with conservative Christians, frankly.

At this point, the best solution is for Christians to err on the side of being loving when dealing with people who have been abused by the church. Often, you'll have to bite your tongue on the theological error and focus on building relationships. That correction may be necessary, but it will have to come from people who have built the necessary trust first.

As a gay Christian leader, I view it as part of my responsibility to talk about those hard things our community doesn't want to face. People can accept those challenges from me in a way that they might not from someone else. But we still have a long way to go, and the only long-term solution is for the church to get its act together and learn to approach this issue far more lovingly than we have.

From Katy: My cousin, whom I love, is a gay Christian…He flaunts his sexuality. His Facebook profile oftentimes has pictures from parties or Halloween where he is in underwear or something else skimpy. If I posted pics of myself dressed that way, it would be considered raunchy and inappropriate, but it's accepted for him to present himself that way. When I have brought this distinction up with people, I have been told it's part of the "gay culture" but  I don't buy that.  So what’s your view, as a Christian gay, of sexuality? Is sex just for "marriage" because you are a Christian?

You didn't say how old your cousin is, but my guess is that this is something he'll grow out of.

I don't believe that the standards for sexual behavior should be any different for gay Christians than they are for straight Christians. I grew up believing that sex is something you save for marriage, so even after I realized I was gay and came to a gay-affirming conclusion from the Bible, I still decided I would wait until I met the right person and got married before having sex. Not all Christians (gay or straight) believe in waiting until marriage, and studies show that even those who do believe in it, usually fail to live up to their own standards. But my point is that the standards ought to be the same.

(By "marriage," by the way, I'm referring to a commitment before God, whether or not the government recognizes it. C.S. Lewis said that there should be a distinction between civil marriage and church marriage, and I agree.)

Of course, I know a lot of gay and straight Christians who behave in ways I wouldn't approve of. I do think this is a bigger issue in the gay world, though, and I believe that just shows how important the church is in our lives.

Let me explain what I mean.

One of the church's functions in society is to offer boundaries. Why don't we just go around having sex with anyone we want to? Partly because of the influence of the church. When it functions as it should, the church offers us reasonable boundaries to help us live holy lives. We say to young men, for instance, "The sex drive you feel is normal, and I know at times it can feel overwhelming, but don't let it control you. It may be tempting to have sex with pretty girls now, but it's far more fulfilling to wait."

Do all the straight young men wait? No. But the church sets the expectation.

Sometimes, though, the church gets it really wrong. When a young man is gay, the message he gets isn't to wait until the right time; it's that there will never be a right time. Not only that; he's told that his sex drive itself—not even lust but just the temptation he feels—is a horrible sin, something that may condemn him to hell even if he never acts on it.

Kids who hear these messages feel trapped. They've been made to feel that they're condemned even if they follow all the rules, and many grow to hate themselves.

What often happens, then, is one of two things. Either they internalize the shame and become depressed and withdrawn, or they rebel against the shame, coming out and in many cases making their sexuality the core of their identity for a while.

You know those gay people who can't stop talking about being gay? The ones who always have to be front and center in the pride parade wearing a hyper-sexualized outfit and shouting loudly about how proud they are of their sexuality? Often, this is their way of rebelling against many years shame. The good Christian boy who comes out and suddenly is on Facebook in his underwear may well be trying to escape from the years of shame you never even knew he felt. That's not always the case, but it often is. Once people have fully reconciled themselves and grown confident with who they are, they rarely post underwear pictures on Facebook.

There is, though, a very sex-obsessed gay culture out there, and it grew largely out of that kind of rebellion in the 60s and 70s. Just like straight Christians need the church to offer moral guidance about sex that is different from what the world offers, gay Christians need that too. If most churches won't welcome them, some gay Christians end up turning to a secular gay culture to see how they should live, and that really needs to be the church's responsibility.

From Ellie: Do you know any homosexual Christians that have chosen to remain single and celibate? How well do they seem to cope with that? What would you advise a person who is gay but believes that homosexual relationships and activity would be wrong?

Yes! I know plenty of them!

The organization I run, The Gay Christian Network, has two theological "sides." We call them "Side A" and "Side B." One side supports gay Christian marriage, while the other side encourages gay Christians to remain celibate.

My friend Wesley Hill has written a wonderful book about being a celibate gay Christian called Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality.

It's an incredibly challenging path. Incredibly, incredibly challenging. But it is, of course, the best option for a gay person who believes the Bible condemns gay relationships, and I know people who are committed to it and thriving.

We at GCN believe it's vital that we welcome those people and offer them support and fellowship so they don't have to endure the journey alone. The broader church, sadly, has all too often failed to offer any kind of support for them. I would like to see that change.

From Dawn: Given all the nasty rhetoric that has been aimed at the LGBT community -- and in that sense, at you personally -- by Christian and Christian political leaders, what is it about Christianity itself that's so compelling that you haven't been turned off completely by so many of its messengers?

One word: Jesus.

The church is human, and we make mistakes. Sometimes we don't represent God very well at all. But Jesus represented God perfectly as the incarnation of God. He loved the people his culture didn't love, he interacted with people he wasn't supposed to interact with, and he refused to distance himself from the people others called "sinners." Jesus' harsh words were aimed at the religious leaders of his day who, in their zeal for correct doctrine, were pushing people away from God. He didn't run for office or yell at sinners through a bullhorn. He loved, healed, and fed people, and then he let them beat him and hang him on a cross.

That's my God.

From Alise: Hi Justin! Been a fan for a while, since my best friend Tina turned me onto your site. Thank you for the safe place that you have for LGBTQ Christians. Your site was part of my journey toward gay affirming and I'm thankful to you for that as well. My question: Can a church that is not affirming still be welcoming to an LGBTQ Christian? What kinds of actions would make you feel more welcome, even if the church still believed/taught that gay relationships are sinful?

Thanks for the kind words, Alise!

I think whether a church feels "welcoming" depends a lot on the person being welcomed. I can say whether I feel welcome in a particular church, but that doesn't mean someone else will.

Personally, I would not feel welcome in a church that teaches that I chose to be gay (I didn't!) or that condemns me simply for admitting I'm attracted to guys. However, I have felt welcomed in so-called "Side B" churches that condemn gay relationships but still welcome gay people and encourage them to remain celibate. Many gay people would not feel welcome there.

I disagree with the "Side B" viewpoint, but I used to agree with it, so I totally understand where it's coming from. Since I'm single at the moment, it doesn't really affect me whether or not a church I'm attending condemns gay relationships. What I care about the most is whether I agree with the church's theology on major issues and whether the church understands that I didn't choose to be gay and is ready to fully welcome me as a gay Christian.

However, suppose I meet an amazing guy, fall in love, and want to commit my life to him? Then it would be a lot trickier. Would I continue attending a church that teaches that the most important relationship in my life is an abomination to God? Would they even want me there? I know many gay couples in that situation, and many others who wouldn't even consider a church like that out of respect for their own relationship.

Even the church I've described, though, is rarer than I'd like. Many, many churches still teach or imply that gay people choose to be gay or that we could become straight if we just prayed enough or had the right therapy. That's the quickest way to make me feel unwelcome.

The quickest way to make me feel welcome? Listen to my story and be my friend.

Terry asks: As the parent of gay son who has left the church, what advice can you offer me as to how I can encourage him to relook at his beliefs in Jesus and the church? 

Tami has a son in a similar situation, adding: At this point, he has returned to a faith of sorts, but has no use for "the church."  We are at a loss for how to encourage him in this area because "the church" varies from un-accepting to just plain mean. Would you have advice for how we can better love and support our son in the area of growing in his faith?

This is a really tough one because of the battering problem I mentioned earlier. I find that most Christians are totally unaware of how mean the church can be to gay people, and so they don't know that they need to do anything to fix it. As long as it's not fixed, it's going to be hard to give gay people a reason to come back to the church.

(Incidentally, if you would like to know more about why I say the church is so mean to gay people, check out this documentary. I promise you won't look at the issue the same way again.)

One possibility is to consider getting involved with a group of gay Christians. My organization has aconference each January that brings a number of gay Christians along with their parents and/or friends together in a nonthreatening atmosphere of worship and fellowship. People tell us every year that it helps re-energize their faith, and there are lots of 20- and 30-somethings, so Tami, your son should feel right at home. (You didn't say how old your son is, Terry, but I'm sure he'd feel right at home too!)

There may also be groups of gay and affirming Christians in your area. GCN has local groups you can connect with through our message board, but there may be other groups and/or affirming churches in your area where he might feel welcome. Feel free to call our office and someone on our staff can help you find something in your area if you can't find it online.

If your son is resistant to any kind of Christian fellowship right now, my advice is not to push it. Give him time, and keep him in prayer. He may need time to process his frustration with the church, and God doesn't stop pursuing us just because we're not in a church on Sunday morning. As a parent, you might even decide to get connected with an online or offline fellowship of gay Christians yourself, just to better understand the community; this would surely get your son's attention! In the end, of course, he'll have to make his own decisions, but we can do our best to make the church a more welcoming place for when he's ready.

From Adam: Will you accept our sincere apology?

You mean for asking so many tough questions? Only if you'll accept mine for writing such long answers!

Seriously, I appreciate the question, though I'd be hypocritical to say "yes" and not acknowledge that I, too, said the very same things in the past. I hurt people with my words when I thought I was being loving, so now that I have a new perspective on it all, I completely understand when others say the things to me that I used to say to the gay people I met. (I guess I deserved it!)

I owe an apology to all the people I've hurt, and I of course offer my unconditional forgiveness to anyone who may have hurt me. We all make mistakes, and we're all trying to stand for what's right. It's just that sometimes we don't have all the facts even when we think we do.

So let's stay in conversation even though we don't all agree. There are many more things I could say, and I know there are many more questions out there. I'll do my best to answer them here and on my blog over the coming days and weeks.

Thanks, everyone, for your fantastic questions! And please, keep in touch! In addition to the blog, you can find me on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. I get to do this kind of stuff for a living, so I'm happy to help any way that I can.

The entire link and subsequent conversation can be found at Rachel Held Evans

--Nick