Dr. Witherington, New Testament professor at Asbury Seminary, says in a critique of Rob Bell's position,
. . . Rob then makes an argument from silence which is in fact misleading.
The argument is this--- "Jesus never said anything about
homosexuality". This is not quite true. Jesus took all sorts of 
sexual
sin very seriously, even adultery of the heart, as Rob admits, and so
it is no surprise then
that we find Jesus telling his disciples in Mt.
19 that they have only two legitimate options: 1) marital fidelity
(with marriage being defined as a relationship between one man and one
woman joined together by God which leads to a one flesh union), or 2)
being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom.
The term 'eunuch' here whether taken literally (as in a castrated person who is incapable of normal sexual intercourse), or simply morally (as in a person who never engages in sexual intercourse, remaining celibate in singleness, though he or she is capable of such an act), makes very evident that for single persons, any single persons, celibacy in singleness is the standard Jesus holds up for the unmarried.
Nor, in view of the way Jesus talks about marriage in the context with the discussion of the original Genesis story about the creation order-- the creation of woman for man (and their interdependency), could one ever imagine Jesus redefining marriage to include same-sex sexual
The term 'eunuch' here whether taken literally (as in a castrated person who is incapable of normal sexual intercourse), or simply morally (as in a person who never engages in sexual intercourse, remaining celibate in singleness, though he or she is capable of such an act), makes very evident that for single persons, any single persons, celibacy in singleness is the standard Jesus holds up for the unmarried.
Nor, in view of the way Jesus talks about marriage in the context with the discussion of the original Genesis story about the creation order-- the creation of woman for man (and their interdependency), could one ever imagine Jesus redefining marriage to include same-sex sexual
partners. Jesus is not
silent on such matters at all-- fidelity in marriage and celibacy in
singleness are his standards, and indeed they are standards by which
Jesus himself lived when we are thinking about the celibacy in
singleness issue. He is likely talking about himself when he speaks of
persons who have chosen to be eunuchs for the Kingdom. Chastity was
considered a great virtue in that honor and shame culture.
Rob then raises the issue of hypocrisy. Of course he is right that all sexual sin should be taken equally seriously, and in view of the abysmal record of heterosexual Evangelical Christians when it comes to issues of marital faithfulness he is right that one should not single out homosexual sin for special attention and ignore the seriousness of heterosexual sin. True enough-- but the proper response to such a situation is be an equal opportunity critiquer of all such sexual sin, while honestly admitting one's own failures and shortcomings.
Rob then raises the point that the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation. This is true, but
Of course it is true that we all are sinners who fall short of the glory of God, so there is no basis for finger pointing on such issues, and everyone must in all humility deal with their own sins rather than focusing on other people's sins. A Christian approach must be that everyone is welcome to come to Christ and come into the church as they are without pre-conditions. But no one is welcome to stay as they are--- no one. They all must change, repent of their sins as needed, and strive to live in newness of life whether gay or straight. . .
Paul reminds us in 1 Cor. 7 that at the end of the day remaining celibate and single or faithful in marriage is a matter of God's gracious gift-- called a 'charisma'. Its not just about nature, or what feels natural. It requires a grace gift from God to remain true in either condition. And frankly grace restrains and transforms nature. Nature, in the Christian lexicon, does not have the last word, especially fallen human nature. Grace does.
Dr. Witherington comments on a comment (related to whether the Bible is clearly against homosexual practice or not), saying:
I have had this dialogue-debate with a real expert in this matter-- Dr.
A.J. Levine who is not only a professor of NT at Vandy, she is also the
head of the Center for Sexuality Studies at that institution.
As
Prof. Levine says, it is not really an issue of Biblical
interpretation, its an issue of Biblical application. By this she means
the Bible certainly does ban same sex sexual activity. She thinks this
ban is no longer relevant for the synagogue or church, in part because
she does not see the Bible as a divine revelation from God in the same
way I would.
I disagree. Rob Gagnon's book lays out all the evidence, and indeed his website answer almost all possible exegetical questions on the issue.
This is where I say that if as diverse a set of scholars as myself and Dr. Levine can agree that this is what the Bible says on the matter, and someone like Robin Scroggs can admit he was wrong in the way he viewed the data-- trying to make it more same sex friendly. And Marcus Borg can admit the Bible says what it says, but simply concludes "we know better now what is the truth about this matter than did the Biblical writers", then I think it is time to give up the canard that this is just a matter of much debated interpretation and that the texts are obscure.
Actually they aren't obscure on this particular matter, they just make many of us uncomfortable. In my view it is dangerous to whittle off the hard edges of the text of the Bible where it rubs us the wrong way.
What we should ask when we feel this way is-- What is it about me that makes me uncomfortable with this stuff, and is the problem with me rather than the text?
I disagree. Rob Gagnon's book lays out all the evidence, and indeed his website answer almost all possible exegetical questions on the issue.
This is where I say that if as diverse a set of scholars as myself and Dr. Levine can agree that this is what the Bible says on the matter, and someone like Robin Scroggs can admit he was wrong in the way he viewed the data-- trying to make it more same sex friendly. And Marcus Borg can admit the Bible says what it says, but simply concludes "we know better now what is the truth about this matter than did the Biblical writers", then I think it is time to give up the canard that this is just a matter of much debated interpretation and that the texts are obscure.
Actually they aren't obscure on this particular matter, they just make many of us uncomfortable. In my view it is dangerous to whittle off the hard edges of the text of the Bible where it rubs us the wrong way.
What we should ask when we feel this way is-- What is it about me that makes me uncomfortable with this stuff, and is the problem with me rather than the text?
Witherington, again in the comment section, answers the question why homosexuality is sinful:
I do not think homosexual sin is more sinful than heterosexual
sin, and actually there isn't 'more research going on' that might
change the meaning of words, written 2,000 years whose meaning we have
known for that long.
What is changing is of course our culture, and its desire for different answers than the one's the Bible gives. Western culture is becoming increasingly less Judeao-Christian in character.
To answer your question more directly there are four points to make: 1) God made us male and female. Not male and male, and not female and female. And it is this sexual duality that was said to be very good, and this duality is what is called the image of God in us;
2) God not only made us this way, he made us for each other as gendered pairs. So we have the tender story in Gen. 1-2 of God making a mate for Adam and bringing them together--- God as matchmaker.
3) The creation order mandate is for male and female to be fruitful and multiply. Now even today with all our advanced science, two males cannot multiply any more than two females can. In other words, the creation order mandate can't be fulfilled in any 'normal' God-given way by same sex couples. They require adoption, or in the case lesbians outside help to bear a child. There is a reason for this--- God made us that way; Homosexuality then is a sin, not merely because there are specific prohibitions of same sex sexual sharing in the Bible, which there are. It is a sin because it amounts to a denial or even rejection of both the creation order and the creation order mandate.
4) Then there is the matter of human fallenness. All of us are today, and indeed since Eden born fallen creatures with fallen inclinations and desires. Even if it is the case that some persons are born with same sex attractions, this would not necessarily be any validation of that orientation at all. It could be just an effect of our fallenness.
What is changing is of course our culture, and its desire for different answers than the one's the Bible gives. Western culture is becoming increasingly less Judeao-Christian in character.
To answer your question more directly there are four points to make: 1) God made us male and female. Not male and male, and not female and female. And it is this sexual duality that was said to be very good, and this duality is what is called the image of God in us;
2) God not only made us this way, he made us for each other as gendered pairs. So we have the tender story in Gen. 1-2 of God making a mate for Adam and bringing them together--- God as matchmaker.
3) The creation order mandate is for male and female to be fruitful and multiply. Now even today with all our advanced science, two males cannot multiply any more than two females can. In other words, the creation order mandate can't be fulfilled in any 'normal' God-given way by same sex couples. They require adoption, or in the case lesbians outside help to bear a child. There is a reason for this--- God made us that way; Homosexuality then is a sin, not merely because there are specific prohibitions of same sex sexual sharing in the Bible, which there are. It is a sin because it amounts to a denial or even rejection of both the creation order and the creation order mandate.
4) Then there is the matter of human fallenness. All of us are today, and indeed since Eden born fallen creatures with fallen inclinations and desires. Even if it is the case that some persons are born with same sex attractions, this would not necessarily be any validation of that orientation at all. It could be just an effect of our fallenness.
A person responded, "denying healthy, loving relationships to persons oriented to their same
gender is ... well, unhealthy and unloving. And "but it's sin" just
doesn't cut it in light of all info out there and the actual human
issues at stake." To which Witherington replied:
As for the Methodist tradition in general-- guess what? It has been
almost unanimously opposed to these sorts of relationships, until about
the last three decades. It remains a distinctly minority opinion. And
this word just in--- Christianity is growing far faster in the southern
hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere. In the 21rst century that
will be the dominant part of the church. And those folks are
overwhelmingly convinced that same sex sexual sharing is a sin against
God and one's neighbor.
And what about the huge amount of medical evidence that same sex sexual relationships, particularly in the case of men is inherently unhealthy-- inherently so. Do you really need a demonstration that anal sex is inherently unclean, and disease producing even if you use condoms? The human anus was never meant for such behavior. Indeed such behavior ruins that part of the anatomy. The AMA reports on this are very clear about this. So I am sorry-- even experience doesn't make your point very well.
Here's one of the reasons these discussions are so confusing. Friendships should be friendships. All of the good dimensions of a man to man or woman to woman friendship can happen, and do often happen in numerous gay and lesbian relationships. I don't deny this. There is such a thing as brotherly or sisterly love in or outside of Christ that is and can be appropriate.
Unfortunately, gay persons think it is appropriate to cross this line and turn philia love into eros. Brotherly love is confused with lust. Then a line is crossed into sin when such relationships become inappropriately physical with some one who cannot be their mate. For two persons to be a couple, they have to be able to actually have the potential to couple in the way God designed the deal.
And furthermore, there is no logic to your argument that we are depriving people of love if they are not free to sexually express themselves with another consenting adult.
Love is a far bigger category than 'eros' and it need not include 'eros' at all to be fulfilling. Many single and celibate persons know perfectly well they are loved through their families and friends and churches, and they don't need intercourse to either prove it or validate it.
I am sorry my friend but your arguments simply don't hold any water on any of the points of the quadrlateral-- 1) they do not meet the criteria to be called reasonable or self-evident; 2) they are not validated by the overwhelming testimony of human experience in regard to disease free sexual sharing (a problem of course that heterosexual misconduct has to deal with as well); 3) Methodist tradition overwhelmingly denies your point (Read John Wesley's "Thoughts upon Marriage and Celibacy"); and the Bible does not support your case either.
With all due respect Jeff, you do not have a strong case by any criteria.
And what about the huge amount of medical evidence that same sex sexual relationships, particularly in the case of men is inherently unhealthy-- inherently so. Do you really need a demonstration that anal sex is inherently unclean, and disease producing even if you use condoms? The human anus was never meant for such behavior. Indeed such behavior ruins that part of the anatomy. The AMA reports on this are very clear about this. So I am sorry-- even experience doesn't make your point very well.
Here's one of the reasons these discussions are so confusing. Friendships should be friendships. All of the good dimensions of a man to man or woman to woman friendship can happen, and do often happen in numerous gay and lesbian relationships. I don't deny this. There is such a thing as brotherly or sisterly love in or outside of Christ that is and can be appropriate.
Unfortunately, gay persons think it is appropriate to cross this line and turn philia love into eros. Brotherly love is confused with lust. Then a line is crossed into sin when such relationships become inappropriately physical with some one who cannot be their mate. For two persons to be a couple, they have to be able to actually have the potential to couple in the way God designed the deal.
And furthermore, there is no logic to your argument that we are depriving people of love if they are not free to sexually express themselves with another consenting adult.
Love is a far bigger category than 'eros' and it need not include 'eros' at all to be fulfilling. Many single and celibate persons know perfectly well they are loved through their families and friends and churches, and they don't need intercourse to either prove it or validate it.
I am sorry my friend but your arguments simply don't hold any water on any of the points of the quadrlateral-- 1) they do not meet the criteria to be called reasonable or self-evident; 2) they are not validated by the overwhelming testimony of human experience in regard to disease free sexual sharing (a problem of course that heterosexual misconduct has to deal with as well); 3) Methodist tradition overwhelmingly denies your point (Read John Wesley's "Thoughts upon Marriage and Celibacy"); and the Bible does not support your case either.
With all due respect Jeff, you do not have a strong case by any criteria.