I want to be upfront...I'm a total NT Wright fan. I like the way he is thoughtful and meticulous, but most of all he gives me a lot to think about.

So, that being said, and with all love....

Dude, seriously...if you're going to take the plunge into a subject, by all means, dive right in, but if you're going to waffle as to why you're not going to dive into the subject...just say so; and leave it at that.

Don't dance around up on the rock making it look you're about to dive, take a false dip at the waist, and then back off from the edge...it's annoyingly disappointing and makes me feel like I just wasted my five minutes.

Perhaps you missed the part at 5:30 where he said to do this issue justice, it would easily take a long time and a very large book.

Let us allow each other to think--for as long as we need--before we demand conclusions.

That said, Wright refutes, or at least questions, two common arguments for homosexuality as God-ordained behavior:
-the notion that having a deeply felt desire is justification, for a Christian, for its morality
-the notion that the biblical writers did not have any experience or knowledge of the kind of homosexual relationships we see today.

That certainly puts him in a corner--it's hard to see how he could, from there, come to the conclusion that homosexual behavior is not proscribed for the faithful Christian. But until Wright pens his tome on the subject, I'll let him continue to ponder and muddle around in these ideas at his own pace and in his own manner.

"Perhaps you missed the part at 5:30 where he said to do this issue justice, it would easily take a long time and a very large book"

Yes, I caught that, but I felt that he was already stirring the pot with the aforementioned subject that he used as part of his refutation, which is what prompted my "OH COME ON!"

But, I will agree with you that yes, he should ponder it more before he pens his thoughts if he isn't clear as to how he should frame the subject.

Why do Christians continue to do this delicate dance around the subject of homosexuality as though the Bible isn't clear on the sin of it all? We don't do that with prostitution; adultery; kiddie porn (a subject not even addressed in the Bible) and various other sexual sins. What's our problem?

Let's make this easy -
Homosexual temptation is not sin; homosexual behavior is sin.
Temptation to have an extramarital affair is not sin; engaging in an extramarital affair is sin.

I didn't watch the video, but the intro says "Wright discusses the need for meaningful debate on the issue..."

Really? I'm pretty sure I've heard both sides' points more times than I care to mention. What's left to debate?

Elegance, Matthew 5:28 seems to me fairly explicit. Temptation to sin is in its way a kind of sin. There is no line between outward action and inner desire.

I'm glad to see N.T. Wright speak on it as he did. We are all sinful. Being able to name a person's specific sin does not mean it is somehow more offensive, or that ours is somehow less so. I believe God's design for humanity is heterosexuality, but we are a long way from God's design. Better to draw a sinful person to God's sanctifying embrace than insist they fix their behavior. Cleansing sin is the work of the Spirit, and often takes time. Who are we to rush God's work?

Organized Christianity has chosen to die on the hill of gay marriage. How sad that God has taken a back seat to a book.

If I had a book that said your sister or brother or aunt or uncle was an abomination, what would you think of my book? Would you see it as the word of God, or would you reject that book?

Our children will throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater Bible, to the detriment of the world. When we chose to adopt first-century Jewish morality and science as messages from God, we really did not think through what the effect would be on belief in God.

"When we chose to adopt first-century Jewish morality and science as messages from God, we really did not think through what the effect would be on belief in God."

So, why trouble yourself with all this?

Go, follow your heart, trouble yourself no more with this faith that you consider old and irrelevant, and leave us fools to our prattle.

Well, Jag, not that I want you to leave, but what I hear Wright exploring here is that question: what is the baby and what is the bathwater? Certainly not the whole bible, or else you don't have a baby Jesus either. So if you're tossing out the bible, then you really are leaving the conversation.

The valid critique that is implied in your post is that Christians have forsaken love of others for legalism. That is something that Jesus himself criticized. Certainly, we have to be careful about how we apply Jesus' teaching to our own culture, since Jesus was a rabbi among religious Jews, and we are citizens of a liberal democracy in a post-Christian culture.

But I'm inclined to think that being "right" about homosexuality has to first start with knowing how to love homosexuals. And the Church really doesn't know how to do that; all protests aside, it's hard to argue that what the recipients receive as "hate" can be called love in any way. All the questions about orientation and behavior, about morality in the public square, about the enforcement of a just society vs. respecting individual liberty--these are secondary for Christians to loving neighbor, loving enemy, loving the world.

JH: Jesus was tempted, but was without sin. So maybe you want to rethink that position.

"...how to love homosexuals."

Nate,
I commend you on this effort, and moreover, I'm in agreement with you, however, one correction of which I think you should be aware of...they are not homosexuals...they are people, men and women who are engaged in the act of homosexuality.

The reason I'm being particular about this is because there is this push by people involved in the homosexual life style to redefine themselves as a racial subset which they are clearly not...so by addressing them as "homosexuals" you are inadvertently supporting the mentality of racial distinction.

I know I am jumping in on the conversation on one particular aspect but here goes. Every sinner is welcome in any church if they are willing to conform to the kingdom culture. Our job as disciples is to go and make followers of Christ and teach them the culture of the King. Who cares what the American culture has become etc. If you are not willing to repent of your behavior and ask for His help to deliver you from your sin (whatever it may be) you are wasting your time talking and debating. It's like talking or reasoning to a person under the influence of drugs/alcohol. You are not so smart if you think you are actually going to change and impact the person while under that influence. Homosexuals(and others) have been given over to a debased mind, they now are under the influence of the devil and until they become sick and tired of being sick and tired and give in to the drawing of the Holy Spirit it is a waste of time. Our job is to preach the word and pray for and love the people until they yield to the conviction and come to the fountain for a drink of living water. It is like a Hoover salesman coming to the door of a Kirby salesman trying to sell him a hoover. He is not buying but selling. They are trying to sell homosexuality to us in order to be accepted and we are inviting them to sit down and debate. We love you but if you do not submit to the King and His kingdom you will die and go to hell but it will be your choice not His. There is no debate because ALL sinners go to hell without Christ and you cannot get Christ on your terms and conditions, it is His way or the highway but PLEASE choose His way - He loves you and He will change you just submit to His leadership.

JH,

I will try to make my point again; The Bible makes it perfectly clear that homosexual activity is sin. It also makes it perfectly clear that many other activities are sin. The church is being challenged to a debate on ONE and ONLY ONE sin - homosexuality. Why is that? (And I might add that the church is not the one who brought the subject up; the subject was brought up by homosexual activists who are determined to control the church - Presbyterians and Episcopals anyone?)

I am always fascinated by this conversation. I like N.T. Wrights respectful approach to the matter. I am confused by many of the comments, which are the same things Christians have been saying for decades. What I'm about to do is reduce some of the comments down to their lowest denominator. I'm not doing this to parody or create straw men, but rather to reach the heart of or kernel of the main points. 1) "The church, unlike Jesus, is unloving, so throw the Bible out, and love like Jesus." (Granted no on has used exactly these words, in this thread, but remember it is the gist I'm reaching for here)

Yet Jesus condemns sexual immorality, and holds those hearing him to a very strict standard for marriage. Love or hate the Bible for what it says, but the Bible, including the teachings of Christ, clearly uphold a very strict standard for sexual behavior. Throw the Bible out and Jesus must go with it. Jesus deals with the sexually immoral whose behavior have left them rejected, marginalized, hated and oppressed. The Samaritan woman at the well; the woman caught in adultery about to be stoned; The immoral woman who washes Jesus feet with her tears. In all of these stories we find Jesus giving life giving love, release from sin, acceptance and understanding. What Jesus showed to the most abused and misused of people: women used and discarded, he extends to any sexually/relationally broken human, and that certainly includes LGBT persons.

2) "The Bible is clear: Homosexuality is sin, and that is all that needs to be said on the matter..."

This seems like a very straightforward and honest answer. It is the answer the more conservative church has been giving for decades. But it isn't an answer at all. Jesus gave us the answer "“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33). And if that weren't enough we are also told in the Bible that not only does Jesus overcome the world, but "believers" "Christians", "Christ followers" overcome the world too!! "In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world." (1 John 5:3-4). So Christians, Christ followers, whatever, how does Jesus overcome homosexuality. It isn't enough to agree on what the Bible says about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality. Jesus clearly reaches out to the sexually broken he finds where he is. And if that isn't enough incentive for you it's laid out clearly in 2 Corinthians 6: "...and such were some of you..." How Bible believing Christian, if you truly believe the Bible, do you get to what God makes clear? How do you bring people to that place where they can say, "Such was I, BUT CHRIST!!" How does Jesus overcome homosexuality? When you learn to answer that then a great many people will be a great deal more willing to hear what you have to say. Jesus wasn't short on showing how it was done, but are you truly Christ's disciple if you cannot do the works Jesus said those who believed in him would do?

And yes, just in case you were wondering, I left homosexuality 23 years ago. Jesus Christ really does know how to bring people to "...and such were some of you..."

Steve--

That's not how I read Matthew 5:28. Jesus isn't saying that temptation is akin to sin. If you look at a woman lustfully, that's not temptation--you've already yielded to temptation at that point. As I heard one person put it--it's not the first glance that's sin, it's the second, and third...

In an earlier comment, someone wrote:

*Let's make this easy -
Homosexual temptation is not sin; homosexual behavior is sin.
Temptation to have an extramarital affair is not sin; engaging in an extramarital affair is sin.*

Thanks. That clears everything up. Not. I find it remarkable that so many can still act as if a "the Bible clearly says" approach is sufficient. The question, after all, is precisely, what the Bible actually says. How can anyone maintain that this issue, of all issues, is "easy?" The fact that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality makes the issue of the sinfulness of homosexuality not only not "easy" but downright suspect and problematic.

Finally, it is a completely valid question, even if there were no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible means when it refers to homosexuality, whether it even matters. The Bible all but commands slavery, after all, and there is little argument today that the Bible is simply wrong about that. Obviously this doesn't mean that we don't look seriously at scripture on this, but it does mean that first we must stop simply insisting that it's simple and there is no issue.