A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
|
Consider two people, Jack and Fred. Jack is in a committed monogamous homosexual relationship of 10 years while Fred owns 10 slaves. As is the custom at the time, Fred works his slaves in chain gangs and houses them in workhouses which are so low the slaves cannot stand up. Any children of the slaves became Fred’s property (these details are taken from The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters) According to St Paul in Romans 1, Jack incurs the anger of God and is depraved; but about Fred, St Paul has nothing to say. In the situation described, does it not seem morally more opprobrious to own slaves than to live in a homosexual relationship? Was Paul wrong about both? |
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Paul and social justice
It is sometimes disturbing to me how quiet Paul was concerning social injustices. I believe that Paul spoke out against homosexuality because he had cultural support for his stance, and did not speak out against slavery for the same reason. I think he found both to be wrong, but he was definitely not a “liberation theologian.” He did not want to mix the core message of the gospel with political agendas.
That being said, wherever Christianity has spread, freedom has spread (eventually).
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Paul spoke from his matrix
And so do we. Our world-view is quintessentially & inevitably different from Paul’s, coming as it does with Galileo, Copenicus, Darwin, Hawking et al in train. We cannot look at things as Paul did and, indeed, we should not. God gives us minds to work things out, hearts to listen to other folk made in God’s image & likeness and the ability to see that compassion is much more important to God than doctrine.
Kiwimac
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
The problem of 'versus'
Paul
Just some thoughts:
The apostle Paul writes letters to churches and answers specific questions and give general (apostolic) advice to the churches in mind. What he does and does not speak speak about says something about the culture the Jesus Movement developed in and also about the Jesus Movement the culture was challanged by.
So why did he chose to bring up the questions of homosexuality and fornication and slavery and children and all those othe issues? Because they were important to deal with in the addressed church.
All this I guess was imortant and in many cases are important to us, since our culures emerge in the same fallen creation and share most of the issues.
Still I can wish he would have said more about social injustice and explicitly cendemned cruisades beforehand and so on.
But hey, is’nt that our task?
To be in slavery is undoubtly a condition no human beeing is worthy of. I guess that is wh its strictly regaulated in the Mosaic Law. And Paul never defends the Roman societys system of slavery. Still it was at the apostles time not the same thing as what we sometimes refer to: milions of black people in chains, treated like dogs.
Thats an interesting question:
“Is Paul wrong about both?”
My humble answer would be that the ‘versus’ is the problem. The fact that Paul never deals with the systematic problem (sin) of having people working in your home and in your company for a low sallary on a long term contract under your athority is one thing. You just cant ‘own’ people. (I say as 21th cenury western).
Men sleaping with men is another thing. One just cant compare. Pears an apples. Paul did not make that list of more or less sinfull things.
So if I still would want to answer your question I would say: neither.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Paul, homosexuality and slavery
I commend to anyone interested the website of ‘Evangelicals Concerned’ www.ecwr.org (under the ‘reources’ menu: ‘homosexuality and the bible’) for a biblical review sympathetic to Christian acceptance of the gay orientation. It is an area where so-called ‘creation ordninances’ need to be balanced with careful historical and cultural investigation. The whole website is worth exploring. Evangelicals Concerned was founded by Dr Ralph Blair.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Second Temple Homosexuality?
Hi, Peter. Good to be reading you again. I have a couple of days off from writing, so I am back. Anyway. I checked out the site you indicated. The basis of its ‘biblical review’ seems to be founded heavily on the assumption that Paul et al. were not aware of the kind of monogamous homosexuality we sometimes observe in our culture. I think we have it pretty clear from Plato that this certainly is NOT the case. If that assumption is pulled, where then can we put Paul’s statements on homosexual behaviour as one indicator that creation, led by humanity, has majorly gone off track of its intended function/status/being?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Where "from Plato" do we see
Where “from Plato” do we see this? I guess you’ll have to forgive me on my relative lack of knowledge of Plato.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Plato's Symposium
Forgive my short and incomplete comments. The reference is to the Symposium. Without time to give context, the important part is as follows (however, context is actually not too important—the point is that monogamous committed homosexual relationships did exist, are not just a construction of our time).
But the offspring of the heavenly Aphrodite is derived from a mother in whose birth the female has no part,-she is from the male only; this is that love which is of youths, and the goddess being older, there is nothing of wantonness in her. Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male, and delight in him who is the more valiant and intelligent nature; any one may recognise the pure enthusiasts in the very character of their attachments. For they love not boys, but intelligent, beings whose reason is beginning to be developed, much about the time at which their beards begin to grow. And in choosing young men to be their companions, they mean to be faithful to them, and pass their whole life in company with them, not to take them in their inexperience, and deceive them, and play the fool with them, or run away from one to another of them. But the love of young boys should be forbidden by law, because their future is uncertain; they may turn out good or bad, either in body or soul, and much noble enthusiasm may be thrown away upon them; in this matter the good are a law to themselves, and the coarser sort of lovers ought to be restrained by force; as we restrain or attempt to restrain them from fixing their affections on women of free birth. These are the persons who bring a reproach on love; and some have been led to deny the lawfulness of such attachments because they see the impropriety and evil of them; for surely nothing that is decorously and lawfully done can justly be censured.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Now, in order to conclude tha
Now, in order to conclude that Paul doesn’t like gay people, we must establish that Paul is in fact talking about the same people Plato is talking about here. Has anyone done that? I haven’t seen it. What I have seen is a possible demonstration that in at least one instance, Paul was talking about a specific political figure (Claudius) whose strange sexual practices included incest, rape, etc. I am no New Testament scholar, so I can’t pretend to have done the research into this, but the author of the article (the chaplain at my church) did.
So, until someone establishes that Paul is talking about ALL gay people in general, and not just making a political point, I don’t know if we can conclude that he’s talking about the same people Plato is here.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Homosexuality vs. Gay People
sbryan said:
in order to conclude that Paul doesn’t like gay people
(2) Actually, I think the first step would be for you to justify not distinguishing between homosexual practice and gay people. Paul, as far as I can tell, doesn’t say anything about the relevance of one’s sexual orientation as a defining characteristic of who that person IS. He seems more inclined to discuss generalized homosexual behavior as one-among-many evidences that the image-bearing purpose of humanity is marred and that creation has been flawed/damaged and in need of serious remedy. I don’t think anyone on this forum is seriously proposing that either God or Paul has anything but the deepest love and hope for new creation in all of humanity, whether practicing homosexual or not.
(1) The quote from the symposium was specifically in reference to the argument that is often heard that people in Paul’s world were simply unaware of the possibility of the kind of committed monogamous homosexual relationship that we now see in our cultural situation, so therefore Paul can’t be presumed to have said anything about it. Well, Plato shows that this is simply not the case. Such relationships were known to exist. It was not intended to prove a position on the issue, just meant to demonstrate that the data for one defense is in fact inaccurate.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Contrary to the Symposium Quote
Homosexual relations between peers were condemned in Greece and were punishable by death. The dialogues between the players in the Symposium were debates, not law, not the exposition of the norms of the time, just casual discussion interrupted by hiccupping and discussions about how much they had to eat.
Observe that Pausanias says “And in choosing young men to be their companions, they mean to be faithful to them, and pass their whole life in company with them.” this does not mean pass their whole life in a sexual relationship. The sex would end when the teen started growing a beard. The older men would find another sexual partner in a youth, while not abandoning the older one as a friend. The sexual attraction was to their youth. To say that lifelong monogamous homosexual relationships between peers were accepted in Paul’s time (400 some years AFTER Symposium was written) and defend it with this quote is ridiculous. It would be like describing our currently accepted values and norms by quoting Hobbes or Locke.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Plato?
It’s true that homosexuality is treated at length and very sympathetically by Plato in the Symposium, as well as in many other dialogues. However, there’s no reason to think that Paul had read the Symposium. After all, Plato wrote in the 4th century BC, and even though we consider his works representative of “classical Greece,” they certainly weren’t as popular as we imagine them to be. It wasn’t as if every Tom, Dick, and Harry was sitting around reading Plato and Aristotle in the first century AD. To think so would be like thinking everyone in 16th and 17th century England was sitting around reading Shakespeare, even though we educated folks of the 21st century tend to think of Shakespeare as “representative” of the Elizabethan period. The prejudices and preconceptions of too much schooling!
More than that, it’s also unlikely that Paul had much experience with whatever kind of homosexual activity may have been going on in the places in which he lived. Growing up as a pharisaical Jew and then ministering to synogogues around the Empire, he probably had as much exposure to stable homosexual relationships as a contemporary cradle Baptist does in small-town Texas.
My point — just because somebody in “ancient Greece” wrote sympathetically about homosexuality doesn’t mean Paul had any knowledge of it. Paul surely didn’t grow up reading Platonic dialogues.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Gays in the congregation
Thanks for this website, Peter. I’ve been thinking about this issue for some time. Here’s where I am at the moment.
I’m not sure if the articles on this site convince me that the gay lifestyle is acceptable or not. They sure do cast a doubt on the traditional stance of the church. But I’m not even sure that’s the real issue.
The real issue is, there are gays (and straights) who interpret the Bible differently than I do. There are many homosexuals that dismiss the Bible’s teachings as irrelevant, or outdated, or outright evil. Those people have no place in any church. But there are others who, as honestly as they can, are searching the scriptures for truth on this issue and have concluded differently than I have. How do I treat such people?
Well, I know lots of people that fall into this category. I believe that sprinkling is a valid form of baptism, yet I attend a church that believes that immersion is the only way. A difference in interpretation. I will argue with those who want to argue, but I will also worship with them and sit next to them at the Lord’s Table. I know people who prove through Scripture that the gift of tongues was only for the first generation church. I know others that have and practice the gift, and defend their practice from the scriptures. I would welcome them both into my community of faith — it’s a matter of interpretation.
At some point we do have to draw the line. Some could use the scriptures to “prove” all kinds of heresies that have been condemned by the church over the ages. And it has been used to commit all kinds of cruelties to blacks, “witches,” etc. The only question is, where is that line? Is the homosexuality issue one of the fundamentals of the faith that we cannot compromise? Is it an act of violence and oppression that we must not stand for?
Some may answer yes to these questions; for me, I cannot. If a brother or sister claims that scripture, as best as he/she can tell, does not condemn monogamous homosexual relationships, I might disagree but I will not break fellowship with that person.
I am not an infallible interpreter, nor is any of us, and we need to allow for differences of interpretation within our communities of faith. Thus I would be in favor of allowing homosexuals (who affirm the authority of scripture and have a reasonable scriptural defense of their lifestyle) to be a part of my church’s membership.
Of course, I’m no longer a pastor so my opinion isn’t likely to get implemented at my church. In fact, I doubt that they’d smile on my stance. But someday, and it’s likely to be soon, this issue will have to be revisited and this is where I’ll stand.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Slavery and Self Control.
“In the situation described, does it not seem morally more opprobrious to own slaves than to live in a homosexual relationship? Was Paul wrong about both?”
To answer simply and in order-no and no.
It is not accurate to say St. Paul had nothing to say respecting the master/slave relationship. I refer us to Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1 and the apostle’s letter to Philemon. It is accurate to say the apostle said nothing about slaveholders incurring the wrath of God specifically, but one could make a fair case that, at least, the Christian slaveholder operated under a different set of rules as far as treatment of his/her slaves was concerned. One could infer that treatment of a slave outside those boundries would incur God’s displeasure, if not his wrath.
Consider a more instructive comparison between Jack and Fred’s slave Bill. Bill’s master is Fred and Jack’s master is Sin. Bill’s chains are imposed from without, restrain only his physical liberty and have no eternal consequences for him. Jack, on the other hand, according to the apostle, is enslaved by his own actions or choices is bound in spirit, soul and body and is in danger of eternal separation from God.
It is always interesting to see the “monogamous homosexual relationship” used as the baseline for discussion. In the abortion discussion arena it is often “the young girl raped by her father” or “the save the life of the mother” scenarios which serve as unimpeachable examples of the purity of the “cause”.
Who can argue with them?
The girl who simply for convienence is having her, third, fourth or fifth “termination” of the “products of conception” is rarely mentioned though she is legion. Almost never do we talk about a homosexual lifestyle of indiscriminate, unprotected sex that has as many as hundreds of different partners in a year.
We will readily talk about God “making” someone homosexual. But will we look at the possibility of saying to that person that, however things may or may not be, if you wish to follow Christ, according to the scriptures, you must do so as a celibate?
What of the adulterer? I have read some musings that there is a biological imperative, possibly even genetic, that “constrains” men to fertilize as many eggs as possible to extend and expand the species. What of my vow to my wife? What of your vow to your wife? What is my pastor to do if I want to continue worshipping God in our faith community, ministering, being ministered to and taking communion all the while explaining that I can’t help myself, my biological urges compel me to serial adultery?
What do the scriptures say?
Alario
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
"What do the scriptures say?"
“What do the scriptures say?”
The scriptures clearly condemn adultery. Why do they do this? Well, because adultery is sinful. Sin is defined as separation from God. God is love. Adultery is separating yourself from the love in a committed, monogamous relationship sanctified by God. Separating yourself from this love is equivalent to separating yourself from God. Therefore, adultery is sinful. Just logic here, nothing fancy. However, when two people love each other (ANY two people, men and women, men and men, women and women, etc…), God is there because love is there. Again, nothing fancy, nothing specific to any one culture, just logic.
Since all God cares about is love (because, again God is love), God does not really care who is loving who as long as the love is genuine and from the heart. The kinds of homosexuality that are mentioned in the bible are rape (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah) and the kinds of fornication at roman parties (the typical NT references) and things of that order. There is no love in either of those kinds of homosexuality, which is why Paul (rightly) condemns them. Nobody is seriously advocating rape or randomly fornicating at parties (gay, straight, or otherwise).
Nowhere, however, does Paul condemn love. Indeed, he writes in I Corinthians extensively about the virtues of love. Paul “loves” love. So, I think that if Paul was confronted with two men who genuinely loved each other, Paul would cite his writings about love and tell us that this love, like any other love, was just fine by God.
“biological urges compel me to serial adultery”
The doctrine of Original Sin (or, put into better words, “Original Tendency for Humans to Become Separate from Love they Find in the World”) explains this. You can accept homosexuality and still be faithful to your wife as you best know how. As I said before, I think that a Christian who accepts homosexual relationships should expect them to be characterized by the same things in the heterosexual relationships accepted by Christians, such as fidelity, openness, mutual affection, love, understanding, and all the other things necessary for a solid, faithful relationship. If these qualities are not in a homosexual relationship, a Christian should be just as skeptical of it as a heterosexual relationship without those qualities.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Theology of Love
Sbryan
I think you give a very good description of a “Theology of Love”, which is very popular today.
God is love, says John, Jesus commands us to love God, our neighbour, our enemies, each other, our wifes… Paul shows us a way to build up the chuch: Love in exercising prophesy, healing and so on. So there is no doubt about what kind of God we have and how he wants us to respond to him and act towards each other.
Now, this has nothing to do with marriage (which is also a relationship that should be characterised by love). Marriage is where sex belongs. There can be no talk about sex that is not expressed whithin this context. (This is not the same thing as to say sex is only for reproducing purposes).
So what is said about marriage? A man is to leave his parents and become one flesh with a woman. Genesis says it (Gen 2:24), Jesus says it (Matt. 19:5), Paus says it (Eph. 5:31, 1Cor. 6:16) So we have a solid biblical base for man-woman as the context for becoming one flesh (sex).
Then could not man-man or woman-woman be included in this kind of monogamous thinking? There is nothing positive said about such relationships in the bible. (in fact any examples are very negatively used) So we cannot use to the bible to support it.
Still men should love men and women should love women. Personaly I can say there are a lot of male friends of mine that I can say I truly love. One or two are lifetime friends on a deep level. Just like David and Jonathan. But sex has nothing to do with it.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Full disclosure
Thanks, Paul. I should probably mention that I had a good friend who killed himself because he was unsuccessful in his attempts to “go straight.” We were both in seminary at the time. So my opinion may be skewed. I like to think that this event skewed my opinion in the RIGHT direction. :)
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Sodomising the Body of Christ
Sorry, Paul, but how can you justify your claim that the Apostle you share your name with ‘got it wrong’? Once we go down that route, of picking nd choosing what we believe as authoritative in the Biblical text, then we begin to practise what St Peter calls the twisting of Scripture to our own destruction. Anyone, from thief to psychopath could justify their behaviour by such an arbitrary analysis of the Bible.
One or two points: St Paul voices his disgust at the thought of a believer uniting his body with that of a prostitute, seeing in such an act a direct defiling of the Body of Christ. Would he conceivably have been happier with having that same body sodomised? Secondly, homosexuality, even from a purely humanistic angle is aberrant. It does not serve any procreative purpose and is an act which actually condemns our species to extinction in theory! Cliche maybe, but a truism nonetheless that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Trying to justify homosexuality via an appeal to the ‘love’ within such relationships is misguided. Divine love is not as unconditional as we have been led to believe by many teachers. Else what is the point of repentance?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
A Hateful Subject Line
“Sodomising the Body of Christ” is a hateful and divisive statement. The rest of your post, Ivan, is an oft-repeated reference to a couple lines of scripture that have been discussed to death, so it doesn’t even merit a response. However, the title is truly a new low in my experience. It implies that homosexuals are, in a literal sense, raping Jesus every second of their existence. I just cannot believe that God would create a whole group of people like that. I cannot believe that a God like that would have created a universe that is to beautiful and richly diverse as ours.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Bringing it down a notch
This is a very personal issue, and as such can provoke emotional responses. I don’t think the line has been crossed yet, but I can see it from where I’m standing — let’s make sure we try our best to keep the discussions at the idea level.
I agree with Ivan that sbryan’s definition of “love” is a bit untethered, and needs some firmer biblical foundation. Coming to the conclusion that “Paul got it wrong” puts one in a very precarious position of judging the truthfulness of God’s Word. By what standard shall we do this?
I also agree with sbryan that Ivan’s arguments are not particularly well-supported.
Paul did speak out against prostitution. Yet he also spoke very favorably concerning celibacy for all who could bear it. This is just as much against nature and creation ordinance, as it too condemns our species to extinction (in theory), and let me remind all of us that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam. It is not good for the man to be alone, God says. And yet Paul calls it a spiritual gift!! Go figure. Since Ivan’s arguments against homosexuality apply, as far as I can tell, equally well to celibacy, perhaps he unwittingly finds himself finding fault with Paul as well.
Not to mention that a good portion of what happens in the bedroom between my wife and I serves no procreational purpose. Especially in light of the birth control… but I digress. I plead the Song of Solomon in my defense.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Prostitution = Homosexuality? I'm not convinced.
I don’t know that I buy the notion that Paul would treat homosexuality and prostitution in the same way. The Bible speaks out against prostitution for two reasons: First, on a practical level, it is a threat to monogamous relationships and families, since it provides a relatively easy-to-access expression of promiscuity. Second, on a more human and personal level, it devalues both the prostitute and the “customer.” Taking something as sacred as sex and recasting it into something for money is an insult to the act itself, but it also makes the prostitute into a slave, and the “customer” into someone who does not recognize the humanity in the person (s)he is sleeping with. It’s just bad all around.
However, in homosexual relationships today, the ones that are candidates for “approval” by the Church are characterized by love, monogamy, mutual respect, open communication, commitment, etc… In heterosexual relationships, I think we all agree, an expression of these qualities can take the form of sex, and some of us (myself included) think that if a homosexual relationship is characterized by these traits, it can/should be expressed sexually. However, NONE of these qualities are present in the “relationship” between a prostitute and the “customer.” There is a clear difference here, and it is not clear to me how Paul could ignore that difference, so I think he wouldn’t.
So, until the link between prostitution and homosexuality characterized by monogamy is made (which, I contend, is impossible), I don’t think we can use it as an argument against GLBT people and their relationships.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
The word "Sodom"
I think a good starting point for conversation among those who disagree on this issue is to drop all reference to Sodom. Anyone who reads the Sodom story even one time can clearly see the homosexual behavior in the story is full of violence - much different than the topic at hand. It seems to me that people who use references to Sodom when debating homosexuality are either looking for a fight or being knowingly dishonest.
Peace,
Daniel Payne
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
A wedge
I wish people would use the forum I created for discussions like these :D That being said, I would just add to the comments made already that I think evangelicals who support Rainbow people and their relationships honestly believe there is room for an alternate interpretation of Scripture, even if the whole church never agrees.
People who have a minority interpretation must, in the words of Karl Barth, “live as though they have heard a true word and are radically smitten by it.”
Amen.
When interpreters honestly disagree, our task as follwers of Jesus is to watch for the grace of God that will accompany an interpretation that honours the Holy Spirit. This is messy. But it’s the “windy”, uncertain life we’re called to.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
sexual idolatry
First time poster here. Excuse me if I cover ground already covered elsewhere.
It seems very logical to me that God would be approving of loving and caring man-man or woman-woman relationships. Yet I have found no support for this in scripture. zero. As has been stated, the only references to homosexual relationships is overwhelmingly negative. So the question I would ask the practicing homosexual Christian is, have you made an idol out of your sexuality? Are you willing to give God all of yourself *except this*?
Perhaps God does not care whether your relationship is homosexual or not. But given what He has revealed in scripture (and throughout the traditions of the church), should not one err on the side of celibacy?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
sexual idolatry
When we look at the Old Testament we see a loosening of mans inhumanity to man with regard to how slaves are to be treated and with regard to how women should be treated.This loosening is relative to the surrounding nations.
However when we come to homosexuality the God of the bible does the opposite he brings stronger controls against the practice, relative to the surrounding nations.
At the core of the christian faith is love. God would not speak against anything that would give people a wholesome standard of life, that he does in regard to same sex relationships is significant.For me homosexuality is a weakness that should be recognised as less than perfect.The church attacks those who are non hetrosexual far more than other sin, eg gluttony and it is this that causes most pain. We are all saved by grace.For me this means giving people the space to work out their own salvation and how faith in Jesus works for them.
I am off to a metropolitan church service tonight.When we sing a song like “come just as you are to worship” it brings a whole new meaning to the words. If we ask ourselves what does the bible say to me and then go and live it, we can leave others to make the same decision. After all we will all answer to God individually and he who knows the heart will judge accordingly.peace
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
the place of homosexuality in the faith
It occurs to me that when peter explained in Acts ch11 what had happened in Cornelius’s house, v17-18 may be applicable to this debate.Having just attended a service at the local Metropolitan Community Church, it is clear that those in attendance had a genuine evangelical faith and a desire to know and serve the living God.Surely the Holy Spirit is capable of guiding people towards God,s will for them.Maybe the issue is not as big to the God of grace as it is to us?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
"homosexual relationships"
You mention that when the Bible speaks of homosexual relationships, it is overwhelmingly negative. The problem is, the Bible never speaks of homosexual relationships. I think this is at the heart of the debate.
Peace,
Daniel Payne
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Even worse, they're re-crucifying Christ
Bottom line: unrepentant homosexuals who profess faith in Christ are not only defiling his Body but crucifying him afresh because of their refusal to abandon moral licentiousness. Romans 1:18-32 could not be any clearer if Enid Blyton had written it! A child could deduce from this that ALL homosexual relationships are barred in the Kingdom of God, period. It’s a brief history of mankind’s degeneracy since the Fall, of his paganising the truth and his polluting of natural physical relationships.
All of the New Testament criteria for leadership within the Church stipulate heterosexual relationships as the only acceptable ones, so the gay clergy is proven to be a contradiction in terms. Husband and wife is the norm, not just one of many possibilities! I mean, where DO we draw the line? Condone incest maybe on the grounds that Cain and Abel must have married their sisters, and the fact that Abraham admitted that HE had!
I fail to see exactly what Christ has come to save us from if we are adamant in reinterpreting His commands in favour of committign what the Bible plainly regards and condemns as sin. Unpopular word that one, but morally there are no grey areas. Black and white, man and wife. The Church is itself symbolised as a Bride, not another bridegroom, for goodness sake.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
I am astounded at the level o
I am astounded at the level of hatefulness of your subject lines. I can’t believe that anyone thinks that passes for meaningful theological discourse. Things that low again do not merit response, I am merely pointing out just how bad I think they are.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
I doubt Ivan and SBryan
are going to have a meeting of the minds on this one. :) Ivan, it may be more helpful if you could state your opinions and your reasons for holding them, without the repeated inferences to how obvious and clear and straightforward your conclusions are. It is rather insulting and inflammatory and does not further anyone’s understanding.
Sorry if I now sound condescending, but I have truly enjoyed the level of discussion on this board and I would hate for it to deteriorate into a shouting match between parties that are not willing to give an ear to the other side’s position.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
I agree. I hope this doesn't
I agree. I hope this doesn’t descend either. I echo earlier comments about just how sensitive this topic is, and how personal it can be. Ideally, I think we would move toward a model of communication in which all parties involved would act faithfully and honestly AND all parties involved would recognize that the other sides were acting with the same intentions. Ultimately, everyone on this board is writing based on their own experiences of faith. It’s easy to forget that in the heat of a discussion, and just like anyone else, I can find it harder to see that as well.
I hope both of us can move back to a more scripturally-grounded, and otherwise informed discussion of this important and core issue of faith.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Adam and Eve
At the risk of making a sweeping statement, I think it’s important to place two theological beliefs together: (1) the belief that Adam and Eve were real, fully-developed creations of God, and (2) that homosexuality is a sin. Much of Paul’s argument goes back to Adam and Eve. The core question, it seems, is whether these two characters were actual, or if they represent the beginnings of the human race in which God placed the soul. I do believe it’s possible to be a faithful Christian, and believe either option. I opt for number two; therefore, I think Paul’s arguments against homosexuality fail at that point.
Someone before me mentioned addressing this issue under a theology of love. I do not think that poster was too far off the mark, nor do I think he/she was saying that a theology of love is touchy feely. Love is serious business, and as is obvious from Jesus’ teachings, he wanted his followers to live in that love in all relationships. I suppose, for the record, I should say I am both gay and Christian, and I live with my long-term partner (since marriage is not an option for us). The love I have for him is not lustful. It is not solely about sex. It really does represent the love Christ has for me. I love him in a 1st Corinthinas 13 way. That some people cannot get past anal intercourse, and recognize deep love and commitment is sad. My partner and I have become one flesh just as a heterosexual married couple has, and just as I have become one with Christ.
Peace,
Daniel Payne
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
I'm not ignoring your recent
I’m not ignoring your recent comments and will get back to the thread with theological arguments of ‘more merit’ in due course. It’s just that I’ve been knocked for six by the news of the death of Pope John Paul II, moreso than even I had expected to be. A sense of almost palpable loss. But this is deviating from this thread, so I’ll leave you folks to it for the minute.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Bait and switch, red herring
Bait and switch, red herring, lies and more lies. Ivan, I saw you twice make an excellent point. Both times it seemed that you were assualted for… what? The way you presented your point and (for cryin’ out loud) your subject line. It just goes to show that there is a father of lies out there and apparently he knows how to use the internet. You’ve made excellent points, Ivan. Onward Christian soldier. There are many comments that I want to make on this issue, but I think I’ll stick to the Creation/Evolution debates. I was drawn here by the comment that Dan made during his continuous attempts to paint good and evil gray. He said that Adam and Eve might "represent the beginnings of the human race in which God placed the soul." Really, Dan? I wasn’t sure what you meant by "I opt for number two," because it was after a number-bulleted comment. I’m sorry if I’m not being politically correct, but once you’re done wining about it, I would like to hear more on this idea of Adam and Eve "representing" the initial creation.
Disclaimer: I believe that "heterosexuals" so called have actually done more damage to the institution of marriage than those who practice homosexuality. I do not hate gays, I love them because Christ died for them and wants them to come to them the same way that he loved and died for prostitutes, murderers, thieves, and liars and wants them to come to him. Any church that forbids membership of one who practices homosexuality based on said practice is a waste of the rotting wood it took to build its worthless walls. We should welcome and love all sinners because we were once just as stooped in immorality as they are now. We should hate lies, murder, and homosexuality all alike. Notwithstanding, we should love those who practice them.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
ahhh, sweet grey
Hi there,
Perhaps it should be mentioned that many users of this site celebrate the grey. There are many places online to repeat old arguments, and our discussions need to be aware of those arguments. However, the main point is to develop a new theological language and understanding based on several key touchpoints: reaching this culture with eternal truth, the truth of scripture, the truth of our experience…and others discussed elsewhere.
Posting in an inflamatory manner (and even subject lines) really isn’t helpful. Let’s do the work of creating something Godly and new in a Godly-and-human fashion.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Taking experience seriously
Experience is theologically significant. The "hot potato" of Paul's time was the question about whether Gentiles were to be included in the saving work of God in Christ. One of the prime arguments used by Paul was that God clearly had included them, no matter how compelling any a priori traditional theology of exclusion could be mounted. Among other things, God had given Gentiles the Holy Spirit. The same argument was used to change the traditional view that excluded women from ministry. Nowadays, we take absolutely for granted that Gentiles can be Christians and most of us view the ordination of women as a triumph of the truth over prejudice and heartache. But let's not underestimate the significance of the theological shift involved! The implications are enormous because they necessitate a revaluation of the past. Do these changes mean that God had changed God's mind? Or that we got it wrong before in assuming that our theology reflected the mind of God?
Both are quite possible. God appears to feel free to do a "new thing" at will, regardless of the theological chaos that ensues. It is also quite clear that we humans have a remarkable facility for uncritically assuming that our mind a matter reflects faithfully the divine mind. Wasn't Jesus challenged over his Jewish-centric view of God's grace by a Samaritan woman - "Are not even the dogs allowed to lick up the crumbs from the table?"
That is why experience is so important. It is the experience of those on the "outside" that challenge most seriously our comfortable assumptions that we know God's will - especially when we are able to quote Scripture in support of it. It is the experience of these groups that make us most keenly aware of the divine freedom to do something new. That is what keeps us on our toes and keeps us faithful!
What does experience teach me about homosexuality? Firstly, as an off-the-scale heterosexual, I always assumed that my own repugnance of gay sex reflected God's moral outrage. But then I had to face the fact that, as a heterosexual male, I found the concept of lesbian sex not repugnant but sexually interesting! I'm not being flippant or trite. I actually found my moral reasoning deeply challenged. That led me, secondly, to take the experience of homosexual people seriously. The easy arguments disappeared. How could I equate the experience of a man who was aware of his sexuality from his earliest years with the picture in Romans of someone setting out quite deliberately to "abandon" his God-given sexual desires? And how could I run an apparent "theology of equality" which says that orientation is not sinful, only its homosexual expression is, so that gay and unmarried heterosexuals were in the same boat - celibacy? That didn't work because, as a heterosexual unmarried man, I could rejoice in my sexual wrestlings because, although they needed controlling, they were a gift from God. My gay schoolfriend, however, had to wrestle to control something that he was told was evil, perverted and cursed by God!
Then I re-read Scripture - the classic passages. I discover that God apparently views sexual intercourse between a married couple during menstruation as an abomination. I learn that my son should never have made it past 3 years old, but ought to have been stoned to death. I discover that the couple who are the greatest Christian saints I have known are actually both divorced and remarried and therefore, in God's eyes, apparently condemned. Oh, and I discover that the men of Sodom are not homosexuals but men intent on male rape (the grossest abuse of the suty of hospitality) and this is condemend by God, while Lot's offer of his virginal daughter for their pleasure seems quite fine by God ...
I'm not making any new exegetical points (I hope!). I'm simply tracking the reality that we have found our experience of God to be theologically normative in trying to work out what is and isn't binding from the past. Or, to put the same point differently, in working out what God's will might be on the subject. And it makes me question why it is homosexuality in particular that we treat so theologically inadequately! I cannot imagine any other topic generating subject lines as emotive or virulent as "Sodomising the Body of Christ". I think I know some of the answers to my own question, now, but I am certain of this: those Christians who are not fundamentalists often treat the question of homosexuality in a radically different way from the way in which they do other theological questions of equality.
I am privileged to have many gay and lesbian Christian friends. God has called them to faith and to many to ministry. They have received Christ and the Spirit. They experience the grace of God operating in their lives as much as anyone else I know. And, crucially, the testimony of others is that they experience God's grace and ministry through my friends. On what basis can I ordain women, abolish slavery, refuse to stone my child, regard with supreme indifference matters of my neighbours' sexual habits during menstruation, and then refuse to acknowledge what God - by any normal canons - appears to be saying with absolute clarity?
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing here that we ought to be nice people and treat everyone kindly! I am advancing a theological argument here for abandoning the second-class place to which we have relegated gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. From those who want to argue that we should continue to do so, I want to know: given that God clearly doesn't find it a problem, on what grounds must we continue to do so?
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Notwithstanding, the Word of God remains the same
Whether “we” accept or condemn any act matters very little. I struggle remaining pure with my girlfriend just about every time I’m around her. Which matters more? A pastor telling me “It’s ok, go ahead and have sex with her. We accept it.” Or the word of God? Despite this world’s shifting view on sexuality, the word of God remains the same. Ephesians 5:3 “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality…”. Despite my struggles and failures with my girlfriend, I am still loved, accepted, and welcomed by my Christian brothers. Granted. I would be highly disapointed, however, if they said that it’s “alright” because of “modern readers’” interpretation of the Bible’s view on and acceptance of various sexual mores.
We should be accepted and loved despite our failures, we should not, however, be encouraged to continue on in sin.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: Taking experience seriously
I would just like to point out that God doesn’t say *anything* about Lot’s dubious plan to throw his daughter "to the wolves". There seem to be a number of times when God "allows" people to "have their heads" and go their own ways. Solomon’s numerous wives and concubines would be a good example.
Just wanted to point this out, since everyone who has posted here seems to desire scholarship and reason, rather than inflammation.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
Just two points; feel like I am repeating something that should have/has already been said…
1. Christian slavery: if Mr. Fred was treating his slaves in such a way, then clearly he is not living according to the Way mapped out by either Paul or Jesus. There are given rules, OT, that apply to slavery and its mechanics, and simply, if they are not followed, it seems obvious to me that it is not right…
2. Discussion has been going back and forth about sex vs. relationship. Yes, the Bible says nothing of the relationships between commited homosexuals (gay/lesbian), and yet, when we look at what is said about sex between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, the Bible is quite clear: it is not acceptable, it is sin. This then gives us, as far as I see it, two options: a) re-interpret Scripture to allow this kind of sexual conduct or b) practise celibacy, which is blessed by Paul anyway.
Just my two cents…
"It’s not how long we’ve been standing here, It’s that we haven’t moved forward…"
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
I believe that none of us has the right to say which of them is the worst. Indeed, the lives these two men are having aren’t right from a religious point of view. It is only the God’s decision to say which one of them is the bad one.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
Yes, I do agree with JoeAnne. If bible didn’t say it, doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with the writer. I believe that Paul didn’t agree to slavery either. If he didn’t write it, then he considered that there was something more important than the slavery itself, such as warning for monogamous homosexual.
Regards,
Tiara
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
Both are wrong, being out of character with God a loving Father who would do anything to save us from eternal damnation.
On the one hand—the question poses that because there is a form of love, it must be okay because God is Love.
But God’s Love is selfless. Self sacrificing to put you in right relationship with Him. All that is morally pure points to Christ, forgiveness, God, oneness, Holy Spirit, truth.
On the other hand— the slave owner is obviously wrong by just the description— One deceptive, one is blatant. They are both in need of a savior.
When all else fails—-follow the red letter—-what did Jesus say.
His Judgements are true —- filled with love — and always lead you to the Father.
What is worse, someone who divorces his wife to marry another. Or a homosexual living out his desires.?
They are both equally guilty of sexual sin. Which sin is forgiven?
Which is worse: someone living in a homosexual lifestyle or a pastor who brow beats his constituents.?
We all need a savior.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
The original post seems to imply that Paul chooses homosexual activity as something that both incurs and is evidence of God’s wrath in Romans 1 because he see it as a worse sin than other sins.
But the structure of Romans 1 seems to suggest he chooses that example because homosexual activitiy is a paradigm sin; a clear example of the rejection of the order of things instituted by God in creation.
Thus Romans 1 in no way implies either the worseness of homosexual activity or that slave ownership is OK. In fact Romans 1:29-31 includes a very long list of sins, all of which indicate the presence of God’s wrath, and which are almost certainly committed by a slave owner (eg heartless, ruthless!)
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Re: A committed monogamous homosexual versus a slave owner
Even Jesus saw many injustice and did not say anything about it. He focused in the big picture of changing men from inside out. Once a man changes, he can see the injustice and bring the kingdom of God to its own place and surrounding circumstances.
The gospel does not really impact the masses, but it impacts one man, and then another. And from there, it passes to the rest.
2000 years ago, there was legal slavery, now slavery is a crime. Once country could invade another, just for food. 2000 years ago, women were not even worthy of salvation, now we are kind of equal to men.
The Lord is acting in his own time, but very effectively. All ideas of helping others and even risking our own lifes for the sake of others, came from Jesus.
- Login or register to post comments
- view as page
Other content
- Introduction to Open Source Theology
- What is the ‘emerging church’?
- View all recent posts
- Selected posts from the past
- Synopsis of NT Wright’s Christian Origins
- Tom Wright’s talks from the Future of the People of God conference 2004 (mp3)
- Christian Associates Thinklings papers
- TREK conversation in Portland on the prophetic church
User login
Emerging church/theology/p.ost feed
- Chapter One: Catholic anti-Jud: Chapter 1, From Paul to Augustine According to the emerging theology the only reason for the continuing existence of Jews was to suffer God’s punishment for their crimes, and to...
- Emerging Christian - My story of evolving faith...: Fr. Rohr on ... No new emerging church will emerge very far. The judgmental mind is not looking for truth; it is looking for control and righteousness. For some...
- The Emergent Church Movement The Emergent / Emerging Church is a diverse but recognizable movement. To some, “emergent” means nothing more than a new style and approach to...
- Ken Silva on Remembering The Awful Reality Of Hell and the ... During this past year in articles like The Emerging Church And The New Progressive Theology On Other Religions I’ve been giving you some...
- benedson: Fresh Expressions - resistance or legitimating A lot of the conversations that have been taking place around the Emerging Church movement seem to suggest that identity is found in resistance....
- Substance or Just Good Management - Acts 29 Network: Seattle, WA > The emerging church movement is not as new as it used to be. As with every movement, it has reached a point in its trajectory where as it matures,...
- Ken Silva on the kind of "Christianity" Emergents like Doug Pagitt ... Two of the most notorious of these would be the heretical quasi-universalist Emerging Church pastor Doug Pagitt, who heads the Emergent Solomon...
- Scottish emerging church 2010- a view from the west… « this ... In all this, I had discovered the ‘emerging church conversation’. My theology was first destroyed, then renewed and lit up by new...
- 'Both,' 'And,' 'How' not 'What' « Cathedral Crossings Speaking of churchie buzzwords, anyone familiar with “Emerging Church”? I remember spending some time on this concept (sometimes called a “movement...
- RICK WARREN DANGEROUS MAN FOR THE GOSPEL | 777 BIBLE.COM Some inovative emerging church planters came down from Judea and started teaching the Lord’s followers that they could not be saved, unless...
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
A non-believer's lament...
The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton
Chiasm and inclusio
Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob