Summary - and a surprising conclusion?
|
I’d appreciate some sort of summary of the arguments put forward so far on this forum topic (Homosexuality and the new creation). 1. As I see it, Andrew began by advocating an acceptance of practising homosexuals in the church. The church is a ‘sign’ of the kingdom, but not its full expression, and as such will continue to contain some/much of the ‘fallenness’ of creation - homosexuality being a ‘fallen’ sexuality. The forum thread has seen views develop which call this proposition strongly into question, not least by Andrew himself. 2. Elsewhere, Andrew has argued with ingenuity and insight for a traditional biblical stance towards homosexuality. The parallels between Romans 1:18-27 and Genesis 1-3 point to a much more broadly based argument by Paul than a merely anti-gentile Jewish polemic. The rolling out of the same theme (creation fruitfulness/barrenness in their widest sense) elsewhere in Romans suggests that the passage is a major plank in a theology which integrates not just O.T. but God’s creation purposes - in the old as well as the new creation. 3. The coining of the word ‘arsenokoitai’ in the 1 Corinthian and 1 Timothy passages as a compound of ‘arsenos’ and ‘koites’ found in the Leviticus passages (18:22 and 20:13) suggests something more than merely a contemporary culturally conditioned phenomenon. And I would appreciate if Andrew could perhaps spell out for the non-Greek linguists how the sentences look in Septuagint Greek Leviticus - to see how the words might be elided together to form the new compound. 4. The viewpoint as developed then also concurs with the strongest possible condemnations called down upon homosexual expression, especially in the Romans passage. 5. It is difficult then to see how any acceptance of homosexual practice would be possible in the church. Andrew argues that there are many ways in which we perhaps unwittingly condone sin or are even in collusion with it, (but not as free moral agents) and I can think of others. Eg by being part of the EU we collude with restrictive trade practices which affect the developing world. I’m not sure that I agree with this point, however. Our relation to sin as moral agents changes drastically as soon as we become aware of sin. We have a responsibility to act in relation to unfair trade practices (or the plight of the poor, or injustice) in whatever ways it is within our ability to do so, eg by purchasing ‘fairtrade’ products in our supermarkets, or casting votes in European elections or referendums. In the same way, we have a reponsibility to act in relation to personal moral behaviour. And herein lies the issue. The few gay people that I know did not, to the best of their knowledge, choose their disposition, nor was it a psychosis which arose from childhood experiences. Neither are they monsters who wish, by promiscuity and self-indulgence, to live a lifestyle of promiscuity and overthrowing the moral order. There is a gap between their experience and perception of who they are, and what the bible appears to say about them. If they take the bible seriously, and the explorations on this thread suggest it should be taken seriously, they will naturally want to explore alternative interpretations of the biblical passages. The essence of the revisionist position is that what the bible describes is not related to homosexuality as it is currently understood and experienced. And herein lies my problem. The arguments on this site present some formidable obstacles to revisionist interpretations. There are formidable obstacles to Andrew’s proposals. So are we to revert to the old cliche, God ‘hates the sin, but loves the sinner’ - thus condemning the individual to a private prison of torment - in which the slightest sign of outward expression of what they are unable to avoid feeling inwardly draws down the strongest of God’s judgements? Are we to believe that Ivan is the true voice of the church’s moral conscience (and the voice of Jesus) after all? Or is it just possible that at the (post?)eschatological parties thrown by Jesus, the guest-list would include amongst the notorious tax-collectors and prostitutes, some contemporary notable sinners - heterosexual and homosexual - paedophiles, even? Where would the line be drawn? And of those who came, many who thought they were sinners and weren’t, and those who thought they were righteous and weren’t? And am I here sketching a vision of a post-eschatological party which is Andrew’s vision of the church? And if so, how does it agree with the theological argument that has been developing so far? Would there have been any notorious sex offenders in Paul’s church? Maybe there were. Maybe Paul’s whole argument in Romans 1:18ff is intended to say that this is indeed a scripturally based and understood perspective on the practices of the gentile world - in which Jews might well feel revulsion, personal superiority, and rightly identify with the righteous judgments which the argument leads to. But maybe by the latter part of verse 29 they were becoming slightly uneasy. Maybe by the latter part of verse 31 they were distinctly uncomfortable : ‘unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful …’; maybe by the first verse of Chapter 2 they were on their knees crying for mercy for themselves, and forgiveness for the judgementalism they had shown towards their gentile neighbours and neighbouring culture. Is it just possible, and especially if we take out the chapter break between Romans 1 and 2, and we let the argument flow to its natural conclusion - is it possible that Paul is leading us to a place which, whilst not denying the theology of his argument so far, is quite different from where we had expected it to go - and leads to very different conclusions from those commonly assumed? (I am indebted to James Allison for this perspective on Romans 1:18ff, and also for the information on the interpretation of Romans 1:26 by the early church fathers, about which I think, I am somewhat less convinced) |
Comments
Response to summary
Peter, thanks for attempting the summary - it’s helpful, though the discussion doesn’t really stay still long enough to summarize.
The church is a ‘sign’ of the kingdom, but not its full expression…
I said that the church is a ‘sign of the ultimate renewal of humanity’, ie. of the new creation, not of the kingdom. I think they would be two rather different things, and I am beginning to suspect that when we talk about the kingdom what we actually mean is the anticipated renewal of creation. I would now associate the term ‘kingdom’ much more with the eschatological crisis at the end of the age of second temple Judaism, the kingdom which is given to the Son of man, the freedom given to the church to serve him openly, acknowledge him as Lord, no longer subject to oppression.
With regard to your point 3: this translation is taken from my post on the other thread: ‘whoever sleeps with a man (arsenos) the marriage-bed / sexual intercourse (koitÄ“) of a woman has done an abomination’ (cf. ESV: ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’). The ESV phrase ‘lies with a male’ is more complicated in the Greek: koimÄ“thÄ“i meta arsenos koitÄ“n = ‘sleeps with a male the marriage bed’. You virtually have Paul’s word there: arsenokoitÄ“s.
4. The viewpoint as developed then also concurs with the strongest possible condemnations called down upon homosexual expression, especially in the Romans passage.
5. It is difficult then to see how any acceptance of homosexual practice would be possible in the church.
My suggestion was that the strictness of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality had to do with the eschatological status of the early church. The church was facing judgment, the wrath of God upon the ancient world (cf. Rom.1:18; 2:5). Paul’s concern was that it should be a pure church that stood before Christ at his parousia, partly because his own ‘success’ as an apostle was bound up in that, but more fundamentally because those who suffered during this period of tribulation would inherit the kingdom of God. If this is a valid argument (it may not be), then perhaps we can say that we do not need to carry this strict exclusionist attitude over into the post-eschatological church, the overriding purpose of which is not to avoid imminent historical judgment but through its internal life and activity in the world to be a sign of the grace of God and the reality of new creation.
This is not to ‘condone’ homosexuality exactly. I am looking for a way to understand homosexuality that recognizes:
i) that it is contrary to creation (in that sense a ‘distortion’), which is presumably, in response to Paul’s point above, the fundamental theological basis for differentiating between homosexuality and lefthandedness: the lifelong intimacy of man and woman is central to the creation narrative and presumably has something to do with being in the image of God - lefthandedness doesn’t appear to have the same significance;
ii) that it is (apparently) an unavoidable element of a fallen creation and for many gay people the only way of expressing a long-term intimate commitment to an other. Perhaps this is one reason why homosexuality is different from our involvement in other aspects of humanity’s fallenness: we also have a powerful created urge not to be alone, to be in close relationship with another person - though it seems to me much harder to distance ourselves from social injustice than Peter suggests;
and iii) that it is not ‘wickedness’, it is not intrinsically harmful to others.
The few gay people that I know did not, to the best of their knowledge, choose their disposition, nor was it a psychosis which arose from childhood experiences. Neither are they monsters who wish, by promiscuity and self-indulgence, to live a lifestyle of promiscuity and overthrowing the moral order.
If that’s genuinely the case (it is not always genuinely the case), then perhaps they are not called to change. But would it not be possible, in principle, whenever the need arises, for gay people to acknowledge that God originally created us to be one flesh as male and female? The presence of homosexuals in the church would then be a sign of our forgiveness expressed concretely through the acceptance and love of other believers, a sign that God has forgiven our fallenness, forgiven the rebellious at the heart of each of us that has produced the distortions that run through every level of human nature. The tension remains, I agree - this may not be the sort of unconditional acceptance that most homosexuals are looking for. But I do think it may offer a way out of the stalemate that currently prevails in the church: it allows us to maintain the hope of a renewal of creation while at the same recognizing that we act and relate to one another in this world only through God’s grace.
With regard to James Allison’s argument about Romans 1-2, surely Paul’s quarrel with the Jew, if that is who he is addressing in 2:1-11, is not that they are wrong for being judgmental but that they are wrong for doing such things - the law is of no benefit to them if they do what the idolatrous Gentiles do: ‘Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?’ (Rom.2:3).
Response to response to response
Are you saying that since the destruction of Jerusalem/Rome, the church has never been persecuted or oppressed?
No, of course not. But if you look at it from the perspective of a small, insignificant Jewish sect struggling to get a toe-hold and keep its footing in the all-encompassing Roman world, there was something pretty decisive about the vindication which they believed would come to them in fulfilment of Jesus’ restatement of Daniel’s vision of the son of man figure. The crisis has been played out again many times since the fall of Rome on a local - and there is some justification for re-using the same language. But Rome was the enemy right from the start, an instrument of the satanic force that opposed Jesus.
Is this really another way of saying that we can do what we like, provided it doesn’t harm others? Download internet pornography? What are you saying?
No. I am struck by the fact that homosexuality is potentially an expression, within a fallen world, of the fundamental human need for intimate companionship. I personally think (at the moment) that the church should not obscure the fact that we were created for heterosexual union - but the companionship thing is basically as fundamental as the male-female thing, so there are deep human issues here quite apart from the question of whether others are harmed or not. At the same time, it’s not a bad rule of thumb to ask whether what we do is an expression of love for our neighbour or whether it harms our neighbour. I certainly don’t think that pornography is harmless. I see it much more as an exploitation of men than of women, but it also affects relationships.
Yes - but the underlying attitude was judgementalism.
Sorry, I still disagree on this one. Judgmentalism was an issue, but as I read it, there is an unequivocal message of God’s judgment, wrath, on those who do these things, whether Jews or Greeks. It’s just that Paul had trouble getting the Jews to understand this.
passing judgment
Peter,
You said
‘Passing judgement’ then becomes the main theme of his argument - contrasting God’s judgement with man’s judgement.
I’m not so sure about this. Re-reading this passage, I am struck that the main theme is the rightness of God’s judgement against both jew and gentile, regardless of Torah observance. And the weight still comes down on ‘do the same things’. Paul seems to be trying to get around judgementalism to spotlight the real issue, that both Jew and Gentile are in desparate need, especially if they maintain the veneer that there is some distinction between them and the other.
Writing to the Roman church, and most likely in order to argue for a way forward for the gospel that does not forget the Jew, Paul wants to prevent the kind of Jew-Gentile rift that is so detrimental to the purposes of the Lord of the whole earth (his experience in Antioch and Galatia). The rift would speak exactly against the universal lordship of Jesus. His method is to stand apart from both parties and show them both to be wanting, as God’s spokesman. I wonder if we are too quick, too, to say definitively to which party Paul is speaking at certain points. Generally, we take 1.18-32 to be anti-Gentile and then 2.1-11 to be anti-Jew. Based on Deut 4.16, Psalm 106.20, and Psalm 81.12, this sequence could be flipped—the judgers could be the Gentile Christians in Rome who may be taking a special pride over against those ‘jews.’ This fits well with the likely tension that existed in the church in Rome with the jews returning to the city after having been expelled by claudius’ edict, some of them being christian. Paul wants to prevent the roman anti-semitism from dividing the people of God based on ethnic standards, or Torah observance.
Just a thought. I am enjoying reading the dialogue between you, Peter and Andrew. I am learning a lot. See ya in a little more than a month.
eric
the visit
I hope we’ll all be on speaking terms for your visit!
I expect nothing less!
Homosexuality and the creation narrative
Andrew you say
“homosexuality is contrary to creation (in that sense a ‘distortion’), which is presumably……… the fundamental theological basis for differentiating between homosexuality and left-handedness: the lifelong intimacy of man and woman is central to the creation narrative and presumably has something to do with being in the image of God – left-handedness doesn’t appear to have the same significance”
I have 2 questions.
- Could you elaborate on “the lifelong intimacy of man and woman is central to the creation narrative”. What do you see as being the other central elements of the creation? How do the Genesis accounts proscribe other than heterosexuality- there is no logical inconsistency in interpreting Gen 2.24 as leaving open the possibility that a man leaves mother and father for some reason other than to unite with a wife.
- In what way does the lifelong intimacy of a man and a woman have something to do with the image of God; and why would lifelong intimacy of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) not have something to do with the image of God?
Male and female in the image of God
In what way does the lifelong intimacy of a man and a woman have something to do with the image of God; and why would lifelong intimacy of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) not have something to do with the image of God?
I am conscious of the fact that it is all too easy to read too much into the creation stories. However, we have what seems to me a fairly straightforward line of thought. Having created the world and everything in it, God decides to ‘make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen.1:26). This is not directly explained, but the continuation is surely the best indication of what this might have meant, or of what significance it might have had: humanity is created in the image of God as male and female (the connection is certainly very close between image and sexuality) and given the task of gaining dominion over the earth. The means by which this dominion over the whole earth is achieved (and not simply the bit that Adam and Eve could reasonably have governed on their own) is through procreation. So the link between rule over the earth (which I would see as an extension of God’s ‘good’ creative activity) and creation in the image of God is the procreative power of male and female. Does this in itself invalidate homosexual behaviour? Possibly not if it suggests that being male and female is functional rather than in some stricter sense ontological. But that’s getting into rather speculative exegesis.
The more substantial difficulty arises with Gen.2:24. The issue here, I would suggest, is not the reasons for leaving mother and father but the basis for being ‘one flesh’. The woman is taken from the man, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, and therefore ‘they shall become one flesh’. Logically, perhaps, as you suggest, this does not disallow homosexual union, but the ‘one flesh’ ideal must be an expression of the union of man and woman. This is why I think that the church (including any homosexuals in it) still has to say that the created ideal is of man and woman as one flesh. Incidentally, we haven’t considered the implications of this for singleness and celibacy. Someone might want to pick up on that.
I actually commented on singleness briefly
in a discussion of some of Ivan’s comments about homosexuality being against the created order in that it was a rejection of the procreation mandate (http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/563#comment-1317 — links don’t seem to be working in this new editor!). Every argument I’ve heard regarding heterosexual idealism and the creation order would have equally potent ramifications against singleness. Yet Paul recommended the one and rejected — at least in some form — the other. It is unfortunate that Paul’s reasons for recommending celibacy in 1 Corinthians are obscure, his thought process may be very relevant to the present discussion.
I’m not sure what to do with this except to say that if anyone’s arguments contra-homosexual monogamy would ALSO argue against celibacy, then I think those arguments have to be thrown out.
Somewhere in this discussion we will have to explore the great value ancient Hebrew culture placed on producing heirs, both economically and eschatologically, and the (ir)relevance of such a value system in our present cultural and eschatological circumstances.
Good point.
Hi erlenmeyer71.
The singleness question is a good way to check this. Especially in light of Paul preferring singleness as a state from which to work for the Kingdom of God. He says that a married man or woman who wishes to serve God will most likely be divided. In light of the meaning of the Hebrew word for “one” used in Gen. 2:24, that is a serious problem! Clearly, undivided devotion to the Lord is his aim.
Putting it in mathematical terms, Paul seems to be saying this:
1 + 1 should = 1 in the Hebrew sense. Fine, if that Union can serve the Kingdom of God undivided.
Therefore: 1 - 1 (through divorce) will = 1/2 and 1/2. That’s not good, because God is concerned with Unity and Wholeness and Paul is concerned because the time is short. So if you can stand it, don’t divide each other either through a poorly matched marital union or divorce.
However 1 also = 1! Not a Union, but it is a Whole. Better than what happens when a poor Union can’t serve the Kingdom undivided and better than a 1/2 a person trying to serve the Kingdom!
Now, what that might say about homosexuality is … well… nothing. A man and a woman are still each considered a 1. 1 + 1 = 1 in the Hebrew sense no matter which way you add it up. So there must be yet another factor besides Union or Wholeness in the strict mathematical sense.
Childbearing was a big deal. Heirs. I also made a post about this in another string on homosexuality. Talking about the economy waiting on my ability to bear hears to will the property to. The economy we have today would be completely foreign to the Jewish person of any Biblical day. I’m glad Paul left an opening there in 1 Cor. (note my signature) for adjustments. That signals respect for the past, and humility toward the unknown in the future. Very wise and very emergent. The whole “sanctification through childbearing” issue is so weird and obscure, I seriously wonder if we’ll ever be able to relate that to anything in our lives. Does N.T. have anything on that? Gads, that would be helpful! Anyway, procreation is no longer an economic (and therefore morally protected) factor in the equasion of marital union. It just isn’t. It may be a preference but it might also be a non-preference, and there is no economic-moral grounds to deny either.
If someone has more on the eschatological implications, now’s the time to shine it on us.
So what else do we have? Well, the only thing that I can see is the issue that I brought up in the other string.
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/591#comment-1350
Polarity. From what I understand, a necessary ingredient in homosexual unions is the power exchange which can only be caused by duality. Some sort of duality is agreed upon by both partners. Domination vs. Submission is the most obvious, but it may not be manifested that way. It might be manifested in the same ways that men and women who choose not to do union using the dominance and submission aesthetic manifest it. One of the biggest dualities seen expressed in the homosexual world is Emotional vs. rational. Sometimes it is very exagerated.
I truly believe that the duality that is missing in gender must be made up for in some other way, and that way often becomes very pronounced. Dualities can be expressed in such a way as to bless, but they can also become pits of exploitation and ruination. The homosexual community is vulnerable and often victimized by both of those negative forms. I would imagine that they get tired of that after a while, yet the way out of that pattern and the road to blessing is hard to discern. I believe that many are turning to God for help and to the Church to deliver that help. God, bless them.
Now what? How do we check that using singleness?
~Whitewave
____________________________________________________
…I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis…
~Paul
Eschatological childbearing
When I mentioned the subject, I was thinking of the messianic promise to Eve (Gen. 3:15-16 I believe). Once again, this is a non-issue in our day and age, as the Messiah has already been born and blood lineage is no longer a criteria for membership into God’s family, kingship, priesthood, etc.
Re: Good point.
Wow! I come back after an absence (sorry!) and ogle at the quality of the discussion. Re: your point about duality: I think sometimes Christians want to assign gender (or biological sex, which in my view are not necessarily the same) some kind of ontological status. I would suggest, per theologian Elizabeth Stuart, that the only "identity" that does not change in our identity "in Christ." (She pinpoints the conferral at baptism, whereas I would say, "Whoever has the Holy Spirit.")
The duality of relationships is not as fixed as some might think. My own personal opinion is that if I respond <i>as I aught</i> (or close to it) in a given situation, I will express proper duality since I will be practicing the "mutual submission" which is proper for all Christians who are waiting for the fully present Kingdom— (and/or) the renewal of creation.
Shalom in Jesus,
Rob
The scriptural argument against homosexuality
I am very keen to get as clear as I can about the scriptural argument for regarding homosexuality as wrongdoing. My précis of the argument in this thread is as follows:
- In Romans 1, Paul says that because people have wilfully decided to worship idols rather than God, God has given them over to all sorts of wickedness and wrongdoing, one such example of wrongdoing being homosexuality.
- This is not just an invention of Paul’s but flows from the creation narrative found in Genesis. God’s reference in Gen 1.26 to human beings being in his image is essentially about men and women being procreative and thus echoing God’s own creative power-obviously only possible for heterosexual union. And Gen 2.24 says that because woman is made of man’s flesh, then when a man leaves his parents, it is to cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her. This suggests that heterosexual union is (at least) the ideal for sexual relationship
On the assumption that my recapitulation is accurate I make the following comments
The argument in Romans 1.18-32 is that
• some people have wilfully chosen not to worship the true God, even though they were aware he was the true God;
• instead they have chosen to worship idols;
• God therefore gave them up to all sorts of wickedness
This argument does not seem persuasive to me. It is possible to speculate about all sorts of explanations why people might end up worshipping idols but the suggestion that they have done so deliberately seems one of the least likely. Secondly, Paul’s ascription of the immorality of such people to their worship of idols only makes sense if the behaviour of those who worship the one true God is better. Is there any basis for such a statement- can we say that Christians, Moslems and Jews, all strict monotheists, are morally superior to animists or popular practice among Hindus or Shintoism?
It is significant to note that all the behaviour described in this passage (covetousness, envy, murder, strife, deceit etc etc) employs terms that have wrongness built into their meaning. That is, a term like ‘murder’ means wrongful killing, ‘deceit’ means a deliberately misleading statement. Hence it is not possible to attribute such behaviour to someone and deny that it was wrongful. The reference to homosexuality is slightly different in that (in my translation, Oxford RSV) homosexuality is described as ‘unnatural intercourse’. This has a pejorative overtone but is not so straightforwardly wrong as the other behaviour described. Perhaps this provides a bit of wriggle room for the current debate.
The Genesis arguments do not seem to me to be nearly strong enough to sustain a charge that homosexuality is wrong (or, possibly, even morally superior to homosexuality). Procreative capacity is primarily a capacity of the human race and not of individual human beings. By that I mean that the human race can be very fertile even though much sexual activity of individuals takes place with no chance of procreation. Hence if procreation is an image of God’s creative power it is an image attributable to the human race not to individuals or individual segments (such as heterosexuals) within it. Also if human creative power is an image of God what do we make of an artist like Michaelangelo who was homosexual.
As regards the ‘one flesh’ argument, this seems a precarious basis for condemning homosexuality, in particular since it is a metaphor based on a myth.
Another issue
that I’ve tried to bring up is the issue of doctrinal diversity within the church.
For instance, I do not agree with everything that my church subscribes to, and they know this, yet they allow me to become a member. I have presented my arguments, and while they do not agree with them they allow me to hold them and still be a member in good standing.Therefore, my question is this: even if I believe that Paul’s condemnations apply to contemporary monogamous homosexual relationships, if I have a brother who sincerely believes that they don’t, and has legitimate arguments in support of his position, how can I deny him the same consideration that has been shown to me? What makes this interpretational issue so much more important than, say, infant baptism or millennial views, on which we happily agree to disagree?
A Post-Modern Response
I agree. I don’t necessarily think that we need a "summary" of "conclusions," since as I understand it, a post-modern Church isn’t looking to make a final, once-and-for-all, decision on a doctrine on anything like this. I think this is an excellent example of how an emerging church would differ in its practice from the traditional, modern church. A modern Church would want to debate the issue, but an unspoken theme of the debate would be "We’re going to end up with the ‘right answer’ after we’re done talking about this, right?" I don’t think we should discuss things that way. I don’t think we need the "right answer," and I don’t think we will ever be "done." I still think that we ought to vigorously debate this issue, and all difficult issues, and that we ought to do this faithfully. It is of vital importance that we try to figure things like this out. At the same time, I think we need to recognize that since we all are human and flawed, our visions individually are limited, which is why we need not worry if we all cannot immediately come to agreement. Indeed, agreement on this issue may be impossible; the "right answer" might not even be possible to write down, just as writing down exactly what the trinity means might not even be possible. I also think that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The process of searching is far more interesting than actually finding the "answer," especially if this "answer" doesn’t even exist in a form that is humanly comprehensible.
Re: Another issue
Thank you for this, erlen—I just saw it. I was wanting to post the same question, but you did it better. :D
Shalom in Jesus,
Rob
Christ the Righteousness of God
As I see it, the burden of proof still lies squarely on the shoulders of the homosexual apologists, i.e to fully validate their argument, they should be able to present us with merely one incident from the Scriptures where a homosexual relatinship or lifestyle is regarded as divinely ordained and acceptable. Since they cannot….
Since I have been accused (justly perhaps) of making statements unworthy of comment, here are one or two points which I hope will be regarded as meriting response. I think it was sbryan who said recently that he considered homosexuality as part of the diversity of God’s universe, and herein is the problem. The point is that the Bible sees it as a malady of the Fall and thus not part of God’s original created order. If we try to justify homosexual behaviour by appealing to the ‘love’, within such relationships, we still prove nothing. The road to hell remains paved with good intentions. If, out of compassion for a homeless beggar, I hold up the local bank and give him the money, does my ‘love’ for the beggar absolve me of guilt? I’ve still stolen and broken both God’s law and man’s. Some may dismiss this as a crass comparison, but it’s down the same path.
St Paul called Christ ‘the righteousness of God’. In Jesus, we see that which we should be. To support homosexual behaviour, we would have to be able to say that Jesus himself may have experienced homosexual attraction. That he was single all his life does not mean that he was never attracted to a member of the opposite sex, but I don’t for one minute believe that the righteousness of God permits a homosexual attraction. Christ was the Second Adam, and thereby embodied the principles of the original created order. If Christ lives in me, then it follows that I too must embody in my life that original pre-Fall sexuality, whether or not I remain single or choose to act upon it. Disjointed thoughts, these, but I trust that OST members will catch my drift.
Dress it up how we may, homosexuality is sin, a symptom of th Fall which must be resisted in the Christian life just as much as heterosexual promiscuity, drunkenness etc. The pro-hmsexual camp (no pun intended) are chasing their own tales trying to prove otherwise. Their arguments fail to take into account the numerous testimonies of those fully delivered of their homosexual leanings following conversion.
Christ our model
I agree with Ivan insofar as I believe the burden of proof is on those who would condone homosexuality. Historically, and still today, the preponderance of churches and Christians read in the Bible a condemnation of the lifestyle. This cannot be dismissed as backward conservative silliness.
Secondly, Ivan is right to point out that we have no positive examples of homosexual relationships in the Bible, and no instruction concerning homosexual relationships. I believe this places even more responsibility upon those who want to declare homosexuality an acceptable Christian practice to explain this silence.
Having said that, it is worth noting that the "liberals" will point out that Jesus and David were both much more affectionate toward their male companions than would be acceptable today. Moreover, there is much the Bible does not discuss simply because it was not a relevant issue of that day. "Liberals" would argue that homosexual monogamy was never a topic that Israel or the early church wrestled with — thus no examples, and thus no instruction. Why it was such a non-issue is a valid question. Is homosexuality a modern phenomenon?As far as Christ is concerned, I am not sure how far we want him to serve as our model for sexual behavior. Our Lord and Savior, a celibate. Take up that cross if you will, I’m using the chicken exit that Paul opened for me. To assert that Jesus may have had heterosexual attractions, but certainly no homosexual attractions, is simply an assertion that Ivan wishes to be true, but I see no evidence for either position.
In fact, if homosexuality is a sin, I suspect Jesus almost certainly felt some homosexual attraction, since "he was tempted in every way, just as we are…"
One observation — not a very good argument, but an observation: I can honestly say I’ve felt the temptation to commit just about every sin in the book. Murder, yep, I know I’m capable of it. I have a friend whose son is still in critical condition after a babysitter gave him shaken baby syndrome. Let’s just say she should be glad I don’t own a gun. I’ve felt the allure of adultery, theft, false witness, etc. etc.
I can honestly say that I’ve never lusted after a man. I find men totally unappealing sexually. Disgusting, really. If I were a girl I’d have to be a lesbian. Why is that? Why is that the one sin that I have never struggled with, even a little? Perhaps because it is not a sin? It’s not proof, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Just food for thought
Re: Christ our model
I have to say that I’m in full agreement, as a gay man, that objection to homosexuality is not mere “conservative silliness.” Conservatives deserve to have their questions answered, both exegetically in the specific passages and in the overall sweep of the Scriptural story. I also believe that knowledge of contemporary science and biblical scholarship should be reverantly employed in the service of the Church.
(I have to admit, though, that I’m not so sure the Bible is inerrant in the way most Evangelicals define it. Therefore, it’s possible that Paul or any other author was wrong, although I don’t have the right, as one individual Christian, to make that determination.)
Erlen asks above, “Is homosexuality a modern [contemporary] phenomenon?” In a word, yes: homosexuality today is a new, socially constructed phenomenon. (As an aside, I must admit I am confused by the resolute insistence upon monogamous homosexual or heterosexual relationships in both conservative and liberal circles. This insistence on monogamy seems to have no biblical support whatever, though it has been a useful social convention for various reasons.)
Having admitted that our particular form of homosexual expression is socially constructed, it is highly unfair to say, because of this, “Aha! People choose their sexual orientation.” I don’t fully understand *why*, but the fact is that the vast majority of people do not choose their affectational orientation, and cannot change it.
By way of applying learning to the “sweep of the biblical story”, I’d like to make some basic comments on Genesis 1 (with apologies to more articulate posters whom I may have missed). Leaning hard on Genesis 1 (which, among other things, is a polemic poem containing an etymological myth [explanatory story] about marriage) is highly dangerous. I would suggest that we try to do too much theology from Genesis 1, as though it is a sophisticated sociological treatise that tries to outline “the perfect world.” I believe that Israel used Genesis 1 to frame their own understanding of the world based on their experiences.
Does Genesis 1 prove that there are only two sexes, and that all other sexual variants (intersex people) are somehow broken? No, unless we take the command to reproduce as an absolute for all of human history. Can we prove the supremacy of monogamy from this text. No, because according to the story, there are only two people on the planet! Does the text explain what the image of God is? No. We try to connect “male and female” to the image of God, but the animals also reproduce sexually. Perhaps it is better to say that humanity has one foot in “the animal kingdom” and one foot “in the spirit world.” Genesis two may suggest that the image of God may consist in “naming” the world, or co-creating with God. (As you will no doubt note, my theology is just as creative as some conservative stuff.) Do we really believe that biological sex (male and female) is ontologically grounded in the character of God? And aren’t our gendered identies (man and woman) social constructions that we name before God? Does the text actually and unequivocally affirm the so-called institution of marriage?
What Genesis 1 affirms is: the supremacy of God, the blessedness of being able to reproduce, and the goodness of companionship. (Some people are extremely uncomfortable that my approach seems so reductionistic. My point in boiling it down is to say that hermeneutics is at least as important as what the text actually says. This is a rich story, but I doubt it has direct applicability across time to our understandings of sexuality in today’s culture.)
The short version, for me, is that after answering all these questions and doing the exegesis and looking for the Spirit in my experience (as the first church council did in Acts 15), I believe that many, if not all, Rainbow people can “name” (Gen. 2) themselves in the presence of God and experience God’s blessing as part of God’s good creation.
Whew! I hope that seems revelant. I have all kinds of conversations like this, so it’s possible that I’m including or conflating issues that haven’t come up or need to be distinct. Thanks for listening, and I love how articulate and gracious people are, here!
In peace,
Rob
Re: Summary - and a surprising conclusion?
Dear Peter,
I confess I’m a one-issue participant here on opensourcetheology. I found your article while surfing the web looking specifically for some writer who understood Romans 1:26-27 on “degrading passions” in light of the complete flow of Paul’s argument which climaxes with 2:1-3 — “in passing judgment on another, you condemn yourself.”
You’ve done a fine job Peter, in my humble opinion. I’d like to say a few words, to amplify the point, if I may.
How frustrating when people don’t see it. The rhetorical pattern goes they, they, they, YOU, with the accent on YOU, whoever you are. Lamenting the sins of others is facile compared with the weighty work of self-examination. It reminds me of the adage: “Every time you point a finger of accusation at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.” It also resonates with the sermon on the mount where Jesus says, “you have heard it say, don’t murder… don’t commit adultery… but I say, if you are hate, if you lust you are in danger.” Jesus adamantly and passionately wants his followers to stop short when they feel the impulse to pass judgment, to express wrath against the blatant, outward sins of others, and instead, calls us to do some serious of self-examination. Recall the wonderful hyperbolic saying, “don’t presume to take a splinter from someone’s eye when there is a LOG in your own.” Paul says, concerning wrath, that we are to reserve it for God who sees the secrets of our hearts. Sinners receive, sooner or later, the wrath of God in their own bodies.
Ah the mysterious wrath of God, how misunderstood it is. When welcomed, it can be, in the phrase coined by Rudolph Otto, the mysterium tremendum. The sublime mysterious Other sees you, a weak creature, uncovered and being seen makes you tremble. And when wrath does its baptismal work, it is the kiss of death to the old creature, making way for the new creation.
Each person stands alone before the judgment seat of God. The judgment of God is not a simple as it might at first (in Romans 2:6) seem: Those who do good are rewarded, those who do evil are punished. Christ, in his creaturely death, God with us in the flesh, changes the picture, so that unworthy people are reckoned righteous. Ahh the sheer grace. Not that we are to stop doing good. It is just that we are not to boast about our good works, even in secret. Instead, we are to boast of our creaturely weakness. Not that we are to indulge our weakness by doing evil. There are paradoxes to consider. We have a non-rational side. We resolve to do good, then do what we hate. When we acknowledge our weakness before God, then we receive power to do God’s will.
That is part of what I hear Paul saying. You?
Gregory
Re: Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
“Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intent of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Seeing that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of god, let us hold fast our profession.
For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in alll points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
Hebrews 4:11-16
Greetings and peace, Ivan and Paul. Ivan, I had almost given up hope of hearing from you again.
First for Ivan:
Without overstating the case, I think the text in Hebrews at least offers up the possibility, even the probability of sexual temptation, even homosexual temptation. As unpalatable as the thought of Jesus tempted to any sin is to me, I believe I must look to scripture as my final authority.
It is both disconcerting and glorious at this time of Lenten reflection and repentance to know that I can’t throw a childish tantrum and tell God that he just doesn’t understand how hard it is to walk in His ways. Disconcerting in that I have no way to squirm out of the Holy Spirit’s ministrations; glorious in that Jesus knows exactly, in “all points” what you, Paul Hartigan and I are all about and what we are going through.
Paul: I remember in an exchange of views a long time ago you expressed your opinion that you believed the real issue for you was the authority of scripture. I have, since that time read everything you have written, hopefully fairly so, through the prism of that understanding.
Personally, I believe you are in some senses at war with the scriptures, those passages which are uncongenial to the guilt-free enjoyment of your homosexuality and those individuals- St. Paul, Church Fathers, Modern/Post Modern theologians- who explicate a traditional or orthodox understanding of those passages.
What’s my point you might ask? It is this. Please consider the possibility that the scriptures might have some authority to speak on these issues with which we wrestle. Harden not your heart.
God’s peace and blessings
Alario
Homosexuality as abnormal as left-handedness?
Peter, Thanks, a very helpful summary of the discussion so far.
I have several comments.
In his post on Homosexuality and the new creation Andrew says "homosexuality is an inescapable element in fallen humanity - whether we explain it biologically or culturally". I do not think it is at all obvious what is part of the fallen humanity and hence what is to be renewed in the new heaven and the new earth. Is left handedness, having a squint or proneness to baldness part of fallen humanity? What about planetary wobble or tsunamis or exploding suns? I ask this because, in my view, homosexuality has the same degree of abnormality as left-handedness.
Secondly, if I understand you aright, your concluding remarks suggest that Paul in Romans 1 and the early bit of 2 is leading up to a polemic against being judgemental. That is an interesting view of the text but even if valid leaves homosexuality swinging in the wind as a sin. I have no trouble accepting all the rest of what Paul refers to as sin but not homosexuality, so we seem to be no further advanced