Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Gerv
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 weeks ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Wow. Lots to read. I doubt I'll make it all the way back to where I left off... I'll try and make sure I address the right comments to the right people this time :-)
On the polygamy question: I have no problem seeing God regulating things that are less than ideal. Divorce is one example which explicitly is called out as such in the NT.
I also think that whoever said that you can't have it both ways on "David and Jonathan were gay" and "the Bible knows nothing of committed homosexual relationships, so the prohibitions aren't total" made a very good point. Unless you think we are capable of seeing things in the Old Testament which were hidden to Paul. At the moment, it seems that Carolyn is arguing the former and Sue the latter - so are the two of you implicitly disagreeing with each other?
Carolyn: if you are saying that the Bible does not condemn slavery, then why do you not reach the conclusion that (some forms of) slavery are OK to God? There's only two possible answers to that question: "Because I don't like it" (in which case, who are you to put yourself above God?) or "because the Bible actually does condemn slavery", in which case your initial premise is contradicted.
Sue said: "but a deep respect and commitment to another through thick and thin. LGBT people are as capable as this depth of love as are heterosexual people." Are you talking about particular individuals or as a class? Because I'm fairly sure that, taking LGB people as a class vs. heterosexuals as a class, statistics do not back you up.
Sue: I think you have misunderstood the conservative "open the floodgates" argument. Conservatives are concerned that conceding the principles underlying the arguments for homosexual practice means that the same principles can be used to argue for the acceptance of other non-heterosexual-marital practices. It is not a concern about the "frightening pace of social change". Even if you do not wish to use those principles to argue for those practices, others do. And if you are to meet that objection, you need to show how the principles you are asking us to accept do not, in fact, logically lead to the acceptance of those other practices.
Carolyn: actually, the above also speaks to your point about conservatives caricaturing liberals as "anything goes". I agree such a caricature is wrong, but the caricature is only one (mis)step from the argument that while _you_ may not be "anything goes", the principles you are asking the church to accept logically lead there. And you also need to show why that's not so.
Lastly, I would politely suggest to Philip that your standard style can read as a bit patronising. :-)
On the polygamy question: I have no problem seeing God regulating things that are less than ideal. Divorce is one example which explicitly is called out as such in the NT.
I also think that whoever said that you can't have it both ways on "David and Jonathan were gay" and "the Bible knows nothing of committed homosexual relationships, so the prohibitions aren't total" made a very good point. Unless you think we are capable of seeing things in the Old Testament which were hidden to Paul. At the moment, it seems that Carolyn is arguing the former and Sue the latter - so are the two of you implicitly disagreeing with each other?
Carolyn: if you are saying that the Bible does not condemn slavery, then why do you not reach the conclusion that (some forms of) slavery are OK to God? There's only two possible answers to that question: "Because I don't like it" (in which case, who are you to put yourself above God?) or "because the Bible actually does condemn slavery", in which case your initial premise is contradicted.
Sue said: "but a deep respect and commitment to another through thick and thin. LGBT people are as capable as this depth of love as are heterosexual people." Are you talking about particular individuals or as a class? Because I'm fairly sure that, taking LGB people as a class vs. heterosexuals as a class, statistics do not back you up.
Sue: I think you have misunderstood the conservative "open the floodgates" argument. Conservatives are concerned that conceding the principles underlying the arguments for homosexual practice means that the same principles can be used to argue for the acceptance of other non-heterosexual-marital practices. It is not a concern about the "frightening pace of social change". Even if you do not wish to use those principles to argue for those practices, others do. And if you are to meet that objection, you need to show how the principles you are asking us to accept do not, in fact, logically lead to the acceptance of those other practices.
Carolyn: actually, the above also speaks to your point about conservatives caricaturing liberals as "anything goes". I agree such a caricature is wrong, but the caricature is only one (mis)step from the argument that while _you_ may not be "anything goes", the principles you are asking the church to accept logically lead there. And you also need to show why that's not so.
Lastly, I would politely suggest to Philip that your standard style can read as a bit patronising. :-)
2 replies
Sue
Hi Gervase, I hope the house move went well?
I'll keep this as brief as possible( spending too much time on here!)and only address points arising from my posts.
1. David and Jonathon. If you are able to find it, I contributed to a thread on Ruth and Naomi and said that to me there seems insufficient evidence one way or another to "prove" whether David and Jonathon's friendship was sexual or not, though it was clearly very intense. I think, given that Paul would not have been alert to loving homoeroticism in the way we are now, it wouldn't have occurred to him.
2. When I say LGBT people are as capable of love and commitment as heterosexuals, I mean both as individuals and - potentially - as a group in society. LGBT people are as human as anyone else. LGBT people are as capable of love, hatred, folly, wisdom, morality, immorality, selfishness, self giving, tolerance and prejudice as all other human beings. Gay and bisexual people are NOT innately morally "inferior."
Aspects of gay culture( largely male gay culture) can be highly promiscuous. I think there are cultural and historical reasons for this and refer you to my post on June 15 09 at 5.25pm.
3. "Opening the floodgates." I just listened on the radio to a conservative in Iran saying - "if we allow people to hold hands in the street, all sorts of immorality will follow." Does he have a point? He probably does but I don't see it as a justification for opression in Iran anymore than I see your concerns as an argument for a continuation of the oppression of gay people in society. So I do not agree with you that I "need to show that thte principles I am asking you to accept do not, logically, lead to the acceptance of other practices." You might as well say - "before women get the vote, you need to show it will not lead to the acceptance of other practices" or "before you introduce education for all, you need to show it will not lead to social and class chaos" - although of course, people like you did say this...
Please understand me, I want to live in a just and balanced society - finding that "balance" is difficult and what is "balance" to one person isn't to another. You never get utopia ( I wish we could!) and the human inability to create that utopia, and the pitfalls when we try, is a complex issue explored in much literature and philosophy throughout the ages!
I'll keep this as brief as possible( spending too much time on here!)and only address points arising from my posts.
1. David and Jonathon. If you are able to find it, I contributed to a thread on Ruth and Naomi and said that to me there seems insufficient evidence one way or another to "prove" whether David and Jonathon's friendship was sexual or not, though it was clearly very intense. I think, given that Paul would not have been alert to loving homoeroticism in the way we are now, it wouldn't have occurred to him.
2. When I say LGBT people are as capable of love and commitment as heterosexuals, I mean both as individuals and - potentially - as a group in society. LGBT people are as human as anyone else. LGBT people are as capable of love, hatred, folly, wisdom, morality, immorality, selfishness, self giving, tolerance and prejudice as all other human beings. Gay and bisexual people are NOT innately morally "inferior."
Aspects of gay culture( largely male gay culture) can be highly promiscuous. I think there are cultural and historical reasons for this and refer you to my post on June 15 09 at 5.25pm.
3. "Opening the floodgates." I just listened on the radio to a conservative in Iran saying - "if we allow people to hold hands in the street, all sorts of immorality will follow." Does he have a point? He probably does but I don't see it as a justification for opression in Iran anymore than I see your concerns as an argument for a continuation of the oppression of gay people in society. So I do not agree with you that I "need to show that thte principles I am asking you to accept do not, logically, lead to the acceptance of other practices." You might as well say - "before women get the vote, you need to show it will not lead to the acceptance of other practices" or "before you introduce education for all, you need to show it will not lead to social and class chaos" - although of course, people like you did say this...
Please understand me, I want to live in a just and balanced society - finding that "balance" is difficult and what is "balance" to one person isn't to another. You never get utopia ( I wish we could!) and the human inability to create that utopia, and the pitfalls when we try, is a complex issue explored in much literature and philosophy throughout the ages!
2 weeks ago
in MPs Expenses – The Telegraph Ducks Out on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Are you saying that there is nothing in the files the Telegraph owns which it is reasonable for MPs to want kept secret? Their mobile phone numbers from their mobile bills, to take one example?
1 reply
Peter Ould
No, but as was demonstrated yesterday (I need to find the link but I think it was on Dizzy's site) a lot of the stuff that is blanked out isn't personal. For example, simply by showing the town where an MP lives and claims for his/her house would demonstrate flipping without compromising security.
4 weeks ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
I've commented on several of your points below (the perils of reading blogs from the bottom up!).
I don't claim to be "properly interpreting Scripture in all particulars" - but I'm sure you don't either, so unless we want to give up on the task of Scriptural interpretation as impossible, we will just have to continue doing the best we can, with close attention to the text.
I do not recognise your characterisation of the "conservative evangelical" position as my position, Peter's position, or the position of anyone else I know. I do not condemn the temptation of same-sex attraction, and I do not stigmatise people who have particular sins (I hope; and if I found I was, I would repent). Do some churches screw this up? Certainly; we're all sinners, including church leaders. Does that mean the answer is to uncritically accept homosexual practice? Back to the Bible!
On that point, I don't think it's a question of "prioritising passages" or "giving precedence" - that would imply that God's word contradicts itself, and so we have to decide which bits are right and which have been obsoleted. That's a Muslim understanding of scripture, but not a Christian one. I think the right thing to do is reach the conclusion which best takes into account all the Biblical evidence.
You mentioned Like 6, Romans 13 and Romans 1. I don't think that Jesus ignores the law in Luke 6, I think he explains how the Pharisees have misunderstood it. If he were to ignore the law, he would have been sinning - for the law is not abolished (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus is saying that it's entirely fine to feed yourself on the Sabbath - that's not what the Old Testament means by "work". I think that the Biblical definition of love cannot involve sin, and so whether Romans 13 can be used to approve of homosexual practice or not depends on whether it's a sin - something we must determine from the passages which address that question. And so I hope to hear in detail how you understand Romans 1.
I don't claim to be "properly interpreting Scripture in all particulars" - but I'm sure you don't either, so unless we want to give up on the task of Scriptural interpretation as impossible, we will just have to continue doing the best we can, with close attention to the text.
I do not recognise your characterisation of the "conservative evangelical" position as my position, Peter's position, or the position of anyone else I know. I do not condemn the temptation of same-sex attraction, and I do not stigmatise people who have particular sins (I hope; and if I found I was, I would repent). Do some churches screw this up? Certainly; we're all sinners, including church leaders. Does that mean the answer is to uncritically accept homosexual practice? Back to the Bible!
On that point, I don't think it's a question of "prioritising passages" or "giving precedence" - that would imply that God's word contradicts itself, and so we have to decide which bits are right and which have been obsoleted. That's a Muslim understanding of scripture, but not a Christian one. I think the right thing to do is reach the conclusion which best takes into account all the Biblical evidence.
You mentioned Like 6, Romans 13 and Romans 1. I don't think that Jesus ignores the law in Luke 6, I think he explains how the Pharisees have misunderstood it. If he were to ignore the law, he would have been sinning - for the law is not abolished (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus is saying that it's entirely fine to feed yourself on the Sabbath - that's not what the Old Testament means by "work". I think that the Biblical definition of love cannot involve sin, and so whether Romans 13 can be used to approve of homosexual practice or not depends on whether it's a sin - something we must determine from the passages which address that question. And so I hope to hear in detail how you understand Romans 1.
2 replies
Carolyn
Gervase,
Just a quick point - if you read further in Luke 6, you'll also find Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. Something that was completely unnecessary (you have to eat on the Sabbath, but the withered hand had waited years - surely it could have waited another few hours?).
And what reason does Jesus give to the watching Pharisees, who wanted to catch Jesus out breaking the law (and they seemed to expect him to break the law - wonder why? Could this be a pattern with Jesus?)?
Jesus asks whether it is permitted to do good or evil on the Sabbath? The answer is obvious, right? One should do good, not evil.
The law is there to protect us - to help us to 'do good', to 'show love', to 'not harm others'.
How can we tell whether or not our particular interpretation of the law is doing good or evil? Look at the effects of our interpretation on those around us.
This is what conservatives fail to do. They, just like the Pharisees, say that the Law says 'Homosexuality is evil. Full stop.' So therefore homosexuality is not loving, is outside of God's law, etc, etc. But, of course, you are starting with your definition and also ending with it - that is not proof, merely circular argumentation.
But the important point - this is NOT the model we see from Jesus. Jesus asks us to judge our interpretation of the Law by how that interpretation affects those around us.
And by this standard, the conservative evangelical interpretation fails miserably. Absolutely miserably. Because it causes abundant harm, misery, self-loathing, pain, grief, marginalisation, stigmatisation, etc, etc in the lives of gays and lesbians.
That may not be your individual intention, Gervase. But the evidence is clear that these are the results of your interpretation of the law (just as slave owners' interpretation of the Scriptural admonitions to slaves to obey their masters failed Jesus' standard miserably as well).
As a history graduate, it is always fascinating to me to read Scriptural arguments from years gone by. It seems perfectly obvious to all of us that slavery is not at all compatible with Jesus' teachings - but if you read the impassioned defences of slavery by slave owners, you hear eerie echoes of the rhetoric used by anti-gay Christians today.
Just a quick point - if you read further in Luke 6, you'll also find Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. Something that was completely unnecessary (you have to eat on the Sabbath, but the withered hand had waited years - surely it could have waited another few hours?).
And what reason does Jesus give to the watching Pharisees, who wanted to catch Jesus out breaking the law (and they seemed to expect him to break the law - wonder why? Could this be a pattern with Jesus?)?
Jesus asks whether it is permitted to do good or evil on the Sabbath? The answer is obvious, right? One should do good, not evil.
The law is there to protect us - to help us to 'do good', to 'show love', to 'not harm others'.
How can we tell whether or not our particular interpretation of the law is doing good or evil? Look at the effects of our interpretation on those around us.
This is what conservatives fail to do. They, just like the Pharisees, say that the Law says 'Homosexuality is evil. Full stop.' So therefore homosexuality is not loving, is outside of God's law, etc, etc. But, of course, you are starting with your definition and also ending with it - that is not proof, merely circular argumentation.
But the important point - this is NOT the model we see from Jesus. Jesus asks us to judge our interpretation of the Law by how that interpretation affects those around us.
And by this standard, the conservative evangelical interpretation fails miserably. Absolutely miserably. Because it causes abundant harm, misery, self-loathing, pain, grief, marginalisation, stigmatisation, etc, etc in the lives of gays and lesbians.
That may not be your individual intention, Gervase. But the evidence is clear that these are the results of your interpretation of the law (just as slave owners' interpretation of the Scriptural admonitions to slaves to obey their masters failed Jesus' standard miserably as well).
As a history graduate, it is always fascinating to me to read Scriptural arguments from years gone by. It seems perfectly obvious to all of us that slavery is not at all compatible with Jesus' teachings - but if you read the impassioned defences of slavery by slave owners, you hear eerie echoes of the rhetoric used by anti-gay Christians today.
Carolyn
I'm going to come back on the 'giving priority to certain passages' comment.
I totally agree with you - the priority is to reach an interpretation which best takes into account all of the Biblical evidence.
If Scripture interprets Scripture (a very conservative viewpoint), then we use one passage to interpret another. But which way around do we go? This is what I mean by prioritising one passage over another.
And you and I both do it - but we prioritise different passages (I feel, like Sue, that I am repeating myself).
You start with assuming that Romans 1 is a once and for all time prohibition of all homosexual activity - despite the fact that, for example, this passages doesn't even pretend to address committed, loving same-sex partnerships.
Then you use this a priori interpretation to 'prove' that when Romans 13 tells us that 'love doesn't harm' that it can't be harmful to homosexuals to deny them a life-partner and to tell them that their sexual orientation must be resisted. Why is it not harmful? Not because of any 'on the ground evidence', but because of your interpretation of Romans 1 - which takes precedence for you.
It's much the same position the Pharisees of Jesus' day found themselves in with respect to the Sabbath Law, for example. They had decided - a priori - that 'Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath' meant doing things generally regarded as 'work' (like picking corn to eat and healing someone - after all, you were supposed to pick your corn earlier, and the healing surely could have waited).
But Jesus tells them that interpretations of the law can't be separated from the following question: is the law for good or for evil?
What are the effects of how we interpet the law? That is how we can tell if we've gotten it right. That is the key.
And that is how (once again) I interpret Romans 1. The homosexuality Paul knew about in the 1st century (and the lustful, idolatrous orgies he appears to be specifically referring to in Romans 1) do not at all pass the 'law of love' test, do they? So it isn't surprising to find Paul condemning them.
But what do these orgies have to do with committed same-sex relationships? Relationships which clearly and abundantly pass the 'law of love' test? Nothing at all.
Which is why I'd come back to Romans 13 if someone asks my position on same-sex relationships. Do those relationships harm people? Or do they help people? Are they demonstrably evil or demonstrably good?
It's clear that these relationships, when they are committed and loving, help people and are demonstrably good. So why in the world would I think that God would condemn them?
I think what God condemns is what Jesus condemned to the Pharisees - interpretations of the law that harm people and cause evil in people's lives. Something that is (again) a clear result of the conservative evangelical position on homosexuality.
I totally agree with you - the priority is to reach an interpretation which best takes into account all of the Biblical evidence.
If Scripture interprets Scripture (a very conservative viewpoint), then we use one passage to interpret another. But which way around do we go? This is what I mean by prioritising one passage over another.
And you and I both do it - but we prioritise different passages (I feel, like Sue, that I am repeating myself).
You start with assuming that Romans 1 is a once and for all time prohibition of all homosexual activity - despite the fact that, for example, this passages doesn't even pretend to address committed, loving same-sex partnerships.
Then you use this a priori interpretation to 'prove' that when Romans 13 tells us that 'love doesn't harm' that it can't be harmful to homosexuals to deny them a life-partner and to tell them that their sexual orientation must be resisted. Why is it not harmful? Not because of any 'on the ground evidence', but because of your interpretation of Romans 1 - which takes precedence for you.
It's much the same position the Pharisees of Jesus' day found themselves in with respect to the Sabbath Law, for example. They had decided - a priori - that 'Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath' meant doing things generally regarded as 'work' (like picking corn to eat and healing someone - after all, you were supposed to pick your corn earlier, and the healing surely could have waited).
But Jesus tells them that interpretations of the law can't be separated from the following question: is the law for good or for evil?
What are the effects of how we interpet the law? That is how we can tell if we've gotten it right. That is the key.
And that is how (once again) I interpret Romans 1. The homosexuality Paul knew about in the 1st century (and the lustful, idolatrous orgies he appears to be specifically referring to in Romans 1) do not at all pass the 'law of love' test, do they? So it isn't surprising to find Paul condemning them.
But what do these orgies have to do with committed same-sex relationships? Relationships which clearly and abundantly pass the 'law of love' test? Nothing at all.
Which is why I'd come back to Romans 13 if someone asks my position on same-sex relationships. Do those relationships harm people? Or do they help people? Are they demonstrably evil or demonstrably good?
It's clear that these relationships, when they are committed and loving, help people and are demonstrably good. So why in the world would I think that God would condemn them?
I think what God condemns is what Jesus condemned to the Pharisees - interpretations of the law that harm people and cause evil in people's lives. Something that is (again) a clear result of the conservative evangelical position on homosexuality.
4 weeks ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
I would be interested to know where the idea of temptation fits into both of your understandings of the Christian life. That is how a distinction is made between wanting to do something and actually doing it, and why something can not be sinful but still have to be resisted.
Homosexual feelings are a temptation, and should be resisted - just as when I have thoughts about how much fun it would be to have sex with a woman to whom I am not married, that is a temptation which I must resist. But to be tempted is not sinful - Jesus was tempted "in every way, just as we are" but was without sin, Hebrews 4:15 tells us.
This does not mean that the activities Sue lists in capitals are "alright" - Jesus also said that if you fantasise about adultery, it's the equivalent of committing it in your heart (Matthew 5:28). So having homosexual or other sex-outside-marriage thoughts is not sinful, although it would be wise to quickly change the mental subject to something else, but enjoying and dwelling on them, and fantasizing, is.
But I would imagine that it still feels very isolating and fearful to be a LGBT Christian and to hear that, even if same-sex attraction itself wasn’t sinful, it was still something that had to be resisted at all costs, you know?
I really don't understand why you think that. My temptations to have sex outside marriage aren't sinful, but must be strongly resisted, and yet this fact doesn't make me feel "isolated and fearful". We are all sinners in different ways; no-one can claim superiority. But that fact doesn't mean we all look at our sins and say "well, it's OK, because everyone's doing it and no-one's perfect", it means we encourage one another in holiness, with the strong in one area helping the weak in that area, and vice versa.
Imagine you’ve gotten it wrong
Here's the alternative version of that question.
Imagine you’ve gotten it wrong (whichever side of the Biblical argument you come out on). Which position do you want to have to stand before Jesus and explain?
That you called holy what is sinful? That you perverted Christ's best illustration of his relationship with his church? That you encouraged and affirmed what Paul describes as one of the primary examples of the world's godlessness and idolatry?
Or that you encouraged people to find their identity, value and worth in Christ and not in a sexual relationship, but thereby mistakenly required some people who would otherwise have had sexual relationships to be celibate?
I don't think this is a particularly helpful way of thinking. Both disobeying God's commands and adding restrictions where God has not added them are bad things. Legalism and licence are the two ditches either side of the Christian walk.
I also want to comment on this:
That you marginalised, stigmatised and failed to accept children of God whom God himself loves, accepts and affirms?
People with homosexual attractions should not be marginalised, stigmatised or fail to find acceptance as people in any church. And I wish you would stop characterising all churches which believe that all sex outside marriage is wrong as places like that, because there are many Christians struggling with same-sex attraction who would testify that they are not.
However, the church should also call all those who sin to repentance and change. Our sin, whatever it may be, should cause us to be ashamed of it before God. So, your paragraph should probably be something like "that you called something sinful which the Bible does not, thereby causing people to abstain from entirely reasonable sexual practices".
Homosexual feelings are a temptation, and should be resisted - just as when I have thoughts about how much fun it would be to have sex with a woman to whom I am not married, that is a temptation which I must resist. But to be tempted is not sinful - Jesus was tempted "in every way, just as we are" but was without sin, Hebrews 4:15 tells us.
This does not mean that the activities Sue lists in capitals are "alright" - Jesus also said that if you fantasise about adultery, it's the equivalent of committing it in your heart (Matthew 5:28). So having homosexual or other sex-outside-marriage thoughts is not sinful, although it would be wise to quickly change the mental subject to something else, but enjoying and dwelling on them, and fantasizing, is.
But I would imagine that it still feels very isolating and fearful to be a LGBT Christian and to hear that, even if same-sex attraction itself wasn’t sinful, it was still something that had to be resisted at all costs, you know?
I really don't understand why you think that. My temptations to have sex outside marriage aren't sinful, but must be strongly resisted, and yet this fact doesn't make me feel "isolated and fearful". We are all sinners in different ways; no-one can claim superiority. But that fact doesn't mean we all look at our sins and say "well, it's OK, because everyone's doing it and no-one's perfect", it means we encourage one another in holiness, with the strong in one area helping the weak in that area, and vice versa.
Imagine you’ve gotten it wrong
Here's the alternative version of that question.
Imagine you’ve gotten it wrong (whichever side of the Biblical argument you come out on). Which position do you want to have to stand before Jesus and explain?
That you called holy what is sinful? That you perverted Christ's best illustration of his relationship with his church? That you encouraged and affirmed what Paul describes as one of the primary examples of the world's godlessness and idolatry?
Or that you encouraged people to find their identity, value and worth in Christ and not in a sexual relationship, but thereby mistakenly required some people who would otherwise have had sexual relationships to be celibate?
I don't think this is a particularly helpful way of thinking. Both disobeying God's commands and adding restrictions where God has not added them are bad things. Legalism and licence are the two ditches either side of the Christian walk.
I also want to comment on this:
That you marginalised, stigmatised and failed to accept children of God whom God himself loves, accepts and affirms?
People with homosexual attractions should not be marginalised, stigmatised or fail to find acceptance as people in any church. And I wish you would stop characterising all churches which believe that all sex outside marriage is wrong as places like that, because there are many Christians struggling with same-sex attraction who would testify that they are not.
However, the church should also call all those who sin to repentance and change. Our sin, whatever it may be, should cause us to be ashamed of it before God. So, your paragraph should probably be something like "that you called something sinful which the Bible does not, thereby causing people to abstain from entirely reasonable sexual practices".
2 replies
Carolyn
Gervase,
I really should have left for work about 5 minutes ago, so I don't have time to say much.
But I'm linking you to this forum, where gay and lesbian Christians speak about their disillusionment with the Church:
http://gaychristian.net/community/showtopic.php...
I think that your comments about people not feeling marginalised and stigmatised by the church and Christians for feeling gay/lesbian - well, that might reflect your INTENTIONS, but it does not reflect the wider reality.
And I think it demonstrates a lack of empathy/understanding of the situation that gays and lesbians find themselves in.
There is simply no way that your example of feeling tempted to have sex with a woman who is not your wife is IN ANY WAY comparable with telling someone who is homosexual that they must resist ALL sexual/romantic urges they have (or else must 'become straight' in order to have a fulfilling relationship).
After all - you have a wife in the background. Your sexuality can be expressed in a loving, committed relationship (or, if you don't, you always have that possibility - gays and lesbians, in your world, don't).
Please, please, please, read and listen to the voices of the people that you are - yes, marginalising, whether or not you actively intend to do so.
Will be back with more later...
I really should have left for work about 5 minutes ago, so I don't have time to say much.
But I'm linking you to this forum, where gay and lesbian Christians speak about their disillusionment with the Church:
http://gaychristian.net/community/showtopic.php...
I think that your comments about people not feeling marginalised and stigmatised by the church and Christians for feeling gay/lesbian - well, that might reflect your INTENTIONS, but it does not reflect the wider reality.
And I think it demonstrates a lack of empathy/understanding of the situation that gays and lesbians find themselves in.
There is simply no way that your example of feeling tempted to have sex with a woman who is not your wife is IN ANY WAY comparable with telling someone who is homosexual that they must resist ALL sexual/romantic urges they have (or else must 'become straight' in order to have a fulfilling relationship).
After all - you have a wife in the background. Your sexuality can be expressed in a loving, committed relationship (or, if you don't, you always have that possibility - gays and lesbians, in your world, don't).
Please, please, please, read and listen to the voices of the people that you are - yes, marginalising, whether or not you actively intend to do so.
Will be back with more later...
Carolyn
I wanted as well to reply to how you changed my 'what if you are wrong' dilemma (even though you don't think it's a good way to think about things! That is such a conservative thing to say, don't you think? And it's premised on the idea that you conservatives really do have things right, and we liberals are just plain wrong).
I'll accept your reformulation of your own position - that's only fair. The only question I'd ask is this - do you see homosexual sin as worse than other sins? Because it sure as heck sounds like that from the way you have phrased your own position.
Have a look at your position again. Can you not see the difficulty you put gays and lesbians in when you hold that position, even when you claim to not be stigmatising them?
I mean - if they fall in love with someone, and form a loving wonderful relationship with them - that relationship is 'perverting Jesus best illustration of his relationship with his Church'? Please try to think how you'd feel to know that you could never express your sexuality, that you would always be alone, that you could never form a family of your own, but would always need to be on the outside, looking in.
Not nice.
But your formulation of my and Sue's position is inaccurate (as was my formulation of your position, I admit).
It is not just that you 'mistakenly prevented some people from forming relationships.' It's that you create an entire culture which stigmatises a minority group of people, victimising them and creating pyschologically damaging conflicts.
You create an enviroment in which those whom God accepts and loves (and remember - our God is notoriously biased towards those who are marginalised) are repeatedly cast out and denounced. This is how gays and lesbians in our Churches (and sometimes in wider society) feel.
You prevented gays and lesbians from exercising their callings from God (see the Scott Rennie case) - or if you aren't successful, you make their lives as difficult as possible in your attempts to stop them from following God's calling in their lives.
And as for encouraging them to find their identity in Christ - I would do that as well. Surely we should all be finding our identify in Christ?
That statement has nothing to do with your own position with respect to homosexuals, because that is a command to us all - but 'finding our identity in Christ' doesn't stop us heterosexuals from also finding a life partner (which fact all our friends and families then celebrate with us). You've just put it into your formulation of your 'wrong position' to try to make your position sound better, it seems to me.
I'll accept your reformulation of your own position - that's only fair. The only question I'd ask is this - do you see homosexual sin as worse than other sins? Because it sure as heck sounds like that from the way you have phrased your own position.
Have a look at your position again. Can you not see the difficulty you put gays and lesbians in when you hold that position, even when you claim to not be stigmatising them?
I mean - if they fall in love with someone, and form a loving wonderful relationship with them - that relationship is 'perverting Jesus best illustration of his relationship with his Church'? Please try to think how you'd feel to know that you could never express your sexuality, that you would always be alone, that you could never form a family of your own, but would always need to be on the outside, looking in.
Not nice.
But your formulation of my and Sue's position is inaccurate (as was my formulation of your position, I admit).
It is not just that you 'mistakenly prevented some people from forming relationships.' It's that you create an entire culture which stigmatises a minority group of people, victimising them and creating pyschologically damaging conflicts.
You create an enviroment in which those whom God accepts and loves (and remember - our God is notoriously biased towards those who are marginalised) are repeatedly cast out and denounced. This is how gays and lesbians in our Churches (and sometimes in wider society) feel.
You prevented gays and lesbians from exercising their callings from God (see the Scott Rennie case) - or if you aren't successful, you make their lives as difficult as possible in your attempts to stop them from following God's calling in their lives.
And as for encouraging them to find their identity in Christ - I would do that as well. Surely we should all be finding our identify in Christ?
That statement has nothing to do with your own position with respect to homosexuals, because that is a command to us all - but 'finding our identity in Christ' doesn't stop us heterosexuals from also finding a life partner (which fact all our friends and families then celebrate with us). You've just put it into your formulation of your 'wrong position' to try to make your position sound better, it seems to me.
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Do you think that in John 5:20, Jesus' point is "people can misuse Scripture, so best not to pay too much attention to it"? Or is his point "people can misuse Scripture, so be sure to understand it correctly"? After all, these are the Scriptures which testify about him.
You did explain why loving God and loving other people was primary, and I agreed with you. But you didn't explain why you get to define what "loving" is. As I said, the question is not: “does Sue think that homosexual sex is loving? If so, case closed.” The question is: “does God define all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful?”
LGBT Christians, by the way, do lead lives characterised by integrity, moral purity and holiness.
But you are begging the question again. If homosexual activity is sinful, then the above statement cannot be true.
As for moral certainty, I think Christ was ( and still is) on a quest to challenge moral certainty. In particular he challenged the moral certainty of the experts and teachers of the law - you can’t deny this, surely?
Do you think his quest was to replace moral certainty with moral uncertainty, or do you think he was trying to replace incorrect moral certainty with correct moral certainty?
I know you do not consider that the anguish you inflict on others, through this stance, might be cruel and “sinful”.
Why does calling person X's homosexual behaviour sinful inflict anguish on person X? That is a genuine question. The gospel says those who trust in Christ are all sinners, and yet valued and loved by God nevertheless. Could it be that person X has incorrectly absorbed the world's view that one's sexual practices define who one is as a person, and therefore to criticise the practices is to devalue the person?
If someone tells me that a certain behaviour of mine is sinful, then I (hope I) would carefully consider their words, with reference to Scripture. If I came to the conclusion they were right, then there might well be anguish and repentance. But if I searched the Scriptures and, to the best of my understanding, found that they were wrong, why should I feel anguish?
You did explain why loving God and loving other people was primary, and I agreed with you. But you didn't explain why you get to define what "loving" is. As I said, the question is not: “does Sue think that homosexual sex is loving? If so, case closed.” The question is: “does God define all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful?”
LGBT Christians, by the way, do lead lives characterised by integrity, moral purity and holiness.
But you are begging the question again. If homosexual activity is sinful, then the above statement cannot be true.
As for moral certainty, I think Christ was ( and still is) on a quest to challenge moral certainty. In particular he challenged the moral certainty of the experts and teachers of the law - you can’t deny this, surely?
Do you think his quest was to replace moral certainty with moral uncertainty, or do you think he was trying to replace incorrect moral certainty with correct moral certainty?
I know you do not consider that the anguish you inflict on others, through this stance, might be cruel and “sinful”.
Why does calling person X's homosexual behaviour sinful inflict anguish on person X? That is a genuine question. The gospel says those who trust in Christ are all sinners, and yet valued and loved by God nevertheless. Could it be that person X has incorrectly absorbed the world's view that one's sexual practices define who one is as a person, and therefore to criticise the practices is to devalue the person?
If someone tells me that a certain behaviour of mine is sinful, then I (hope I) would carefully consider their words, with reference to Scripture. If I came to the conclusion they were right, then there might well be anguish and repentance. But if I searched the Scriptures and, to the best of my understanding, found that they were wrong, why should I feel anguish?
1 reply
Sue
No, neither of these, Gervase. I think he is saying that ransacking the scriptures and thinking that this will suffice is futile. What we also need is the spirit of Christ and his love and compassion living within us.
You say the question is not "does Sue think homosexual sex ( I'd say "relationship") is loving" If so, case closed. But nor is the question, "does Gervase think homosexual sex ( relationship) is sinful. If so, case closed."
You believe that God defines all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful. I do not believe God defines all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful.
Both of us base our beliefs on a reading of scripture and our own "insticts" - and I think you are being dishonest if you deny that your "instincts" come in to it - after all you have already minimised or contextualised Scripture on the basis of your "instinct" that it is wrong to for one human being to enslave another, despite the clear cut injunction that slaves must obey their masters.
( Can't believe I am explaining all this again!)
Of "LGBT Christians lead lives of moral purity" - you say "you are begging the question again." Of course I am - so are you!
Regarding Christ and whether he wanted "moral certainty" or "moral uncertainty". I think he knew that humans would always, in all times, face difficult moral questions and that the answers are not always easy. I think he wanted us, above all, the be certain that we must think long and hard before judging others, that our role is to "police" ourselves.
( Can't believe I am explaining this again, either!)
I think if you believed that you must lead your life without the close intimate love of another human being you might feel anguish. I think if you loved someone and were told that for that you were going to hell you might, even if you didn't believe it, feel hurt and rejected. I think if you had come to a complete acceptance that you could have a same sex relationship and be justified in God's sight - but your family had not and they broke ties with you, you might be anguished. If you had experienced no change in orientation following "healing" and someone told you this was because you "are not sufficiently motivated" - wouldn't you feel anguish? These are all things that have happened to gay Christians.
Are you seriously, seriously saying you do not believe the question of homosexuality has never caused anguish to a single gay Christian?
You say the question is not "does Sue think homosexual sex ( I'd say "relationship") is loving" If so, case closed. But nor is the question, "does Gervase think homosexual sex ( relationship) is sinful. If so, case closed."
You believe that God defines all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful. I do not believe God defines all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful.
Both of us base our beliefs on a reading of scripture and our own "insticts" - and I think you are being dishonest if you deny that your "instincts" come in to it - after all you have already minimised or contextualised Scripture on the basis of your "instinct" that it is wrong to for one human being to enslave another, despite the clear cut injunction that slaves must obey their masters.
( Can't believe I am explaining all this again!)
Of "LGBT Christians lead lives of moral purity" - you say "you are begging the question again." Of course I am - so are you!
Regarding Christ and whether he wanted "moral certainty" or "moral uncertainty". I think he knew that humans would always, in all times, face difficult moral questions and that the answers are not always easy. I think he wanted us, above all, the be certain that we must think long and hard before judging others, that our role is to "police" ourselves.
( Can't believe I am explaining this again, either!)
I think if you believed that you must lead your life without the close intimate love of another human being you might feel anguish. I think if you loved someone and were told that for that you were going to hell you might, even if you didn't believe it, feel hurt and rejected. I think if you had come to a complete acceptance that you could have a same sex relationship and be justified in God's sight - but your family had not and they broke ties with you, you might be anguished. If you had experienced no change in orientation following "healing" and someone told you this was because you "are not sufficiently motivated" - wouldn't you feel anguish? These are all things that have happened to gay Christians.
Are you seriously, seriously saying you do not believe the question of homosexuality has never caused anguish to a single gay Christian?
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
I asked you a question starting "Does God...", and your reply contains no references to Scripture. Doesn't that worry you at all?
I was reading the latest issue of a magazine called "The Briefing" today - I don't know if you come across it. It's an Australian Christian magazine, although it has a UK version. There were a couple of things in it which I thought were really relevant to this discussion. Wonderfully, both are available online.
The first article was a satirical set of possible "response letters" which might be received if Galatians had been published in Christianity Today. For example:
Dear CT,
I've seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I'm surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr Apostle, for many years now, has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to 'mark' certain Christian teachers who don't agree with his biblical positions. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God's word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the church, and gives credence to the opposition's view that Curistians are judgemental, arrogant people who never show God's love. -- Ken Groener, San Diego, CA
Do you think Paul's comments about the Galatians were entirely in order, or are they in the category of "disgust and condemnation"?
The other thing which struck me was this great article entitled "To Mourn or not to Mourn?" Not the bit about mourning, but the excellent point that there is a third way between "this activity is bad, and you are judged and condemned" and "let's say that this activity isn't actually bad". It's called the gospel - "this activity is bad, but forgiveness and restoration is available for all the repentant". Calling people to moral purity and holiness of life is not "disgust and condemnation".
I'd commend both articles to you, and would be interested in your thoughts.
When I was a lot younger I sought the moral certainty that you and other conservatives seem to be (forgive me) slightly obsessed with.
This statement assumes that it's not possible to have such moral certainties. Do you think that God does not have a clear moral will, or do you think that he does have one but he hasn't clearly told us what it is? To put it another way, where is the uncertainty introduced which you think conservatives are trying to cover up/avoid in their futile search for certainty?
I was reading the latest issue of a magazine called "The Briefing" today - I don't know if you come across it. It's an Australian Christian magazine, although it has a UK version. There were a couple of things in it which I thought were really relevant to this discussion. Wonderfully, both are available online.
The first article was a satirical set of possible "response letters" which might be received if Galatians had been published in Christianity Today. For example:
Dear CT,
I've seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I'm surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr Apostle, for many years now, has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to 'mark' certain Christian teachers who don't agree with his biblical positions. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God's word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the church, and gives credence to the opposition's view that Curistians are judgemental, arrogant people who never show God's love. -- Ken Groener, San Diego, CA
Do you think Paul's comments about the Galatians were entirely in order, or are they in the category of "disgust and condemnation"?
The other thing which struck me was this great article entitled "To Mourn or not to Mourn?" Not the bit about mourning, but the excellent point that there is a third way between "this activity is bad, and you are judged and condemned" and "let's say that this activity isn't actually bad". It's called the gospel - "this activity is bad, but forgiveness and restoration is available for all the repentant". Calling people to moral purity and holiness of life is not "disgust and condemnation".
I'd commend both articles to you, and would be interested in your thoughts.
When I was a lot younger I sought the moral certainty that you and other conservatives seem to be (forgive me) slightly obsessed with.
This statement assumes that it's not possible to have such moral certainties. Do you think that God does not have a clear moral will, or do you think that he does have one but he hasn't clearly told us what it is? To put it another way, where is the uncertainty introduced which you think conservatives are trying to cover up/avoid in their futile search for certainty?
1 reply
Sue
Hi Gervase,
I am not worried at all! Many of my posts contain references to scripture and, in any case, people can use scripture in very damaging ways.Hear Christ's words in John 5:20,
" You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
A person can refer to scripture abundantly,and so believe themself justified, yet still be very far from God's love.
I have explained to you in detail ( June 5th 3;11) my humane approach to scripture and how I see the gospel as exemplifying a radical and empowering love for humanity over an arid legalism. I have acknowledged that we differ on biblical interpretation and do not intend to reiterate my posts ad infinitum.
What does concern me is the refusal of some Conservatives to recognise that their own approach to scripture is selective and arises from a "personal " agenda, as much as does liberals. Most conservatives minimise, or ignore, what scripture has to say about slavery, lending money at interest, remarriage and divorce and - for more liberal conservatives - the role of women and women's ministry.
I read both articles you linked to and thought them interesting, they represented different perspectives but didn't see how they refuted any of my views or described them. The second article describes a casual attitude to issues such as divorce and abortion etc. Again, if you read my posts, I say that I am passionately committed to the ideal of lifelong , monogamous marriage and I have certainly been both distressed and angered to witness the pain of abandoned spouses and children. Of course I know and accept that "divorce happens" - but so do you, don't you?
I wonder if, on some level , you are stereotyping me as a "liberal for whom anything goes", when I am far from being such?
You are right to say that "calling people to moral purity and holiness of life is not necessarily "disgust and condemnation" ( although it can often be expressed in those terms.) LGBT Christians, by the way, do lead lives characterised by integrity, moral purity and holiness.
As for moral certainty, I think Christ was ( and still is) on a quest to challenge moral certainty. In particular he challenged the moral certainty of the experts and teachers of the law - you can't deny this, surely?
I know you genuinely believe that a homosexual relationshop, however loving and committed is "sinful." I know you do not consider that the anguish you inflict on others, through this stance, might be cruel and "sinful". I do understand this and both of us can only really agree to differ over the issue and speak respectfully about it.
I am not worried at all! Many of my posts contain references to scripture and, in any case, people can use scripture in very damaging ways.Hear Christ's words in John 5:20,
" You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
A person can refer to scripture abundantly,and so believe themself justified, yet still be very far from God's love.
I have explained to you in detail ( June 5th 3;11) my humane approach to scripture and how I see the gospel as exemplifying a radical and empowering love for humanity over an arid legalism. I have acknowledged that we differ on biblical interpretation and do not intend to reiterate my posts ad infinitum.
What does concern me is the refusal of some Conservatives to recognise that their own approach to scripture is selective and arises from a "personal " agenda, as much as does liberals. Most conservatives minimise, or ignore, what scripture has to say about slavery, lending money at interest, remarriage and divorce and - for more liberal conservatives - the role of women and women's ministry.
I read both articles you linked to and thought them interesting, they represented different perspectives but didn't see how they refuted any of my views or described them. The second article describes a casual attitude to issues such as divorce and abortion etc. Again, if you read my posts, I say that I am passionately committed to the ideal of lifelong , monogamous marriage and I have certainly been both distressed and angered to witness the pain of abandoned spouses and children. Of course I know and accept that "divorce happens" - but so do you, don't you?
I wonder if, on some level , you are stereotyping me as a "liberal for whom anything goes", when I am far from being such?
You are right to say that "calling people to moral purity and holiness of life is not necessarily "disgust and condemnation" ( although it can often be expressed in those terms.) LGBT Christians, by the way, do lead lives characterised by integrity, moral purity and holiness.
As for moral certainty, I think Christ was ( and still is) on a quest to challenge moral certainty. In particular he challenged the moral certainty of the experts and teachers of the law - you can't deny this, surely?
I know you genuinely believe that a homosexual relationshop, however loving and committed is "sinful." I know you do not consider that the anguish you inflict on others, through this stance, might be cruel and "sinful". I do understand this and both of us can only really agree to differ over the issue and speak respectfully about it.
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Looks like there's a maximum depth on this comment system... have to reset to the top :-)
Firstly, sorry, Sue, you are quite right. I've been mixing people up. I need to pay more attention. And When Peter comes back, I'll try and remember to ask him to implement per-commenter colouring or make the names bigger.
Does God forbid an incestuous relationship between two consenting adult siblings which is characterised (by both parties) as having “respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit”? You may say it's rare, but that's irrelevant to the question. Or, as a separate question, and to return to your reasonable point about how I define adultery, a relationship between man X who is married to woman Y but has left her, without getting a divorce, and is now in a non-marital relationship of “respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit” with woman Z (who would herself also characterise the relationship in those terms)?
If he does disapprove, then logically those characteristics you list are not, by themselves, sufficient to say that a relationship is one of which God approves.
You are absolutely right that all the law and the prophets hang on the commandments to love God and to love your neighbour. But that doesn't prove anything in this discussion. Who defines what love is? God, not us. How does Jesus say we love God? Obeying his commands. (John 14:15 and other places in John.) And it's never possible for sin to be the right or the loving thing to do - either towards God or towards your neighbour. So the question is not: "does Sue think that homosexual sex is loving? If so, case closed." The question is: "does God define all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful?"
We are also confusing "love" and "sex". If I may attempt to lay our your logic (tell me if I've mischaracterized your argument):
1) God wants me to love him and my neighbour.
2) Person X is my neighbour.
3) I am in a sexual relationship with person X.
4) Therefore I am loving my neighbour.
5) Therefore God approves of my sexual activity.
The problem is moving from 3) to 4). To make that jump you have to define all sexual relationships as "being loving" in a "love your neighbour" sense. And that's begging the question.
Firstly, sorry, Sue, you are quite right. I've been mixing people up. I need to pay more attention. And When Peter comes back, I'll try and remember to ask him to implement per-commenter colouring or make the names bigger.
Does God forbid an incestuous relationship between two consenting adult siblings which is characterised (by both parties) as having “respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit”? You may say it's rare, but that's irrelevant to the question. Or, as a separate question, and to return to your reasonable point about how I define adultery, a relationship between man X who is married to woman Y but has left her, without getting a divorce, and is now in a non-marital relationship of “respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit” with woman Z (who would herself also characterise the relationship in those terms)?
If he does disapprove, then logically those characteristics you list are not, by themselves, sufficient to say that a relationship is one of which God approves.
You are absolutely right that all the law and the prophets hang on the commandments to love God and to love your neighbour. But that doesn't prove anything in this discussion. Who defines what love is? God, not us. How does Jesus say we love God? Obeying his commands. (John 14:15 and other places in John.) And it's never possible for sin to be the right or the loving thing to do - either towards God or towards your neighbour. So the question is not: "does Sue think that homosexual sex is loving? If so, case closed." The question is: "does God define all sex outside heterosexual marriage as sinful?"
We are also confusing "love" and "sex". If I may attempt to lay our your logic (tell me if I've mischaracterized your argument):
1) God wants me to love him and my neighbour.
2) Person X is my neighbour.
3) I am in a sexual relationship with person X.
4) Therefore I am loving my neighbour.
5) Therefore God approves of my sexual activity.
The problem is moving from 3) to 4). To make that jump you have to define all sexual relationships as "being loving" in a "love your neighbour" sense. And that's begging the question.
1 reply
Sue
I think many of these are difficult moral areas. There have been cases where siblings separated at birth have met and have (either knowing or not knowing they are related) fallen in love and become sexually involved. I am not sure how I feel about that, but the people involved are human beings and I would find a reaction of listening and compassion to be more "Christian" response than disgust and condemnation. There are many, many cases of heterosexuals who have left spouses and remarried ( adulterous by strict scriptural standards) - many who are priests or bishops. I've also known people whose marriages break up and they have "moved in" with someone else, and act towards that person with commitment and love ( the example you give.) I am passionately committed to the ideal of lifelong monogamous marriage and I don't think leaving a partner is ideal but I have compassion for anyone who leaves an unhappy marriage and I would at least be glad for the positives in the new relationship. I suppose my answer to you is that I am well aware people do not lead "perfect" lives - that includes myself. I do not think sexual sins are the worst type of sins ( though they can be amongst the worst - for example rape and abuse and I think divorce can have terrible consequences for children and I have witnessed the hurt of abandoned partners.)
When I was a lot younger I sought the moral certainty that you and other conservatives seem to be ( forgive me) slightly obsessed with. However, experience has taught me how damaging religious "legalism" can be. To give one example, I once knew a Christian woman who had been sexually abused. She was told that, because he was her first sexual partner ( they had become "one flesh") that, if she married someone else, it would be adulterous. You can imagine the anguish and resulting severe depression she developed. I know this is an extreme case, but it is an example of the wounds we inflict on others in Christ's name.
I can quite happily live my life knowing I do not have all the answers to what is the "right" thing for people to do. My faith admits of areas of moral ambiguity or areas about which I reserve judgement in a way yours clearly does not. After a lot of thought and prayer, I have decided that what God requires of me is to set the highest standards of behaviour in my own relationships, not to "police" the adult relationships of others. As in the parable of the tax collector and pharisee I try not to say "Lord, thank you that I am not like this tax gatherer" (...or adulterer, or promiscuous person, or fornicator, or prostitute.)I am much too aware of my own faults and limitations to be overly worried about those of my neighbour.
Your points- structure 1-5 by the way does not in any way represent my logic or the way I approach things.
When I was a lot younger I sought the moral certainty that you and other conservatives seem to be ( forgive me) slightly obsessed with. However, experience has taught me how damaging religious "legalism" can be. To give one example, I once knew a Christian woman who had been sexually abused. She was told that, because he was her first sexual partner ( they had become "one flesh") that, if she married someone else, it would be adulterous. You can imagine the anguish and resulting severe depression she developed. I know this is an extreme case, but it is an example of the wounds we inflict on others in Christ's name.
I can quite happily live my life knowing I do not have all the answers to what is the "right" thing for people to do. My faith admits of areas of moral ambiguity or areas about which I reserve judgement in a way yours clearly does not. After a lot of thought and prayer, I have decided that what God requires of me is to set the highest standards of behaviour in my own relationships, not to "police" the adult relationships of others. As in the parable of the tax collector and pharisee I try not to say "Lord, thank you that I am not like this tax gatherer" (...or adulterer, or promiscuous person, or fornicator, or prostitute.)I am much too aware of my own faults and limitations to be overly worried about those of my neighbour.
Your points- structure 1-5 by the way does not in any way represent my logic or the way I approach things.
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
If "paedophilic" is controversial, let's switch to "incestuous" if that's a clearer example. I apologise if I have been tactless and upset you; that was not my intention at all.
My overarching point is that I suspect you do not wish to entirely discard God's restrictions on which sexual relationships he approves of. And that you do agree that he has requirements in this area. And if that is so, then "respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit" or "respect and integrity", while good in themselves, cannot be the sole criteria for determining which are acceptable. There must be more. And we come again to the fact that every single mention of homosexual behaviour in the Bible is negative.
Claiming that "no-one in Bible times knew of/commented on homosexual relationships such as we know them today - the Bible is silent on how we should deal with them" is saying that God's word is not sufficient. This has fairly serious systematic consequences.
We seem to have shed a few points along the way in the discussion :-) Would it be possible for you to comment on my points of the possible "harmful effects" of love (and therefore my suggestion that you are incorrectly defining 'harm'), my comments on Romans 1:27, and my critique of your explanation of the flow of Romans 1-2?
My overarching point is that I suspect you do not wish to entirely discard God's restrictions on which sexual relationships he approves of. And that you do agree that he has requirements in this area. And if that is so, then "respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit" or "respect and integrity", while good in themselves, cannot be the sole criteria for determining which are acceptable. There must be more. And we come again to the fact that every single mention of homosexual behaviour in the Bible is negative.
Claiming that "no-one in Bible times knew of/commented on homosexual relationships such as we know them today - the Bible is silent on how we should deal with them" is saying that God's word is not sufficient. This has fairly serious systematic consequences.
We seem to have shed a few points along the way in the discussion :-) Would it be possible for you to comment on my points of the possible "harmful effects" of love (and therefore my suggestion that you are incorrectly defining 'harm'), my comments on Romans 1:27, and my critique of your explanation of the flow of Romans 1-2?
2 replies
Sue
Hi Gervase,
First of all, can I point out that you are getting me mixed up with other contributors? You ask me to reply to "my suggestion that YOU are incorrectly defining harm." That was actually Carolyn on June 2nd 2:21pm. You also ask me to comment on, " my critique of YOUR explanation of the flow of Romans 1-2." I have never commented on Romans, that was Blair on June 1st at 10:27am.
(I don't want to defend other people's arguments on their behalf!)
As for incest, well most incest involves abuse as there is an age and power gap - father/daughter, uncle/ nephew. It is rare for siblings brought up together to enter into sexual relationships. This was seen in the kibbutz system, where children brought up in proximity did not see each other as sexual partners and wanted to seek out less familiar partners to marry. Where sibling sex does occur this is, almost invariably, in the context of a family dynamic where there has been other abuse, from adults, and the appropriate boundaries have been broken down. The same is true for children who abuse other children ( this accounts for almost a third of abuse cases. ) The abusing child has usually been subjected to prior abuse from an adult and learnt this behaviour.
As for bibilical interpretation, I agree we differ. I believe scripture should be interpreted in context and taking into account the understanding and mindset of the time in which it was written.For example we would not use the verse in Ephesians to justify slavery, no matter how clear cut that verse it - and it is clear cut - because we recognise it is inhumane to do so, people matter too much to enslave them!
Jesus actually exemplifies this humane approach to scripture. Think of when the disciples are condemned by the Pharisees for eating corn. Christ says that "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."
(ie People matter!) Think of when Christ condemns those who obey every specific, but burden others by neglecting the important things - mercy, love and justice( again - people matter!) Think of when Christ tells us to put first things first - to obey the first commandment "love God with all your heart and mind and soul." Then Jesus adds in something not in the original text, which is to love your neighbour as yourself ( again - people matter!) I believe that Christ teaches us that loving God and others comes first. I believe him when he says that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets!
First of all, can I point out that you are getting me mixed up with other contributors? You ask me to reply to "my suggestion that YOU are incorrectly defining harm." That was actually Carolyn on June 2nd 2:21pm. You also ask me to comment on, " my critique of YOUR explanation of the flow of Romans 1-2." I have never commented on Romans, that was Blair on June 1st at 10:27am.
(I don't want to defend other people's arguments on their behalf!)
As for incest, well most incest involves abuse as there is an age and power gap - father/daughter, uncle/ nephew. It is rare for siblings brought up together to enter into sexual relationships. This was seen in the kibbutz system, where children brought up in proximity did not see each other as sexual partners and wanted to seek out less familiar partners to marry. Where sibling sex does occur this is, almost invariably, in the context of a family dynamic where there has been other abuse, from adults, and the appropriate boundaries have been broken down. The same is true for children who abuse other children ( this accounts for almost a third of abuse cases. ) The abusing child has usually been subjected to prior abuse from an adult and learnt this behaviour.
As for bibilical interpretation, I agree we differ. I believe scripture should be interpreted in context and taking into account the understanding and mindset of the time in which it was written.For example we would not use the verse in Ephesians to justify slavery, no matter how clear cut that verse it - and it is clear cut - because we recognise it is inhumane to do so, people matter too much to enslave them!
Jesus actually exemplifies this humane approach to scripture. Think of when the disciples are condemned by the Pharisees for eating corn. Christ says that "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."
(ie People matter!) Think of when Christ condemns those who obey every specific, but burden others by neglecting the important things - mercy, love and justice( again - people matter!) Think of when Christ tells us to put first things first - to obey the first commandment "love God with all your heart and mind and soul." Then Jesus adds in something not in the original text, which is to love your neighbour as yourself ( again - people matter!) I believe that Christ teaches us that loving God and others comes first. I believe him when he says that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets!
Blair
Hi again Gervase,
seems to me it's not that the paedophilia analogy is controversial or tactless, but that it's not a good analogy for adult same-sex relationships. I would suggest that you haven't made the case as to why sex with a child (or for that matter incestuous sex) is a suitable analogy.
Also, you say above that "we come again to the fact that every single mention of homosexual behaviour in the Bible is negative". But by itself that isn't that strong an argument: every mention of lending money at interest in Scripture is negative to my knowledge (e.g. Psalm 15:5).
Fair point about Romans though - not sure if you were talking to me but I didn't expand on my comment above about Romans 1 - 2. Will come back to this but maybe in a new comment!
in friendship, Blair
seems to me it's not that the paedophilia analogy is controversial or tactless, but that it's not a good analogy for adult same-sex relationships. I would suggest that you haven't made the case as to why sex with a child (or for that matter incestuous sex) is a suitable analogy.
Also, you say above that "we come again to the fact that every single mention of homosexual behaviour in the Bible is negative". But by itself that isn't that strong an argument: every mention of lending money at interest in Scripture is negative to my knowledge (e.g. Psalm 15:5).
Fair point about Romans though - not sure if you were talking to me but I didn't expand on my comment above about Romans 1 - 2. Will come back to this but maybe in a new comment!
in friendship, Blair
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
A paedophile cannot be “committed” to a child, as he or she will lose interest when the child reaches adulthood.
But they might say: how do you know that? Why are you being judgemental of our relationship? Surely it's for us to say whether it's loving, committed and supportive? Paedophiles don't necessarily only like children.
relationships involve mutual consent and a degree of parity and equity.
From which authority does this principle which overarches all relationships come?
As for “loving, committed, supportive adulterous” relationships - can you give an example?
Someone who spends half their time in one city with one woman, and the other half in another city with another woman. Both women probably get more attention than e.g. the wife of a soldier who goes off regularly on tours of duty would get, so the "not enough commitment for either" argument isn't watertight, I don't think.
But they might say: how do you know that? Why are you being judgemental of our relationship? Surely it's for us to say whether it's loving, committed and supportive? Paedophiles don't necessarily only like children.
relationships involve mutual consent and a degree of parity and equity.
From which authority does this principle which overarches all relationships come?
As for “loving, committed, supportive adulterous” relationships - can you give an example?
Someone who spends half their time in one city with one woman, and the other half in another city with another woman. Both women probably get more attention than e.g. the wife of a soldier who goes off regularly on tours of duty would get, so the "not enough commitment for either" argument isn't watertight, I don't think.
1 reply
Sue
Gervase, you know this is absolute rubbish. The reason a sexual relationship between an adult and child is wrong is because a child is not sexually mature or emotionally equipped to deal with it nor is a child in a position to give informed consent. The well documented consequences of childhood sexual abuse are devastating and I would ask you to bear in mind that, as I have said, this relates to my personal experience and to show some sensitivity. It is true that paedophiles do not necessarily only like children, most, but not all, are actively heterosexual men. Patterns of paedophile activity suggest the abuse usually does not last until adulthood ( although its effects for the survivor are often lifelong)moreover most paedophiles abuse more than one child, often many, many children and often are abusing several children simultaneously. I personally see such behaviour as rooted in power and control over a sexual party rather than in the qualities of respect, love, trust, commitment and mutual benefit which I applaud in all consentual adult relationships, whether between those of the same or opposite sex. The "authority" for my belief that relationships should be based on mutual consent and parity is my humanity, my reason and my faith in a God who asks us to love each other and to act justly and show mercy.
As for the adulterous relationship you describe - I'd refer you to my second post about betrayal of trust, dishonesty to a partner and lack of commitment. For example what if both women became seriously ill and needed full time nursing? What if one party found out and was desperately hurt and jealous?
In short, morality is not about your sexuality, morality is about treating others and yourself with the utmost respect and integrity.
As for the adulterous relationship you describe - I'd refer you to my second post about betrayal of trust, dishonesty to a partner and lack of commitment. For example what if both women became seriously ill and needed full time nursing? What if one party found out and was desperately hurt and jealous?
In short, morality is not about your sexuality, morality is about treating others and yourself with the utmost respect and integrity.
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
"remember - that’s the standard by which we judge whether actions are acceptable to God or not"
I think you have that exactly backwards. It's not "I decide whether it's loving and, if it is, it must be acceptable to God", it's "If it's acceptable to God, it must be loving." The former puts you in the driving seat, the latter puts God there. And what's acceptable to God is what Scripture says is acceptable to God.
Being loving may sometimes have (what some would classify as) "harmful effects" in people's lives. If another country's soldiers are invading yours, and you kill them, is that sinful? Is it possible to love your enemy while accepting that fighting and killing is the right thing to do in that circumstance? I think so. Or the parents who confine their heroin-addicted teenage son in his bedroom so he can't go out and buy more drugs - can that be a loving action? In some circumstances, even though it will have "harmful effects". Telling an adulterer gracefully but firmly that what he is doing is sinful - can that be loving? Even if he is hurt and offended by your words, and it has a "negative effect in his life"? (Of course, I am not saying that everything any church has ever said on this subject has always combined the right mix of firmness and grace. But it's a darn difficult thing to do.)
The Bible is clear that the only context for sexual activity is a marriage between a man and a woman. To the extent that churches (albeit perhaps understandably, under considerable cultural pressure) have spoken about homosexual practice as sinful more than they speak about adultery or pre-marital sex as sinful, then that's wrong of them. But it's a wrongness of emphasis, not of fact.
The text in 1:27 is not "men also abandoned loving, faithful partnerships with other men or women and became inflamed with lust for them instead - goodness, isn't lust bad". He could have made that point without even bringing homosexual practice into it. Paul is particularly contrasting, several times and in different ways to make the point, the exchanging of man-woman for woman-woman or man-man relationships, and speaking negatively of the latter.
Is "loving, committed and supportive" enough to make a sexual relationship acceptable to God? You seem to be suggesting that it is. Would you say that loving, committed, supportive adulterous or paedophilic or incestuous relationships are similarly acceptable? (Note, although it shouldn't need pointing out, but sad previous experience of others in this debate means it's probably necessary: I am not saying homosexuals are paedophiles.)
I think you have that exactly backwards. It's not "I decide whether it's loving and, if it is, it must be acceptable to God", it's "If it's acceptable to God, it must be loving." The former puts you in the driving seat, the latter puts God there. And what's acceptable to God is what Scripture says is acceptable to God.
Being loving may sometimes have (what some would classify as) "harmful effects" in people's lives. If another country's soldiers are invading yours, and you kill them, is that sinful? Is it possible to love your enemy while accepting that fighting and killing is the right thing to do in that circumstance? I think so. Or the parents who confine their heroin-addicted teenage son in his bedroom so he can't go out and buy more drugs - can that be a loving action? In some circumstances, even though it will have "harmful effects". Telling an adulterer gracefully but firmly that what he is doing is sinful - can that be loving? Even if he is hurt and offended by your words, and it has a "negative effect in his life"? (Of course, I am not saying that everything any church has ever said on this subject has always combined the right mix of firmness and grace. But it's a darn difficult thing to do.)
The Bible is clear that the only context for sexual activity is a marriage between a man and a woman. To the extent that churches (albeit perhaps understandably, under considerable cultural pressure) have spoken about homosexual practice as sinful more than they speak about adultery or pre-marital sex as sinful, then that's wrong of them. But it's a wrongness of emphasis, not of fact.
The text in 1:27 is not "men also abandoned loving, faithful partnerships with other men or women and became inflamed with lust for them instead - goodness, isn't lust bad". He could have made that point without even bringing homosexual practice into it. Paul is particularly contrasting, several times and in different ways to make the point, the exchanging of man-woman for woman-woman or man-man relationships, and speaking negatively of the latter.
Is "loving, committed and supportive" enough to make a sexual relationship acceptable to God? You seem to be suggesting that it is. Would you say that loving, committed, supportive adulterous or paedophilic or incestuous relationships are similarly acceptable? (Note, although it shouldn't need pointing out, but sad previous experience of others in this debate means it's probably necessary: I am not saying homosexuals are paedophiles.)
2 replies
Sue
I have pointed this out before but here goes again; a sexual situation between an adult or child is NOT loving but abusive. Now of course there are blurred lines ( the sixteen year old sexually active with a fifteen year old is not, I think, a paedophilic relationship.) A paedophile cannot be "committed" to a child, as he or she will lose interest when the child reaches adulthood. Moreover it is NOT "a relationship"!!! relationships involve mutual consent and a degree of parity and equity.Even when children seem most compliant, they have no real knowledge of what is involved or sexual desire for that adult and it remains abusive. Having been abused myself and having worked with women who were abused, the consequences are devastating.
As for "loving, committed, supportive adulterous" relationships - can you give an example? Do you mean someone who has left a spouse ( for reasons other than that spouse's adultery) and remarried - this remarriage being , in strict scriptural terms, adulterous? If so, well the Church does tolerate such "committed adulterous " relationships, I have known many priests and even bishops who were in them. Even hardline conservatives are often happy to ignore or re interpret scripture when this is convenient to heterosexuals rather than homosexuals.
As for "loving, committed, supportive adulterous" relationships - can you give an example? Do you mean someone who has left a spouse ( for reasons other than that spouse's adultery) and remarried - this remarriage being , in strict scriptural terms, adulterous? If so, well the Church does tolerate such "committed adulterous " relationships, I have known many priests and even bishops who were in them. Even hardline conservatives are often happy to ignore or re interpret scripture when this is convenient to heterosexuals rather than homosexuals.
Carolyn
Gervase,
All of your examples seem to miss the main point I've been trying to make.
Telling an adulterer that his/her actions aren't loving - yes, that's hard for the adulterer to hear. But the adulterer's actions are manifestly unloving - they have been unfaithful to a partner, etc., etc. (although past experience of this situation has taught me not to be so quick to judge the alduterer - there are always, always, always two sides to every situation).
The same can be said of pedophilia and incest - these types of relationships are defined by the fact that they are harming someone. Clearly not loving (I'm kind of amazed that you used them as examples at all).
As for the Bible being clear that the only proper context for sex is between a man and a woman - how many women are you talking about?
Conservatives want to say 'one man and one woman' - but of course, that isn't the 'clear teaching of Scripture' at all. Throughout most of Scripture, we see the clear acceptance of polygamy and the treatment of women as property.
God tells David after he's killed Uriah in order to take Bathsheba - 'I (God) gave you all of your wives, and would have given you more - you should not have taken someone else's wife' (rough paraphrase, but you get the point!).
So - God 'gave' David all of his wives. And he could have given him more, if David had asked!
How does this episode fit into conservative evangelical theology, I wonder? Surely, if God is consistent and always transcends the cultural situation of the Biblical authors, this type of scene is very difficult to understand?
I'd love to hear what you make of this from a theological consistency perspective, Gervase.
All of your examples seem to miss the main point I've been trying to make.
Telling an adulterer that his/her actions aren't loving - yes, that's hard for the adulterer to hear. But the adulterer's actions are manifestly unloving - they have been unfaithful to a partner, etc., etc. (although past experience of this situation has taught me not to be so quick to judge the alduterer - there are always, always, always two sides to every situation).
The same can be said of pedophilia and incest - these types of relationships are defined by the fact that they are harming someone. Clearly not loving (I'm kind of amazed that you used them as examples at all).
As for the Bible being clear that the only proper context for sex is between a man and a woman - how many women are you talking about?
Conservatives want to say 'one man and one woman' - but of course, that isn't the 'clear teaching of Scripture' at all. Throughout most of Scripture, we see the clear acceptance of polygamy and the treatment of women as property.
God tells David after he's killed Uriah in order to take Bathsheba - 'I (God) gave you all of your wives, and would have given you more - you should not have taken someone else's wife' (rough paraphrase, but you get the point!).
So - God 'gave' David all of his wives. And he could have given him more, if David had asked!
How does this episode fit into conservative evangelical theology, I wonder? Surely, if God is consistent and always transcends the cultural situation of the Biblical authors, this type of scene is very difficult to understand?
I'd love to hear what you make of this from a theological consistency perspective, Gervase.
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
So the argument is that the latter half of Romans 1, the beginning of a letter which the church has been trying to get its head around for around 2000 years, is basically not normative at all - it's Paul explaining how _not_ to think? I think that's incredibly unlikely for an enormous number of reasons. It's all Paul speaking in the indicative - "The wrath of God _is_ being revealed from heaven", not "You might think the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven." Paul is not attributing these views to his hearers, he's explaining truth to them. I know in other places Paul briefly quotes the views of his correspondents before responding, but doing so for 12 verses has no parallel. And the language just doesn't read that way.
Have I understood the argument? Is it really that Romans 1:18-32 consists solely of the views of other people that Paul then goes on to refute in Romans 2:1ff? If so, my question is: what are "the same things" in Romans 2:3? Surely they can be nothing else than the sins from Romans 1?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you (or Rowan :-) means by "neutral self-giving". Doesn't Scripture already tell us what a marriage should exemplify (Ephesians 5:32)?
Have I understood the argument? Is it really that Romans 1:18-32 consists solely of the views of other people that Paul then goes on to refute in Romans 2:1ff? If so, my question is: what are "the same things" in Romans 2:3? Surely they can be nothing else than the sins from Romans 1?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you (or Rowan :-) means by "neutral self-giving". Doesn't Scripture already tell us what a marriage should exemplify (Ephesians 5:32)?
2 replies
Carolyn
Gervase,
I think you need to look at the context of the same-sex relationships that Paul is talking about in Romans 1.
Is he talking about loving, committed same-sex partnerships? Well, it's fairly obvious he isn't - he's talking about same-sex, lustful acts that take place in the context of idolatry.
And if you look at the 1st century world - the only types of same-sex activity that Paul knew about was distinctly un-loving (remember - that's the standard by which we judge whether actions are acceptable to God or not).
What context did Paul see same-sex activity in? Pederasty and sex with slaves (abuse of power relationships), as well as same-sex activity with wronged wives in the background (so selfish, hurtful sexual activity - male-male sex was acceptable to Romans, but only having male-male sex wasn't - there needed to be a wife in the background for the Romans. And Paul seems to have recognised this for the hurtful, selfish activity that it was).
But what does all of that have to do with loving, committed, supportive homosexual relationships? relationships we can look at and clearly see God's love and faithfulness reflected in? Relationships that show love and do not harm anyone?
Remember - that's Paul's (and Jesus') standard for how to understand God's law (have a look at Romans 13).
Now - have a look at the conservative evangelical demonisation of loving same-sex relationships. Is that loving? Has that caused harm?
It clearly has caused harm. It clearly does not having loving results in people's lives (the only way you can see it as loving is to define it 'a priori' as loving, despite the negative, harmful effects it has in people's lives).
For me, it is conservative evangelicals who are sinning here (as judged by Jesus' and Paul's explicit standards). Not gays and lesbians who are in loving, committed relationships.
I think you need to look at the context of the same-sex relationships that Paul is talking about in Romans 1.
Is he talking about loving, committed same-sex partnerships? Well, it's fairly obvious he isn't - he's talking about same-sex, lustful acts that take place in the context of idolatry.
And if you look at the 1st century world - the only types of same-sex activity that Paul knew about was distinctly un-loving (remember - that's the standard by which we judge whether actions are acceptable to God or not).
What context did Paul see same-sex activity in? Pederasty and sex with slaves (abuse of power relationships), as well as same-sex activity with wronged wives in the background (so selfish, hurtful sexual activity - male-male sex was acceptable to Romans, but only having male-male sex wasn't - there needed to be a wife in the background for the Romans. And Paul seems to have recognised this for the hurtful, selfish activity that it was).
But what does all of that have to do with loving, committed, supportive homosexual relationships? relationships we can look at and clearly see God's love and faithfulness reflected in? Relationships that show love and do not harm anyone?
Remember - that's Paul's (and Jesus') standard for how to understand God's law (have a look at Romans 13).
Now - have a look at the conservative evangelical demonisation of loving same-sex relationships. Is that loving? Has that caused harm?
It clearly has caused harm. It clearly does not having loving results in people's lives (the only way you can see it as loving is to define it 'a priori' as loving, despite the negative, harmful effects it has in people's lives).
For me, it is conservative evangelicals who are sinning here (as judged by Jesus' and Paul's explicit standards). Not gays and lesbians who are in loving, committed relationships.
Blair
v quickly as am at work... I agree with you and ryan that 'neutral' sounds strange - but it's a quote from an interview transcript, so I wonder if RW was misheard and actually said 'mutual', which would make sense...?
Will say more later!
in friendship, Blair
Will say more later!
in friendship, Blair
1 month ago
in The Sexualisation of Heresy on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
"For me, one has to go in with the assumption that same-sex relationships are wrong in order to make the leap from ‘male-female relationships are good and give us a picture of God’ to ‘because male-female relationships are good, and reflect God to us in some degree, that means that same-sex relationships are bad and don’t reflect God’"
But isn't that exactly what's going on in Romans 1?
But isn't that exactly what's going on in Romans 1?
1 reply
Blair
Hi Gervase,
I think you're right that Paul assumes same-sex sex is wrong (because born of desires that come from idolatry if I'm reading it right...), but it could be said that Romans 1 builds an argument leading to the 'puncturing' of Romans 2:1 - ie an argument that none of us can judge each other. If so Romans 1 can't be used to judge folk who have same-sex sex without misuse of the text - so it isn't as immediately 'useful', to either side, in the 'gay debate' as it might seem. (This is a rather mangled version of James Alison's argument in his lecture on Romans 1, and a point Rowan Williams made in his Larkin-Stuart lecture on reading the Bible).
Taking refuge in quoting again...
"Those theologians who've defended same-sex relationships from the Christian point of view in recent decades have said you've got to look at whether a same-sex relationship is capable of something at the level of neutral self-giving that a marriage ought to exemplify. And then ask, is that what Scripture is talking about? That's the area of dispute." (Rowan Williams, 'Time' magazine interview, June 2007)
in friendship, Blair
I think you're right that Paul assumes same-sex sex is wrong (because born of desires that come from idolatry if I'm reading it right...), but it could be said that Romans 1 builds an argument leading to the 'puncturing' of Romans 2:1 - ie an argument that none of us can judge each other. If so Romans 1 can't be used to judge folk who have same-sex sex without misuse of the text - so it isn't as immediately 'useful', to either side, in the 'gay debate' as it might seem. (This is a rather mangled version of James Alison's argument in his lecture on Romans 1, and a point Rowan Williams made in his Larkin-Stuart lecture on reading the Bible).
Taking refuge in quoting again...
"Those theologians who've defended same-sex relationships from the Christian point of view in recent decades have said you've got to look at whether a same-sex relationship is capable of something at the level of neutral self-giving that a marriage ought to exemplify. And then ask, is that what Scripture is talking about? That's the area of dispute." (Rowan Williams, 'Time' magazine interview, June 2007)
in friendship, Blair
1 month ago
in Death is not Dying on An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy
Peter - thanks very much. Helpful and inspiring.
1 reply
Peter Ould
Thought you'd appreciate it Gerv.
I'm having trouble posting to this thread (wrote a long response to Philip that I can't get to post - frustrating!), but I thought I'd try again with a correction to your question about the Bible and slavery.
My argument about slavery is that the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery - which it doesn't. Instead, it seems to uphold it in various ways.
However, if you look at the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus, it is very difficult to reconcile them with slavery and the horrible outcomes it has in people's lives. So - one looks at the cultural context within which the Bible was written in order to understand its apparent acceptance of slavery.
So - I believe the Bible does condemn slavery, but only implicitly - and to get there, one has to look at over-arching Biblical principles (love one another/do no harm) and the negative impact slavery has on people.
Which is, I submit, very similar to the same-sex relationships. The Bible condemns, in two places, cultic manifestations of same-sex eroticism. It does not however, explicitly address committed, loving same-sex partnerships.
So - what do we do? Are the Biblical condemnations cultural and specific to a given situation (and there is ample evidence that this is the case), or are we justified in extrapolating out from these two specific condemnations to a blanket condemnation of all times of homoeroticism?
Keep in mind here - your 'condemnation' of homosexual activity has much less explicit Biblical support than slavery had.
In order to make that determination, I'd suggest we have to do what we do with the slavery issue - we look at the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus (his over-arching 'love one another' principle)and the effects of our Scriptural interpretations on other people (are we loving and not harming them).
When you do that, it makes much more sense to read the 2 ostensibly 'anti-gay' passages as being what they appear to be - condemnations of homoerotic expression is specific cultic circumstances, and not applicable to committed, loving same-sex partnerships (which again - the Bible never addresses directly).
Peter wants an explicit affirmation of same-sex partnerships in Scripture before he would accept that God affirms these partnerships - despite the fact that these kinds of partnerships were not part of Paul's cultural landscape.
YET - Peter tries to argue that God condemns slavery, despite clear acceptance of slavery in Scripture (and slavery was clearly part of Paul's cultural landscape, so he actually had a reason to address it directly!), based on tangential interpretations of Philemon.
Why the reluctance to appeal to Jesus' 'Law of Love' in order to condemn slavery? I suspect it has to do with the fact that if you acknowledge that Jesus' law of love condemns slavery (based on slavery's negative impact in people's lives), it then becomes very hard to argue against using the 'law of love' to affirm same-sex relationships.
The standard of Biblical evidence appears to vary, depending on which position we are attempting to support Biblically. Which suggests to me that it might be the POSITION which is important to us, rather than the Biblical evidence for that position. A trap we can all fall into, of course.