Good point.

Submitted by Whitewave on 12 April, 2005 - 01:49.

Hi erlenmeyer71.

The singleness question is a good way to check this. Especially in light of Paul preferring singleness as a state from which to work for the Kingdom of God. He says that a married man or woman who wishes to serve God will most likely be divided. In light of the meaning of the Hebrew word for “one” used in Gen. 2:24, that is a serious problem! Clearly, undivided devotion to the Lord is his aim.

Putting it in mathematical terms, Paul seems to be saying this:

1 + 1 should = 1 in the Hebrew sense. Fine, if that Union can serve the Kingdom of God undivided.

Therefore: 1 - 1 (through divorce) will = 1/2 and 1/2. That’s not good, because God is concerned with Unity and Wholeness and Paul is concerned because the time is short. So if you can stand it, don’t divide each other either through a poorly matched marital union or divorce.

However 1 also = 1! Not a Union, but it is a Whole. Better than what happens when a poor Union can’t serve the Kingdom undivided and better than a 1/2 a person trying to serve the Kingdom!

Now, what that might say about homosexuality is … well… nothing. A man and a woman are still each considered a 1. 1 + 1 = 1 in the Hebrew sense no matter which way you add it up. So there must be yet another factor besides Union or Wholeness in the strict mathematical sense.

Childbearing was a big deal. Heirs. I also made a post about this in another string on homosexuality. Talking about the economy waiting on my ability to bear hears to will the property to. The economy we have today would be completely foreign to the Jewish person of any Biblical day. I’m glad Paul left an opening there in 1 Cor. (note my signature) for adjustments. That signals respect for the past, and humility toward the unknown in the future. Very wise and very emergent. The whole “sanctification through childbearing” issue is so weird and obscure, I seriously wonder if we’ll ever be able to relate that to anything in our lives. Does N.T. have anything on that? Gads, that would be helpful! Anyway, procreation is no longer an economic (and therefore morally protected) factor in the equasion of marital union. It just isn’t. It may be a preference but it might also be a non-preference, and there is no economic-moral grounds to deny either.

If someone has more on the eschatological implications, now’s the time to shine it on us.

So what else do we have? Well, the only thing that I can see is the issue that I brought up in the other string.

http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/591#comment-1350

Polarity. From what I understand, a necessary ingredient in homosexual unions is the power exchange which can only be caused by duality. Some sort of duality is agreed upon by both partners. Domination vs. Submission is the most obvious, but it may not be manifested that way. It might be manifested in the same ways that men and women who choose not to do union using the dominance and submission aesthetic manifest it. One of the biggest dualities seen expressed in the homosexual world is Emotional vs. rational. Sometimes it is very exagerated.

I truly believe that the duality that is missing in gender must be made up for in some other way, and that way often becomes very pronounced. Dualities can be expressed in such a way as to bless, but they can also become pits of exploitation and ruination. The homosexual community is vulnerable and often victimized by both of those negative forms. I would imagine that they get tired of that after a while, yet the way out of that pattern and the road to blessing is hard to discern. I believe that many are turning to God for help and to the Church to deliver that help. God, bless them.

Now what? How do we check that using singleness?

~Whitewave ____________________________________________________