A further response . . .

“there was something pretty decisive about the vindication which they believed would come to them in fulfilment of Jesus’ restatement of Daniel’s vision of the son of man figure… “

I think you are overemphasising the destruction of Jerusalem/Rome to the detriment of the ascension of Jesus, as the beginning of the transfer of the kingdom. I don’t think early Christianity could be decribed as a ‘small, insignificant Jewish sect’ at all. That’s not how it is described in Acts, especially by its opponents, eg the Jews in Thessalonica (‘these that have turned the world upside-down’ A.V.) and the charges against Paul of Demetrius the silversmith in Ephesus.

The first demonstration of the effectiveness of this ‘transfer of the kingdom’ was Pentecost. Although Judaism and Rome were significant enemies of the early church, I question whether the destruction of the one and the protracted downfall of the other were really the decisive factors in the survival of the church. There were considerable conflicts to come - to my mind of a much more insidious nature, especially church persecuting church. Also huge opposition from Islam, which wiped out the church in North Africa and parts of the middle east. But the focus on the church’s survival through the downfall of Jerusalem and Rome as the assurance of its continued existence is too narrow.

“No. I am struck by the fact that homosexuality is potentially an expression, within a fallen world, of the fundamental human need for intimate companionship… ” etc

The weakness of your argument is that you want to argue for an unequivocal biblical testimony (as you preceive it) on homosexual practice, and especially Paul in Romans 1:18-32, but then to argue that this apparently unambiguous condemnation is only historically relative! It makes more sense to me to accept the revisionist viewpoint, which is more subtle than this. (I still don’t think you can say that sin is only sinful when it harms somebody else).

“Sorry, I still disagree on this one. Judgmentalism was an issue, but as I read it, there is an unequivocal message of God’s judgment, wrath, on those who do these things, whether Jews or Greeks. It’s just that Paul had trouble getting the Jews to understand this.”

I don’t think you have considered the issues carefully enough. I don’t doubt (very much) that Paul was agreeing with much of the message of judgement he was bringing. However, there are grounds for thinking that things were not quite so straightforward, eg

1. the whole passage (1:18-32) contains strong echoes of standard Jewish polemic against gentile idolatry and behaviour (eg Wisdom 12:23-13:10; 14:9-31). This is not an argument against Paul’s identification with what he is saying (as he echoes Wisdom elsewhere), but it should make us pause before taking it as Paul speaking directly from a personal sense of rightousness indignation.

2. The chapter break at the end of 1:32 can obscure the very strange and abrupt shift in the argument. We are encouraged because of the break to take 1:18-32 as a unit, then take 2:1ff as a separate unit. But the ‘therefore’ of 2:1 emphasises that this is the culminating point of the argument (or diatribe). The problem is that it is a very unexpected change of tack. Paul’s focus is indeed on ‘passing judgement’ (repeated in varying forms four times in one verse before he gets to ‘doing the same things’). ‘Passing judgement’ then becomes the main theme of his argument - contrasting God’s judgement with man’s judgement.

So who has been ‘passing judgement’ (and doing the same things)? And what were ‘the same things’?

The ‘you’ of 2:1 could have been mankind in general, or a self-righteous gentile, or a Jew. In view of the echoes of ‘Wisdom’ terminology, which would not be lost on Jews, and suggestions of a (Jewish) sense of separation/superiority in looking at the foolish (and degrading) things that gentiles did, it seems likely that Paul had the Jews in his sights.

It also seems likely to me that Paul sprang a rhetorical trap on the Jews, not in the sense of accusing them of idolatry or sexual perversion, but in the more general list of attitudes with which he brings his argument to its surprising climax. So the terms in verse 31: ‘faithless, heartless, ruthless’ (NIV), could also be rendered ‘unforgiving, unloving, unmerciful’. In fact the list of terms from verses 29 to 32 could be a description of some of the worst attitudes of the Jews in the time of Jesus and before.

You don’t have to agree with this, but I think at least it bears consideration. All is simply not quite as obvious and straightforward as it seems.

But overarching all of this is the absence of dialogue on this issue with homosexual Christian believers. In this, the one-sidedness of the ‘debate’ is being perpetuated. There are instances of the church moderating its stance in the light of pastoral experience, which we scarcely question - eg the sanctioning of the remarriage of divorcees. I’m sure if we were purely looking at the scriptures without regard to practical experience, we would never have arrived at a ‘scriptural’ position which accepts such remarriages. Neither would Peter ever have accepted scripturally that one could eat unclean food or have fellowship with gentiles unless the Holy Spirit had given him a vision on the roof of the home of Simon the tanner.