I would like this website to model a way of doing theological reflection and debate that gets beyond the old trench warfare manner of disputation. This is not going to be at all easy to do. As soon as we try to pick our way across these bloody, mangled battlefields, we risk becoming antagonists and victims in a war that is still going on. It’s very difficult not to feel that we are under attack, very difficult not to fall into one trench or another - and then someone thrusts a gun into our hands and tells us to start shooting. The debate over homosexuality is one of these battlefields. Somehow we need to turn it into something else - or at least create a reasonably safe space where we don’t have to behave like combatants in a mindless and probably futile war of attrition.
What I want to explore here in outline is the possibility that the sort of approach to eschatology that we have been discussing elsewhere might open up some new ways of framing the debate about homosexuality. It is also, obviously, a partial response to the ‘committed monogamous homosexual versus slave owner’ thread.
Homosexual behaviour, as Paul understands it, is a consequence of not properly worshipping the creator God - the God whose ‘invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made’ (Rom.1:20). This appears to take us right back to the fall - a fundamental human rebellion against the Creator in favour of the worship of created things (1:25), the result of which was that God gave humanity up both to impurity, including homosexual behaviour (1:26-27), and to wickedness (1:28-31). Those who do these things deserve to die - because the wages of sin is death (1:32; cf. 6:23; Gen.2:17). In effect, this is Paul’s version of the fall.
Paul lists ‘catamites’ and ‘homosexuals’ among those who ‘will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Cor.6:9). He also includes in his black book of those who are disqualified from the kingdom people who are guilty of ‘enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions’ (Gal.5:20-21). This would seem to me to rule out a significant number of those who are currently engaged in the war over gays in the church, on both sides.
But what does he mean by ‘inherit the kingdom of God’? He clearly does not mean by this ‘be part of the church’: on the one hand, it is a future event for Paul (‘will not inherit’); on the other, ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Cor.15:50). Since there is also a strong link between inheriting the kingdom of God and suffering (cf. 2 Thess.1:5), I am inclined to think that the strong exclusivist language is used because Paul is thinking of that group which will be raised (or transformed) and reign with Christ when he is vindicated as the Son of man and given the kingdom. These strict standards apply because he anticipates, in effect, a judgment on the church at the parousia (cf. 1 Thess.3:13; 5:23), which I would suggest is closely tied up with the transition from second temple Judaism, though confrontation with Rome, to multiracial, Spirit-filled church. This argument obviously raises a lot of questions, some of which were addressed in the discussion referred to above.
The list of those excluded from the new creation in Revelation does not explicitly mention those who practise homosexuality, but it is naturally included (along with other departures from the ideal of woman and man as ‘one flesh’) in terms like ‘abominable’ and ‘unclean’ (Rev.21:8, 27). The point of this again is that homosexuality is one of a whole range of ‘impure’ and ‘wicked’ behaviours that are the product of the fall from true worship of the creator God. They therefore have no place in a new creation in which the kings of the earth will properly honour God.
The church, I think, is to be regarded as being in itself a sign of the ultimate renewal of humanity and must somehow represent in its life and message what that new creation will be like: we are called to embody this hope for a world that is subject to evil, decay and death. I think, in that case, that we have to say that homosexuality will not be part of that new creation. But the church must also be a sign of the grace of God - not least because it can only ever be a very imperfect, sin-ridden sign of the new creation. If we accept the argument about inheriting the kingdom of God, then perhaps we have room biblically to shift the balance in the direction of grace and acceptance. It seems to me that homosexuality is an inescapable element in fallen humanity - whether we explain it biologically or culturally - and we should probably, therefore, expect to see it within the body of Christ’s followers - just as we see (and tolerate) other inescapable signs of our fallenness, including conflict, divisiveness, greed, sickness and death.
But if we are the people of the creator God, who have been entrusted with the hope of a new heaven and a new earth, we cannot afford to lose the clarity of that vision of a new creation which will be free from the distortions that have come about because of the fundamental human departure from God. That presents a problem for those who practise homosexuality, as it does for those who abuse their spouses, or who lust after other women, or who lie, or who get angry with their brothers and sisters, or who participate in unjust political and economic systems, who despise the poor, or who pollute and destroy the earth. It’s all there. It’s all very ‘natural’. So we must all come to the task of embodying and living from this hope with humility, in need of grace and forgiveness, willing to change where we can, willing to respect and honour one another, willing to recognize that we carry things deep within us that will not be part of the new creation.
Revisonist insights
Andrew - this contribution needs serious and thoughtful reflection. My only comment at this point is that the viewpoint you are developing needs to take account of revisionist readings of the six references to homosexuality in the bible (and the two in the New Testament - 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy being bracketed together). I also think that the profoundly personal contribution by Paul (Hartigan) needs to be taken into account.
The main problem that gay people might have with your approach I think is this: that it rests on the assumption that the bible makes an open and shut case: all kinds of homosexuality are sinful - just the same as the various kinds of sinfulness described in Romans 1:18, and in the passages in Corinthians and Timothy. But the problem is that the other kinds of sinfulness can be repented of and turned from. Many homosexual people tetsify that their disposition does not change. If I have to live with constant envy or conflict in my heart, and know that it is sinful, where is the integrity of believing that Christ delivers me from my sins, when patently, if these things are an abiding dimension of my personal experience, I have not been delivered?
The homosexual issue goes further, in that sexual identity goes to the root of my sense of who I am. Tell me that I must not be a homosexual, and you may be telling me that I cannot be who I am, the person that I never chose to be in the first place, and over whom I have no power to be anything different.
At this point, the argument will go something like: ‘But what about paedophiles?’ And the answer gay people give is that they are talking about sexual expression in a non-abusive way, which shows love and mutual respect between partners, between whom the biblical conditions for marriage are being fulfilled in all respects other than gender. Clearly, this would be impossible in the case of an adult in a sexual relationship with a child.
So what about those passages from scripture? I am not totally convinced by the revisionist arguments, but neither am I convinced by the view that the bible is fallible in these areas, or that Paul was merely expressing a Jewish prejudice.
The revisionist arguments need serious consideration. But before that, the presuppositions of arguments need attention. I have never been convinced by the simplistic view that ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’ - which in this case, seems to be condemning the sinner the to a private prison of sin - or maybe to a private hell.
Leaving aside the Romans 1:18ff passage for the moment (and that receives the revisionist treatment too), here is an example of a revisionist version of the Corinthians and Timothy passages by Dr Ralph Blair of ‘Evangelicals Concerned’:
‘Paul’s reference to malakoi and arsenokoitai
I CORINTHIANS 6:9 & TIMOTHY 1:10
Evangelical New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee of Regent College says that these two terms are “difficult.” The Fundamentalist Journal admits: “These words are difficult to translate.” Of arsenokoitai, Fee says: “This is its first appearance in preserved literature, and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” Scroggs explains that “Paul is thinking only about pederasty, … There was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which could come to mind.” Ancient sources indicate that the malakoi were “effeminate call boys.” Though Paul seems to have coined arsenokoitai it refers, perhaps, to the call boys’ customers, although nobody knows for sure. Paul’s main point, however, is clear: Christians who slander and sue each other in pagan courts are just as shameful as robbers, drunkards, the greedy, and the malakoi and arsenokoitai (whatever they were). The other kind of pederasty in Paul’s day was that of the slave “pet boys” who were sexually exploited by adult male owners. The desired boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like females. These men had wives for dowries, procreation and the rearing of heirs. They had “pet boys” for sex — hardly the picture of gay relationships today. ‘
Some of the arguments propounded here are debatable (as I have been informed by erik boehmer on this site: adult, monogamous, committed homosexual relationships were conceived by Plato in The Symposium. But the general thrust needs attention. I think it calls into question some of the assumptions on which your approach rests.
Exegesis of other passages of scripture by Blair can be found on the website www.ecwr.org - (under resources - bible studies - the bible is an empty closet) as well as much else.
I would like to engage in your suggested approach - but the assumptions on which it rests need, I think, some reflection.
Sin and semantics
I agree that there is a problem here up to a point. However, if it is the whole of the created order that is fallen and not only the human moral will, we should expect there to be aspects of our fallenness that are not within our capacity to change. Moreover, we are never entirely free moral agents. If it is not our biology that restricts are freedom of choice or determines our moral character, it is our culture or our upbringing or our relationship to others. I don’t like the fact that I am inextricably bound up in an unjust economic system; I am unhappy about the fact that my lifestyle is having a negative impact on the environment; I am unhappy about the fact that I do precious little to relieve the suffering of others. I have to live with that conflict in my heart, knowing that it is ‘sinful’; these things are, to use your words, ‘an abiding dimension of my personal experience’.
I should look at the arguments more carefully, but it seems to me far more likely that when Paul used the word arsenokoitēs he had in mind the Septuagint of Lev.20:13, which literally translated reads: ‘whoever sleeps with a man (arsenos) the marriage-bed / sexual intercourse (koitē) of a woman has done an abomination’ (cf. ESV: ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’). This is surely the most likely background if the term was coined by a first-century Jew. He may have had particular forms and practices in mind, but the allusion to Lev.20:13 suggests to me that he would have regarded these only as instances of the general behaviour that is proscribed under Jewish law.
Why always men?
Whether or not the word “arsenokoites” means “male homosexual,” “pet boy,” or whatever, it seems that we can agree that the reference is to a male. Andrew, you also point out that the verse in Leviticus is in reference to a male as well. As far as I can tell anyway (I’m no scholar on the subject), there are no direct references to female homosexuality in the bible. Why is that? Was that the kind of homoosexuality not preasent in Paul’s world? Is there some more fundamental theological reason why one kind might be sinful and the other not as much? Does this just reflect sexism of the time? Is there another explanation?
Why men?
Paul refers to relations between women that are a departure from nature. There is no apparent allusion to Lev.20:13 here, and it may be that this reflects what he saw happening in the Graeco-Roman world rather than being a conscious expansion of the scope of the OT text. Perhaps ancient Judaism considered the act of penetration key to the offence of homosexuality and therefore lesbian relations did not merit explicit prohibition. The Jewish law was certainly not disinterested in women’s sexual lives. Generally, though, but not always (Lev.20:16 is an exception), the active offender is the male: laws are mostly in the form ‘if a man lies with a woman…’. I don’t have an explanation for this other than the patriarchal character of Jewish culture, which is not really an explanation at all. The tenth commandment is addressed to men: ‘you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife’ (Ex.20:17).
Why men (continued)?
There are, apparently, several commentaries between the writing of this text (Romans 1:26) and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the 4th century. None of them read the passage as referring lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria took it to mean women having anal intercourse with members of the opposite sex. Chrysostom was the first Church Father who took it to mean as having to do with lesbianism.
If the ‘obvious meaning of the text’ (to modern readers) was not obvious to St Augustine and other commentators for a few hundred years, what are the implications for the rest of the text?
What were the women up to?
Interesting. Rom.1:26-27 reads something like: ‘on the one hand, their females exchanged natural use (chrÄ“sin) for that against nature, and likewise, on the other, the males, having abandoned the natural use (chrÄ“sin) of the female, burned with their desire for one another, males with males committing indecency’. I would have thought that there is enough of an analogy implied between the men and the women to lead us to think that the women also ‘committed indecency’ with one another. And if Paul was thinking of anal intercourse with women, wouldn’t he have made the men the subject of the sentence? It sounds like he had in mind something that the women did on their own. However, it remains ambiguous, so perhaps Clement and Augustine knew better.
Incidentally, it is significant that Paul speaks here of ‘males’ and ‘females’ and not of ‘men’ and ‘women’. The language reinforces the link that I pointed out above with the creation narrative: ‘male and female (arsen kai thÄ“lu) he made them’ (Gen.1:27). And notice that it’s the same chapter and verse. Awesome!
This is exactly what I mean
I have from the NRSV (I don’t know if you’re quoting from memory, Andrew, but you’re got it right too I think) “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were comsumed with passion for each other. Men committed shameless acts with men, and recieved in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27) I don’t see the analogy quite as strongly as Andrew seems to. In the first sentence, Paul writes that the women are being unnatural, and so are the men. Moving into a different thought, Paul continues by writing that the men committed shameless acts with men. I do see symmetry in the language in the first sentence between the men and the women. My commentary (The New Oxford Annotated Bible) writes about this verse that “the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul’s day to denote not the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body (the due penalty).” I don’t know NT Greek, but this commentary says to me that in this first sentence, Paul is talking about heterosexual promiscuity among both men and women. When he writes “passion for one another,” he means “passion of the men for the women, and vice versa.”
What I don’t see is a continuation of the second sentence into “…and the women committed shameless acts with the women.” That’s just not there. While I do see Paul condemning gay men in this verse, he does not continue the sentence into a condemnation of lesbian women. Apparently, according to Paul, God does not approve of gay men, but if asked about lesbian women, God would reply with a “no comment.”
This is a perfect example of a strange asymmetry in the biblical attitudes toward sexuality for men and women. Why does God so concerned with men? If God is worried that we will “run out of our seed” (i.e. Onan being condemned for “spilling his seed” on the ground in Genesis 38:9), God must not understand our biology very well, because women are the ones who run out of their “seeds.” I also don’t know of any evidence that sexual excesses actually physically “weaken the body” either as the commentary claims was thought at the time, so it doesn’t seem like God is doing a very good job at giving people the “due penalty” if that’s supposed to be it. Also, both men and women were homosexual at the time. We get the word “lesbian” from the Island of Lesbos and the poetry of Sappho, and as was mentioned before, wealthy men often kept young male sexual slaves. Therefore, we cannot explain it away by saying that men were the only homosexuals at the time. It just doesn’t make any sense. This leaves me feeling that this verse is quite inconsistent and not theologically very useful. It is certainly not as ironclad as those who use it to condemn homosexuality would like it to be.
Genesis 38:9
A bit of a tangent, but this verse gets so frequently misinterpreted that I thought I should comment. It is not a prohibition against masturbation, and it is not reflective of some fundamental flaw in ancient reproductive knowledge.
The reason Onan was condemned for spilling his seed on the ground was because he was deliberately NOT fulfilling his duty toward Tamar. It’s called Levirate Marriage.
I pulled this off of JewishEncyclopedia.com:
“Among the Hebrews marriage with a brother’s widow was forbidden as a general rule (Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21), but was regarded as obligatory (Deut. xxv. 56) when there was no male issue, and when the two brothers had been dwelling on the same family estate… If the levirate union resulted in male issue, the child would succeed to the estates of the deceased brother.”
Onan was obligated to provide Tamar with offspring to be the recipient of the firstborn’s inheritance. Family lineage was, obviously, a very big deal in Israelite religion and culture. It is not hard to see why Onan would not want to do this, because if Tamar produced no heir, the inheritance would pass to him! He was acting deceptively, and motivated by greed.
Running out of seed? I do wonder sometimes where people get this stuff.
Thanks for the reminder. I wa
Thanks for the reminder. I was referencing this verse as a “straw man” agrument of sorts anyway. I should be more careful.
Immoderate indulgence?
I think it’s unlikely that Paul was thinking merely in terms of ‘immoderate indulgence’. When he writes about homosexuality, the conceptual background appears not to be the views of the pagan world (though no doubt he had pagan practice in mind) but the OT: on the one hand, the creation of humankind in the image of God, as male and female, designed to be one flesh; on the other, the prohibition against male sleeping with male as with a women in Lev.20:13. There is nothing here about immoderate sexual activity of whatever kind or the weakening of the body. Paul was a first century Jew and had the mindset of a first century Jew.
As a Jew Paul was also disposed to parallelism in his writing, and although this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, it’s certainly possible that the briefer statement about women in verse 26 implicitly includes the extended argument about men in verse 27. Having said that, you’re right - there is an asymmetry regarding men and women, which reflects both the patriarchalism and biological ignorance of the ancient world. I don’t see that as a problem particularly, and I do think that the verse is theologically useful - not least because it brings into view the (new) creational argument.
In my view (which is subject to correction) we have to accept that Paul believed that judgment was coming upon the Graeco-Roman world partly at least because of homosexual behaviour. He makes the argument in very general terms and his attitude is informed by his Judaism, though the practices that he had in mind may well have been different to the sort of practices that we might have in mind today (committed monogamous homosexual relationships?). But because we are talking about God’s judgment on a particular culture, this is where eschatology also becomes important. My argument would be that in what I have sometimes rather recklessly and misleadingly called a ‘post-eschatological’ situation we should be less anxious to condemn or to exclude and more concerned to represent and live out a new creation. That entails both maintaining the hope that God will make all things new (a world without evil, suffering, death - or biological distortion) and manifesting the grace that can openly and honestly deal with the reality of what human nature is now.
You have no evidence that sexual excess weakens the body? Have you never tried it?
Act and Attitude
I wonder why Paul would leave an important statement like that to a mere “implication” if he really did mean to say it in verse 27. It seems like if one is throwing around big words like “shameless acts” you would want to make sure you were being perfectly clear. I would certainly try to spend a little time fine-tuning the wording if I knew I was expressing God’s judgment on an entire culture. But that’s just me…
I don’t think that sexual activity “weakens the body” in the short term in a way that feels like divine punishment (I hear some people actually…I don’t know…like it…). What I was trying to say in the previous post is that it doesn’t weaken the body in the long term, which was how I was reading the cultural information from the commentary I was quoting. Incidentally, I am in no place to argue about what “immoderate excesses” were considered back then, apart from quoting other people about it. I think that even on its own, you could support my reading of these verses without the little commentary at the bottom of the page helping you with the words quite easily; indeed, this idea first came to me in a less-supported way before reading the Oxford peoples’ idea on the culture.
Also, how do we know that Paul is judging the entire culture based on homosexuality itself? I would argue that it is the overall promiscuous and pagan attitudes of the culture that merit its judgment, and homosexuality was, for them at that time, one manifestation of these attitudes. It is not clear to me, however, that it is the act itself that is causing the need for judgment. One modern possible parallel might be at my university (University of Minnesota). Recently, there was a scandal that the recruits to the football (American Football, that is) team were being given special treatment during the recruiting process, and this included trips to strip clubs and parties with pre-arranged alcohol and girls to “party” with. This kind of thing undoubtedly happens at other universities across the country and the world. Now, if Paul were writing an “Epistle to the University of Minnesota” and he wrote about this incident, he would undoubtedly speak negatively of the football program in general as the cause of this clearly immoral situation. However, would this mean that Paul would be implying that the sport of football is inherently immoral? No, not at all, merely the perverse attitudes of our culture toward it. The sport itself is just fine, and when I participate in pick-up games of touch football, or when I enjoy an afternoon of ultimate Frisbee football, my attitude towards the sport is completely different than the attitudes behind the recruiting policies. So, that’s why I am certain that God is just fine with my playing amateur touch football, and that God might have some issues with the University team if it takes this perverse attitude toward the sport. Similarly, when a homosexual (or a heterosexual for that matter) goes to a party with the intent of being promiscuous, and does so, I think it is clear that God has a problem with that. However, when a homosexual adopts a completely different attitude, and pursues a long-term monogamous committed relationship, I think that by my analogy, the situation is far different, and it is not clear that God would come down with judgment on a culture that backed that.
I think we need to be very careful to separate the act and the intent when trying to determine if something is sinful.
Homosexuality and the authority of the bible
If I have understood Andrew’s argument correctly it can be summarised as follows - As impure and wicked behaviour, homosexuality will not found in the new heaven and the new earth;
- However, the church is the sign but not the actuality of the new heaven and new earth. As such it contains much that is fallen eg those who abuse their spouses or lie or who get angry or who are unjust, or who despise the poor- and those who practice homosexuality.
I take it that what Andrew is suggesting is that practising homosexuals should not be denied church fellowship; but equally that what they are doing is sinful.
This is more liberal than some mainstream church positions but it is not a view than I can accept.
As Andrew says we need to find a way of discussing this issue that does not degenerate into name-calling. It seems to me that the objective should be to find the sticking points, the issues that lead us adopt such immoveable defensive positions.
In my opinion the main sticking point is the different views we have of the authority of the bible. Most participants in Open Source Theology clearly come from an evangelical background and, while there is a spread of opinion, they are loath to find error or confusion or inconsistency in the bible; nor do they want to see moral obtuseness in biblical authors. Ivan Latham fears that admitting that Paul could be wrong about homosexuality will open the floodgates to every sort of evil. This view of the Bible has landed Evangelicals in enormous difficulties with, for example, evolution; and the position on homosexuality is not dissimilar. The point of my comparison between Jack the committed monogamous homosexual and Fred the slave owner, is that to the modern informed moral conscience it is Fred who is the sinner while Jack is the good guy. I would suggest that it is only a particular view of the authority of the bible which prevents most of the participants in OST from accepting this; and from drawing the conclusion that on this particular issue Paul is, by the standards of the modern Western conscience, morally obtuse. I do not come from the evangelical tradition: I was raised a Catholic but have been a Quaker for many years. I reverence the New Testament but I believe (as is the Quaker view) the Spirit takes precedence over the letter and am therefore prepared to acknowledge error or confusion or inconsistency in the Bible. I have much more serious reservations about the Old Testament, a large part of which seems to me to be the self interested record of the devotees of a tribal God. I will however be happy to be educated in a more positive appreciation of the OT.
I hope that this confession of my position on the Bible will not be an obstacle to further discussion in OST because I greatly value this discussion, and the spirit in which it is conducted.
One further more technical issue. Andrew says there will be no homosexuality in the new heaven and new earth. Is it not rather the case that there will be no sexuality of any sort- Matthew 22.29.
Shame, scripture and sex in heaven
I do not regard homosexuality as ‘wicked’ behaviour. Romans 1:24-27 puts homosexual activity in the ‘impure’ category: it has to do with the dishonouring of their own bodies whereas the term ‘wickedness’ appears to be reserved essentially for offences against others (1:29-30). Since honour and shame are in many respects social constructs, the argument could perhaps be made that homosexual behaviour is dishonourable or shameless relative to prevailing social mores - I think something like this applies in respect of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor.11:2-11 that a woman is the ‘glory’ of the man. Would this mean that where there is no strong public sense of shame, the situation is different? This needs more thought.
I don’t have a problem with evolution and I think the homosexuality issue is different. My view (influenced no doubt by my evangelical background) is that the problems often arise simply because we don’t think hard enough about what scripture is saying. Our interpretation of the Bible has been too much under the sway of dogmatic interests - on both sides of the liberal / conservative faultline. Before we decide whether to accept a text as authoritative or not, we need to make sure we have understood it properly. Of course, that’s a rather open-ended task, and I guess these are just tensions that we will have to live with.
That may be the case, but I’m not sure. It may be necessary to allow for a distinction here between ‘heaven’ and ‘new creation’ - they are not the same thing. God is in heaven with his angels, etc. Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. In my view the NT also speaks of a group, the ‘saints of the Most High’, who have been raised and vindicated and now reign with Christ in heaven, and because they are like angels, there is no marriage. But if the new creation consists of both a new heaven and a new earth, and if it is anything like the old creation, it will be populated by men and women in relationships. But that could be reading too much into John’s vision.
Inneresting tid-bit ... possible implications...
I just learned the other day that "pagans" who were engaged in sacred or spiritual sex considered the male/female pairing to be the only effective pairing. Effective for magickal purposes, that is; their form of spirituality.
Room 23
or if that link doesn’t work, cut and paste:
http://www.room23.org/1830.html
Homosexual sex was fine for private pleasure or if you were an attendant in a group sex ritual (prolly what the Bible refers to as "Temple Prostitutes" and their patrons), but the core pair that opened the door to the other side had to be male and female. The important ingredient was polarity. It was all about polarity.
The male and female represented opposite poles. Each of their bodies also had oposite poles, and so sacred sex involved the inversion of these poles by means of 69 type positions. The "missionary position" was fine for private pleasure and for warming up, but the magick occured only in the inversion. The theory is that the speed of oscilation of the poles increased until they "jumped the tracks" so to speak, switched positions and ripped a hole in the universe so that the other side could be reached. Like a key in a lock opening the Door.
There was so much invested in this. Much like there is with the Christianized West’s investment in the male/female pairing for "moral" reasons. I wonder if, like now, people then got tired of having to be responsible for carrying the whole spiritual world on their shoulders during sex and simply wanted to serve each other and themselves. Many in the West are getting really tired of polemics, in every way! They just want to be allowed to dwell in peace and contentment. Why must everything be so difficult and contentious and filled with power struggles!? Can’t we just give it a rest already?
On top of this were the other more practical reasons for male/female pairing: children, family, Name, property, inheritance, Lordship, etc. More burdens! People were finding all sorts of ways to get around all these obligations and servitudes. A woman would get pregnant by her husband, and since the child would be his, she then proceeded to have sex with anyone who suited her fancy without fear of bearing an illigitimate child. Women had abortions then too. Condoms go way back. It was a matter of course that men had lovers, concubines, mistresses and all that to serve his sexual needs, while the "wife" was there to fulfill all the societal obligations. No brainer. They had the deal all worked out. At the core of all this is not the "sin" of homosexuality. And I think the NT adresses this as best as it could possibly have done at the time.
The true core of all this was love. Recommiting to that long lost idea. Everyone had grown so cynical about it. Not just generic love, but the Love that God intended to be exchanged between a man and a woman. Paul, like a sheep-dog, was working at several angles aiming at hearding the sexual urge back into the realm of love. "But I don’t love women, I love my own kind!"- well that’s a problem. Deal with it. "But I don’t love my wife, I love my mistress!" - that’s a problem too. Deal with it. "But I don’t love anyone, I only want to get my rocks off!" - That’s a problem too. Deal with it. Every single one of you has got to learn to get past the cynicism, reconnect with that damaged place and get real!
I think Paul used the hammer of morality because it was the packaging that the Blessing came in. But he did not only use the hammer. He was trying to help us reconnect to the core issue.
I think that the one "sin" of monogamous, loving homosexuality is less off track than the 10 or so sins that someone who disapproves would possibly commit when contending with homosexuals. The warfare isn’t worth what it does to our character.
Sex that is deeply connected to the intended love between one man and one woman exposes everything inside of us that is out of control. Feeling out of control in a good way is great. But feeling out of control in a bad way is extremely tramatizing and we can’t tolerate it for very long before we start to disassociate. I think Paul and others are calling us to stop disassociating and deal with the trauma straight on.
I don’t know how this fits in with the eschatology that y’all are getting involved with, but I needed to give folks a heads up about the polemic of "pagan" vs. "Christian". It goes deeper than that.
Two Things
I have been reading these posts with great interest, and have been challenged about a number of things I have long held to be true. Not convinced or convicted, but certainly given a new perspective. By way of introduction & explanation, let me say that I am fairly conservative and traditional theologically, though I am open to new ways of looking at things. I have found that the number of times I have been wrong about things in the past have greatly enhanced my humility and certainty about things. I also have become aware that the church has treated homosexual Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) very poorly and un-Christ-like. That said, I think that is red herring in this particular discussion. So here are the two things I have been grappling with.
First: It seems to me that while many conservative traditionalists are at least willing to engage over these difficult issues with humility (such as but not limited to homosexuality), liberals are rarely willing to enter in with the same humility. That is to say, anything that hints at a rejection of homosexual behavior, or even a suggests that homosexuality is less than God’s ideal, is rejected out of hand. This makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion on matters such as this.
Second: And I think this ties to the first. There seems to be a fear that if a rejection of homosexuality is arrived at (there’s got to be a better way to say that), we will be condemning those wrestling with it into a living hell. But if that is so, what do we make of verses such as 1 Cor 10:13? "No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
Any feedback on this would be most helpful to me.
Humility on Both Sides
I think that there clearly is humility on the "traditional" side of the discussion, as displayed here on this site. However, clearly there is intolerance on that side as well. The point 1beggar made about "liberals" displaying a different kind of intolerance is well-taken, but I think it is unfair to deny the humility that side is trying to cultivate as well. I don’t think it is accurate to make a broad statement of "conservative=humber, liberal=closed-minded" (or vice versa, as I as a liberal am often tempeted to think).
overstatement
As I re-read my post, I think sbryan is correct in that I probably overstated the position. My intend was not to make a blanket statement about all "liberals" (and I am speaking theologically, not politically) being close-minded. Rather, it was to point out that a frank and open discussion needs to be frank and open on both sides, and that is not always the case.
When you get right down to
When you get right down to it, the jist of the first sentence in the second point is as follows: We fear declaring something to be sin because we have difficulty accepting that there are a class of people who currently practice that sin and will suffer because of it.
There is no problem with God fulfilling his 1 Cor 10:13 covenant with regard to repenitant homosexual sinners, even if we believe that by doing so the sinner will experience displeasure. Homosexuals are not doomed by their sin, but once they have come unto Jesus, will be forgiven their past sins and empwoered to cease from homosexual sins of all sort. I do not believe 1 Cor 10:13 promises a painless transformation, so I don’t see the suffering of homosexuals as being problematic to this position.
1 Cor.10:13
This in itself is not a criticism of your remarks, Rob, but it may be worth pointing out (if only for the sake of accuracy) that 1 Cor.10:13 relates to situations in which the believing community is tested or tempted (for example, by social pressure) to participate in idolatry. The fact that they have been baptized and have participated in the Lord’s supper (10:1-5) does not guarantee that they won’t fall - as Israel sinned in the wilderness despite the participation of the nation in the exodus experiences. Verse 13, therefore, assures them that when the believing community is put under pressure to perform idolatrous acts, God will provide them with an escape route; they do not have to sin, they will not be tried beyond their strength to resist the pressure, but they cannot afford to be complacent (10:12). This is not the same as the situation of the ‘sinner’ who repents and is restored.
It is really a very big question to what extent we should expect to escape from the concrete reality of our ‘sinfulness’ or ‘fallenness’ as a result of faith in Christ. And your comments raise the question again of why we are so intolerant of homosexuality as a ‘sin’ and so tolerant of other far more damaging behaviours.
not so much a question of degree
Baptism and communion are human actions, but Faith is a gift. Any sinner who is truly "restored" is by definition a member of the same body as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 10. One holy and catholic church. Am I being simple or just a simpleton?
Our reality is afflicted but not defined by sin. As his chosen people, we should not dismiss sin’s consequences. Why is homosexuality especially dangerous to Christians?
What Christians seek from God, homosexuals seek from a relationship with another person. Homosexuality is the empowerment of the inter-personal relationship and the rejection of the natural order. It’s emblematic of what’s been going wrong with marraige for the last 1000+ years, but being without the usual accutraments of an illigetimate marriage, so it tingles our shiny sensor.
The meta-narrative is not a twentieth century invention, it’s orthdox as can be. There are helpers in this world, and there are the ones who need help. Part of being obedient to God is realising that you trust God to do what you can’t. Don’t like the idea of being the head of the household or the idea of birthing a child? Don’t go lopping bits off or adding them back, God didn’t make a mistake. You might not like depending on faith and prayer, but that’s how everyone who lives lives. Sometimes we can be awefully good at fooling ourselves into thinking we have found an intellectual solution to a spiritual problem.
Addressing the questions
Rob
I have several questions about your past two posts in the homosexuality discussion.
Firstly, the discussion on homosexuality on this site has raised the following kinds of questions
None of these questions seem to have disturbed your view that you know what the scriptures say about homosexuality and that the informed modern conscience is irrelevant. All that remains is for the sinning homosexual (ie somebody like me) to repent and if this should cause him or her pain, so be it . Have I understood you correctly?
Secondly, you say
"What Christians seek from God, homosexuals seek from a relationship with another person." and
"Homosexuality is the empowerment of the inter-personal relationship and the rejection of the natural order. It’s emblematic of what’s been going wrong with marraige for the last 1000+ years,"
What do you mean by these two statements?
1-1. I believe scripture i
1-1. I believe scripture is clear, and that homosexuality is not a lifestyle for believers.
1-2. Being selective about scriptural obedience is sin. I don’t know if I could think of a sin that didn’t fall under this categorization.
1-3. We do not and we cannot. Those who must be justified by prevailing moral attitudes cannot be justified by the enduring cleansing of the blood.
2-2. Allow me to skip the first explination and begin with the second. If it’s still unclear by what I meant by seeking from another person, post a reply and I will gladly flush out the argument.
But what do I mean by:
"Homosexuality is the empowerment of the inter-personal relationship and the rejection of the natural order. It’s emblematic of what’s been going wrong with marraige for the last 1000+ years,"
If you take all virtues that are espoused as the ideal for non-believers you end up with a marriage that is centered around two people making each other feel good. Hedonism. Homsexuals seeks to legitimize an unquestionable hedonistic union with legal standing. Furthermore, they seek to inject their hedonistic unions into the church.
Still not sure what you're getting at here
I would have thought that a lot of non-believing married couples (and for that matter a lot of gay couples) would strongly dispute that their relationship is purely ‘hedonistic’, by which I presume you mean something ‘obsessively pleasure-seeking’. What they would call it is love, and I don’t really see that ‘making each other feel good’ is such a bad definition of love. Obviously there’s more to it than that, but your comments rather seem to imply that ‘pleasure’ is out of place in a marriage. I can understand what you mean when you say that homosexuality is ‘the rejection of the natural order’, but in what sense is it ‘the empowerment of the inter-personal relationship’? Or in what sense is that bad? Are you suggesting that we should find pleasure only in God and not in other people? Is the Song of Songs only an allegory?
Marriage as service
seems to be the scriptural model. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church (sacrificially and selflessly). Wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.
Certainly not all homosexuals would claim to follow this model. But I bet some would. And I bet some do a better job of it than my wife and I do.
Of course, I am aware that Christ spoke of husbands and wives, not husbands and husbands or wives and wives. The question is whether this is prescriptive or descriptive. Much like Jesus would talk about Pharisees and Sadducees. Did he intend to say that these two groups SHOULD exist, or merely that they did? Is he talking about husbands-wife relationships because they SHOULD BE the only kind, or because they generally WERE the only kind.
I think the main issue here is your point 1-1. There are some here that feel that scripture is less than clear on the issue of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships. If those people are right, then 1-2 is not the issue. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that we should disregard the portions of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. I think people are trying to figure out what Paul, Moses, etc. had in mind when they spoke about homosexuality, and whether it applies to the aforementioned MCH relationships.
Maybe it’s just a little bit like the Bible condoning (or at least not condemning) slavery. Most people who believe in the authority of scripture usually say that the Israelite form of slavery was not the same kind of institution as the American form of slavery. Whereas Paul might affirm that there is a kind of slavery that can be just and uphold the dignity of the slave, the American slave trade did not, and thus could not be defended by passages in the Bible that upheld slavery.
Or here’s a better one. Are tax collectors really sinful? Should everyone who works for the IRS repent? Or was it something more specific in Jesus’ day that he was condemning? I think we all agree that there is an unspoken qualifier — "greedy, thieving, traitorous" tax collectors. Perhaps there is an unspoken qualifier on the Bible’s use of "homosexual," such as "promiscuous, lustful, or violent" homosexual. Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual known to that culture, or that was the implication inextricably linked to the term.
As I have said before, I believe the burden of proof lies with those who would justify homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle. They are attempting to overturn centuries of accepted doctrine and the plainest reading of the text. However, I think we all have a responsibility to consider their scriptural arguments and not dismiss them as scripture-twisters and sin-rationalizers. And even if some, at the end of the day, disagree with their interpretation, someone needs to convince me that I should treat them any differently than I treat people who disagree with me over immersion vs. sprinkling, pre vs. post-millennialism, pre-conversion vs. post-conversion Paul in Romans 7, poetic vs. scientific reading of Genesis 1, etc.
God-substitutes
Rob,
I won’t dispute that homosexuals are certainly guilty of seeking certain satisfactions and fulfillments from their partner that can only be found in God. But I am not sure how heterosexuals are any less guilty of the same thing.
I’m also not sure how interpersonal relationships are against the natural order. I would argue that most of us could use a little more interpersonal relating than we currently engage in, so that we could become a little more like what God has created us to be.
I’m also not sure "what’s been going wrong with marriage in the last 1000+ years," nor how you define "illegetimate (sic) marriage." The divorce rate has climbed in the last century, but I don’t think that can be what you’re referring to. The decline of arranged marriages, or dowries, or polygamy?
Lastly, the issues of homosexuality and sex-change operations (which you seem to reference in your last paragraph) are largely unrelated.
I was hoping you could clarify these issues so that I could better understand what you’re getting at.
Keep up the good work, Rob
Hallelujah! Can it possibly be that at last there are apparently two of us singing from the same hymn sheet? Rob has made a splendid point about our intellectualising of sin and thereby excusing it.
A Corruption of real love
Homosexual love is patently a corruption of that powerful human emotion which, Biblically, is reserved for a heterosexual relationship. The Genesis creation narrative presents us with the theoligical basis for sexual union. It is a reuniting as one flesh of the two sexes who, via Adam’s rib, spring from the same body. Homosexual union destroys this argument. There is no theological basis to explain its existence save that it is a symptom of Original Sin. The human body simply is not designed for sexual union with a partner of the same sex. To derive sexual fulfilment by way of the extreme end of another’s alimentary canal is clearly unnatural, and is what St Paul is highlighting in Romans 1 in not so explicit terms. It is as sinfully deviant as bestiality and paedophilia — no doubt those who participate in these acts could claim that they were driven by love, but we rightly do not condone such appalling behaviour as acceptable in the world, let alone the Church.
Rob makes an interesting point about hedonism. That really is a major part of the problem with modern relationships. Premarital cohabitation cited as a ‘trial period’ to ensure sexual compatibility. Men truly have become lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.
Love
I actually do doubt that bestiality and paedophilia could legitimately claim to be driven by love. Those actions are fundamentally different from homosexuality because of that fact. Bestiality cannot be motivated by love, since it is impossible to feel the same kind of love for an animal as a person. Nobody is testifying that they were "born that way" in those cases. Paedophilia is a case of a power imbalance, and is clearly rape. Both cases are clearly mental illnesses. Homosexuality is clearly different because it is possible to feel love for other people, and it is not inherently the result of a power imbalance. I can’t belive that a sane person would make a comparison between those three things. This fallacious "slippery slope" kind of argumentation (i.e. "if we approve homosexuality, then paedophilia is next!") is a clear example of the kind of mindless descent these discussions can lead to. I hope we move away from it.
Born that way = Original Sin
Just because homosexuals are ‘born that way’ means nothing. Genetics predispose certain individuals towards various behaviour. Since we live in a fallen world, those genes are flawed by sin and incline us towards sinful behaviour, of which homosexuality is a prime example. The Bible has no sympathy with the ‘Well, it’s who I am, how I was made.’ Is homosexuality really natural? How can any sane person believe that it is? Homosexuals could quite justifiably be classified as mentally ill — it is only political correctness which prevents us from addressing this issue on those terms, and sadly it is leading the Church along the same route. Love is not unconditional. It is meant to be directed legitimately within a heterosexual relationship — the Bible speaks in no other terms no matter how cleverly we try to reinterpret it. Otherwise we are turning the truth of God into a lie.
Ivan Latham's statements about homosexuals
The time has come for me to confront Ivan Latham about the substance but more particularly the manner of his posts in the homosexuality debate.
It lies with me in particular to do this because, as I have already said in this forum, I am homosexual. I am 65 years old and have served my country as a diplomat and as a senior civil servant. My partner (who is a doctor) and I have been together for many years, love each other deeply and have been faithful to each other. As a young man I was tormented about my homosexuality for 13 years before finally deciding to come out. In my lifetime I have seen homosexuals in my country (Australia) emerge from a twilight in which they were beaten and persecuted and murdered with impunity. Most of the mainstream churches have resisted the work of liberation and have often provided moral ammunition to the gay bashers and murderers.
The discussion in OST has exposed many shades of opinion with most people fairly strongly influenced by the traditional Christian approach but willing to listen to alternative points of view and eager to understand the life situation of homosexual Christians. Ivan has been a regrettable exception.
There have been three sorts of issues raised.
As regards the scriptural discussion Ivan has made plenty of assertions but offered little if anything in the way of reasoned support for his views
Admittedly there is some attempt at argument here but it is a weak one - does every form of behaviour, to be morally acceptable, have to have a biblical predecessor?
And about Walter Wink’s argument, which appears to be fatal to the kind of selective use of the scriptures to condemn homosexuality made by Ivan, we hear not a word.Equally, Ivan makes no attempt to resolve the conflict between St Paul’s statements about homosexuality and slavery and most people’s intuitive moral judgement about them today.
All of this is part and parcel of debate.Some people prefer to shout rather than to reason.But the way in which Ivan talks about homosexuality and homosexuals goes well beyond what is acceptable as a debating style
Ivan likes to portray himself as a stern moralist, a solitary figure opposing the intellectualising and “the veritable slough of clever words which at the end of the day merely excuse and apologise sinful behaviour”. The above excerpts reveal something else, malice and spite and vilification. I personally find them highly offensive. The OST forum is debased by their use.
You bring up a point I mentioned earlier to Ivan
Being a Catholic involves affirming the authority of Papal decisions in matters of doctrine and morality. Open source theology by very definition involves a rejection of such authority, and a democratic reconstruction of theology based on the ongoing dialogue of a faith community.
Prophets were known for their acrimonious testimony against those who would oppose God. Ivan is objecting flatly to the direction of our conversations, calling them as he sees them. He does so not primarily because of any evidence or line of reasoning, but because in his mind there are no vagaries in the interpretation. That is the nature of Catholicism. The clergy make such decisions, not the laypeople. He is entering from a very different direction than you are, but that in itself does not render his comments invalid.
Asking Ivan to be of an open mind on the issue is asking him to abandon the very foundations of his faith. He cannot be open-minded, because the issue has been ruled on definitively by the Pope. To consider the opposing viewpoint is quite literally a sin. Whether this theological commitment is antagonistic and debasing to this forum is an interesting question. How broadly will we allow ourselves to be defined? Should contributors be expected to adhere to a particular theological methodology?
However, I think what you found most objectionable was Ivan’s tone and demeanor. Ivan may profit from a measure of tact and diplomacy, but Ivan is being Ivan, doing and saying what he thinks he should in order to counter all the challenges to what, in his tradition, is unquestionable truth.
Thus, Paul, perhaps a more fruitful discussion with Ivan would center around Papal authority, rather than homosexuality per se.
On the other hand, Ivan, you are probably not mindful of the amount of pain, using the very same beliefs and tone as you do, that has been inflicted on homosexuals by Christians. Even if you believe "homosexual Christian" to be a contradiction in terms, even if every homosexual should be treated as a pagan, they deserve to be addressed with dignity and respect:
For what it is worth, Paul, I would like to apologize for the crimes and torments of the Church against you and those others you spoke of. It grieves me to hear of it, and it grieves me to know that there are many in my own church that would probably rejoice in it. It is a festering wound in the body of Christ.
Reason, Scripture, and Church Tradition
So, papal infallibility is an excuse for everything? What about when popes have changed their minds, or disagreed with their predecessors? Mass used to be in Latin, but an infallible Pope decided that should change. Previous popes who were also infallible had supported it before then. Does that mean they were wrong? Does that mean that the popes after Vatican II are wrong? No, it means that in their own times they were correct, but the kinds of pastoral care the people needed in their times were different…changed. Might we view the church’s stance on homosexuality this way? Maybe thousands of years ago, the faithful needed to be protected from promiscuous/pagan homosexuality, but today, the faithful of any orientation need pastoral care.
Blindly following the authority of a church hierarchy may be part of someone’s personal faith, but it cannot be allowed into a debate. Period. This is just about the only thing I think we cannot compromise on. If your only justification for something is "well, someone infallible said it" then I won’t believe you, because it’s a logical fallacy. Moreover, if I non-chalantly cast aside an entire class of people as being evil, and my only consideration to it is "well, the pope told me to," I am truly being negligent by not considering the matter any further on my own. When God created us, He gave us a lot more than a pope. He gave us reason. He sent his Word into the world. He gave us a church with traditions. As an Episcopal, these three "pillars" (reason, scripture, and church tradition) are what I try to build my spiritual life on. All three come directly from God, and I don’t have to invoke a logical fallacy to attempt to justify that statement. I find that very interesting discussions result with people of my own denomination and of others when we take an attitude like this to faith. I don’t have time to bicker with people who just repeat what someone in the Vatican told them. I’ll go talk to the Pope if I want that.
Hence my suggestion
that Papal infallibility may be the "debate" that needs to happen.
Treating other human beings with respect.
It is a matter for Ivan if he chooses to participate in OST discussions by making assertions without any attempt at reasoning or argument. I think that is contrary to the spirit of the forum but participants can make up their own minds about how to respond to it.
I think you may have too monolithic a view of the Catholic church when you suggest that the lay people simply follow where the clergy lead and that once the Pope rules on a matter, that is the end of it. There is a sizable segment of the Catholic church who do not see things that way.
As you say, my main objection is not to the substance of what Ivan has said but to the way he has talked about homosexuals. I do not think that is just a lack of " tact and diplomacy, … of Ivan is being Ivan". As I said in my post, Ivan’s references to homosexuals reveals spite, malice and vilification and are not just trivial matters about the way he presents his views.
Hence I do not think the real issue is Ivan’s espousal of papal infallibility. Rather it is about treating other human beings with respect.
That is not to say that a discussion about papal infallibility would not be interesting though I think it would be even more interesting if it were joined to a discussion about the authority of the scriptures.
Finally, thank you for your concluding paragraph
Let's tolerate the intolerant, too
I agree that Ivan should be admonished to treat his conversation partners here with more respect. But I don’t think he should be silenced or made to feel that expressing his feelings on the issue in his unsophisticated way is less to be tolerated than the question of whether homosexuality per se might not be sin after all.
I took him to be speaking as one would be expected to speak when one finds the evil of some abhorrent sin being questioned, and that sin being defended as loving and right. One might speak in the same way about child molesters or Inquisitors. That’s where Ivan is coming from. It would be nice if we were all dispassioned scholars thinking to be objective in our exegesis of ancient texts, but the reality is that our starting point in this discussion is from a variety of perspectives—homosexual and heterosexual, Christian and agnostic, conservative and liberal.
Is it possible to hate the sin but love the sinner? Perhaps not. Yet Paul’s denunciation of Ivan here is a direct, personal ad hominem attack. While he lists many of the issues being discussed and points out that Ivan has not provided much by way of valid argumentation addressing those issues, Paul does so, it seems to me, to silence Ivan’s voice rather than to engage those arguments.
Given that Ivan’s "demographic" has historically held the upper hand in an oppressive relationship with homosexuals, I think it is appropriate to priviledge here arguments sympathetic to homosexuality; I just don’t think this stance should mean people like Ivan are to be sneered at or shunned in their place.
I hope to learn from Paul and Ivan both, like iron sharpening iron. I hope that all sides can focus on the issues and treat our conversation partners with courtesy and respect. And I hope that none of us with a real interest in the emerging church feels we aren’t allowed even to speak simply by virtue of what we believe.
Regarding Ivan.
I must say that it has been distressing to come back to this site after a long hiatus (mostly due to technical matters) and review the discussions related to homosexuality and Christianity. It has been troubling to read Ivan Latham’s contributions, sensing in each successive post increasing frustration (and if I am absolutely honest, anger) in trying to hold an orthodox scriptural line, an effort which must seem to Ivan a lot like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.
I believe frustration and anger are all that are evident in Ivan Latham’s posts. Frustration and anger, not at homosexuals, but at large caliber intellects whose firepower often seems dedicated to moving the ancient boundry stones, people "Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." I confess I sometimes share in that frustration.
It is this sort of moral obtusness, caling good evil and evil good, without a decent respect for scripture, which I believe frustrates and angers Ivan Latham, who, I believe, is a decent fellow and not a frothing at the mouth homophobe.
Though I sympathize with Paul Hartigan’s emotions, particularly in light of his personal experiences, I don’t believe labeling Ivan Latham and silencing him by repeating the trifold mantra of "spite, malice and villification" is appropriate. In doing so, one might even detect the faint hint of those less than charitable characteristics .
It should not be necessary for me to point out to Paul Hartigan that there is opportunity on this web site to make personal email contact with contributors. This approach might have been a more appropriate venue for Paul to express to Ivan, man to man, the degree of hurt Ivan’s rhetoric was causing. I suppose, after several such attempts, if Ivan’s rhetoric remained hurtful, Paul might then have decided between the alternatives of turning the other cheek or openly rebuking Ivan.
I don’t personally believe Paul’s quarrel is really with Ivan in any event. Reading Paul’s posts leads me to the conclusion that it is scripture and its authority that is at issue with him. It is the question that the enemy has always put to us in one form or another: Yea, hath God said…? Even the discussion suggested respecting Papal authority was, for Paul, hopefully to be wed to one of biblical authority.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I must say to Paul that I found the treatment of homosexuals in his native Australia deplorable. Is there really a word adequate enough to express disgust at the cruelty of such conduct? I was born in and still live in America’s "Deep South" where such conduct towards homosexuals is mostly, though not altogether, a thing of the past.
If I may be permitted a brief recollection, let me share with you an almost cliche character in Southern literature and life. This person was the small-town eccentric, independent and iconoclastic, whose homosexuality was never mentioned, much less actually discussed. To have done so would have been impolite and just plain bad manners. This person usually lived alone, was often a teacher in the local high school and usually was the single cultural light in an otherwise bleak small-town existence. Sure, there were cars to race, girls to chase and sports for the physically gifted, but, if one learned anything of the Stoics, the Lake Poets, Puccini or what a cadenza was, it was often because this colorful, cultured and gentle person took the time to teach the nearly unteachable. This person was not just tolerated but was a vital and accepted part of the community-and woe to the uncivilized rabble who ventured to harm him. As I say, a cliche, but one my peers and I knew, were befriended by and loved by despite all our foolishness and ignorance and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude not easily repaid.
A few us had opportunity in our greener days, as I recall, on more than one occasion, to use our fists to secure these gentle persons or their property from harm. Upon mature reflection, I believe it was an honor and a privilige to have done so. Then, when we were young, it just seemed the right thing to do. (Who says violence never solves anything? That’s a scriptural discussion for another thread I guess.)
Speaking for myself, Paul, I hope I have not written anything which could be deemed malicious or hurtful directed to you in particular or to any homosexual person. This has never been my intent. I do not think this has been Ivan Latham’s intent either, although he is perfectly capable to write in order to clarify his intentions. I hope he will do so.
Having said all this, to abandon what I believe the scriptures speak respecting sin and salvation and be unwilling to say to a man that I believe he is wrong and in peril would be dishonorable and the very opposite of love. Loving conversation and even confrontation can, and should be able to take place maintaining fidelity to the scriptures while treating persons with respect and decency.
Cordially,
Alario
Regarding Ivan
My response to Ivan’s posts on homosexuality was not impulsive. It was based on 10 or 12 posts that Ivan had made and a substantial number of offensive remarks contained in them. My initial feeling was just to let it go and indeed half way through the homosexuality debate I posted a comment headed “Hang in there Ivan” in which I said that his concern that participants were abandoning the traditional line on homosexuality was wrong- that in fact most people continued to hold that line. I encouraged him to continue in the discussion.
I eventually decided to confront Ivan publicly because his comments were public and in my view could not be allowed to go unchallenged. If they had gone unchallenged it would have given OST a public persona that I do not think it deserves; and it would have suggested that I, as somebody who had disclosed his homosexuality on this site, saw nothing to object to. Hence I do not feel this was a matter for a personal email.
As regards my characterisation of Ivan’s comments, it may be that they are too strong. On the other hand, read what Ivan has written; what other words would you choose? I have to admit that they were written not only out of a sense of injustice but also from anger and for this I apologise.
Could I also make a couple of points about homosexuality.
Among the well educated middle class in Western developed countries there is now widespread acceptance of homosexuals; but this is not the case among people of poor education and young heterosexual men and there are still plenty of gay bashings and murders, including I am sure in the American South. Australia is not notably better or worse than other developed countries in this way.
I mentioned my own history not to win sympathy but to ensure that this discussion did not take place in a vacuum. Also when I say that in my young manhood I was tormented I am referring primarily to the fact that I found it psychologically very difficult to come to terms with the fact that I was a member of (in the late 50s and 60s) a despised minority. I was never bashed myself though I was discriminated against in the early part of my career.
Finally, I have received several very lovely messages of Christian brotherhood from OST participants who disagree with my overall stand on this issue. I hope that Ivan and I can do the same.
Has anyone seen . . . ?
I don’t know whether this is fuelling the flames, but what I found quite refreshing about Dr Ralph Blair’s testimony (www.ecwr.org) is that he never went through heart-ache and soul-searching with his (gay) orientation - or particularly with what the bible (appears) to say about homosexuality. He simply accepted it as who he was.
How you react to this might be quite revealing. If you think that, as a Christian, he should have struggled because homosexuality is such an evil, then we really are no further on in the discussion, and all our words about accepting each other are just meaningless. We are really then saying we reject both the sin and the sinner.
On the other hand, some might feel that this trivialises those who do go through emotional and psychological distress because of their orientation. Or some might say this shows how degenerate Blair must be not to feel some twinge of conscience about his inner orientation. His conscience must be totally seared!
I personally do not accept either of the above alternatives, and would gently challenge those who feel convinced in their moral opposition to any expression of homosexuality in relationships to look at the testimonies on Blair’s website. Incidentally, why do we so swiftly conclude that any expression of homosexuality in a relationship must lead to the practice of anal sex? Would any expression of intimacy and tenderness which did not include anal sex be condemned? Or are we obsessed with scatological functions?
Having said this, I feel that some of Blair’s revisionist treatment of the scriptures is rather weak. But it bears consideration.
I also feel that further issues were raised by Paul Hartigan’s detailed exploration of O.T. scriptures on ths subject, and this needs to be addressed by those wanting to ‘hold the line’ on a traditional, conservative scriptural perspective on homosexuality. One of the issues is the relationship of the Old to the New Testament. Evangelicals, or religious conservatives, tend to simplify things by holding to a distinction between moral issues which are binding for all time, and ritual/ceremonial issues which are temporally relative. This is a virtually impossible line to hold consistently.
It would be worthwhile taking some of these issues further, if some of the heat could be taken out of the discussion.
Unnatural sexual fulfillment
I am wondering about your principle of anatomical design. If anal sex is "unnatural" based on the form of the human body, then I wonder about such things as oral sex and other forms of sexual arousal that are commonly condoned and practiced between Christians. What is your view of them?
Problematic
The human body was designed for standing, walking, and running. Sitting (as I am now), and especially with bad posture, can hurt your back because it was not designed for that. This in turn can make it more difficult to worship God at Church because it’s harder to kneel and pray when you have back pain. To think that I sit at Church when my body was designed to stand…such sin.
On a somewhat less sarcastic note, I don’t know that we can use the design of the human body to decide whether or not something is sinful. Earlier, Ivan, you criticized my point that people are born homosexual by saying that we are all fallen, so that we should not condone homosexuals just because they were born that way. So, if someone were designed by God to be homosexual, he or she shouldn’t do that even though he or she was born that way. But, if someone were "anatomically designed" to be heterosexual, he or she should do that because they were born that way. See that contradiction? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Yes, and to be blunt