There are three angles - according to my current thinking - from which the 'homosexual discussion' needs to be approached. They are ideological, pastoral and pragmatic. The latter two will be dealt with in later posts.
Ideologically, we are all asking the questions, "What is true? What is right? What does God want and expect from us?" In the Methodist Church of Southern Africa I am pretty sure that we are all asking that question as a starting point. However, in some extreme approaches to this issue there are those who say, "This is what I believe to be right and I cannot accept a God who does not think as I do."
Traditionally, we in the MCSA, hold to the Bible as our basis for the understanding of our faith and the source of answers to our questions. The problem is that the Bible, like statistics, can be used to support pretty much anything, depending on how it is interpreted (remember apartheid). My feeling is that gradually the consensus has subliminally become that the only honest interpretation of the Bible is that God is not in favour of homosexual practices (I know that there are those who will disagree with this). Because of this consensus one ideological position becomes that we cannot rely on the Bible as being in any sense the 'inerrant word of God' and it should be used with caution as should any historical text.
So, the two sides to the story are, 'God is not in favour of homosexual practices, as can be seen in the Bible, and they should not be condoned by the church,' and, 'God is ultimately a God of love and inclusion and if the Bible implies otherwise . . . (I'm not sure what), but he cannot possibly be offended by the homosexual practices of his beloved.'
And it is not an easy call to make between the two positions. For me, the problem is that if the Bible is rejected as my basis for faith, I don't know where to turn. I don't believe that I can trust my intuition (God-led or otherwise). I'm not sure about the community of faith as the source of wisdom. So where to turn? Ideologically, even though I can't fully understand how it fits together I need to accept the Bible as a sound source of wisdom, when read in an intelligent straight-forward way.
About Me
- Jenny Hillebrand
- In 2013, I am a Methodist student minister working in churches in Mitchells Plain, Cape Town. This is my second year in Mitchell's Plain and my fifth year of training.
Follow by Email
My Other Blogs
Search This Blog
Church and Theology Blogs
- Because He Lives (Mark)
- Blissphil (Philippa)
- Dion Forster
- Khanya
- Living in Grace (Delme)
- North Rand Methodist Church
- Notes From Underground
- Out of the Box (Doug & Cheri)
- Peter's Progress
- Quadrilateral Thoughts (Ken Schenck)
- Rock in the Grass (Pete)
- Sacredise
- Stephen Murray
- Steven Jones
- Urban Ministry Live and Unplugged (Thomas)
- Vow of Conversation (Macrina)
- Wessel's Place
- Wondering Preacher (Ian)
Creative and Other Blogs
Geek Sites
Labels
- Shaw Journey (223)
- SMMS journey (200)
- Theology (64)
- Culture (62)
- Time out (41)
- Books (30)
- SMMS journey 2011 (30)
- Church (29)
- Brentwood (28)
- Emergent Church (27)
- Doctorate (26)
- Technology (26)
- Bible (24)
- Blogging (23)
- Candidating Journey (23)
- Greek (21)
- Self Discovery (20)
- Preaching (19)
- Masters (18)
- Methodist Organisations (17)
- Methodist Ministry (15)
- family (15)
- Greytown (13)
- Seth Mokitimi Seminary (12)
- Homosexual Discussion (11)
- Hlalanathi (10)
- Call (9)
- Phakamisa (9)
- CPE (8)
- Different (8)
- Just Life (8)
- ministry (7)
- Mark (6)
- Values (6)
- Africa (5)
- Antichrist (5)
- Methodist Evangelical Renewal Movement (5)
- Missional (5)
- Mozambique mission (5)
- Plunge (5)
- Running (5)
- Singukukhanya (5)
- Writing (5)
- uzondelelo (5)
- Christian Living (4)
- Gender Discussion (4)
- Methodist Policy (4)
- Moving to Mitchells Plain (4)
- ancestors (4)
- prayforsynod (4)
- syncretism (4)
- Cows (3)
- Exclusion and Embrace (3)
- Festival (3)
- INTJ (3)
- Black Consciousness (2)
- Community (2)
- Debate (2)
- Guitar (2)
- Honda Jazz (2)
- Jordanian codices (2)
- Leadership (2)
- Links (2)
- Making things happen (2)
- Moving (2)
- Oikos Journey (2)
- Postcolonialism (2)
- Prayer (2)
- Simanga Kumalo (2)
- Surfing (2)
- Wesley Guild (2)
- Delme Linscott (1)
- Desmond Tutu (1)
- Gifts (1)
- Gypsy (1)
- Hermeneutics (1)
- Interesting Stuff (1)
- Joshua (1)
- Methodist Church (1)
- Nancy Beach (1)
- News (1)
- Paul Verryn (1)
- Pietermaritzburg (1)
- Prestbury (1)
- Progressive Christianity (1)
- Steve de Gruchy (1)
- Worship (1)
- Xhosa (1)
- Zulu (1)
45 comments:
Jenny, I think you've made an omission that is often made in this conversation (although perhaps I'm jumping in too soon).
You've created 2 options - either the Bible is "true" and condemns homosexuality, or it isn't and we can then accept individuals who practice homosexual relationships.
I believe there is a third option. The Bible is true, but it is very specific about what it condemns, which may be different from what we are experiencing and talking about today.
Or Perhaps there's a fourth option. The Bible is true, but we have also discovered many times in the past that interpretations we believed to be correct were actually mistaken (eg. slavery, women in ministry, hats & hair in church, remarriage after divorce etc.) So, the problem here isn't the Bible, but our interpretation of it.
Just thought you might like to ruminate on these other possibilities a bit and see where they lead you.
For what it's worth.
Grace
John
Hi John,
Unlike real life it’s a bit difficult to get an introduction in the blogsphere. Jenny mentioned you to me in a comment a few days ago and I added you to a list of South African Christian bloggers. I would like to be accurate in my description of you and having only read a few of your lectionaries and a couple of posts which I might have misinterpreted I’d appreciate if you’d check up on how I’ve “tagged” you.
Many thanks in advance.
Hi Jenny,
I read the post just now, came back and read it again, said hi to John and have now read it a third time just to be sure. It seems that we’re (the South African Christian blogging community) all grappling with this question at the moment, although I think you’re tackling it in a very commendable way.
I’m sure you know where I stand regarding homosexuality so I’ll not beat that tired old drum till someone brings a stringed instrument along.
Doesn’t making God “ultimately a God of love and inclusion” detract from His other attributes like His Holiness and Justice? Isn’t God, who is a God of love, also equally a God of vengefulness and of wrath? Doesn’t ignoring parts of His nature (in fairness they’re the ones that run contra to our instincts) leave us with a skewed picture of Him who is revealed to us in His Word? Are these inconsistencies our fault or God’s?
Isn’t to question if God could be “offended by the ... practices of his beloved” tantamount to a license for believers to live life licentiously? Does God stop caring about sin once a person is saved? Why, in the epistles do Peter, Paul, John, James and who knows who (Hebrews) drone on and on consistently exhorting the beloved to stop sinning, living out lives which reflect the reality of their faith?
From what I read you’re in a good place. You’re asking all the right questions. I can’t wait until you’ve got the answers. Please jot them down as I’m still struggling.
Am I smoking my socks?
I like this post. And the "God of love and inclusion" ... where does this image come from? I'll be interested to read the pastoral and pragmatic aspects, which have been part of my experience many times (there are recent posts on my blog). Strangely, many pastors have strong "ideological" views on homosexuality, yet zero experience, apart from happening to know this or that person fairly superficially.
Hi Jenny
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
I see that you are in PMB now - it would be good to see you and Grant sometime. Sorry, I haven't made contact as yet -things have been hectic.
If you have a moment - pop in and join us at Wesley Meth one Sunday.
Blessings
Delme
Hi Mark,
Good to meet you online. Thanks for adding me to your watch list. I hope to be blogging more regularly this year, which hopefully will justify your attention.
I am happy with the way you've tagged me - I especially like the question mark in the "liberalism" column!
Hope to connect more in the future.
Grace
John
Mark, if I may respond to this comment of yours:
"Doesn’t making God “ultimately a God of love and inclusion” detract from His other attributes like His Holiness and Justice? Isn’t God, who is a God of love, also equally a God of vengefulness and of wrath?"
My short answer would be simply this: the Scriptures go so far as to say "God is love" (1 John 4:8). But, nowhere does it say "God is vengeance" or "God is holiness". So, from my perspective, this makes love a more "central" characteristic of God's nature, and God's wrath, vengeance and holiness are all ultimately defined by God's love.
Although, I always talk about God's "nature" and "character" with a whole lot of trepidation, because, after all, how can we possibly know, even from Scripture, what the infinite and eternal is really like...
For what it's worth.
John
Hi John,
I’m sure you’d agree that God has revealed Himself as being many things. He is indeed love, I couldn’t quibble about that but consider this: if you were quoting from 1 John 4, “God is love” then it’d be wise to also mull over 1 John 1 in the context of “what God is.” 1 John 1:5 says, “...God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” The reason why the verse is so relevant to our discussion is that:
a.) The Scriptures go so far as to say that "God is light". So, from a Biblical perspective this makes light as "central" a characteristic of God's nature as love :).
b.) A reading of that text in the context of our current discussion renders the interpretation of Light as divine holiness or truth.
c.) And most relevant to this thread and the post that kicked it off is, “6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. we’re exhorted to walk in it. To shake off sin so to speak and to cloth ourselves in righteousness.”
Does that make sense, is it relevant or have I missed the boat?
Love your post, and am now following your blog.
Jealous of your opportunity at SMMS; enjoy it!
What struck me is the line: '...if the Bible is rejected as my basis for faith...'
For me; and this is the way I am going at the moment - always learning and growing - the Bible should not be my basis for faith.
Yes - it informs my faith / points me in the right direction - but ultimately: Truth is, and should be the only basis for faith.
But what is True?
I wish I could shirk my own responsibility and lay it on somebody else to tell me what truth is. But (at the risk of sounding like a typical postmodernist) I have to work that out for myself.
Its a longer story... but that's all for now folks.
Thanks bloggers.
You inspire.
Hi Mark,
Great response! I am totally on the same page with you. And the crux of the passage you quote - for me, anyway, is this:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Of course this raises the question, again, of whether, in this discussion, homosexuality as we now know it is sinful or not.
Was the Bible actually seeking to address monogamous, life-long, faithful homosexual relationships? Do such relationships constitute a different "kind" of homosexuality or is all homosexual practice essentially the same? Would the same apply to heterosexual relationships?
And to what extent can we apply the Bible's view of sexuality to the additional information we have today - that sexuality is not just about biology, and that even biology is not binary (as the now infamous Caster Semenya saga has shown). And, if our current experience is in some way significantly different from what the Bible seeks to address, what does that say about we use the Bible as an authority for faith and life?
Lots of questions, I know - and perhaps I'm jumping the gun by moving directly to the homosexuality discussion, but I do think that's the focus of this conversation?
Gus, here's my response to your question of whether the Bible should be the basis for faith or not - and it's taken from the Bible itself (John 5:39-40):
“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life."
Jesus said it - the Scriptures do not give life; the Scriptures are not the basis of faith. They are simply signposts to Jesus, and it is Jesus who gives life and who is the basis of faith.
So, to go back the wrath conversation, as an example - what does Jesus say about God's wrath? Well, Jesus only ever got angry with religious people who excluded, judged and condemned others. He didn't ever get angry with "sinners" - he simply loved them, and they changed as a result - but the change was not in accordance with the assumptions and expectations of the religious leaders of Jesus' day. So, on the basis of the passage above, I believe that all Scriptures relative to God's wrath need to be understood through the lens of how Jesus expressed God's wrath - which, of course, is most clearly seen in the cross.
Also, Jesus didn't ever command us to judge or condemn. On the contrary, his own words confirm that the greatest of all commandments is the one to love God with all we have, and the one to love our neighbours as ourselves (Mt.22:36-40). So, again, Jesus makes love pre-eminent, and the basis for all things - including wrath.
Again, for what it's worth - and thanks for a great conversation!
Grace
John
Here's some more theological thinking on the matter. Dr. Malek, a Church consultant, delivered an interesting paper on this at a conference in Jerusalem.
The Church, says Malek, is community. Faith is not merely a “personal, private, inner matter”. Nor is the Church a community of individualists. It is not “false attempts at unity”, which may be described as “federal unions”. The Church is true community -- a “sacramental partaking” whereby the individual character is “nurtured by the character of her community”. This means that sexuality will not be treated as individual preference or right, or as part of a “democratic culture”. Sexuality will be submerged in the Church community, in the spirit of Christ whose “own self was placed as a sacrifice”. I discussed this with Dr. Malek, and it is an attempt to find an answer which is compatible with narrative theology.
It would seem to me that the paper juxtaposes two paradoxical conceptions of love. Some say, lay aside the law, and love the individual. Others say that precisely this is dealing with things in terms of law, and lays aside love, the "sacramental partaking".
The paper is Cry Out My Beloved Church! A Response to Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Preface to In Eye of the Storm, by Gene Robinson.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts everyone. I have too much to say in response (as I suspect we all do) so will try to put my thoughts down in later posts. New ideas are germinating in my mind as a result of this discussion.
Hi Gus,
Although John speaks correctly regarding Christ being central to salvation I suspect your question related more to what should be the measure or rule or standard upon which that faith is rested. Paul gives some insight into that in his words to Timothy, “14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned {them,} 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
As to the veracity of that Holy Writ and whether you should have confidence in it consider Christ’s own words in John’s account, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”
It seems God has an infinitely higher regard for His Word than what we frequently do.
Hi John,
The points we’ve highlighted so far regarding the influence of Scripture on this debate are:
a.) The Bible is true and condemns homosexual practise,
b.) The Bible isn't and we must accept the practice of homosexuality,
c.) The Bible is true but specific in what it condemns,
d.) The Bible is true but we’re relative.
From your second paragraph I believe we’re now discussing point c.)? That delights me no end as it means, for the while, we’ve left “The Bible isn’t” and have embraced “The Bible is....” This is where I believe the South African discussion is currently.
My view point on this is simple: You have to do some pretty impressive tap dancing to make Scripture say anything other than “The Bible is true and condemns homosexual practise.”
Tap away :).
The New Testament concept of God’s righteous wrath is always closely tied to Him judging sin and sinners (which is why I brought it up). Chapters like Romans 2 spring to mind, “...because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS...” And Romans 2 naturally makes one's mind wander to Romans 1 doesn't it?
Thomas - great thoughts. I love the idea of both faith and sexuality being worked out in community as opposed to individually. I need to reflect more on this.
Mark, Yes, my essential position is that the Bible is true (although I'm not sure we use that word in the same way), but that it doesn't address the specific issue we're wrestling with. So, we are definitely not questioning the authority of the Scriptures here.
I'm not sure, though, that I need to do much tap dancing to disagree with your conclusion at all! :-) In fact, I would challenge you to find one passage in the Scriptures that discusses homosexual relationships in the way we know them today. This needs a little clarification:
1. Not all sexuality or sexual acts are equal - as I'm sure you'll agree. Rape is certainly a different kind of sexual act from the loving intimacy of husband and wife in mutually submissive intercourse.
2. In the same way, not all homosexuality can be lumped into one "pile". Promiscuity, rape or coercion is equally destructive whether in heterosexual or homosexual form.
3. The only kind of homosexual relationships that I would argue for, from a Scriptural point of view, would be life-long, monogamous, faithful relationships - essentially marriage (although the use of the word is controversial, I know).
So, here's my challenge again - find me one passage in the Bible that addresses a lifelong, faithful, monogamous, homosexual relationship and says that this is sin. Your turn to tap! ;-)
By the way, the Romans 2 passage you refer to is not speaking of God's wrath against "sinners" so much as it is referring to Christians. Again - it's the religious people who get the brunt of God's anger. Always challenges me very deeply.
I must say, though, that your thoughts about wrath have had me thinking, and the results have found their way into the worship resources I have posted online for Epiphany 4. So, thanks again for a great conversation.
Grace
John
Hi John,
Given that men more learned than I have chosen to translate words from Hebrew and Greek as homosexual I’d make these the instances that I’d put forward to you as the passages in question (I’ve read that sentence a few times and can see it’s a bit of a cop out and because I don’t want to appear uncommitted to this debate the passage I’d point to is 1 Corinthians 6, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”).
I could give you many examples of lifelong, faithful, monogamous heterosexual relationships from Scripture which stand as Godly role models. Surely the burden of proof should be for you to find a passage in the Bible that addresses a lifelong, faithful, monogamous, homosexual relationship?
The tap dance thing was tongue in cheek. I hope I didn’t offend you.
Alo Alo
God the Creator.
Devil can't create.[Was a praiser]
Cycled the Argus, Stayed Seapoint, Cuz flat, he is homo. Brown Stains on the sheets. Something about the Spinx and the continents, in them. Had 2nd child recent, My cuz has deep envy, he 44 years.
Blessings
MH
@John - thanks for the response
@Mark - I'll have to discuss some of those thoughts some time - when I have more time - will tag you if I do - there will always be differences of opinion in God's family.
@MH - wtf? Are you saying people who can't procreate are Satan? eish.
Alo Alo
wtf? Wanted to illustrate some hard facts.
Are you saying people who can't procreate are Satan? No.
Hope this helps, I felt compelled to script by John van de Laar's note.
Blessings
MH
Not all murderous acts are equal. The Bible clearly condemns random acts of murderous violence - yet one can't lump all murder into one pile. Brutal, animal acts are all equally destructive, but carefully considered acts of elimination would be a faithful commitment to a calling. So, here's a challenge - find me one passage in the Bible that addresses a lifelong, carefully considered commitment to murder and says that this is sin. The Bible's condemnation is all about the evil passions of the moment.
Alo Alo
Wow what a day, from Gus saying wtf to being lashed by a brother I hold in highest regard. I could have done it better.
Anon: to my mind 9 of the 10 apply and all 9 are affirmed by Jesus, scripture does not condone any act of murder for us today in anyway.
Blessings
MH
Merry Helper, I am with you in that I minister in Sea Point, and have to do with the kind of experience you relate. We need to hear more from experience.
I just want to agree with Thomas regarding Merry Helper's situation. MH, I read your first comment and found it very hard to understand. First I thought it might be spam and wondered if I should delete it. But then I thought I heard pain in there and I wondered if you were saying something deeper than we theologians could understand. I'm still not sure . . . but we're listening.
Hi Jenny
It's a short-hand that I use to communicate with my mates.
My point stretched out a little:
God is the creator and key to all life, new life in the form of, in this case, my new child.[All praise be to Him]
I also wanted to illustrate the destruction of the sphincter in homosexual male sexual relations which leads to incontinence.
See to me, a nature of Yahweh is Development/Life/Growth and a nature of Lucifer is destruction.
I felt Mark had illustrated scripture against the act, I thought I'd come in from another angle, one that has touched my life and one filled with complex emotions.
So what now, What is a person who desires there own sex do? What if they are hardwired with such coding, born with it? Great Question? My humanity can answer that but I'd not defend it saying it's God's will. The movie "For the Bible tells me so" will leave you an activist for homosexuality, well hopefully not but will give gr8 insight into Love thy neighbour.
But for all my humanity and Love if I lay the hard facts on the table and picture the truths of the actions then I am firm: These acts are not in God's will to bless our lifes much like the mischief that swirls in my life is not!
Blessings
MH
Hi Mark,
I was not offended by the tap dancing comment at all - just thought I'd "throw it back" in fun. Sorry if it didn't come across that way!
Now to respond to your post:
1. The 1 Cor. 6 passage you refer to says nothing at all about faithful monogamous gay relationships, so we can't know if it's relevant until we do some biblical scholarship. This isn't trying to wriggle out of something. It's responsible biblical interpretation.
You rightly point out that we need to understand the way the words are translated. You mistakenly assume that all biblical scholars interpret the word the same way. Check out this link to see how the word was originally used, and a huge variety of ways it has been translated.
2. I'm interested that so many Christians are so comfortable to use that passage to exclude homosexuals, but so easily accept and include other people who commit many of the other sins listed there - drunkards, the covetous (ouch!) and revilers (those who use abusive language is another translation) come to mind. Why are we so happy with inconsistencies in our interpretations like this?
You mention that there are godly heterosexual marriages in the Scriptures. I agree. But they are by far the exception, not the rule. And, in fact, Paul recommends that we not marry unless we're too weak to control our lustfulness (1 Cor.7:9). Yet, we don't advise people to avoid marriage.
3. I'm not sure why the burden of proof should be on finding a biblical example of monogamous homsexuality. What makes this the case? Surely, if we follow Christ's command to love, the burden of proof should be that we have to work to find a reason to exclude, before we choose to do it?
Remember, that the same burden of proof argument would not have worked in the fight against slavery, women in leadership, remarriage for divorced people, or apartheid - as history shows. These fights were won by arguing against the way Scripture was understood in those days. I believe the call today is the same - our way of understanding the Bible needs to change. The burden of proof, for me, is on how we can possibly sustain an interpretation that is clearly inconsistent and contrary to the inclusive message of love that Jesus taught.
4. In spite of all that I've just said, there are possible examples of gay relationships in Scripture if we choose to see them:
* David and Jonathan (See 2 Sam.1:26)
* Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:14 - Ruth "clung" to Naomi - same word as "A husband shall cleave/cling to his wife" in Genesis).
* The centurion and his servant (see this link for an example).
These are just some examples. Also note, that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. He does, however, say that divorced people may not remarry or it is effectively the same as adultery. But, I don't hear anyone arguing against divorcees in the church! (nor would I want us to start!)
Looking forward to your response.
Grace
John
Hi John,
I’m in between meetings and have time to jot down a few things that I’ve already thought through:
2. All those sins (and many others not mentioned in those verses) result in a severed relationship with God. In His holiness God does not tolerate any sin at all, not drunkenness, not revelry and not homosexuality. He doesn’t distinguish between them either.
At the church I attend any public sin that is unconfessed where the person is unrepentant will result in church discipline. We don’t have rules for big sins and rules for little sins, we just have the Biblical standard for all sins. Surely it’s the same with you guys ;)?
3. Although I’d agree with you on slavery and Apartheid I’d disagree with you regarding woman in leadership (I say this with respect Jenny) and remarriage after divorce (there’s a bit of qualification regarding this but this isn't really the forum for it).
You and I both know that Biblical principals often govern Christian practise on subjects that Scripture does not talk directly too (Genetically modified foods, cloning, environmental conservation). Like woman in leadership and remarriage after divorce this subject isn’t grey. Scripture was written to societies where homosexuality was rampant and it approaches it in a most direct manner.
4. Um, John. Please, that’s an insult to the relationship between David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi and the Roman centurion and his servant. Did your ears burn a bit red when you wrote that down? They should have. Interestingly you stopped short of listing Jesus and John which is something most other people who use this line of argument with me in the past have done.
Your first point will take a bit more thought.
John,
To summarise an analysis we did at seminary, Jesus referred more often to hell than to heaven in his speech. How would one reconcile this and other aspects of the same with "the inclusive message of love" you refer to?
In the paper I referred to, the core point is that we need to think in terms of love, not law. In those terms, it would be John who is not walking in love. Yet you would defend that you are, and would not consider (I take it) the opposite. I would consider, for different reasons, that the love does not appear to be there, in the comments above. John would surely say it is.
The other sinners condemned in various lists, such as the covetous and revilers, I myself tackle those in my preaching. I'm at a loss as to what the inconsistencies might be. Perhaps I'm unaware of something.
Thanks @MH - I misunderstood your tone... now I understand you a bit better (a WTF? from me is an expression of confusion - not of meanness - sorry)
I think my main thought in this whole debate is the ease with which we abdicate our ethical responsibility to engage with reality and experience; and propose that the Bible bears that responsibility; as if the Bible had nothing to do with us / fell from heaven.
Logically (I guess) it boils down to our ideology / theology / theory about what the Bible is - and what it is not.
I'm what people would call liberal in my thoughts around these things; and if I thought my opinions were wrong I would have different opinions.
I know that when I stand before the throne of God I will have to give an answer for the way I see things; and with that I have great peace.
And now - back to my books.
Thanks for the distraction blog world...
(I really love engaging with all of you - it makes Christian community so much more real and diverse.)
Eph 4
Hi Mark,
I think you (and Thomas) are missing my point. First, your comments make it seem that your starting point is "all homosexual behaviour is equal, and it is all sinful. Therefore it must be treated like all sin". Even if this were true, the practice of the church is inconsistent, and we do not, in fact, treat all "sinners" the same way. Gay people get by far the worst condemnation.
You both question where the inconsistency I refer to is. Let me share my experience and understanding.
1. There is no great debate in the church anywhere in the world about whether covetous people should be allowed into the ordained ministry (and what does this say about so-called "prosperity preaching"?).
2. Although Paul says greed is like the sin of idolatry, I have yet to hear of a church that has disciplined an obese person or told them they must go on a diet (much like telling gay people they have to be celibate - only not as cruel), or refused them entry into ministry.
3. Almost no one is debating whether married divorcees should be allowed to be ordained. This is simply not consistent. And I challenge you to find a single reference in the Bible that says it is not equivalent to adultery for married people to divorce and remarry. On what Biblical precedent do you say that remarriage after divorce is a grey issue?
4. The consistency issue goes further - women not wearing hats/covering their heads, eating shellfish, having sex with a menstruating woman. All of these are clearly forbidden in the Bible (sometimes using the same word - "abomination" that is used of homosexuality), but there is no outcry against Jimmy's Killer Prawns! Why do we make homosexuality the big issue? Why do we treat gay people differently from these other "sinners"?
Now, as to the Bible's addressing of homosexuality. You wrote:
Scripture was written to societies where homosexuality was rampant and it approaches it in a most direct manner.
My point remains (even though I think your history is a little overstated here) that the Bible does not address life-long, monogamous, same sex relationships. (I still challenge you to find me one verse that does address monogamous gay relationships.)
All of the words used in the Bible to address homosexuality are ambiguous and difficult to interpret accurately at best (in many cases there are much clearer words, esp. in the Greek, that could have been used), or badly translated at worst.
Forgive me, but I miss why my ears should have been red mentioning the biblical characters I did. What good biblical scholarship conclusively rules out the possibility that these relationships were gay? (Of course, Jesus wasn't gay, though. He was married - everyone who has read Dan Brown knows that!) ;-)
I apologise for another long post, but it's hard to answer these questions briefly, and even in this post I feel like I've left way too much out.
One last comment to Merry. You wrote:
"I also wanted to illustrate the destruction of the sphincter in homosexual male sexual relations which leads to incontinence." I struggle to see the relevance of this - even though it is also inaccurate. Are you saying that because male gay sex is potentially physically damaging, it is wrong? If so, would you include heterosexual anal intercourse? And, by this count, lesbian sex is the most sinless of all - no (natural) penetration, very small risk of STDs, and nothing that can do physical damage to the body.
Let me close with an apology. I'm trying to write this as fast as I can, and so it may at times come across as abrupt. If so, I apologise - that is not my intention. I am finding this to be a civil and enagaging conversation. I hope my contributions are the same for you. But, Thomas, if I'm coming across as lacking in love, I can only beg your forgiveness.
Grace
John
Thomas, I realise that I haven't addressed your "heaven and hell" comment.
Suffice it to say that, if you read the Gospels, most of those comments by Jesus (if not all) were related to the false, exclusive and judgmental "ministry" of the religious leaders. It was they, Jesus warned, who were going to hell, and would ensure the same fate befell their followers.
I can't think of a single occurrence where Jesus told a "sinner" that he/she was going to hell. So, when we speak about God's judgment, we have to be very clear about who it is that God singles out for judgment, and who it is that God includes and accepts.
Also, I have no doubt that those who condemn (for want of a better word) homosexual behaviour do so "in love" - or that at least that is their intention. In some ways it is this that frightens me the most.
Grace
John
Hi John,
Yes, my starting point is, “All homosexual practise is equal, and it is all sinful.” I make no distinction between casual sex, prostitution or “monogamous, life-long, faithful homosexual relationships” and I don’t believe the Bible does either.
I agree with you that church practice is often inconsistent however God hates sin and so should we. Sin should not be tolerated in any form whatsoever within the body of Christ. Does this answer address points 1 – 4 adequately (although point 4 would be easier for you to address theologically if you were dispensational like me :))?
Scripture addresses the issue of homosexuality holistically. The condemnation of it is done in broad brushstrokes.
Consider how perverse the relationship might be that you’re holding up as a biblical example. Did Naomi enter into a sexual relationship with Ruth, her daughter-in-law! I realize that it was the time of the Judges and the land was abhorrent, but COME ON!
Even if David did have a gay relationship with Jonathan (I’m not advocating just hypothesizing) he also had “more concubines and wives from Jerusalem” than any monogamous sane man should ever have. Surely not the poster child you’re looking for?
On the Roman centurion, I went and parsed the text, read the surrounding verses and believe that, given the context, it’s far more likely that this is merely a term of endearment for a valued servant. That’s a logical interpretive decision.
Who’s Dan Brown?
If you apologise then let me make sure I balance things out by saying something that I should, if polite conversation is to be maintained, apologise for later: As the church prostitutes itself in order to be relevant to the culture around it by pawning off the only thing it owns of any value, sound doctrine and practise based on the Word of Truth, it will unwittingly become more and more irrelevant to God.
.
.
.
I apologise; for the length of the reply of course ;).
In Christ and for His Glory alone,
Mark Penrith
Alo Alo
Hi John,
Are you saying that because male gay sex is potentially physically damaging, it is wrong? Yes
If so, would you include heterosexual anal intercourse? Yes
[I hope there is not a can of worms waiting fo me after that yes, haha!]
And, by this count, lesbian sex is the most sinless of all? If this count was the only factor then Yes, but it is not.
I think you put forward a good case, I think the movie "For the bible tells me so" puts forward a better case, for a poor principle.
You wrote these inspiring words:
3.I'm not sure why the burden of proof should be on finding a biblical example of monogamous homsexuality. What makes this the case? Surely, if we follow Christ's command to love, the burden of proof should be that we have to work to find a reason to exclude, before we choose to do it?
I sincerely hope none here are seeking ways to exclude or be nasty.
KJV: Mat 19:4
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Yip when picking a helpmate for Man God made women.
I see by your ring you know and understand this, and the blessings of it.
Yet you'd like to stand for/defend and honour sexual unions that are simply put not a plug to a socket, not a fit, no chance of future life/children. By doing that are you not robbing folk of the fullness of God plan for there lives?
That said you are spot on with your thinking around Love first.
You are spot-on that folk hear the word GAY and think it's time to judge the world again, be clear and mostly rude.
If all the world were overly and erratically judgemetal about Gays, it still would not sway me into thinking that that way is the Way Jesus points us. As illustrated you never chose that way.
Blessings
MH
To John: Christ excluded exclusion. And with that, you exclude, and are excluded. That is the so-called logical form, and regrettably there's nothing to be done with it.
Thanks Mark. It has been a really good conversation, but I think we've reached a point at which we will have to agree to disagree. I don't really understand how all homosexual acts can be considered equal, when not all heterosexual acts are considered so. But, if that's where you stake your claim, I can't really think of a way to go forward in the conversation - as you know by now, I believe that there are differences, and that these differences are significant.
By the way, I find it a tad frustrating when the pro-gay position is painted as simply pandering to contemporary culture. I reached this position through painful and prayerful study of the Scriptures, and pastoral engagement with gay people. The "world" or contemporary culture had nothing to do with it. And, truth be told, contemporary culture is far more into exclusion and condemnation...
I hope we can do this again sometime. Blessings
Merry, your argument essentially works from nature - but the problem is defining what's natural (hint - thousands of species of animals engage in homosexual behaviour). That's a long conversation for another time, though. But, thanks for your kind words.
Thomas, if I may disagree on a small - but, I believe, significant - point. Jesus never excluded exclusion, or anything/one else. He simply acknowledged that those who exclude others, end up, automatically, excluding themselves.
Perhaps we all end up excluding ourselves in some way in the end, but I'd certainly prefer to do so from an attempt to include rather than the alternative.
Once again, to all, thanks for the great conversation. Now, I really need to get some work done! :-)
Grace
John
Sorry about the duplicate post - blogger giving me trouble!
And, btw - Dan Brown - the Da Vinci code. It was a joke, but if you haven't read the book, or followed the hype, you would have missed it. Sorry!
Grace
John
Alo Alo
You remind me of those Russian chess players who play 3 matchs at the same time, hehe.
Please add this idea to your thoughts: You bless a civil union between 2 committed young ladies and 30 years down the line, one comes to you and says: "We were wrong, we sold ourselves short."
Thanks to all for this effort.
All the blessings
MH
Alo Alo
You remind me of those Russian chess players who play 3 matchs at the same time, hehe.
Please add this idea to your thoughts: You bless a civil union between 2 committed young ladies and 30 years down the line, one comes to you and says: "We were wrong, we sold ourselves short."
Thanks to all for this effort.
All the blessings
MH
To John: What I am saying is that you are using a known debating method that closes debate. Some recognise it, some are snared by it.
Ok, I feel I must respond to these two comments.
Let me start with Thomas. I was, to be honest, quite stunned by this comment, simply because I am not intentionally employing any debating technique, and the last thing I want is to close down debate. I hope you will believe me when I say this.
So, here's my request - please help me to understand what led you to this conclusion by showing me where what I have said appears to be a debating technique, and please also explain how this closes down debate. This is a genuine request, coming from an absolutely flabbergasted and confused place.
I am glad you have expressed yourself in this way, Thomas, because I have really struggled to understand your meaning in your previous comments, and have replied from what I thought you were saying. Perhaps I should have said this directly, but there was so much going on in the conversation.
If I'm shutting down debate when I'm trying to open it up, I need to know how I do this, and learn how not to do it in the future. Thank you for holding that mirror up to me.
If your comment is related only to my last post, please believe me when I say that it was not intended as a technique. It's just that I've been in many of these conversations before, and I usually push it too hard and too long, and people get irate with me. In this case I was trying to be gracious (really!) and let people off the hook of my intensity and inability to let things go. Again, apologies if I read it wrong. And if others on this conversation are keen to continue, I will stay engaged as long as you want me to.
Merry, let me reply with a story. Some years ago I sat with a lesbian couple in my office. I tried to convince them that they were selling themselves short (as you have said), and used the illustration of television. "It's like when we had black & white TV," I said. "We thought it was great until colour came along, then we knew what we'd been missing." I continued, "what you're experiencing, in my view, is black & white. If only you could find a good man to love you, you would know the joy of colour." (Obviously I was in a different place on this issue in those days).
One of the women looked at me with tears in her eyes and said, "I've had heterosexual relationships. They were black & white. What I've got now - this is colour!"
Grace
John
Hi Thomas - Maybe you could show John (and me) how his statement reduces to the logical form? We are not experts in linguistics or semantics (although I have a vague memory of studying logic in my distant past). Actually, this would help us all with debate - link to your blog if you like. :)
Alo Alo
Stop it, you are like a wild animal bringing this "tears in her eyes" thrust on what is colour, tearing up my heart, stop it, haahaha! I guess I started.
Fair shake. I feel you have heard my plea and am at peace with how the Truth will work it self out inside you, as in me. The nice thing about the Truth is that it always stands.
Fair to say I don't think you encourage homosexual acts and you ring shows you are Pro-Marriage.
All the Blessings
MH
Thanks Merry - God's grace and blessing to you, as well.
Just to say - You're correct: I am totally and completely pro-marriage - I have been married for over 23 years to a wonderful woman (also a Methodist minister), and my parents have been married for over 50 years.
All I wish is that gay people could know the joy that marriage brings as well.
Grace
John
Sound debate needs to have an eye for definition, connotation, inference, assumptions, fallacy, and so on. One needs to be able to get past these for debate to be constructive, profitable. I felt that I was not able to get past these here, despite repeated attempts, and I tried to articulate some of the ways I thought we were in trouble with this debate. However, any impatience will be a reflection on me, not on my debating partners.
Thanks for your clarification, Thomas. I know that I do tend to look at the kinds of details and definitions you mentioned - and I know that I value logic highly (perhaps too much so), so perhaps that's why I appeared to be employing a technique. The reality is I engage in the only way I know how - and I apologise that you found it unhelpful.
Here's where my ignorance becomes clear - you say that for debate to be productive, it must get past these details and definitions - would it be correct to say that you also mean it must get past the logic? - but I really wouldn't know how to start. I recognise that you tried to do this, but I completely missed it - probably because I didn't know what I was looking at or what you were trying to do.
So, if I may, it would be a very helpful learning exercise for me if you could explain to me how you would wish things to proceed if the debate was to be helpful, and if you could try and build in some principles that I could identify and learn from.
Thanks so much.
John
Post a Comment