 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/12/2003 11:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | [quote]
Iconoclast
If someone is born homosexual through no choice of their own is it loving to heap the burden of requiring that they stay celibate and alone the rest of their lives?
Alan
I think you raise a good question, Icon. I'll begin my answer with a parallel:
If someone is born a cleptomaniac through no choice of their own is it loving to heap the burden of requiring that they refrain from stealing and remain frustrated the rest of their lives?
I hope you see my point. Just because someone finds themself through no fault of their own with a strong disposition to engage in sinful behavior does not imply that the "loving" answer is to accommodate much less encourage them in that. Your question poses a false dilemma. The loving thing is to help them out of their condition, to provide them the support of friendship, counseling, accountability, etc. There are many homosexual people who have successfully come out of the lifestyle. There are many others, including my roommate, for whom homosexuality is an ongoing struggle. We, the Church, need to be their source of strength.
Iconoclast
Is this what God does with us? Is this what the church did with people who were divorced and remarried? When we provide an accommodation do we still consider it a sin?
Alan
My answer to that is that while God loves us as we are, He also loves us too much to simply allow us to remain as we are. He calls us to be perfect as He is. God does not lower His standards because we have a tough time with it and inevitably fall short. There are cases in Scripture where God tolerates certain practices (e.g., polygamy, divorce, etc.), but He does not thereby approve of those practices. Polygamy has always been wrong, even though God decided not to make an issue of it.
God bless,
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 02/13/2003 05:47:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/13/2003 12:43 AM (GMT -6) | | DiamondD
I see what you are getting at with the contrary nature of homosexuality, and it's not that i totally disagree...but would this mean that heterosexual sex with contraceptives of a fertile husband and wife just for pleasure and intimacy would therefore be wrong? Would this also be contrary to the procreation principle? I'm not sure if it would, just wondering your thoughts. I like where you're going though.
Alan
That's an excellent question, David. You're forcing me to clarify my position. Let's assume that the type of contraceptive used is non-abortifacient, for example, a condom. (Some so-called "contraceptives" work by preventing an already-formed embryo from implanting in the uterus wall--in my view those are not morally permissible options for that very reason) Let's also distinguish between intercoursal and non-intercoursal sex. Now it seems real clear to me that the primary purpose of intercourse is procreation. It does not follow from that, however, that the principle purpose of non-intercoursal sexual stimulation is procreation. Here I would say it has more to do with relational bonding and pleasure. With those distinctions in place, my answer to your question is that contraceptive intercoursal sex is wrong because it is contrary to the primary purpose of intercourse, which is procreation, and contraceptive intercourse actively frustrates that purpose. I realize this is an unpopular view, but I believe it is correct and am prepared to stick by it. My fiance and I have committed to "natural family planning" (refraining from intercourse during the woman's fertile period). On the positive side, even during her fertile period we can still have non-intercoursal sex  .
One other line of thought relevant to this thread:
1. Sex outside of marriage is wrong.
2. Marriage must be between a man and a woman.
3. Homosexual sex is not between a man and a woman.
4. Therefore, homosexual sex must take place outside of marriage. (by 2 and 3)
5. Therefore, homosexual sex is wrong. (by 1 and 4)
This argument does not depend on any particular understanding of the purpose of sex or of the natural/unnatural distinction. Thoughts anyone?
Blessings,
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 02/13/2003 05:45:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/13/2003 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia
If the principal function of sex is procreation, and that is what makes it "natural," then what do you do with Paul's advice for Christians to remain celibate if at all possible? Isn't it contradictory to prohibit "unnatural" sex at the same time he asks people to abstain from the type of sex that is "natural"? And isn’t his advice contrary to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?
Alan
There is no contradiction between advising that Christians refrain from marriage (and therefore from natural sex) and prohibiting unnatural sex. To begin with, the only way there could be a contradiction here is if he were advising them to engage in unnatural sex. But he didn't. He just advised them not to marry. Furthermore, his advice is not moral but prudential, so it can't contradict the moral principle that unnatural sex is wrong. Paul advised Christians to remain celebate "because of the present crisis" (1 Cor. 7:26) and so they might having greater freedom in God's service. Nor is this contrary to "be fruitful and multiply" for the "present crisis" refers to temporary conditions that would make marriage particularly burdensome.
Semeia
To say “Heterosexual sex between nonfertile individuals is not unnatural because, although procreation is not possible, still it is not contrary to the principle function of one's sex organs because if the sex organs were in good working order, procreation would be a real possibility” is very odd reasoning. The very fact that one is infertile means that it is NOT a real possibility, certainly not any more a possibility than is procreation between two people of the same gender.
Alan
There is nothing odd about my reasoning, but perhaps I was unclear. The basic idea is this: Something can have a proper function yet not be able to fulfill that function because it is defective in some way. For example, it is the proper function of the pancreas to produce insulin so the body can metabolize sugars. In a diabetic the pancreas is broken; it doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Yet even in a diabetic the pancreas' proper function is still the production of insulin, even though it doesn't function properly. The proper function of a thing sets the standard that determines when it is and is not functioning properly. Thus, IF the diabetic's pancreas were functioning properly THEN it would fulfill its proper function, the production of insulin. Similarly, the proper function of our sex organs is procreative. This is as much true for an infertile couple as for a fertile couple. In an infertile couple, however, something is not functioning properly. IF it were, however, then procreation would be possible. The difference between the infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is that the infertile couple uses their sex organs in a manner consistent with the proper function of those organs, whereas the homosexual couple uses them in a manner that is fundamentally inconsistent with their proper function in that even if the homosexual couple's sex organs were functioning properly procreation still could not happen.
I appreciate the challenging interaction, Semeia.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/13/2003 1:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Lev 18:22,29Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination…For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.
1Cr 6:9-11Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Ti 1:8-10But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind,
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/13/2003 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan said:
With those distinctions in place, my answer to your question is that contraceptive intercoursal sex is wrong because it is contrary to the primary purpose of intercourse, which is procreation, and contraceptive intercourse actively frustrates that purpose. I realize this is an unpopular view, but I believe it is correct and am prepared to stick by it. My fiance and I have committed to "natural family planning" (refraining from intercourse during the woman's fertile period).
Semeia:
There is no difference whatsoever between using a contraceptive device to prevent pregnancy and "natural family planning" (also known as the "rhythm method"): both are methods of contraception that seek to thwart the primary purpose (in your view) of sex - procreation. Your intent, in having sex outside of your wife's fertile period, is to NOT conceive a child. That is, you are "actively frustrating" the purpose of procreation by having intercourse when your wife is not fertile. To be consistent with your own worldview on this issue you would have to only have sex at times when you had the expressed desire of procreating.
Do you think God is somehow fooled into thinking that you are really fulfilling the design of "procreation" by having sex outside of the fertile period? Can he not tell the difference? Or are you saying that "mimicking" procreative sex is what matters - not actual procreation?
Alan said:
The difference between the infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is that the infertile couple uses their sex organs in a manner consistent with the proper function of those organs, whereas the homosexual couple uses them in a manner that is fundamentally inconsistent with their proper function in that even if the homosexual couple's sex organs were functioning properly procreation still could not happen.
Semeia:
Once again, you seem to think that fake procreative sex has some kind of inherent value that non-procreative sex does not, but this is not a logical position, to my mind. If the primary design and purpose of sex is procreation, then that is the primary design and purpose, and fake procreative sex does not fulfill that purpose ONE IOTA more than any other kind of sex. It may make you feel better, as if you are somehow more in keeping with what you see as God's design, but you and God and everyone else knows that the purpose of it is NOT TO PROCREATE, and thus it is a casuistic argument.
FAKE procreative sex IS EQUAL TO NON-procreative sex. There is no logical difference between the two.
Q. What do you call people who practice the "rhythm method" of contraception?
A. Parents.
Better start that college fund now. 
Thanks,
Gina
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/13/2003 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul said:
so if these divorcees truly repent and God forgives them and they don't remain in that sin by divorcing again, how is this an "unforgivable" sin; or a sin that is worth using in defence of another sin? I only see it as a sin if they keep doing it.
Semeia:
Jesus said that if you divorce a woman for reasons other than unchastity that you cause her to commit adultery in remarriage. Adultery is sex outside of a sanctioned marriage. Another way of saying this is that if you divorce a woman for reasons other than unchastity you cause her to live in sin when she remarries. If remarriage is adulterous, as Jesus seems to suggest it is, it is not a one-time-deal that you can repent over. It is an ongoing non-sanctioned relationship that is considered to be "living in sin" which is highly comparable to the situation most monogamous homosexuals find themselves in, unable to "marry" and live in a sanctioned relationship.
If you think that this is an extreme reading of Jesus' words, I should point out that for much of church history this is exactly the interpretation that was used by the church to ban divorced and remarried people from belonging and leadership. It is only in recent years that the church has softened on this issue.
Since more than half of all marriages end in divorce (only a minority of which for the reasons Jesus stipulated), and many of those people remarry, there are far more heterosexuals out there "living in sin" according to the strict biblical view, than homosexuals. And yet Christians in general take a compassionate view of this, and do not require celibacy from divorced people, and do not refer to remarried people as "self-professed Christians."
Iconoclast's point, and my point, is that homosexuals should be treated with the same compassion.
By the way, in Biblical times the whole issue of adultery was completely chauvenistic. A man could sleep with someone other than his wife and not be considered "adulterous" as long as that woman didn't belong to or wasn't promised to some other man. I think of it almost as a question of property rights - sleeping with someone else's wife reduced her "value." This is why polygamy was not seen as a problem. So if we are going to be strictly biblical about it, only a woman's infidelity can be taken into account when considering whether or not remarriage would be adulterous or not. Jesus acknowledged this chauvenism when he talked about divorce causing the wife to commit adultery in remarriage, rather than causing the couple to commit adultery.
Today we find this chauvenism to be unfair, and we have no trouble rejecting scripture that supports it.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 02/13/2003 08:44:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast's point, and my point, is that homosexuals should be treated with the same compassion.
Great! I have no problem with treating anyone with compassion. The problem I do have, is that it is sin and should be treated as such. I am not going to allow someone to remain in sin or justify their sin. You keep using divorce and remarriage to justify your point; the problem is, that covering one sin with another isn't helpful at all.
Thanks,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/13/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul said:
I am not going to allow someone to remain in sin or justify their sin. You keep using divorce and remarriage to justify your point; the problem is, that covering one sin with another isn't helpful at all.
Semeia:
So are you saying that you regularly confront divorced and remarried people on living in sin? You've engaged in many discussions on this board where you've expressed your opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality, which is something that affects far fewer people than the ongoing sins of remarriage, gluttony, pride, etc.
So I'm just wondering: why is this "sin" special to you? In terms of actual numbers of people it affects dramatically fewer people than any of the sins I mentioned above. I have been on this board for two years, and I've never seen a thread on any of those other sins. If your concern is in stamping out sin in others (which is an interesting goal to begin with, as it goes against what Jesus says our focus should be - on our own sin) then why not focus on sins that are far more prevalent in our society?
I can only conclude that heterosexual Christians focus on homosexuality because it is the one sin they can be sure they will never have.
And what do you mean when you say, "I am not going to allow someone to remain in sin"? What power do you have over someone else's sin?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/13/2003 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia said:quote:
I can only conclude that heterosexual Christians focus on homosexuality because it is the one sin they can be sure they will never have.
How very true.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So are you saying that you regularly confront divorced and remarried people on living in sin?
No, this isn't a thread on divorced people; we are confronting the SIN of homosexuality. I don't know many divorced christians and I don't know of many homosexual Christians either. But, if I do come across either one, I will point it out that I feel they are in sin and it is my job as a believer to show them this. The problem is, you aren't acknowledging the fact that sin needs to be exposed; and that we are to forgive--now here is the kicker--if they repent of their sin one has brought to their attention.
quote:
You've engaged in many discussions on this board where you've expressed your opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality, which is something that affects far fewer people than the ongoing sins of remarriage, gluttony, pride, etc.
So I'm just wondering: why is this "sin" special to you?
It isn't. Sin is sin (tautology), and I feel that all sins should be addressed; it isn't going to help anyones walk when you ignore one sin and focus on others to prove a point while missing the necessity in addressing that sin. I haven't really seen anyone come on here and try to defend their glutony; their divorce/remarriage, etc., but I have seen people who are trying to defend homosexual behavior in the light of a lot of greivances from other Christians who share my sentiments. I would assume that we as christians would be able to point that out to them with love and kindness and they would repent instead of smoke screening their own sin with a myriad of other sins and not addressing it but justifying it--is this what Christ preached?
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
Repentance presupposes recognition of sin, correct?
quote:
I can only conclude that heterosexual Christians focus on homosexuality because it is the one sin they can be sure they will never have.
No, I focus on sin in general because we are called to point out to a brother or sister who is in sin, it is called accountability; I would want them to point out my sins as well so as I wouldn't remain a slave to it.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
Galatians 6: 1 My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.
[Paul's note: I am in no way saying we should hate homosexuals, but If they are Christians, it is our job to point that out that we feel this is a sin. And, the majority of Christians feel this is a sin, so it is our duty to point it out to them asking them to turn away from that sin.]
quote:
And what do you mean when you say, "I am not going to allow someone to remain in sin"? What power do you have over someone else's sin?
Meaning that I am not going to stand by while someone is unrepentant of their sin if they are following Christ and his teachings:
1 Corinthians 2: 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
(I swear if you read my last couple of posts you would stumbled upon this verse--I am sure I used it.)
Romans 8: 12-16 12So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—l 13for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’m 16it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God
quote:
(which is an interesting goal to begin with, as it goes against what Jesus says our focus should be - on our own sin) then why not focus on sins that are far more prevalent in our society?
Jesus: 3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
Thanks,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:17:36 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:21:43 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:56:34 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 2:33:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Jesus on Divorce
Jesus on Divorce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 5:31-32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure that most every one of you have been touched by divorce. You have either been divorced or know of someone close to you who has. The majority of marriages today end in divorce. It seems that when things get rough, people want out. And they are getting out in increasing numbers. Instead of "for better or for worse", it has become "for better not for worse." Instead of "until we are parted by death", it has become "until I am no longer happy."
What do we say about all of this? What does the church have to say? Well, often the church simply condemns divorce. That's easy enough. The tragedy is many condemn both divorce and those who are divorced - both the sin and the sinner. It's far neater that way. By doing that, we can not only continue to pontificate against divorce from our lofty platform, but we also will not have to get our hands dirty by grappling with real people who have been divorced.
We must be careful when we listen to what the church says. Often, churches are guilty of twisting the Scriptures to accommodate their own particular bias. Generally, they either raise the standard or lower it. On one hand, well-meaning people raise the standard in their desire to stop divorce.
There is a church is Virginia Beach whose pastor says this about divorce:"The Bible allows for divorce only before physical consummation and not after physical consummation (i.e., not after marriage)." He seems to be saying that the Bible only allows for divorce when there has been no marriage. He goes on to say, "Divorce is never an option for Christians....remarriage is only allowable when the marriage union has been broken by death."
So he says there should be no divorce for anybody for any reason, and absolutely no remarriage for anyone at any time, period. That sounds nice and neat, doesn't it? The only problem with it is that while it may be well-intentioned, it is biblically incorrect. On the other hand, there are those well-intentioned people who look at the problem of divorce and say we must not forget that people are involved, and we need to love them, care for them, minister to them, and accept them. The tendency here is to lower the standard to accommodate everybody. While these churches rightly emphasize forgiveness, they end up lowering the standard to the same as that of the world. And that is biblically wrong.
Perhaps we should not be asking what the church says, but rather what the Bible - God's Word says. Does God have a word for the tragedy of divorce? The answer is, "Yes, He does".. And it is a redemptive word for those who have been scarred by divorce; and also a strong word of encouragement for those seeking to build strong Christian marriages. You see, it is God's desire not only to minister to those who have failed in their marriages, but also to give practical instruction to those seeking to divorce-proof their current marriage. God not only diagnoses the illness, He prescribes the cure. We need to hear that word today. And we will as we examine the Scripture. So let's look at God's Word in order to discover the plain, biblical teaching concerning marriage. Let's remember the words of Agustin, the 5th century church father, who said, "When Scripture speaks, God speaks."
Matthew 5:31-32 (NKJV) "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
In this context, Jesus moves into the subject of divorce and remarriage. It almost seems like a total change of subject, but it is not. Because of the lust of the heart, there is often a breakdown of the marriage relationship. You may find someone other than your marriage partner whom you like better. So the context is still adultery. The subject now is not only adultery in the heart, but adultery in the act affecting the marriage relationship.
There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day concerning divorce, and they were propagated by two rabbis: Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai. Rabbi Shammai had taught that divorce was only permissible on the grounds of some sexual impropriety. His was the stricter view. Rabbi Hillel, on the other hand, had a more liberal view and taught that a man could divorce His wife for any reason. If she burned his breakfast, put too much salt on his food, showed disrespect to him, spoke disrespectfully of her husband's parents in his presence, spoke to a man on the street, or even let her hair down in public, he could divorce her. The view of Rabbi Hillel was the view that was popular in Jesus' day. The religious leaders of the day, who wanted Him to become unpopular with the people, tried to trap Him. Perhaps they had heard the Sermon on the Mount, and they knew He would never side with the more liberal but highly popular view. The account is found in Matthew 19:1-10.
But the testing of the religious leaders was flawed by misinterpretation. This entire controversy was based on a passage of Scripture in Deuteronomy 24. The religious leaders construed this as a commandment:
Matthew 19:7 (NKJV) They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
What is referred to here is what they felt was a commandment to divorce a wife. This passage was misunderstood because it was mistranslated for years. Even in our King James Bible, the sense of that mistranslation is perpetuated. Listen to Deuteronomy 24:1 from the King James Version:
Deuteronomy 24:1 (KJV) When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
The way this reads is that it is a command to divorce a wife when some uncleanness is found in her. Notice it says "then let him write her a bill of divorcement."
The New American Standard Version translates this passage accurately. It reads:
Deuteronomy 24:1 (NASB) "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
What is being recounted here is not a command to divorce, but the objective account of one who does divorce based on some "uncleanness" or "indecency."
Now the real issue was what constituted uncleanness. Shammai said that it was sexual impropriety. Hillel said it was for any reason, such as the ones I have already mentioned. Another rabbi who was of Hillel's school, Rabbi Akiba, took it even farther to its logical conclusion by saying that the "indecency" in her meant that a man could divorce his wife when he found another woman who was more beautiful. Such was the climate in Jesus' day. It is not very much different from the climate in our day.
So we see here the religious leaders testing Jesus, hoping that He would discredit Himself with the people by adopting an unpopular view concerning divorce. I'm sure all ears were opened as the crowd waited to hear His response.
Jesus did respond. He remembered the detailed instruction of Moses and reminded the religious leaders of it. They confronted Him with what Moses had said. They referred Him to Deuteronomy 24. Then Jesus did what He was so adept at doing. He cut right to the heart of the issue:
Matthew 19:8 (NKJV) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Rather than entering into a debate over what the "indecency" was, He told the religious leaders why Moses wrote the commandment concerning divorce. Jesus said that it was for the hardness of heart of the people. That was the whole reason divorce was permitted at all. People's hearts had become hard, and they were divorcing their wives for any reason. You must remember that the wife never had the authority to divorce her husband. So Moses wrote the law concerning the writing of a bill of divorcement for the protection of the woman. Without such a bill, she had no rights at all. It was because of the mercy of God and the hardness of the human heart that this instruction was given. But the rabbis had taken this as some kind of right to divorce a wife for any reason.
Jesus further revealed the divine intention for marriage by digging deeper and giving these religious leaders a lesson from the very beginning of their Bible:
Matthew 19:4-6 (NKJV) And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Jesus points to God's original intention back in creation. You recall there that God made one man and one woman. God didn't create two men; it wasn't Adam and Steve. He didn't create two women; it wasn't Alice and Eve. Nor did God create any extras in case Adam and Eve didn't work out. It was just Adam and Eve - one man and one woman. That was God's original intent. And that is still His desire for marriage. Make no mistakes about it - God's intent is one man married to one woman until they are parted by death.
The religious leaders came to Jesus and tested Him by asking, "What do you think about divorce?" He responded to them by saying, "What do you think about marriage?" And then He revealed to them what God thinks about marriage. God sees marriage as two people becoming one, committed to one another, in a covenant relationship which lasts a lifetime.
But we still have the question: What about divorce? Does the Scripture have anything to say about that? Divorce is real. Divorce happens. Are there any guidelines? Is there any sure word from God? Is the original intention of God all there is in the Bible by which we judge marriage, divorce and remarriage? How do we deal with people who get divorced? Are there any biblical grounds for divorce? All these are questions which need answers. And while Jesus expresses the divine intention for marriage, He does not stop there. He goes on to deal with the issue of divorce.
God made his view of divorce clear to the Israelites in:
Malachi 2:14 (NKJV) Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.
If you are married, you are bound before God in that relationship. The discussion continues in the next two verses:
Malachi 2:15-16 (NKJV) But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously."
The Old Testament starts out in Genesis with God establishing marriage. It closes out in the Book of Malachi with God saying He hates divorce. Even though divorce is being practiced, God's attitude toward it has not changed. From fifteen hundred years before the time of Christ when Moses wrote the Book of Genesis down to Malachi's time, God has not changed His position. It is the same in spite of the fact that divorce and remarriage have become a common practice.
We need to be clear in the church of Jesus Christ about these issues. There is a tendency to over-react based on our conservative theology and our high view of marriage. But we must be careful to say what the Scriptures say, not to interpret them based on religious tradition or even the rabbis of our day. I challenge you to hold the belief you hold based on a thorough examination of Scripture, not based on what religious tradition says or on what Pastor So-and-so says. I believe in certain positions because of my understanding of the Scriptures, not because I have subscribed to some creed or joined some conservative camp. I know too many preachers who line up behind certain teachers or subscribe to certain schools of thought, because it's convenient and easy to do. It's far easier to let someone do your thinking for you than to struggle with the Scriptures as you study them and pray over them to seek God's direction as you attempt to apply them to your life.
Matthew 5:32 (NKJV) "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Here Jesus gives a ground for divorce. This ground is also found in Matthew 19:9:
Matthew 19:9 (NKJV) "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy 24
Deuteronomy 24:1 (NKJV) "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,
The question that Jesus is addressing in Matthew 5:31,32 comes from the statement in Deuteronomy 24:1, "because he has found some uncleanness in her." What does the word "uncleanness" mean?
There are four words in the Hebrew which are translated "uncleanness" in the Old Testament. The first two refer to dirtiness or contamination, natural or ceremonial. Examples of these are touching a dead body or a person with leprosy. The third word was used to illustrate spiritual uncleanness and is often used to speak about sin. The word "uncleanness," in Deuteronomy 24:1, is taken from the Hebrew word, "ervah". This word is translated as "uncleanness" only once in the Old Testament, which is in Deuteronomy 24:1. It is translated: "shame" one time in Isaiah 20:4, and it is translated: "unclean" one time in Deuteronomy 23:14. This same Hebrew word, "ervah", is found fifty one other times in the Old Testament. All other fifty one times it is translated "nakedness", and it comes from the root word of nudity.
When Deuteronomy 24:1 says, "because he has found some uncleanness in her,"it means she has disgracefully lowered herself exposing her nakedness to open shame, or uncleanness sexually. This is what Jesus calls "fornication" in our text.
What exactly is "fornication?" Fornication and adultery are synonymous terms in the scriptures, and they are often interchangeable. In the Greek, fornication includes: incest, sodomy, harlotry, perversion, and all sexual sin both before and after marriage. The Greek word for "fornication" is porneia.
1 Corinthians 10:8 (NKJV) Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;
The words, "sexual immorality" here are porneuo. We see here that fornication is not just used for sex outside marriage. Certainly not all 23,000 were unmarried. The word encompasses both sex outside marriages, and sex that would be constituted as adultery. Porneia certainly includes everything meant by the word "uncleanness" as used in Deuteronomy 24:1.
The word "except" has far reaching importance attached to it. The question of remarriage hangs on it. Does it allow divorce but not remarriage? "Except" means: "to take out, outside of, to exclude, to leave out, apart from." When a person hears the word "except," he immediately thinks of "not including." He assumes that whatever is excepted is left out. For example: every human being ever born will die and spend eternity in hell "except" those who trust Jesus Christ. So, there is an exception to the no divorce rule, and that is sexual immorality. When a divorce is because of immorality, the innocent party is free to remarry.
Bill Gothard, who does the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, tries to raise the biblical standard by saying that "fornication" means: "an incestuous or homosexual marriage". So, he says that only someone in one of those marriages can be divorced. He limits the meaning of the Greek word porneia to fit his view of no divorce.
The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way:
24:5 Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract (Matt 1:18-20). In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce (Matt 5:31, 32): and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead (Matt 19:9; Rom 7:2, 3).
Some may ask, "Is the exception clause valid? It's only in Matthew - Luke and Mark give no exception." The synoptic Gospels add and delete different details. There is absolutely no textual ground for doubting the words in Matthew.
So we see there are biblical exceptions to divorce. Jesus gives us one here: sexual immorality. Sexual immorality would break the marital bond and release the partner. But notice here that Jesus never commanded divorce for sexual immorality, but only permitted it. What Jesus is saying is that if a man divorces his wife for anything less than sexual immorality, he then causes her to commit adultery and commits adultery himself.
It is very important to understand this. If a man puts his wife away for any other cause, he causes her to commit adultery. In other words, that marriage bond has never been broken in the eyes of the Lord, because there has not been uncleanness. Therefore, that woman is still married in the eyes of the Lord, the bond has never been broken. That is what the Lord Jesus is teaching here.
Is divorce permitted in the Scripture for anything other than fornication? Yes, it is! In 1 Corinthians 7 we find another important passage dealing with divorce and remarriage. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 7. Remember that Paul is writing to Christians.
He addresses two Christians married to one another in:
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NKJV) Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
Here we have two Christians married to one another. Paul simply says, "Stay together." There is no reason to leave. If there is no sexual immorality, stay together. It is interesting that he does make a provision for a separation. And in fact, the Bible does not anywhere teach that the wife has an obligation to stay in a home with an abusive man who threatens her physical welfare or the welfare of her children. But if she leaves under those circumstances, she is either to be reconciled unto her husband, or to remain unmarried. The only biblical reason for two Christians divorcing is sexual immorality.
Paul also addresses a mixed marriage - a Christian who is married to an unbeliever. These mixed marriages could happen in a couple of ways. Two unbelievers could be married, and then later one becomes a Christian. That, I believe is the most common way a mixed marriage happens. The second way is that a believer could marry an unbeliever in direct contradiction to the Scriptures. The Bible teaches us that we are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. That is the command of God. It is not something put there to make us miserable. In fact, it is something put there for our own good. God is trying to save us the misery of being locked into a marriage with someone who is fundamentally different from us, whose values are different, whose outlook on life is different, whose goals are different. Let me encourage you and plead with you - do not be foolish enough to marry an unbeliever. While it is possible for God to do something to save that person, there is no guarantee that it will happen. You may be condemned to a life of misery.
Here Paul addresses mixed marriages and says:
1 Corinthians 7:12-15 (NKJV) But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
The teaching here is quite simple: Paul is well familiar with the teaching of Jesus and he, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, expands the exception from sexual immorality to include desertion by an unbelieving partner. He says, "If you are a believer married to an unbeliever, stay with them. God may save them." He holds out hope for that to happen. In verse 16 he says, "For how do you know, oh wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, oh husband, whether you will save your wife?" In other words, he's saying, "God may do something. Stay with them as long as they desire to stay with you." But then verse 15 gives us the only other biblical grounds for divorce. When an unbelieving partner leaves a believer, the believer is to let that partner leave. The Scriptures tell us that "the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases." Bondage to what? Obviously, bondage to the law of marriage. Let's look at this word bondage in:
Romans 7:2 (NKJV) For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
The word for bound in this verse is from a root form of the Greek word for bondage in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Paul speaks of being released from the bondage of marriage by the desertion of an unbelieving partner. What the Scripture is teaching here is that Christians should stay with non-Christians as long as the non-Christian is willing. But if the non-Christian leaves the Christian and divorces him or her, then the Christian is released from that marriage biblically, and is free to remarry.
To sum up, there are only three things that biblically release a marriage partner from a marriage: (1) the death of one marriage partner; (2) sexual unfaithfulness by a marriage partner; and (3) the desertion and divorce by an unbelieving marriage partner. That is the plain teaching of Scripture.
A word of caution is in order lest you get yourself into a trap. Some people rationalize that since they are in a marriage they do not like, the best thing to do would be to go ahead and commit adultery, then they can have their new relationship with a new marriage. They conclude that God will forgive them, and they can go on with life. After all, that would surely be better than being stuck in this awful present relationship for the rest of their lives. Would it? Believer, understand this, there are serious consequences to sin.
When thinking of such circumstances, we only need to remember David being confronted by Nathan after his sin with Bathsheba. Nathan told David after his repentance that God had put away his sin from him and forgiven him. Then Nathan proceeded to outline the consequences that David would experience as a result of his sin. David was told that the baby would die and the sword would never depart from his house. One of David's daughters was later raped by one of his sons. That son was ultimately murdered for revenge. Then another son was eventually executed as he rebelled against David and tried to kill his own father. These were consequences God said David would suffer as a result of his sin. Therefore, we need to be very careful about sinning intentionally. Don't think you can get away with it just because God will forgive you. He will forgive you, but He will not necessarily remove the consequences of your sin.
But while those are the biblical grounds for a divorce, what about those who have divorced outside those grounds? To those, we have to say that what they have done is to sin against God and against their partner. If there is the possibility, they need to go and be reconciled to the one they divorced. If one of them has remarried, then they must simply cast themselves on the mercy of God in repentance and ask for forgiveness. They must call it what it is - sin. There was no reason for it, and there is no excuse. But at the same time, let me hasten to add that the sin of divorce is no different than any other sin. It isnot the "unpardonable" sin. And to make it otherwise is to sin an even greater sin, the sin of self-righteous spiritual pride. The sinner who casts himself upon Jesus in sincere repentance will find forgiveness. And we must forgive those whom God forgives. It is sad, but in some churches, you could be forgiven of murder, but not divorce. I want you to know that God can heal and restore divorced persons and can use them in His Kingdom, not as second-class citizens, but in the same way he uses all saved sinners.
[Just like the sin of homosexuality, if they repent and ask for forgiveness, I will forgive them
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
]
Of course, the best path is to avoid divorce. Let me share a biblical principle to help us divorce-proof our marriages. We've already referred to the fact that God's original intent for marriage was two people joined in a one-flesh union, committed to one another in a covenant relationship for life. If we will heed the principle of commitment, our marriages will be safe.
Commitment means first, "I am committed to God: to be obedient to Him, to follow His word, to put Him first in my life". If a man and a woman are committed to God, they have a foundation for a marriage that will be divorce-proof.
But commitment also means that I am committed to my marriage partner. Because I am committed to God, I can then be committed to that person. Because I am committed to God's word, divorce is not an option. As a matter of fact, I encourage you to put that word out of your vocabulary - never, never use it when you are mad and upset, and things are not going well. For the believer, it should not be an option - put it out of your vocabulary. Christians who are committed to God first and committed to one another can survive almost any storm.
We can divorce-proof our marriages if we will live according to God's original purpose. As we put Jesus first, and as we both together move closer to Him, we will be pulled closer together. And God will give us a wonderful marriage that is founded upon the rock which cannot be moved.
Jesus is saying in Matthew 5 that the issue has to be dealt with in the heart, because that is the basis of the whole issue. God looks at the heart. If you have an adulterer's heart, God is aware of that. He knows the thoughts of your heart. You must deal with those thoughts of adultery in your heart, because those thoughts will eventually lead you to begin looking for someone else. That involves a lack of commitment to your partner and will eventually lead to the breakdown of the marriage relationship. Keep your heart pure.
This message preached by David B. Curtis on November 3, 2002. Tape #258a.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | The New Testament and Homosexuality
Denying God’s purpose
By Walter F. Taylor, Jr.
The New Testament and Homosexuality
Denying God’s purpose
By Walter F. Taylor, Jr.
I. Introduction
I want first to thank Professor Fretheim for an excellent lecture that moves us far beyond only looking at the texts, as important as that is.
Three preliminary remarks:
1) This is not merely a theoretical issue for me nor can it be for anyone who is engaged in the life of the church and who is honest. I could use the rest of my time talking about childhood friends, adult friends, former students, current students, parents of students, and friends of our children whom we have seen mature and come to understand themselves as gay or lesbian. For some reason, gay and lesbian people and people who care about them regularly come to me for conversation and prayer, and so I do not carry out my scholarship, my ministry, nor this presentation in splendid isolation from gay and lesbian people. The most helpful thing Paul Jersild writes in his discussion on homosexuality in his book Spirit Ethics is that, for the first time, churches are facing the issue of homosexuality with fellow Christians who are professed gays and lesbians. "Now we know the gay person as one of us, a fellow member of the household of faith."
Every time I speak on this topic, I do so expecting that there are gay and lesbian people in the room.
2) All of that points to an internal struggle that I have had and continue to have on the topic of homosexuality. At an intuitive level, part of me wants to say, "What's the big deal! Let's just take people where they are, lift the restrictions on ordination, and get on with things." My struggle, however, is that my commitment to the biblical witness and my reading of it do not allow me to make that move. So you are dealing today with someone who is very sympathetic to arguments for acceptance--so I was lambasted by traditionalists after an interview on the Bible and homosexuality that was published in The Lutheran — as well as with someone who ends up on the traditional side of the continuum — so that I was similarly blasted by people at the far side of the acceptance position. I hope, however, that you will find me to be a reasonable traditionalist. Part of what we are about today and throughout the ELCA at this point in time, is discerning what God's will is. For some people that will is quite obvious, but for most of us it is a bit more muddified.
3) I have been asked to work with you on the New Testament material dealing with homosexuality. Strictly speaking, of course, we could quit right now, since the word homosexuality had not yet been coined when the Bible was written, and therefore the Bible does not speak about that specific term. The word itself, I believe, was first used only in 1869. But certainly the Bible does have a number of passages that talk about same-sex sexual relationships, an infelicitous phrase that I will use repeatedly. I need to acknowledge, however, that in the time allotted there is no way I can do exhaustive work on the passages or the hermeneutics in applying them. I will not move into scientific evidence for the supposed "causes" of homosexuality. The evaluation of that evidence, as far as I can tell, ends in a stalemate anyway over the issue of nature versus nurture, nor was I asked to discuss that topic. What I will do is to focus on the use of the Bible and the texts that are important for discerning a Christian position on the topic of same-sex sexual relationships.
II. Use of the Bible in Making Ethical Decisions
Even though I have just finished saying that I don't have enough time, I do want to take the time to suggest various models for using the Bible in making ethical decisions. As Professor Fretheim and I compared notes a couple of weeks ago, we noted how often we are asked to talk about texts but how seldom anyone asks us to deal with how people today might move from texts to modern ethical decisions. Because I think that is such an important issue and because it is so often ignored, I want to begin with that topic.
Everyone who reads the Bible comes at that reading task with underlying presuppositions. No one comes to the reading of the Bible totally fresh or totally without preconceived notions of what s/he will find. Usually those presuppositions are unstated. Indeed, most people have no idea that they have any presuppositions. In fact, the person who says, "I just read the Bible at face value and believe and try to do what it says," is operating with a whole host of presuppositions.
What I want to do briefly is ask what some of the presuppositions are when people read the Bible, especially when they read the Bible to obtain ethical direction. What are different ways in which the Bible has been used in developing Christian ethical positions--or not used, as the case may be? I would like to suggest six basic models. Part of the scheme comes from Victor Paul Furnish.
A. Sacred Cow
In Hindu India, the cow is sacred. It cannot be touched, harmed, or restricted. Furnish uses this example and label to talk about our first view of the relationship of the Bible and ethics. In this view the Bible is viewed as a written deposit of God's truth valid in very specific ways for all times and places. Everything in the Bible is eternally and universally binding. The Bible's ethical statements are not to be touched, disturbed, and certainly not in any sense explained away. They are to be taken at face value.
The Bible thus supplies the content not only for the church's doctrinal teachings but for ethics as well. The Bible, then, is viewed as a book of revealed morality. That is, God revealed details of the right way to live, and what God revealed was to be valid forever. So an equation sign is put between the Bible and today. In this view, what the Bible says about family life and human sexuality should be the standard for Christians today.
B. Traditional
In this view, human nature is viewed as fundamentally constant from century to century and culture to culture. Thus cultural variables shade but do not provide the primary shape of ethical norms. The ethical norms of Israel, therefore, since they are part of God's will, became part of the ethical identity of Jesus and the early church. Such ethical norms and prescriptions are valid for modern Christians, says this position, as long as they are filtered through the fundamental theological and ethical commitments of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus prescriptions concerning family life and human sexuality remain valid for the Christian community unless they are clearly opposed by Jesus or the rest of the New Testament witness or unless they represent cultural peculiarities (e.g., concern for sexual relations between men and menstruating women).
C. Neo-Traditional
This view is very significant today. It agrees with the presuppositions of the traditional view. The major difference is that the neo-traditional view insists that we have, in fact, often misunderstood the Bible. Traditional interpretations are therefore often misleading, for the Bible really says things quite different from what we thought the Bible said. When correctly understood, the Bible serves as the source and norm of the church's ethical values. The trick is in understanding the Bible correctly. This position has been of crucial importance in the decision of the Lutheran Church to ordain women, for example. This position maintains the authority of the Bible, but argues that previous interpretations so misunderstood the biblical witness that the freedom of women to be leaders in the Christian community was ignored. A proper understanding of the texts thus opens new possibilities.
D. Source of Principles
For Christians who take this position, the authority of the Bible for ethics does not rest in its specific moral instruction on particular problems but rather in its revealing of over-arching norms, values, and ideals that are binding on the Christian life. These norms, values, and ideals need to be translated or applied by today's Christian community, so say the proponents of this position, since the biblical material was produced in specific cultures that no longer exist. For certain readers of the Bible, this position can be close to the traditional or neo-traditional, but for many who take this position the principles are much more general. Many in this camp would take the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") as a principle; other readers of the Bible today take "love" as a basic ethical principle. But often such folks become nervous when specific ethical directives from the Bible are applied to life today, especially in the area of human sexuality.
E. Source of Identity and Dialogue Resource
This title is a bit cumbersome, but I include this model as a way to recognize the provocative book of our emeritus colleague from Southern Seminary, Paul Jersild. In his book, Spirit Ethics, Professor Jersild proposes a model for how to do ethics in the post-modern world. The function of the Bible is chiefly to provide a major source of identity for the Christian community in its self-understanding and in its understanding of God. He adopts a reader-response model in which the Bible, essentially, says what the church says it says. The Bible becomes a resource for the dialogue between the church and the pluralistic society in which the church finds itself, but he is most restive about current application of any ethical directives from the Bible. Although application of his basic approach does lead to rather traditional positions on euthanasia and assisted suicide, when he comes to homosexuality he places major weight on contemporary experience and scientific developments, with the Bible in effect being subordinated to them.
F. White Elephant
A final position is what Furnish labels the "white elephant." A white elephant is something that is expensive but useless. In this view, the Bible is an antiquated and out-dated relic of a long-ago past that has no relevance to today. It is to be discarded because it is too old; because its New Testament authors were too excited about the coming of the end of the world; because it was written by men; etc. Ethical positions are to be developed totally apart from the Bible, with the only use of the Bible being to provide the most general outlines of the story of God with God's people.
As you look at these six positions, you will see that I have arranged them in a certain order. The order runs from taking the Bible and plunking it down into today without any attention to original context (the sacred cow position) to denying the Bible any relevance for ethical decision-making at all (the white elephant position). In between are the other four positions.
These approaches are crucial when people come to reading the Bible, for they already program how the reader will deal with the ethical material in the Bible. In addition to what I have outlined, how much the reader uses historical understanding of biblical times and the Bible itself, and/or how much the reader uses contemporary sociological, anthropological, and psychological approaches to understand the Bible also have a great deal to say about how the person will read the biblical text.
III. The New Testament and Same-Sex Sexual Activity
A. Same-sex sexual activity in the Graeco-Roman world
As part of our attention to context, we need to look at same-sex relations in the world in which the New Testament was written. Starting in the sixth century B.C., same-sex sexual love between men was a part of Greek life. The development of that kind of love as acceptable in at least some circles went hand-in-hand with the increasing denigration of women in Greek society. Since women were kept uneducated and were considered to be almost a biological accident (that is, not quite male), some men at least did not think they could have relationships of equality with them.
The particular same-sex relationship that developed was pederasty, the love of an older man for a younger man or youth. Such relationships were not by definition exploitative nor necessarily abusive. Pederasty still existed at the time of Paul, especially in the upper classes, but such relationships were being more and more questioned by the moral thinkers of the day. The moralists people such as Seneca, Plutarch, and Dio Chrysostom decried especially what they saw as the increasing inequality of the relationships, as some men exploited their male slaves for sexual pleasure. It was not uncommon in brothels and even in private households to castrate attractive boys to prolong their youthful appearance. The call boy and the male prostitute were universally condemned in the written literature that has survived. Same-sex sexual activity, during the first century A.D., was also viewed by the moralists as against nature, an argument used by Paul.
At the same time, there are widespread examples in antiquity, especially in the Roman world in which Paul lived, of committed same-sex relationships between equals. [6] Cicero (106-43 B.C.) and Martial (first century A.D.) are just two of the authors who write about stable same-sex relationships between men. Cicero writes, e.g., about a male couple "united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he [Curio] had given him [Antonius] a matron's stola." (Philippic 2.18.45) The stola was the distinctive dress of a married Roman woman. Erotic literature written during the Republic (Catullus, e.g.) as well as during the Empire (Vergil, Tibullus, Horace, and Ovid) speaks of erotic love between men without batting a judgmental eye.
Whereas in earlier centuries there had been a prejudice in the Roman world against same-sex activity in which one man played the more passive role, that view was abandoned by the early Empire, says Boswell, for more reciprocal homoerotic relations in which the active-passive distinction became unimportant. Such relationships were found among the emperors. We see that with Nero, emperor from 54-68 A.D., and thus the emperor during the height of Paul's career. Nero married two men in succession, both in public ceremonies. The spouse was given the honors of an empress. Probably the most famous pair of lovers in the Roman world were Hadrian and Antinous. [7] They lived, of course, after the time of Paul (Hadrian was emperor from 117-138), but their widely known relationship is indicative of the Roman world at the time of the writing of the New Testament.
This information is of great importance, I think. A frequent argument against taking Paul in any way as normative is that he could necessarily have known only of relationships that were pederastic (Scroggs) or abusive (Furnish). He could have known nothing about public, committed relationships of equals. Now obviously no one, including me, knows exactly what Paul did or did not know, but it is a simple historical mistake to say that he could not have known about relationships between equals, since such relationships did indeed exist and were widely known.  Now to specific texts.
B. 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Our first text is from the deutero-Pauline tradition, 1 Timothy 1:9-10; the document was probably written in the 90s of the first century to update Paul for a new era. [9]
We read in the NRSV: "This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching."
Key is understanding what the words "fornicators, sodomites, and slave traders"; mean. The first word, po/rnoj, pornos, "fornicator" in the NRSV, in normal Greek usage means "male prostitute," meaning either the male who sells himself or the slave in the brothel. It often is extended in the New Testament to include sexual immorality in general, but the connection with the next two terms points toward the male prostitute meaning. The next term, the NRSV's "sodomite," translates the Greek word a)rsenokoi/thj, arsenokoit_s, from aÃrshn, ars_n = "male" and koi/th, koit_ = "bed" and by extension "marriage" and then sexual intercourse in general. So, literally, one who lies with a male; the gender of the term is masculine. Its first occurrence in extant Greek literature is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Scroggs thinks that it translates the rabbinic term, mishkav zakur, "lying with a male," used in rabbinic literature for men having same-sex relations. [10]
The term seems to indicate the active partner in the homosexual relationship, i.e., the one who hires the po/rnoj, pornos, to satisfy his desires. There is certainly no sense of an equal relationship. The po/rnoj, pornos is to experience no pleasure. In fact, it is coonsidered bad form for the por/noj, pornos to ejaculate. Only the customer is to reach that form of sexual pleasure.
The final word, a)ndrapodisth/j, andrapodist_s, occurs only here in the New Testament. It means "kidnapper" or "slave dealer," thus the NRSV "slave trader." In our world those terms designate two different concepts, but in the first century they were synonyms. A person was kidnapped, normally, not for ransom nor to avoid a court-ordered custody arrangement but to be sold into slavery. And one reason an attractive boy or girl would be kidnapped was to provide slaves for the brothel houses. Thus the kidnapper or slave dealer is one who is involved in the sexual profession, ultimately being the one who provides the por/noj, pornos, who is used by the a)rsenokoi/thj, arsenokoit_s.
Thus this list in 1 Timothy, despite how it is often translated, probably does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships in general, but that specific form of pederasty that consisted of enslaving boys or youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males. I know of no one who argues that that kind of behavior is to be approved, so the text potentially drops out as a source of guidance for determining a contemporary Christian ethic. Others, however, have seen the three terms as distinct and would therefore see 1 Timothy as potentially addressing today's situation. For them por/noj, pornos, refers to an immoral man (or in Quinn and Wacker, "the incestuous"), a)rsenokoi/thj, arsenokoit_s, to a homosexual or one engaged in a same-sex sexual relationship, and "slave trader" as "simply" a slave trader and not someone specializing in kidnapping future prostitutes. [11]
Thus for those interpreters the text does not deal with prostitution but same-sex sexual activity in general.
C. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Our second New Testament text is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."
It is quite instructive to see how a translation can affect our entire understanding of a passage. One of my correspondents, writing from Texas, quoted the NIV on this passage: "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God." If that is what a person thinks the text says, the options become quite narrow. For that matter, the first edition of the RSV (1946) translates the two Greek terms as "homosexuals." The second edition (1971) changed it to "sexual perverts."
Two terms from 1 Timothy reappear (actually, of course, they appeared chronologically first in 1 Corinthians). We have the po/rnoj, pornos, or "sexually immoral person" again, a term that we have seen can refer to sexual immorality in general, or that could refer to a male prostitute. "Idolaters" and "adulterers" come next, followed by the term "male prostitute," as translated by the NRSV. The Greek term translated as "male prostitute" is malako/j, malakos, which means "soft, weak, effeminate," and was used especially for the same-sex call boy or, more generally, for the passive partner in same-sex sexual relationships. The a)rsenokoi/tai, arsenokoitai, the third word, brings us again to the male customers (NRSV: "sodomites"). Thus while it is possible that the passage refers to male same-sex sexual relationships in general, there is a certain probability that it refers to the relationship between a prostitute and a customer. [12]
While I think the prostitution reference is probable, again, as with 1 Timothy 1, that interpretation in not universally held.
In any event, this kind of same-sex relationship is, for Christians, to be left behind. Verse 11: "And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." Moreover, the way the passage is introduced ("do you not know") likely points to the fact that this material was used catechetically in the early church; that is, it was used to remind and teach Christians how to act. [13]
For Thiselton, that fact alone makes the passage "an even more important and foundational passage than Romans 1." He is also not so sure that the language is limited to prostitution. [14]
D. Romans 1:26-27
Over against Thiselton, I believe that Romans 1:26-27 is the most important biblical material that needs to be taken into account when formulating a Christian theological understanding of homosexuality. While 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are both often cited in discussions, they probably deal with pederasty and even male homosexual prostitution. The argument in Romans more clearly than the other two passages is based on fundamental theological commitments and is independent of pederasty and prostitution.
1. Context
In working with this passage we need to recall the context. We have had the thesis in 1:16-17, on the gospel of the righteousness of God. In verse 18 the wrath of God is being revealed against all impiety and a)diki/an, adikian, "injustice" or, more properly in contrast to verse 17, "unrighteousness." So, the righteousness of God is revealed against the unrighteousness of humanity. What we have in verses 19-32 is a laying out of the unrighteousness of humanity.
Verses 18-25.
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Paul does more than give a laundry list of bad things. Rather, he seeks to deal with the root of sins. The root is the rebellion of the creature against the creator. Usually we think of immorality as the cause of God's wrath, but as Koosemann phrases it, "Paul paradoxically reverses the cause and consequence: moral perversion is the result of God's wrath, not the reason for it." [15]
Or, as Paul Achtemeier phrases it, "the wrath which God visits on sinful humanity consists in simply letting humanity have its own way. ... God, says Paul, delivers sinful humanity over to its own desires." [16]
In essence, God says, "You want to be lord of your life? Fine. Go ahead." And then we see what happens.
The results are twofold:
a) On the one hand, the specific examples of sinful behavior which are listed are not the primary focus of Paul's concern. They are illustrations of the results of the rebellion. That certainly does not soften what Paul has to say about same-sex sexual relationships, which is quite straightforward if not blunt, but it does mean that he is not out to "get" homosexuals or people involved in same-sex sexual relationships. [17]
b) On the other hand, for Paul rebellion against God and the resulting idolatry result, according to Scroggs, "in a false world with a false self, that is unnatural. The false self finds homosexuality pleasing and sees nothing wrong in what is for the Apostle a deflection of desire from opposite sex to same sex." [18]
2. The Core Verses
Verse 26: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural."
As an independent statement these words would not necessarily refer to female homosexuality. As an isolated statement they could refer to certain coital heterosexual positions deemed inappropriate by Jews or to artificial objects used by women to stimulate themselves. When verse 27 is taken into account, however, verse 26 must certainly refer to female same-sex relations. [19]
Such relations, for Paul, are against nature. Why against nature? Paul no doubt here thinks of Genesis 1-2, with the creation of male and female, together with the charge to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18). [20]
By refusing to honor God as creator, Paul argues, the women in verse 26 and the men in verse 27 are denying one of the created purposes for their sexual lives and therefore are living out in their bodies their denial of God as creator. For that reason, I think, Paul's choice of same-sex sexual relationships as an example — and, indeed, the primary example — is not casual. It strongly supports his argument. [21]
The language "against nature," by the way, was typical in Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts to distinguish between cross-gender and same-sex sexual relationships and goes back at least to Plato. In every text it is used as a negative reference. To live "naturally," on the other hand, was to use objects, including one's own body, in the ways intended for them in creation. [22]
Actually, it is very unusual that such female relations should be mentioned at all. In fact, this is the only time in the Bible. We may see, in fact, Paul's attention to inclusivity coming through. Scroggs writes: "Why Paul included it may well be his insistence that the false world is lived in equally by women as well as men." [23]
Now, what does it mean to say that they "exchanged" natural relations for those against nature? Does that imply a volitional act, and if so, then could we not argue that Paul has nothing to say to those who are "naturally" or innately homosexual? Paul is not here talking about individuals, but is characterizing the fallen condition of the Gentile world. The whole section from verses 23 through 32 is structured around the verbs "exchange" (for humans) and "giving over" (for God):
Humanity exchanged the glory of God for images (verse 23). Therefore God gave over humanity to impurity, to dishonoring their bodies (verse 24).
Humanity exchanged the worship of God for idolatry (verse 25). Therefore God gave over humanity to dishonorable passions (verse 26). Humanity exchanged natural relations for unnatural (verses 26b-27). Since people did not acknowledge God, God gave them over to a base mind and improper conduct (verse 28). [24]
Paul is thus not speaking here of individuals, but of the behavior of non-Christian Gentiles as a whole. As Arland Hultgren points out in his response to the 1993 draft on human sexuality [25], "all the indicative verbs from verse 22 through 27 are in past tense (aorists), as though Paul is speaking of something that happened long ago in some primeval time." [26]
Thus the whole section from verse 18 on is couched in what Hays calls mythico-historical language, in which the whole pagan world is implicated. Paul's "exchange of truth for a lie," verse 25, is his way of expressing the primordial sin that continues as the fundamental stance of humanity. The charge is a corporate indictment of pagan society, not a narrative about any one individual. [27]
If the reference is to the fallen condition of humanity, how can those who engage in same-sex relations be held accountable? Answer: in the same way all people are held accountable. In Paul there is an ongoing dialectic between the power of Sin with a capital "S" and the participation in that Sin by the individual's own sinning. The key text is Romans 5:12, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." We are, indeed, in bondage to sin (Romans 6:17), but we are still accountable to God for our actions, whatever our sexual feelings are. That is, all people are responsible, according to Paul, for their behavior. To state it differently, orientation is an argument that for Paul is beside the point. His focus is not on the desires themselves but on what people do with their desires or urges. His interest is in actions, and for him same-sex sexual actions are wrong.
It is, by the way, just as incorrect to say that Paul is a heterosexual writing to other heterosexuals as it is to say that he was dealing with homosexuality as an orientation. Those concepts are unknown in Graeco-Roman antiquity. The Graeco-Roman, non-Jewish male over a lifetime might engage in a range of same-gender and cross-gender genital relationships. For Paul the same-gender relationships are by definition wrong.
Verse 27 — "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Scroggs argues that what is being talked about here is pederasty. In that case, the text would say nothing about relationships between consenting adults. Few scholars agree with Scroggs, however. [28]
Many point to the fact that in verse 26 Paul talks about female same-sex sexual relationships, which certainly did not involve pederasty. Nor does Paul use here any of the technical terms that elsewhere are used for that form of sexual expression. The language of "giving up" is parallel to the "exchanging" of verse 26 and "implies a departure from a divinely intended, originally heterosexual relationship between males and females." [29]
What is the punishment Paul talks about? Some point, especially in light of the AIDS epidemic, to physical, more particularly, venereal disease; most commentators believe that Paul sees what for him is the distortion of same-sex sexual activity as the punishment itself. [30]
And distortion, for good or ill, is the sense of Paul's language. He styles same-sex sexual activity as pla/nh, plan, a wandering from what is right.
IV. Other Texts and Questions
A. What about the silence of Jesus? Doesn't that indicate that he would accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle?
In logic one of the weakest arguments is the argument from silence. The argument, in fact, could just as easily be turned around: since Jesus did not counter the universal condemnation of same sex relations by Jewish society he must have approved it.
I think the best thing we can do is to say that we have no argument here, one way or the other.
B. What about the vision of Peter in Acts 10:9-16 regarding clean and unclean?
The first level of meaning in the vision is that there is no distinction for the Christian between kosher and unkosher food. The second level of meaning in the vision, according to Acts 10, is that the message of Jesus is to go to Gentiles as well as Jews. There is nothing in the passage that talks about "moral inclusivity," a term that occurred in a letter I received from a pastor in Pennsylvania. I think that one has to take an awfully big step to move from potential inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews to acceptance of same sex relationships. [31]
I honestly don't see how this passage helps us.
C. What about analogies to women in ministry, divorce, and slavery? The church has changed its positions on these matters. Why not same-sex relationships?
Here is a point on which Professor Fretheim and I disagree. In the case of women in ministry, divorce, and slavery, we have within the Bible itself a varied witness. That is, in each case we have passages that conflict with each other. There is no monolithic approach to those issues. In that kind of case the interpreter needs to develop a hermeneutic to adjudicate between the conflicting material. I am unaware of any positive statement in either testament regarding same-sex sexual activity, and so the situation with this issue is different from the others and the analogy breaks down.
V. Penultimate Conclusions
Now, what to do with all of this? For the Sacred Cow people there is immediate application of the biblical text to today. Such persons probably have difficulty understanding why the historical study of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians was necessary and why I raised questions about the usefulness of those texts for contemporary decision-making. For the White Elephant folks this entire presentation is pretty much beside the point. In general, they believe, biblical ethics do not speak to life today, and certainly these texts don't. For those who understand the Bible as a Source of Identity and Dialogue Resource, these texts also seem to have limited usefulness, if any at all. Although Hays, Thiselton, and Jewett would say otherwise, these sisters and brothers believe that the texts don't deal with the identity of the church and, together with the White Elephant people, they simply do not think that these texts deal with situations in antiquity that have any real analogy to life today. And those who see the Bible as a Source of Principles might suggest that we look to a generalized love ethic: "do the loving thing." That vague statement often results in a laissez-faire attitude toward ethics. In any event, Principles proponents want to avoid specific ethical directives and judgments such as the ones found in our passages.
When I was a member of the Panel on Human Sexuality that was appointed in the wake of the first draft of a proposed ELCA statement on human sexuality, together with other panel members I was asked to come early or stay late each time we had a meeting in order to read congregational and individual responses to the draft. From that experience I would say that it is clear that in the ELCA we have a good number of people who take the Sacred Cow position. But I would also say that the largest number of responses seemed to fall into the Traditional category, that is, people who believe that biblical prescriptions concerning family life and human sexuality do remain valid for the Christian community unless they are clearly opposed by Jesus or the rest of the New Testament witness. Most of the current scholarly "action," if you will, is among those of us who are Neo-Traditional in approach. While my roots are clearly in the Traditional category, I do most of my own research within the Neo-Traditional framework, as do people with very differing conclusions on our topic such as Furnish and Hays.
So for me as a traditionalist/neo-traditionalist, there is a shorter line between then and now because of my understanding of the original historical situation, namely, that not all the texts deal with pederasty or prostitution but in fact at least one and perhaps two deal with consenting adults. I think that Paul was dealing with a situation much closer to our reality that some others would allow [32].
And for me as a traditionalist/neo-traditionalist the theological basis of Paul's argument in Romans 1, rooted in the Old Testament and in his understanding of God as creator, indicates the fundamental nature of his comments.
At the same time I have my questions, too.
Even if one assumes with Paul that same-sex sexual activity is a manifestation of sin (which obviously many people would not agree to), given the broken world in which we live how can Christians bring the most order and justice out of less than ideal situations? In other words, is it possible to glorify God in sexually active gay and lesbian relationships (1 Corinthians 6:20)?
What does it mean that immediately following what Paul says in Romans 1:26-27 he lists twenty-one other examples of inappropriate behavior? Do we not need to talk about how what Paul says about same-sex relationships fits with or doesn't fit with the rest of his list? In other words, even granting that same-sex relations are his primary example, do we pay the same attention to his other examples as we do to same-sex relations? Why or why not?
Is it possible for Christians to affirm the understanding of Romans 1:26-27 that I have outlined without concluding that condemnation and persecution should result? I think so. In my work as a member of the two churchwide panels that dealt with this issue in the 1990s, for example, I am the one who formulated and pushed the inclusion of a recommendation that the synodical bishops send a clear and immediate message of reconciliation and hope to gay and lesbian people and their familiesówhich indeed you did do.
Is it possible for Christians to differ radically on this particular issue and yet carry on the dialogue in a way that respects people as individuals as well as respects their thoughts, feelings, and opinions? I think so, and I have seen Christians all over this nation do that. Romans 14:1-15:13 provide us good models on how to welcome each other in the Lord evenóperhaps especiallyówhen we differ.
VI. Final Comments
Finally, three concluding comments.
First, as we continue to struggle with this issue — and all others, for that matter — we need to remember that all of us, whatever our sexual orientation or practice, says Paul, "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). "'There is no one who is righteous, not even one.'" (Romans 3:10). And I guess that includes you and me. Or, as Paul says in Romans 2:1, immediately after the section on same-sex relationships, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." The need for salvation and the mode of salvation are the same for all people, whatever our sexual practices are or are not.
Second, the only way we are made into the people of God is by God's gracious gift of baptism. Our morality does not save us. That is not to say that it is not important, but it is to say that God saves us, not our moral perfection, or our supposed moral perfection. Thus welcoming others, including for straight people the welcoming of gay and lesbian people, is not an issue, frankly: it is a given.
Third, I do not think that one can retain both Paulís views in Romans (and perhaps in 1 Corinthians) and same-sex sexual relationships. Many people on the acceptance side recognize that. Two days after my Lutheran interview appeared, I spent an intense two hours with a gay pastor. He eventually told me that he agreed with my interpretation of Paul. He simply rejected Paul. My fundamental question is how full acceptance can be supported from Scripture and, more particularly, what do people do with Romans 1 — other than rejecting it, which I in good conscience as an ordained pastor of this church and a Professor of New Testament cannot do.
The history of the Lutheran Church shows that, when and if the biblical and theological ducks are lined up, people will make all kinds of moves — weekly communion and women's ordination being just two recent examples. I do not see those ducks lined up yet. My greatest fear, by the way, is not at all the ordination of practicing homosexuals or the approval of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. My greatest fear is that we will make those decisions on grounds other than clear biblical and theological convictions.
I have shared with you my struggles over this issue. I wish that my studies had led me elsewhere, to be frank. The first time I finished preparing a public presentation on this topic, I told my wife I was really discouraged. "Why?" she asked. "Because part of me really wants my conclusions to come out differently, but that isn't what the texts say."
Which is to say that my reading today stands against what I would like at many levels to conclude. But my dilemma is part of what I think it means to be under the authority of the Word and part of what it means to allow the Word to address us from outside our own wishes.
Two concluding observations, both from Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School.
a) "Any discussion of the normative application of Romans 1 must not neglect the powerful impact of Paul's rhetorical reversal in Romans 2:1: all of us stand 'without excuse' ... before God, Jews and Gentiles alike, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Thus, Romans 1 should decisively undercut any self-righteous condemnation of homosexual behavior. Those who follow the church's tradition by upholding the authority of Paul's teaching against the morality of homosexual acts must do so with due humility ... ." [33]
b) "Likewise, those who decide that the authority of Paul's judgment against homosexuality is finally outweighed by other considerations ought to do so with a due sense of the gravity of their choice. The theological structure in which Paul places his indictment of relations 'contrary to nature' is a weighty one indeed, and it is not explicitly counterbalanced by anything in Scripture or in Christian tradition. Arguments in favor of acceptance of homosexual relations find their strongest warrants in empirical investigations and in contemporary experience. Those who defend the morality of homosexual relationships within the church may do so only by conferring upon these warrants an authority greater than the direct authority of Scripture and tradition, at least with respect to this question." [34]
May those words, from a traditionalist/neo-traditionalist who helped nurse a gay friend who was dying of AIDS, remind us of the balance and respect that should characterize this church's ongoing discernment of the will of God in this as in all matters.
Footnotes:
Paul Jersild, Spirit Ethics: Scripture and the Moral Life (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 134.
Walter F. Taylor, Jr., "Homosexuality — Is there a biblical view?" The Lutheran (July 1993), 20-23. Reprinted in Canada Lutheran (September 1993), 20
Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues (Second ed., revised; Nashville: Abingdon, 1985), 11-27.
Ibid., 14.
For more on this background, see Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); and Furnish, 52-82.
[6] See especially John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980), and David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1988).
[7] Boswell, 84.
See Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996), 119-20, in an excursus on Paulís assessment of homosexuality.
[9]On the questions of date and authorship, see Walter F. Taylor, Jr., "1 and 2 Timothy, Titus," in The Deutero-Pauline Letters: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (ed. Gerhard Krodel; Proclamation Commentaries; Revised ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 59-93.
[10]The term may well be derived from the relevant Leviticus texts. The Greek of the Septuagint in Leviticus 20:13 is very close to the Greek used here, which is to say that the Pauline tradition and Paul himself (next passage, which uses the same term) appear to presuppose and reaffirm the condemnation of homosexual acts found in the Holiness Code.
[11]Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 83, 87-89. So also Victor Gold in "Now The Silence Breaks: Toward A Pastoral Understanding of Homosexuality" (Chicago: National Lutheran Campus Ministry, n.d.), 14, by implication.
[12]"Now the Silence Breaks" thinks the reference is to anal intercourse, but without any texts quoted.
[13]Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 442, based on the work of C. H. Dodd). See also his view that the basis of the 1 Corinthians passage is not Graeco-Roman thought but the Old Testament (pp. 440-47).
[14]Ibid., 447, 451.
[15]Ernst Koosemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 47.
[16]Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 40.
[17]On the need for effective examples to draw "from everyday experience and derive their argumentative force from shared opinion or prejudice," see Robert Jewett, "The Social Context and Implications of Homoerotic References in Romans 1:24-27," in Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture" (ed. David L. Balch; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 230-31. Jewett goes on to say that Paul had no need to prove the evils of the behavior against which he writes, since that was a view his readers shared with him.
[18]Scroggs, 117.
[19]See Jewett, 233, and the extensive literature cited there.
[20]For a denial of the Genesis connection see Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (Jeffrey S. Siker, ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 18-35. For Hays the reference earlier in the passage to God as Creator would certainly evoke memories of the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 (Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], 386), which in turn leads to God's creative intent for male-female relations.
[21]Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 276: "Paul sees homosexual conduct as a symbol of the perversion stemming from idolatry. For him it is a way in which human beings refuse to acknowledge the manifestation of God's activity in creation. ... Homosexual behavior is the sign of human rebellion against God, an outward manifestation of the inward and spiritual rebellion."
[22]For David Fredrickson, in a closely argued and thoroughly researched article, the language of "against nature" is closely allied with Graeco-Roman culture's common perspective on erotic relations (David E. Fredrickson, "Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24-27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique of Eros," in Homosexuality, Science, and the 'Plain Sense' of Scripture" [ed. David L. Balch; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 197-222). The language of "against nature" is thoroughly Graeco-Roman; its home is in the philosophical discussions, and it does not have a clear theological basis. Thus, "Romans 1:24-27 is not an attack on homosexuality as a violation of divine law but a description of the human condition informed by the philosophic rejection of passionate love" (p. 208). His work is extremely insightful, but he plays only one side of the Pauline "fence." Paul is a figure that must always be understood from several perspectives at once. By not looking at Paul from a Jewish perspective Fredrickson has cut him off from a major source of his ethical thinking, namely, the Old Testament. The next article in the volume, by Robert Jewett, illustrates what can be learned when we bring in the Jewish-Old Testament background of Paul as well as the Graeco-Roman (see p. 224, e.g.). The influence of intertextuality (the impact of one biblical text on another) needs to be taken into account when interpreting Romans 1. In addition, Thiselton reminds us that sheer use of Graeco-Roman philosophical terminology does not alter the theological framework within which Paul uses that language (p. 444). Paul's ethical thought is thoroughly rooted in the Old Testament and, in fact, he posits a distinctive Christian identity and lifestyle over against that of the Graeco-Roman world (pp. 446-47).
[23]Scroggs, 115. On opposition to lesbian behavior in antiquity see Bernadette J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 31-186.
[24]Arland J. Hultgren, "Being Faithful to the Scriptures: Romans 1:26 27 as a Case in Point," in A Collection of Resources from ELCA Academicians and Synodical Bishops to "The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective" (Chicago: Division for Church in Society, ELCA, 1994), 151.
[25]"First draft" and "draft" in this paper refer to the October 1993 proposed ELCA social statement entitled The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective.
[26] Hultgren, 152. See also Koosemann, 47.
[27]Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1" Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), 200. At the same time, the "exchanging" language of vss. 23 and 26 provides "a powerful rhetorical link between the rebellion against God and the "shameless acts" (1:27) that are themselves both evidence and consequence of that rebellion" (Hays, Moral Vision, 387).
[28]Scroggs, 116. For a critique of Scroggs' position see Jewett, 234-35 and note 75.
[29]Jewett, 236.
[30]See, e.g., ibid., 238.
[31]For that matter, in verses 34-35 of Acts 10 Peter says, "I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." So the understanding of Acts 10 of the vision includes "doing what is right," which, for good or ill, takes us right back to the starting point of whether same-sex sexual activity is "right" or not.
[32]See also the challenging comments by Jewett, 240-41.
[33]Hays, "Relations," 210.
[34]Ibid., 211.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 1:48:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/13/2003 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Thomas E. Schmidt has an excellant chapter in his book Straight And Narrow? on Romans 1:26-27 in which he goes into the words Paul uses and also discusses arguments by L. William Countryman and John Boswell. For those of you interested in studying the subject, find the book. For those of you who have already made up your mind, I'll save you the energy of scrolling words you don't want to read.
Avoiding dealing with one sin by bringing up how a person deals with another...how original...
I would also suggest that perhaps some of you on this thread meet a wider variety of Christian. I, personally, don't know of any Christians who obsess on this one sin...unless, of course, its a problem with them, then there would be reason to do so, I suppose. But calling it for what it is is not obsession (unless you have an obession about people calling something a sin. But then, that would be your problem).
"...because its the one sin they can never have..." what an utterly childish statement that has nothing to do with the issue. Total speculation and totally foolish...divert divert diver the ship's going down...
Edited by - honorman on 02/13/2003 2:16:31 PM
Edited by - honorman on 02/13/2003 2:18:39 PM
Edited by - honorman on 02/13/2003 2:19:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I hope I wasn't being selfish in wasting bandwith; I just felt that maybe more people would read it if I posted it instead of linking it.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/13/2003 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | by the way, could someone tell me when this post became a "how Christians deal with homosexuality," and "how Christians deal with divorce and remarriage?" Perhaps those truly interested in those subjects could start their own posts instead of taking over others?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/13/2003 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I;m sorry Paul, that was not directed at you, but was just something I threw in...I wasn't being mean, honest!
Edited by - honorman on 02/13/2003 2:35:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I;m sorry Paul, that actually wasn't directed at you, but was just something I threw in...I wasn't being mean, honest!
Since you were truly repentant, I forgive you my son.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
LOL 
Blessings,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 2/13/2003 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon wrote: "The reality is that we are ALL “living in sin” pretty much ALL of the time. In my view what it means to be a “Christian” is (1) to become aware that we are “living in sin” pretty much all of the time, (2) to experience Jesus’ loving forgiveness, (3) to extend that loving forgiveness and compassion to others, (4) even though they, like us, are “living in sin” pretty much all of the time."
I agree that we are all pretty much living in sin all the time. But just for discussion’s sake lets say there is one particular sin that is habitual. Tell me Honorman or A-theist have you ever become aware of a particular sin in your life that was habitual? And, if you have discovered a habitual sin, have you ever conquered it? Completely?
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/13/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Tell me Honorman or A-theist have you ever become aware of a particular sin in your life that was habitual? And, if you have discovered a habitual sin, have you ever conquered it? Completely?
You're missing the point. I am not saying we don't have sins we deal with daily, I am saying that we should show another brother or sister who is in sin that they should repent of that sin. Even if this sin is habitual, and someone is dealing with it, still presupposes that they recognize it as sin and are, I assume, trying to be delivered from it. What is encouraging someone, like homosexuals, to stay in their sin have to do with dealing with habitual sin; where is the love in that? I am assume this is what you are getting at; having us focus on our own sin and ignore the fact that others are in sin. Well, if someone tells me I am doing something sinful, and they hold me accountable, I am going to seek the Lord's face and the help of my brothers in order to overcome that sin. I am NOT going to smoke screen it with other peoples sins, and defeat the whole purpose of Lord's conviction through another fellow believer.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
What is habitual sin? Is this sin being asked for forgiveness for? Are homosexuals asking God to forgive them for their (lifestyle) sin?
It seems as if noone is addressing the fact that we all have sins that should be pointed out to other brothers and sisters so they don't stumble; and that they should do the same for us if they see fit.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
You might want to start another thread on habitual sins if you'd like, but this isn't the place to bring it up; because we are addressing homosexual sin, not trying to divert attention from it by addressing other sins that I would hope one would convict me of as I would convict them.
3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 9:36:37 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 9:38:59 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 9:41:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 2/13/2003 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Alan,
I think your arguement on the non-contradictory principle function is a tough moral philosophical arguement to make for many of the reasons that Semeia gave. However, at the same time I think it is hard to get around some of the biblical passages that refer to homosexuality (Which I suppose some may interpret differently, but it seems like a stretch). I guess a lot of times i just like to have things in the bible make more sense in the rationl world, and i think the homosexual arguement is a hard one to make with logical consistency. On moral issues i like more that just a "Bible says so" approach, but i guess something you have to take by faith and let God be the judge and learn how to love people where they are at. thanks for the dialogue.
blessings,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/14/2003 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Paul,
After I read your post on divorce I began "examining" my own divorce...
my conclusion: Considering what the children witnessed, I think it was a sin to stay married as long as I did.
for what it's worth,
love
selah
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1
Edited by - Selah on 02/14/2003 07:04:43 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/14/2003 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Every rational being is accountable to the cause that produced the event of their being, a rational maker  .
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/14/2003 4:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey Paul,
After I read your post on divorce I began "examining" my own divorce...
my conclusion: Considering what the children witnessed, I think it was a sin to stay married as long as I did.
for what it's worth,
love
selah
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1
I just got to know one thing: what are you gettting at?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/14/2003 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs, since this post is not about habitual sins but about homosexuality and whether or not it is a sin, I cannot in good conscience address your question. However, if you start a post which deals with that specific issue, I would be glad to address it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/14/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
First off: What does this have to do with the topic of homosexuality?
Second: Did you read all of my posts that lead up to your comment on divorce? If not, please go back and do so to understand why I even mentioned divorce (semia's justification for homosexuality by using divorce as a sin that Christians seldom address) and tell me what you get out of that.
Thanks,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/14/2003 12:35:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|