He stated regarding the Genesis account that it “outline[s] God’s design and intention for sexuality.” I find this statement incredible in light of the fact that the Old Testament Law of Moses bases its sexual ethic on this very passage - and that very law treats women as the property of men and says absolutely not one word proscribing polygamy, but, on the contrary, has specific laws that ensure it. The fact is the early Jews saw absolutley no contradiction between polygamy and the Genesis account. They simply believed a man could be one flesh with many women. After all, the acquisition of more wives was just a way of getting rich since they saw marriage as the accumulation of more property - for that is what women were looked at as. This law is the same law, I should point out, that supposedly was given to Moses by God, the same Moses who was given that very same creation narrative (I am assuming a conservative position on the authorship of the first five books for sake of argument)! Why didn’t God tell Moses that the law as he was writing it was contrary to His intent for men and women as He had already laid out in Genesis 1 and 2? Seems perfectly reasonable, do you not think? Could Moses have forgotten by the time he got to Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I highly doubt it. Or, if you are going to assume verbal-plenary inspiration, how did Moses not KNOW this and incorporate it into the Old Testament law?

He also noted that we should take heed to the “the way the OT law functions to restrain these distortions.” This is laughable. The OT law enshrines patristic hegemony, the use and exchange of women as property, polygamous relationships, levirate marriage, and the condemnation of natural mentraul and seminal discharges! If I wanted to determine sexual ethics, the LAST place I would go would be the OT law. The OT law represents the understanding of God as had by the people of that time, just like our creeds and theologies and ethics reflect our understanding of God. They sought to the best of their knowledge to apply what they believed to be true about God. There is a progression to the revelation of God that we get. Today, we go by the law of Christ and that is the law of love. If I am loving someone then I am fulfilling the only law that matters (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:6). Homosexuals in loving, committed relationships are doing the very same.

I would be highly cautious about basing our ideas about God’s intent for sexuality on the ideas of the same people who believed God told them to go in and commit genocide against people of another religion including young children and babies who could hardly have been seen as guilty of their culture’s sins. Recognize the OT for what it is: pre-Christ people’s understanding of God. And then stick to Christ’s heart as the revelation of God that we should be guiding our lives by.

P.S. - Besides all this, the stated reason for God creating Eve in Genesis is so that Adam wouldn’t be lonely. In other words, the first thought for marriage is companionship - even in their world! Gays and lesbians most certainly have a need for companionship as much as their heterosexual friends and family do.

The moral theory of benefit-not-harm, aka selfless love toward all, I certainly do call ‘Christian’. (Though I wouldn’t label it ‘utilitarian’) The NT makes clear that the core moral principle is love for others. As Nato points out, if “God’s guidelines are for our own good” then it follows that all beneficial things must be the will of God. Thus, if anything is beneficial it is the will of God. Nato’s point in the original post seemed to me to be precisely that such a moral view was taught in scripture.

I’m not asking you to agree with my exegesis of Romans. I’m simply pointing out that many people who have seriously studied Paul’s writings have not come to the conclusion that he is anti-homosexuality. I agree some do capitulate to culture and decide how they’ll interpret the text before they read it. Speaking for myself however, I can confidently say I do not do that.

You heard of one gay man, somewhere, who occasionally comes to a conservative church because they love him? I’m sure we’ve all heard that most gay men never go to conservative churches because they feel unloved there. It doesn’t really balance, does it?

A few brief comments, and then I think I’ll call it a day.

Your description of how most people determine morality, while it may be interesting, is of very little use in a discussion about whether Christians should support homosexual sexual unions. Even if a certain behaviour enabled you to temporarily prosper, and live a long healthy life, that would not change the nature of the Christian life as one lived by faith in the Word of God. Feel free to have a whole framework of sexual ethics based on utilitarianism, just don’t call it Christian.

As for your second point - I don’t consider myself an expert on very much at all. But I know that there are also many serious scholars who think the other serious scholars are soft and are simply capitulating to culture. Sometimes you just have to call peoples bluff.
Even if Romans 1:18-32 is Paul speaking in another voice for rhetorical purposes (which I don’t grant), even those his preceeding argument critiques this other voice, it is critiquing it’s self-righteous attitude rather than it’s moral judgements. 2:2“Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”
His critique is that in condemning others, the people he is addressing think they avoid God’s judgement against themselves, even though they may be right.

Point 3. Church history (which seems to carry some weight with you on other issues).

Maybe I’ll end by saying, I heard of a man who occasionally comes to a conservative (theologically) church, but is a practisicing homosexual. The pastor asked him why he comes along, even though the church dissaproves of his behaviour. His answer was that this church actually loves him, all the others just tell him what he wants to hear.

Over and out,

Scott

If it could be conclusively demonstrated that homosexuality was significantly harmful, then you would convince me and many others it was wrong. Virtually all people today who are politically liberal hold to a moral standard which determines whether things are right or wrong based on how much harm vs benefit actions and behaviours cause to the individuals involved. As a result, virtually all political liberals in the world have taken pro-homosexuality stances due to the observation that allowing two adults who love each other to commit to a relationship self-evidently causes far more benefit than harm. (i.e. Benefits: Freedom of choice, promotion of love; Harms: None apparent.) If it could be definitively shown that homosexual behaviour was far more harmful than beneficial then the half of the world that has been supporting homosexuality would turn around and reject it. You posted a link that to are article by Gagnon in which he makes many claims about harm caused by homosexuality… many of his claims directly contradict empirical studies I have seen elsewhere. For example, I have read that lesbians have a greater life-expectancy and have longer more-committed relationships on average than heterosexual women. In the article you linked to, Gagnon fails to cite any studies whatsoever in support of his assertions about the harm of homosexuality, while citing many in support of his other points… is that because his assertions have no empirical support?

I would consider myself an expert on Paul’s writings, especially Romans 1-4, and I find the proposed dilemma that one must either enlist Paul against homosexuality or dismiss him as biased and wrong as being quite humorous. There are plenty of serious scholars of Paul who do not believe he says homosexuality is immoral. With regard to Romans 1…. To the novice modern reader, Romans is self-evidently full of ‘rhetorical questions’. These are actually not at all rhetorical questions as we known them today – but rather a full blown dialogue with Paul and another person exchanging arguments in a discussion. Throughout Romans Paul extensively engages in dialogue with other views, and regularly uses a related rhetorical device (called ‘prosopopoeia’ by those of his time). Many works from the period are in dialogue form. Paul’s dialogue opponent in the first part of Romans is a person who calls themselves a Jew and relies on the law and boasts of their relation to God (Rom 2:17). I agree with numerous other scholars that Romans 1:18-32 is a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon. The book Wisdom of Solomon holds a viewpoint identical to the Jew that Paul is dialoguing with. ie. It is Paul’s opponent’s viewpoint. This is confirmed by the beginning of Romans 2 where the speaker switches to Paul (there is a change of voice to use ‘you’ to refer to the person condemning others), and Paul starts criticizing the dialogue opponent for being too condemning of others. The discussion of homosexuality in Romans 1 is thus rendered somewhat irrelevant with the realisation that Paul is not the speaker. Of course, other comments might be also made, such as the fact that the speaker labels the homosexual behaviour as dishonourable rather than immoral. Modern readers have a tendency to make the mistake of equating honour with morality… honour and shame were ancient concepts which had little to do with morality. Given the ancient definition of honour, homosexuality is virtually the greatest possible dishonourable behaviour, hence why the speaker of Romans 1 cites God as ‘letting’ humans do it to dishonour themselves as punishment for their dishonouring God. It is completely unwarranted, however, to draw from the speaker’s statement that it is an immoral behaviour.

After reading Gordon Atkinson’s post, I think his treatment (obviously) is very superficial, especially of Romans 1. That type of exegesis has been a complete failure. I think it’s more intellectually honest to say (as Nathan has) that Paul was biased and simply wrong if you want to take that position.

Thanks,

Scott

Nice link Fraser, looks like a clearer treatment of the biblical case for homosexuality than my own.

Scott, I can see where you’re coming from, but I very much disagree with you. The bible is a signal from God, and unfortunately, there is noise (which is unavoidable; 2000 years, different culture, author bias, etc…). I see your arguments against homosexuality as coming from the noise. I’m guessing you do filtering some of the noise - I take it you’re cool with women speaking in church? - I find it interesting that you do not filter out the apparent condemnation of homosexuality. But that is your perogative.

Your appeal for repentance, for relying on faith as opposed to sight all depend on what I believe about God. Yes, I repent of evil, yes, I want to be faithful towards God. But by calling me to repent on this issue, in my eyes, you are effectively calling me to turn to the gods of human tradition! If I were convinced that God condemned homosexuals, I would hastily retract all I have said. But I believe that God calls us to the exact opposite, and so I support homosexual rights.

Similarly, if I told you to repent without convincing you, I would be calling you to turn to some other god. As it is, I guess I’m going to have to accept that we disagree, and as such, I want to wish you all the best in accepting homosexuals, given your position - if you (and those who you influence) can still enable homosexuals to feel loved and empowered, you have my respect.

Gordon Atkinson gives a good summary (from a liberal/progressive Christian perspective) of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality here.

I don’t accept your point about Genesis and Jesus’ teaching simply being commentary on nature. Genesis expresses God’s purposes for human sexuality, not just a commentary on nature. It teaches us why God created humans as sexual beings, to complement each other, and serve God’s purposes together by being ‘one flesh’ and filling and subduing the earth. Genesis is actually teaching us something about God’s purposes, not just describing what ‘is’.

Likewise, Jesus re-enforces the teaching of the OT on sexual ethics. He says clearly that life-long marriage is the God intended expression of human sexuality, and the only other option is singleness. That’s why the disciples find it such a hard teaching.

Combined with his condemnation of porneia, Jesus position on the possibility of homosexual unions is abundantly clear.

Likewise, Paul’s interpretive framework for sexual ethics is not the prejudices of his culture, but the teaching of the OT - something he states explicitly (1 Tim 1), and implicitly in his use of the terms for homosexuality, derived from Lev 18. This is not careless language. The issue in Romans 1 is that this behaviour goes against God’s intentions in creation for human sexuality, not an unprincipled and careless rant. I don’t understand how we can dismiss Paul’s writing as a careless rant when he is claiming to write as an apostle, with the authority of Christ himself.

On the issue of ethics and what we percieve to be ‘good’ for us - I think you assume too much. Just because God’s commands are good for us, doesn’t mean we will see the whole picture, or be able to see the full reasons for his commands. The nature of the Christian life is to live by faith and not by sight. We don’t have the perogative to decide what is moral based on what we ’see’ to be harmful or not. Doing what seems right in our own eyes is the essence of sin in the Bible, and so the faithful person is one who lives by the Word of God and trusts that his commands are good.

Aside from that I think there are many possible reasons that homosexual behaviour could be harmful to ourselves and others (e.g. this letter)

Ultimately I think this is an issue of repentance. Are we willing to let God be God, or will we stubbornly persist in rejecting his words to us in Christ. I pray that we will do the former.

In love,

Scott