Same-sex discussion between two Methodists (part 2)

Just to catch everyone up to speed…

I wrote an article about Foundry UMC in Washington D.C. regarding their decision to publicly take a stand against UM teaching on the issue of same-sex sexual relationships.

In the comments section on my Facebook posting of it, my friend and fellow Methodist blogger, Chad Holtz, commented in favor of the church changing its view that same-sex sex is inherently sinful. I asked Chad if we could discuss it publicly and he agreed. Here is the initial post in which Chad makes his points, and here is his recent blog post (with an excellent catchy title!) in which he gives one of his primary reasons, as far as I can tell, for why the church should rethink its position.

Now that everyone’s caught up…some preliminary remarks:

I want to emphasize once again that Chad and I are friends and have no desire to demonize the other for the view they hold…and since this is my website, I will not tolerate comments that do. If you want to join in this discussion feel free to do so, but while honest and passionate disagreements are allowed, mean-spirited character attacks are not.

I also want to emphasize that this is a deeply personal, serious and painful issue for MANY people to whom we minister, including many brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle with their sexuality on a daily basis (hetero-, homo-, other). I’ve prayed with people who deal with same-sex attraction, shared life with them, loved them dearly and have no doubt that they are every bit as much a bearer of God’s image as anyone else. In any discussion of sexual ethics, it become easy to forget that we are talking about real people with real hurts and their spiritual well-being is far more important than us “winning” any debate.

Lastly, a word on my use of terms. I use the cumbersome, but descriptive “same-sex sexual relationships” because to me it keeps the issue being discussed at the forefront. We are talking about same-sex sexual relationships, not “loving” relationships or “fulfilling” relationships or any other overly-generic and rhetorically-loaded terms. Sex is the issue…though as I hope to show, it is not the underlying foundational issue when it comes to the Church’s stance on this subject. Likewise, I don’t like to use the term “gay” or “homosexual” because both of those have the unfortunate effect of tying the person’s identity to the person’s sexual desires. I may on occasion use such terms, but only for the sake of clarity when discussing the larger community that has self-identified by such terms (though I prefer GLBT–Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender–for such social discussions).

Okay, on to Chad’s points…

Chad, you said:

Scripture has nothing …to say about “same sex relationships” as we know them today. Not a word. All 6 times it comes up in the Bible they are unanimously about cultic worship, abuse or rape. None of them have a loving, mutual relationship in sight.

I believe you are reading in possible connotations and then extrapolating to mean that the passages are limited to those connotations. This seems illegitimate to me because:

1. From the beginning (where ANY discussion of sexuality should start) the male-female relationship is presented as the essence of what sex is to be. It wasn’t that man needed a “helper” (as many translations unfortunately render the Hebrew ‘ezer) in the sense of “another human for companionship”; man needed woman in order to be able to fully express the image of God, which the initial overview of creation specifically declares the “Image of God” to be (Gen 1:27). The joining of man and woman in sex is what creates the “one flesh” concept…the concept that Jesus Himself appealed to when discussing sexual ethics in the NT. In Scripture, EVERY TIME sex is EVER spoken of in a positive, joyful and holy way, it is ALWAYS spoken of as involving man and woman in lifelong covenant (even in the racy, titillating, and variously-interpreted erotic poem known as Song of Songs).

2. Whenever same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in Scripture, they are ALWAYS and EXPLICITLY deemed to be outside of God’s plan for sex. One can argue that “the Bible writers didn’t know about committed, loving, non-exploitative” same-sex relationships, but that is a HUGE assumption that requires a heavy burden of proof when the passages in question never discuss or emphasize motives on the part of the transgressor.

This brings us to your next point:

I find it untenable to take a stand on the idea that just because a “counter example” is not given in Scripture then the one interpretation you land on regarding those 6 passages must be universal in nature. It really undermines the authority of Scripture and here is why: It suggests that every jot and tittle in the Bible has universal implications, meant for all times and all places, EXCEPT for those places where the Bible contradicts itself. IOW, Paul’s admonition that women remain silent in ALL the churches is universal for all times and all places (normatively) BUT, since we have an example of a woman speaking in church, THAT particular command is contextual, not universal. It sets the Bible up as some systematic book that actively seeks to confirm what is universal and contradict what is not. And then we are left to sort through this “encyclopedia” to figure out which is which.

Chad, if all the passages prohibiting same-sex sex were found in epistles to specific churches and if any counter-examples of same-sex sex being spoken of as holy and pleasing to God could be found in the redemptive flow of canonical history you would have a legitimate argument. However, the passages that prohibit or denounce same-sex sex are found in various contexts in both Testaments and the underlying ethic of sex as the act of male and female becoming one flesh is pervasive. The same cannot be said of the passage telling women to be silent (as I argue here). There are not only passages throughout Scripture which depict women speaking and teaching among the people of God (in both Testaments), but there are praises and commendations of women who do so as well (for example, Romans 16).

However, even Christians who oppose the full ordination of women recognize that there are legitimate times and manners in which women are called to teach (though, of course, I believe they are not giving full weight to the counterexamples). In other words, almost no thinking Christian believes that women should have certain roles in the church based on 1 or 2 passages of Scripture used as prooftexts; rather, they look at the entire canonical flow of redemptive history and see God operating in a certain way with the issue of gender.

The issue of women in ministry (or slavery, the other popular example proponents of same-sex sexual relationships put forth to legitimate their point) is one in which there is a wealth of Biblical teaching spanning the Testaments and a tension within the texts that Christians on both sides recognize as present. The issue of same-sex sex, however, contains no such tension (though in the past 40 years a handful of revisionist scholars have tried to “find” such examples in the text–the popular claims being Ruth/Naomi, Jonathan/David and the Centurion/servant relationships. However, outside of these scholars’ small circles no Biblical Scholar that I’m aware of finds these arguments even remotely convincing).

When it comes to what Scripture teaches about the act of sex between persons of the same gender, it unanimously condemns such acts. This is not something that can be lightly brushed aside and anyone claiming that certain forms of same-sex sex are permissible has a HUGE burden of proof to bear if they wish to enlist Scripture as their authority on the subject. This is why, in my opinion, all the arguments in favor of same-sex sex being allowed either downplay the notion of Inspiration (“Paul just wasn’t aware of the facts…”) or read into the text exceptions that are not there (“Leviticus was only talking about idolatrous prostitution, not loving committed unions…”).

What’s also interesting is that the one time Jesus does actually speak to a situation that may in fact include people with same-sex orientations (the discussion of eunuchs in Matthew 19), he specifically says that it is something many people find hard to accept, yet the denial of one’s sexual desire or a life consisting of “normal” marital happiness must take a back seat to a life of faithfulness to God if need be. THIS is the heart of what it means to be a disciple and what we will return to later.

For more on the comparison between the issues of women in ministry, slavery and same-sex sexual relationships and why they are not, exegetically speaking, valid comparisons, I encourage you (and everyone reading this) to give ample consideration to the work of William Webb. Webb addresses this specific notion in detail and does a great job in showing why even Christians not holding to a conservative doctrine of Inerrancy recognize the difference between the issues and why the church in general has always concluded that same-sex sex is contrary to Scripture’s teaching overall on sexuality.

Now we come to the heart of your argument, Chad (at least as I understand it thus far; please correct me if I’m wrong).

When you ask…

What, exactly, is “sinful” about a loving, committed, same-sex relationship? Can anyone tell me what it is about this that makes it sinful, apart from just saying, “God said so”? In other words, we can no doubt come up with all sorts of reasons why murder, adultery, incest, lying, stealing, lust, etc are “sinful” which don’t rely solely on “God said so.” So what is it about a same sex loving relationship that is “sinful”?

…I conclude that to you something is only to be deemed sinful if it can be shown to demonstrably harmful or if we can deduce “why” God has deemed it so. If this is not your view, please clarify in your response; because to me, THIS is the crux of the issue and what separates you and me when it comes to the foundational issue of Hermeneutics (Biblical Interpretation and application, for those of you who are not seminary geeks like Chad and me!).

I believe that such a position is disturbingly close to the “Did God really say…?” approach that led humanity into Sin in the first place. There are numerous things in Scripture which, in and of themselves, are not able to be shown to be demonstrably harmful, but which are deemed to be sinful by God (sex between parent and adult child, such as Lot and his daughters, or sex between niece and nephew, siblings, etc.). Yet, obedience to God is what determines whether or not something is sinful, not demonstrable harm. Yes, sometimes something is sinful just because “God said so.” This is not always the case and most things God prohibits can be shown to be demonstrably harmful; but some cannot, such as praying to God through the use of a graven image, saying his name in vain, coveting something that someone else has, etc.

So, to answer your question above, what is sinful about such relationships is that they redefine the very concept of sex as it’s initially given and blessed by God in Scripture, and use it in a way that He has, whenever He’s spoken on it in Scripture, declared to be wrong. In essence, the sin of same-sex sexual relationships is the “same-sex-sexual-ness” of them.

This is the entire line of reasoning Paul uses in Romans 1 when he discusses the path humanity took, from idolatry to every other sin imaginable, as a whole. Paul links same-sex sex (including, to my knowledge, the only condemnation of “lesbianism” in the ancient world; but correct me if I’m wrong on that one) with idolatry, not because he’s only talking about temple prostitution or pederasty; he never limits it to that, as even a number of scholars who argue of same-sex sexual relationships recognize and concede. Rather, he links it to idolatry because like idolatry, it is a distortion of the original created order–specifically the Image & Likeness of God which is found in the complementary nature of male-female sexual union. This is why he uses the specific terms from Gen.1 (LXX – eikon, homoioma, peteina, herpeta, theleiai, arsenes) in his argument in the way he does. Instead of acknowledging the specific male-female requirement for Godly sex, those who had suppressed the truth about God which is visible in creation went on to suppress the truth about their sexuality which is visible in male-female sexual complementarity.

So the question, as I see it, should never begin with “what’s so wrong about putting a penis in a rectum” (borrowing from your previously mentioned blog post). After all, I could just as easily ask “what’s so wrong about a man and a woman, who happen to be brother and sister, having a loving committed sexual relationship?” (In fact, I discuss this very comparison here.) Or “What’s so wrong with a loving committed sexual relationship between more than two people?”

I believe framing the discussion in that way is the first step in putting our own sense of reason and our own ideas of right and wrong in the primary place of authority rather than the Holy Spirit’s Inspired Scripture. As Methodists, we must remember that even in the poorly-named “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” Scripture is the primary authority and history, reason and experience serve a secondary hermeneutical function. Thus, rather than how you’ve framed the question, I believe discussions of same-sex sexual relationships in the Church should begin with “what is sex and what does God say about it throughout Scripture in general?”

I want to end this initial response by asking you, Chad a deeper question. If demonstrated that Scripture itself DOES prohibit same-sex in general, would you still try to find some way to allow for certain types of same-sex sex due to your desire to not alienate people from the Gospel? I feel like this is the real reason why most people within the Church whom I’ve talked to or read from on this issue hold their position. It’s also the exact opposite of why many people hold to the traditional position, incidentally. What I mean is that many Christians who seek to allow some types of same-sex sexual relationships do so because they believe their understanding of God’s love should determine their understanding of Biblical truth. Likewise, many Christians who oppose same-sex sexual relationships and speak out strongly (and sometimes, admittedly, too harshly) against it believe that their understanding of Biblical truth should determine their understanding of God’s love.

It appears that you lean towards the former whereas I lean towards the latter. Would you say this is accurate? This is the more fundamental question that must be answered honestly I believe.

A final word about Discipleship (since this is the Disciple Dojo after all!) and the issue of sexual orientation.

I believe that one’s sexual orientation is not a “choice” as many Christians wrongly assume. One does not “choose” to be attracted to a certain gender. I also believe, however, that how one acts on one’s sexual orientation is absolutely a choice. One does “choose” whether or not to pursue sexual relationships. At the heart of the Gospel, though, is the call by Jesus to deny oneself and follow Him. If Jesus upheld Biblical sexual ethics (and we know that He not only upheld it, He actually elevated it much higher than his contemporaries!) and the male-female-as-one-flesh foundation upon which all sexual ethics rests (which we see undergirding every discussion He ever had on the topic of sex and marriage) and if neither He nor His appointed Apostles never overturned this foundational concept, then as Disciples we must trust that the master knows more than we do and the One who created sex knows how it is to be enjoyed faithfully. If this doesn’t seem “fair” or “reasonable” then I would suggest that our understanding of those terms is what needs correcting by the Spirit and His Inspired writings.

Even though you don’t like him, I want to end with this quote from Gagnon’s debate with Dan O. Via in “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views” which I believe states beautifully the challenge we as faithful Christians on the historic orthodox side of this issue stand (note his inclusion of non-canonical sources lest anyone try to dismiss him as a typical “Conservative”!):

“Jesus was quite clear when he stated with respect to sexual expression that it was better to go into heaven maimed than to go to hell whole-bodied (Matt 5:29-30). In other words, one must take up one’s cross, lose one’s life, and deny oneself in the sexual facet of life as indeed in all facets of life (Matt 16:24-26, from Mark 8:34-37; cf. Matt 10:39 // Luke 17:33; Matt 10:38 // Luke 14:27 // Gosp. Thom. 55.20; John 12:25). Denial of strong sexual urges, even to the point of abstaining from any sex that does not conform to New Testament standards, can feel like a near-death experience. Such is the the road of discipleship, the way of the cross…[do we] really want to infer that fullness of life depends on the gratification of deeply embedded impulses of the flesh? I am not pushing for deliberate asceticism. But I am arguing that the rigorous call of discipleship quite often requires that we forego the satisfaction of many desires and wants in order to fulfill God’s will for our lives and the lives of others. Those who are homoerotically inclined do have a cross to bear. I have no desire to minimize that. At the same time, I would not paint the situation in the bleak colors that Via chooses, for reasons already stated. Joining them are millions of heterosexual persons who also, for one reason or another, have to forego a satisfying, sexually intimate union. We all bear crosses. It is inevitable. If it is not sex it will likely be something else. Sometimes when it comes to doing God’s will the flesh goes only kicking and screaming. So be it. It must go. The experiences of Christians worldwide and across centuries confirm the testimony of Jesus that it is in our interest to take up our crosses. What emerges from that obedience is beautiful forming of Christ in us, the hope of our glory.” [emphasis mine]

Blessings,
JM

[Stay tuned to Chad’s blog for his response. And pray for both of us as we seek to discuss this often-heated-yet-rarely-illumined issue in a public forum. Please share our discussion with others as well. It’s important that our Church as well as our culture see what it looks like for people to honestly and passionately debate something in a Godly and civil manner.]

Posted by jm on October 3, 2010.

Categories: Biblical Scholarship, Biblical Theology, Blog, Church History, Ministry, New Testament, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues

60 Responses

1. My take on one of the reasons why homosexuality is wrong Biblically is because sperm is wasted. Time and Time again, the Lord makes it obvious he wants us to make children, and lots of them. Remember, he KILLED Onan for “pulling out”. In a male gay relationship, sperm is ALWAYS wasted. That’s is why the Bible seemingly isn’t as tough with lesbians, because no sperm is wasted. This is why me and my wife have repented and we no longer use protection. While we don’t have 15 kids (we only have 2), it’s God’s decision what he does with the sperm, not ours. (Which is also why I think he didn’t want men is the OT to have sex during a woman’s period. The sperm is wasted then too). So I think this fleshes out “because God said so” a bit more. (Which is also why Paul said that if you burn with passion, get married. He didn’t say masturbate) I may be all wrong with this, but having gone through some of the old church fathers, and Jewish literature, I believe it makes sense. In either case, my explanation doesn’t nullify the Word anyway. 🙂
   Keep up the good work.
   At His feet
   Ant

   by Anthony Ehrhardt on Oct 3, 2010 at 10:34 pm

2. Anthony, thanks for commenting. I have to disagree with your reasoning on this however.

   First of all, I believe you are tending towards a pragmatic justification for something being deemed sinful, which, as I argue above, is the danger in Chad’s approach as well.

   Secondly, about the issue of “wasted sperm”, Onan and masturbation. I spent a semester in seminary studying the sexual ethics and history surrounding the issue masturbation (I figured that was the most relevant topic for someone doing campus ministry…which my campus minister friends wholeheartedly agreed!) and there are some majorly screwed-up takes on it that some of the church fathers embraced as a result of the wider cultural taboo against it. For instance, the story of Onan has nothing to do with wasted sperm (which many early commentators thought contained the entire life of the child, with the mother simply being an incubator!); rather, God put him to death because he was trying to defraud Er’s widow and increase his inheritance at her expense. God’s intensely angered with people who exploit orphans or widows; Onan was doing exactly this by intentionally depriving her of a Levrite offspring and leaving her destitute. [Incidentally, I wrote a booklet on the subject, which I’d be happy to email to anyone who contacts me via the contact form on the right-hand side of the screen.]

   The point I want to emphasize though in response to your comments (which I appreciate you sharing) is that never in Scripture is there a prohibition for “wasting seed,” nor is there any discussion of the act of masturbation (though it was of course widely known about!); however this is not the case when it comes to same-sex sex. It is explicitly prohibited and mentioned numerous times in both Testaments.

   by jm on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:51 am

3. Thanks & respect to JMS and Chad for providing so much good information on such a difficult subject, and showing that it is possible to debate and disagree in a loving manner.

   by Mark Shannon on Oct 4, 2010 at 12:05 am

4. >I conclude that to you something is only to be deemed sinful if it can be >shown to demonstrably harmful or if we can deduce “why” God has deemed >it so. If this is not your view, please clarify in your response; because to me, >THIS is the crux of the issue and what separates you and me when it comes >to the foundational issue of Hermeneutics (Biblical Interpretation and >application, for those of you who are not seminary geeks like Chad and me!).

   >I believe that such a position is disturbingly close to the “Did God really >say…?” approach that led humanity into Sin in the first place. There are >numerous things in Scripture which, in and of themselves, are not able to be >shown to be demonstrably harmful, but which are deemed to be sinful by >God (sex between parent and adult child, such as Lot and his daughters, or >sex between niece and nephew, siblings, etc.). Yet, obedience to God is >what determines whether or not something is sinful, not demonstrable >harm. Yes, sometimes something is sinful just because “God said so.” This is >not always the case and most things God prohibits can be shown to be >demonstrably harmful; but some cannot, such as praying to God through the >use of a graven image, saying his name in vain, coveting something that >someone else has, etc.

   Well, JMS, I don’t agree with you that God commands us to not do things that aren’t harmful.

   Setting up a dichotomy between “What god wants us to do” and “What is morally right” arises in contradiction. You claim here that coveting something isn’t harmful, I believe it is. You claim that use of a graven image isn’t harmful, I claim that it is.

   Coveting someone else’s belongings is not a loving thing to do. It puts you and your materialistic desires before your relationship with that other person. It also does damage to yourself personally, in that you are not valuing things which are important: relationships and love, and instead valuing objects. Coveting things in America has taken a back seat. We are told that it’s good and wonderful to covet and desire things and objects over our love for fellow man. In fact it is harmful.

   As far as graven images and taking the lord’s name in vain, YES that is harmful, it harms our relationship with God. Remember that there are two commandments, not one. the second part is to love God. In worshiping a graven image, and naming God (and cursing him) we are harming our relationship with God. By using idolatry and naming him and cursing him we are creating a false image of God: a materialistic capricious God, and that is NOT what he is. Angrily name calling at your brother is harmful (as Jesus said that even calling your friend a “Fool” is enough to be in danger of hellfire) and name calling at God, by falsely creating a depiction him as materialistic, or by naming him as if he were a mere creature, is also insulting God, just as one does harm to our neighbor, the other does harm to our relationship with God.

   Lastly, I once again disagree that your other two examples (incest) DO NOT cause harm. I very much do believe that they do cause great harm, as does any psychologist. If you could demonstrate that they didn’t cause harm then certainly I’d have no problem with them (nor would anyone else).

   >Yet, obedience to God is >what determines whether or not something is >sinful, not demonstrable >harm.

   They cannot be two things, if they do, they are in contradiction.

   Say you and I agree that murdering babies is wrong.

   Then God commands the murder of babies.

   If you claim that God must be obeyed, irrespective of if it’s wrong or not, then you have no business saying that murdering babies is wrong in the first place. But we KNOW that murdering babies is wrong!

   The answer (that Socrates came to as well) is that Divine Command theory is false. There CANNOT BE two separate rules:

   A. What is harmful and unloving.
   B. What God commands.

   These two are actually one in the same, and logically, they HAVE to be one in the same, otherwise a contradiction arises between what God Commands, and what is morally right.

   Likewise, to say that there are two sets of rules:

   A. What is harmful and unloving
   B. Some other stuff too, which God tells us is against his commands that we shouldn’t do but there is some mysterious reason.

   The reason is that B. could only be known by reading the Bible. This means that Gods commands are relativistic, rather than objective. Only people that have read the Bible would know about B, and therefore anyone who hasn’t read the Bible is unknowingly sinning.

   God’s law then isn’t universal, it’s a “gnosis” only people with that secret knowledge can know what’s right or wrong. People living in Ghana in 1863 aren’t going to know anything about B, and so they’re going to “unwittingly” sin all the time!

   Divine Command theory was refuted by Socrates in the Euthyphro, and later more succinctly by Aquinas. What is morally correct and what God commands CANNOT be separate things, they must in fact be the same thing. This is a well known argument of philosophy, and to argue against it just doesn’t hold any water.

   Then God is going to judge them by that standard when they die, they’re going to say “Hey, how were we supposed to know about B! We never had a chance to read that book!”

   You can see, quickly, that this makes no sense at all.

   Now, while God can set up B. at any time he wants, for particular purposes, say, to keep Jews away from pork, which, left in the dessert will cause trichinosis. That’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. Biblical laws are meant for the specific time and place they are issued.

   Moses permitted divorce, Jesus prohibited it. These were temporal laws, meant for their time and place in history, and aimed at achieving the Moral Law. But remember that there is a difference between the Moral Law and the Mosaic law, just as in our day there is a difference between State Law and the Moral law.

   Here are some good references to Divine command theory, and if you hope to endorse it, you’ll have to defeat these arguments. To date (that is, since Socrates in 220 BC.) No one really has.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
   http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

   by Chris McCauley on Oct 4, 2010 at 2:27 am

5. And this is exactly why I believe same-sex sex IS intrinsically harmful in addition to being merely commanded by God, Chris. It distorts the Imago Dei, removes from sex its most basic and God-honoring component (the male-female joining that takes place which reflects the Imago Dei), and it says that what God has deemed sinful is not in fact sinful, thus setting up a false notion of God.

   In other words, in every way that you argue–without objective proof, but rather with theological propositions–that such things as coveting and idolatry is actually really harmful from a theological perspective, I believe that same-sex sex is likewise harmful based on that same reasoning.

   However, my point is that EVEN IF I WERE UNABLE TO SEE HOW it were harmful, yet God prohibited it, for me to do it anyway would be sinful because it would be disobedience to a direct commandment of God. Pragmatism is not the basis upon which we build an ethic. As you yourself note, there are TWO great commandments and the first one (Loving God) hinges on obedience to His commands (as a cursory reading of Jesus’ discussions in John’s Gospel and the entire letter of 1John makes pretty clear). Obedience to what God actually commands universally in Scripture takes priority over our understanding of how or why it is justified by our understanding of morality.

   After all, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with eating fruit from a tree…but there is something intrinsically wrong with disobeying God’s command not to do so.

   by jm on Oct 4, 2010 at 2:55 am

6. >And this is exactly why I believe same-sex sex IS intrinsically harmful in >addition to being merely commanded by God, Chris. It distorts the Imago Dei, >removes from sex its most basic and God-honoring component (the >male->female joining that takes place which reflects the Imago Dei), and it >says that what God has deemed sinful is not in fact sinful, thus setting up a >false notion of God.

   The fact that God honors heterosexual love and sex doesn’t mean that God EXCLUDES homosexual love and sex.

   You’re jumping from the affirmation of one act/form of love and into exclusion of all other acts/forms of love. The fact that one type of sex is affirmed doesn’t mean all other forms of sex are precluded. Otherwise we’d have to say that masturbation and oral sex are morally wrong too, since they don’t fulfill the part of God’s plan to “be fruitful and multiply”. (In fact, this is one of the arguments that the Catholic Church uses to claim that these acts are wrong).

   The fact that God affirms something doesn’t follow that all other things are excluded. God affirmed the Jews as his chosen people and promised them salvation, but that doesn’t mean that God excludes salvation from all other people. (Many Jews in early Christianity DID think that though, and Paul argues against that)

   We both agree that there are two laws, To love God (the first law) and to love humans (the second law).

   You’re making a category error, in that you’re using a moral action between humans (male/male love) and then saying it’s disobeying God’s first law (the relation we have to God). That doesn’t make any sense.

   Anything that we do in relation to other people is encompassed in the second law, and anything we do with with God is contained in the first. They do not cross over, as this would result in contradiction.

   The law pertaining to God is theological, and the law pertaining to self and other humans is moral. You wouldn’t say that worshipping an idol is hurting other people, would you? That would be ridiculous! Nor would you say that a person is hurting someone else by taking the lord’s name in vain.

   Calling homosexual sex some sort of theological affront is thus a category error: you’re claiming that something relating to humans transgresses some theological component relating to God.

   Not only that, you don’t have any basis to say that homosexuality is morally wrong, because you AREN’T saying it’s morally wrong, you’re saying it’s theologically wrong.

   If I held up a stick and said “The essence of God is contained in this stick” I’d be making a theological error, right? I’d be destroying my relationship with God in that I’d be accepting a completely wrong theological premise. But am I doing something morally wrong? No. I’d be doing idolatry, which is theologically wrong, not morally wrong.

   Likewise, if some Christian Group (say the southern Baptists) argues that the Bible is equal to God, they are making a theological error in equating the Bible to God. I’d definitely argue that their theology is wrong, but I wouldn’t say what they are doing is MORALLY wrong. I couldn’t, because this is a belief, not a moral action.

   And so, if you claim that homosexuality violates the first law (to love God) and not the second, then you CANNOT claim that homosexual activity is MORALLY WRONG, you must instead argue that it’s theologically wrong, like not worshiping on the sabbath, or eating pork, or idolatry.

   Lastly, it’s easy to condemn a sex act, in and of itself, or by itself. But you cannot condemn a sex act performed out of love. In fact, you can’t condemn ANYTHING done out of love. This is why Anti-Gay Christians often seek to talk solely about the sex act, and not about the loving relationship between two people.

   Other sex acts, performed outside of the scope of love, and performed for selfish, evil, and abusive (or self-abusive) motives are obviously morally wrong, things like prostitution, rape, beastiality, and incest.

   But sex acts performed in the context of love cannot be condemned.

   Saying “God commands us not to do some acts which are loving of self and others.” is a SELF DEFEATING sentence. “What God commands”, and “loving acts” are the same thing.

   So to say “God commands two men not to love each other.” is also self defeating. God cannot command two men not to love each other, because God himself IS LOVE and his commandments ARE love. In fact, God commands us TO love!

   Thus there is no way God COULD command that we cannot love each other.

   It’s not a question of “IF God commands homosexual sex is wrong” it’s a case of “God CANNOT command that homosexual sex is wrong.”

   To command love to be wrong is impossible for God! God is love!

   And to command giving a flower out of love is wrong, or giving a present out of love is wrong, or exchanging a kiss out of love is wrong is also ridiculous. God could never command against such things, or ANYTHING done out of love, including male sexual acts.

   Thus the acknowledgment that homosexual sex acts CAN BE done out of love, is in contradiction with your claim that God commands us not to! God cannot command us not to love! God’s command is FOR us to love!

   by Chris McCauley on Oct 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm

7. Chris, I totally reject your dichotomy of moral and theological. It is foreign to the Hebrew Bible, which does not separate those two categories.

   I also reject your idea that “anything done out of love cannot be wrong” because you are redefining “love” to include disobedience to what God has commanded…which goes against Jesus’ definition of what love consists of and includes (read the discussions about it in John and 1John).

   Lastly, if Scripture did not contain specific prohibitions of same-sex sex (which it does in both Testaments), then you would be right and I would not be able to oppose it Biblically (as is the case with masturbation). However, Scripture unanimously speaks against same-sex sex whenever the topic is mentioned, rather than limiting its prohibition to certain forms of same-sex sex such as pederasty or cultic homoeroticism, as even pro-same-sex scholars like Nissinen, Via, Wink, Schoedel, Brooten and Crompton have conceded. (Citations of their work collected and posted at the conclusion of the http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf )

   by jm on Oct 4, 2010 at 4:31 pm

8. >Chris, I totally reject your dichotomy of moral and theological. It is foreign to >the Hebrew Bible, which does not separate those two categories.

   Yes, it does, which is why there are two commandments. How can you say there are not two categories when very clearly there are two commandments with acts of one type pertaining to one, and acts of the other type pertaining to the other?

   Jesus is very clear that the Mosaic Law is not the same as the Moral Law. This is why he claims that you can heal on the sabbath, changes Moses’s ruling on divorce, etc. Jesus was quite aware that many Mosaic laws were just that: laws that bound a particular people to a particular time, which were trying to fulfill these two commandments.

   If you claim there’s no distinction, and that all Mosaic Laws are equal to the Moral law, then Christians shouldn’t be eating shrimp, shouldn’t be wearing two types of cloth, etc.

   Jews have a number of commandments, 613 to be exact, and some of them still try to obey every single one, some of which they don’t even know why they are there or why they have to abide by them. Not trimming the edges of your beard, etc. These laws served some sort of purpose in their time (historians believe they were commanded so that the ancient Hebrews wouldn’t mix their religion with other cults). They thought “Well, we need to be obedient to this law. We don’t know if it serves the purpose of either commandment, or why it’s there, but we just have to obey it.”

   Jesus came to change all that. He came to fulfil the law, to say that the law was a tool for fulfilling the great two commandments: love God and neighbor.
   Any law used in such a way to fulfill these commandments was good, and any law used in such a way to thwart them was evil.

   Clearly the laws are different. The Mosaic law was aimed at fulfilling the first and second commandment, but most of it was to fulfill the first, that of Loving God. If the laws don’t fulfill that purpose, then they are no longer achieving their aim. We don’t have to worry about tattoos being against the first commandment anymore, because tattoos aren’t used to worship other Gods anymore. (You could make a serious case here that tattoos of say, an ankh would be improper for Christians).

   Circumstances change, and thus laws pertaining to the first commandment change. While the pledge to Caesar admitted that he was a God, the pledge
   of allegiance does not claim that our Nation is a God. Thus the first is improper for Christians, but the second is okay.

   >I also reject your idea that “anything done out of love cannot be wrong” >because you are redefining “love” to include disobedience to what God has >commanded…

   Again, you are drawing a dichotomy between “love” and “what God commanded”, and as I’ve already demonstrated that there can be no dichotomy. God can’t command us not to do something that is loving, anymore than God can command us to do something evil.

   The goal of the first commandment is to Love God. The mosaic law (and paul’s injuctions) are aimed at fulfilling that commandment. If you can make a serious case that doing some act will damage your relationship with God, then it’s proper to hear that.

   So far you’ve abandoned the idea that homosexual acts are injurious to the second commandment, and haven’t demonstrated that they violate the first, other than “Well, it says so, but I can’t tell you why, you just have to obey.” Which is exactly the situation Jews were in before Jesus arrived and fulfilled the Law. They were following the letter of the law, with blind obedience, rather than the intent!

   By advising Christians to do the same, you are taking us theologically backwards, to a time when we didn’t (or didn’t want to) understand the intent of God’s laws!

   Since all laws in the Bible are aimed at achieving the first and second commandment, I deduce that injunctions against CERTAIN homosexual acts are aimed at the same target. For whatever reason they were prohibited, it stems from those two commandments, not some separate unidentifiable “I told you so” sort of code.

   Can you name ANYTHING in the Bible that we are told to do, but aren’t aimed at either of these two commandments?

   >Which goes against Jesus’ definition of what love consists of >and includes >(read the discussions about it in John and 1John).

   I don’t understand how 1 John (or John) somehow supports your case that we should obey things over and above or aside from the law of love. I think rather it supports MY case, that all laws must be interpreted by the law of love. No law, or injunction, is correct in and of itself, but only as it conforms to these two commandments.

   1 John
   3. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
   4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
   5. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
   6. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
   7. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
   8. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
   9. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
   10. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
   11. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

   28. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
   29. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

   Therefore every man who loves another man for a good and loving reason is born of righteousness, and is one with Jesus.

   16. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
   17. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
   18. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
   19. We love him, because he first loved us.
   20. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
   21. And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

   by Chris McCauley on Oct 4, 2010 at 6:59 pm

9. Chris, you misunderstand me completely by assuming that I’m referring to the Mosaic law as the Moral Law. I would suggest you watch my videos on the relationship between the OT and NT on my “teaching resources” > “Tough Questions” and “Online Videos” pages so that you’ll see that I’m not equating these. I don’t have time or energy necessary to rehash it all in comments back and forth. Seek to understand your opposition’s position before attempting to refute it.

   “If you can make a serious case that doing some act will damage your relationship with God, then it’s proper to hear that.”

   I think what you mean by this is “If you can make a serious SECULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL/SOCIOLOGICAL case that doing some act will damage your relationship with God, then it’s proper to hear that.” Because as soon as someone mentions, for instance, that the same texts which speak of same-sex sex specifically speak of it as one of many types of sin which leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God (1Corinthians) or spiritual death (Romans), you will dismiss that and say “but show me how it hurts other people!”

   This is a moot point if Scripture does in fact speak of same-sex sex as a sinful form of sex (along with many others, which it does according to even the pro-same-sex scholars noted above), because then by its very nature it would be a violation of both the first AND second great commandment. In the same way that you can’t show objective, demonstrable proof that coveting something is actually harmful to others–yet you KNOW and affirm, rightly, that it is metaphysically harmful nonetheless both to one’s relationship with others as well as one’s relationship with God–same-sex sex, because it is a form of sin, is likewise metaphysically harmful to one’s relationship with God AND with others (as is sexual lust, even if unacted on, in general) irrespective of any degree of “measurable” harm we perceive outwardly.

   by jm on Oct 4, 2010 at 8:32 pm

10. My initial response is posted, JM. Thanks for the forum!

    http://chadholtz.net/2010/10/04/same-sex-relationships-discussion-part-1/

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm

11. >I would suggest you watch my videos on the relationship between the OT and >NT on my “teaching resources” > “Tough Questions” and “Online Videos” >pages so that you’ll see that I’m not equating these. I don’t have time or >energy necessary to rehash it all in comments back and forth. Seek to >understand your opposition’s position before attempting to refute it.

    Okay, well, then, since you aren’t equating the two, I was saying that Paul’s pronouncements, as well as the Levitical pronouncements against homosexual sex acts must be understood in the context of these two great commandments.

    I think that Paul, (and Leviticus) were aiming at preserving both commandments in their pronouncements against homosexual acts. My point is that homosexual acts can exist WITHOUT harming either commandment.

    >I think what you mean by this is “If you can make a serious SECULAR >PSYCHOLOGICAL/SOCIOLOGICAL case that doing some act will damage your >relationship with God, then it’s proper to hear that.”

    No, I want to hear ANY argument that homosexual acts in some way damage your relationship with God INTRINSICALLY. In what way does a homosexual act lead one to a false theological conclusion (as idolotry, and taking the lord’s name in vain does). I don’t think that same sex acts are theological in character at all, which is why calling homosexual acts a transgression against the first commandment is a category error.

    >Because as soon as >someone mentions, for instance, that the same texts >which speak of >same-sex sex specifically speak of it as one of many types >of sin which leads >to exclusion from the Kingdom of God (1Corinthians) or >spiritual death >(Romans), you will dismiss that and say “but show me how >it hurts other >people!”

    That is precisely WHY I think that same sex acts were condemned as sin that would lead to exclusion from the kingdom: because I think the type of homosexual acts being perpetrated WERE immoral: prostitution, pederasty, sexual idolatry, etc. These acts demonstrably transgress both commandments, loving committed same sex relationships do not.

    >This is a moot point if Scripture does in fact speak of same-sex sex as a >sinful form of sex (along with many others, which it does according to even >the pro-same-sex scholars noted above), because then by its very nature it >would be a violation of both the first AND second great commandment.

    Your error here is that you think that being spoken of as sinful in the Bible changes the nature of the act. The Bible is not God. What it says or states does not change or alter reality. Nor must we disbelieve our reality because the Bible seems to state something different. You seem to be saying “If the Bible says it’s wrong, against all evidence that it’s not morally wrong or harmful to people, and absent of an explanation of why it hurts our relationship with God, it’s still wrong.”

    The rubric of determining if something is wrong is the law written in our hearts, not the standard of what is written in the Bible. The two commandments are written on the hearts of all humans.

    I believe that Paul and Leviticus banned certain forms of homosexual sex for very good reasons: that these specific forms of homosexual sex transgressed the two commandments.

    You believe that Paul and Leviticus banned all forms of homosexual sex for all time by divine fiat, for no rhyme or reason, just because. That in somehow saying that it’s wrong in the Bible MAKES it wrong. (When the causality is in fact the other way around).

    In this, as I said, you are looking at what is written in the Bible in a theologically backward way, claiming that there are certain things we must be obedient to with no rhyme or reason, just because you think the Bible says we must obey it.

    You are no different, in that way, from an ancient Hebrew claiming that we all must not trim our beards: with no idea why we shouldn’t, other than “God said so.”

    I think that my interpretation is more theologically sound, in that it is in line with Jesus’ teaching:

    Matt 22:40

    ” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    >In the same way that you can’t show objective, demonstrable proof that >coveting something is actually harmful to others–yet you KNOW and affirm, >rightly, that it is metaphysically harmful nonetheless both to one’s >relationship with others as well as one’s relationship with God–same-sex >sex, because it is a form of sin,
    > is likewise metaphysically harmful to one’s >relationship with God

    Again, you are getting causality wrong. It’s not because it’s a sin that it’s harmful to one’s relationship to God.

    The fact that it’s harmful to one’s relationship to God is what MAKES it a sin.

    What people call it is NOT what makes it a sin. Whether or not it is a sin is if it ACTUALLY hurts that relationship. People calling it or not calling it a sin doesn’t make it so.

    This is again the error of thinking that the Bible is the SOURCE of morality, which it isn’t, it is an EXPRESSION of it. (The source is God, not a book).

    Because something, or someone, an ancient Hebrew man, or Paul, calls something sinful is NOT what MAKES it sinful. What MAKES it sinful is if it actually harms our relationship with God or other humans. Paul is DESCRIBING what he thinks is transgressing the two commandments. Paul is not AUTHORING the moral law, he is describing his APPLICATION of it.

    >irrespective of any degree of “measurable” harm we perceive >outwardly.

    I am not asking for a “measurable” harm, as I am not an empiricist or a scientist. I am asking for a “demonstrable” harm. You can easily show that worshiping an idol is demonstrably false, according to the fact that God is infinite and ineffable according to the Christian religion. You can demonstrate that coveting an object is harmful to the relationship of two people, in that one values the object over their love for that person.

    You cannot, in any way, demonstrate that homosexual sex acts are harmful to our fellow man, or to our relationship with God, in the same way that the acts I’ve listed above are.

    And so you’re left with your interpretation that God banned all homosexual acts, with no rhyme or reason, by divine fiat, and even though it doesn’t transgress either commandment.

    You are putting your interpretation of scripture ABOVE the two commandments.

    I could easily say “I interpret the Bible as saying that slavery is morally permissible”. But my interpretation these passages of the Bible doesn’t matter. What matters is if Slavery REALLY DOES harm other people, if it really does transgress the moral law or not. A sincere belief that the Bible condones slavery is irrelevant. Slavery transgresses the second commandment, and that supersedes my interpretation. Either my interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or the writer of that particular passage misapplied the two commandments (in saying that slavery was permissible).

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:23 pm

12. “You seem to be saying “If the Bible says it’s wrong, against all evidence that it’s not morally wrong or harmful to people, and absent of an explanation of why it hurts our relationship with God, it’s still wrong.”

    The rubric of determining if something is wrong is the law written in our hearts, not the standard of what is written in the Bible. The two commandments are written on the hearts of all humans.”

    Yes, as someone who believe in the Authority and Inspiration of Scripture, this is precisely what I’m arguing. There’s a reason Jesus often said “It is written…” to settle theological disputes. The Spirit who writes the law on the hearts of those who are in covenant with him (note that key distinction, which you seem to be confusing with a general understanding of the existence of moral law as written on all humanity’s conscience) is the same Spirit who Inspired the authors in both Testaments to teach that the innate nature of sex is the union of male and female in covenant relationship with one another and any other sexual union between people, regardless of gender, is a denial of God’s created order and a destroying of the intended sexual relationship He gave humanity as a gift. This is why Paul links same-sex sex with idolatry in Romans 1 and uses the specific terms from Genesis 1’s creation narrative–the same creation narrative Jesus appealed to as normative for sexual relationships.

    No, the Bible is not God…but it contains the special revelation given by God to His people. Therefore, to overturn or deny what it explicitly and unambiguously teaches, on any subject that it is explicit and unambiguous about, is to deny God’s authority and replace it with an authority of one’s own making. This is the heart of the entire debate regarding same-sex sexual relationships; everything else is secondary.

    by jm on Oct 4, 2010 at 10:41 pm

13. Hi JM,

    This has been a great discussion so far. I’m not sure if you have demonstrated convincingly that any homosexual act is intrinsically “metaphysically” harmful beyond the argumentation in the proof texts (particularly Paul’s remarks in Romans) as to their idolatrous nature. Chad and Chris seem to argue that this verdict is purely contextual and doesn’t fit the bill of a committed relationship. You say it has to be universally applicable because of the 1 man – 1 woman reference anchored in the original design of creation. I don’t see anything in the text that would automatically prohibit either way of reading.

    I share your hesitation in judging “harmfulness” by purely secular criteria, at the same time I’m just as wary about the naivite of those who retreat to the statement “God said so” whenever they can’t explain why a commandment makes sense or not. And while the biblical description of “love” often contradicts the popular image, it’s also not so far away from our semantic understanding that there isn’t a legitimate question here whether the kind of love a heterosexual couple is invited into, couldn’t also be shared among same-sex partners.

    by Josh Mueller on Oct 5, 2010 at 1:19 am

14. Hi Josh, thanks for commenting. Yes, I have not spent much time discussing Chad’s “6 Clobber passages” in much depth yet primarily because I think it’s important to lay out our presuppositions and hermeneutical foundations before moving into actual textual examination (which I will respond to of course as this discussion continues); but I want to point out that Chad likewise has not discussed them in any amount of depth yet either. He’s asserted that the passages are limited to specific types of same-sex sex acts, but he has not demonstrated this yet (though he’s linked to a paper he wrote where he does deal with them in more detail, so perhaps that will be the summation of all he has to say on them specifically; we’ll have to see if this is how he chooses to respond in full).

    What is most important at the beginning of this type discussion is what the Christian’s criteria for judging whether or not an action is sinful consists of. I maintain, not out of laziness or naivete or lack of study, that yes, even if we can’t perceive WHY God deems something sinful, it is sinful by mere virtue of his deeming it so because somehow it is not in alignment with His nature of absolute goodness. Chad (and Chris) seem to be approaching it from the belief that if we cannot offer valid human reasoning or demonstrable proof of the harmfulness of something then we are not able to label it as sinful. But here’s a key point–I AGREE WITH THAT…but only in matters which Scripture itself is silent or ambiguous about (i.e. masturbation, birth control, sex acts within the marriage covenant, etc.).

    Lastly, the Gen.1-2 account is not offered as proof that same-sex sex is wrong, it’s offered as proof that the created covenantal relationship in which sex is first given to humanity, and which every other Biblical endorsement of sex draws upon as foundational (including Jesus Himself) is the sexual union of male and female. Therefore, any theology of sexuality must take this as the primary and natural starting point and go from there. If sexual acts arise that are not consistent with this male-female-ness of sex then they must be carefully considered and balanced with the rest of Scripture. And if we find in the rest of Scripture that these acts are actually described as contrary to God’s intentions for Holy, loving sexual union (which the Church universal, rather than certain sects or pockets of Christianity, has recognized and affirmed as being true for nearly two millennia) then those who seek to be faithful to God and guided in harmony with His Spirit-Inspired Word must uphold this regardless of how difficult, unpopular, painful or unfathomable it may seem at the moment. That is what sets Biblical orthodox Christianity apart from erroneous, heterodox or heretical religious Christianlike groups or institutions, I would carefully and humbly suggest.

    Thanks for reading. Please continue following this and sharing my site and Chad’s site with others. I, and I’m sure he as well, would be thrilled if a discussion such as ours could set the tone of how this issue is handled within our denomination as well as the wider culture we find ourselves in.

    JM

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 1:46 am

15. JMS writes.

    >Is the same Spirit who Inspired the authors in both Testaments to teach >that >the innate nature of sex is the union of male and female in covenant >relationship with one another and any other sexual union between people, >regardless of gender, is a denial of God’s created order and a destroying of >the intended sexual relationship He gave humanity as a gift.

    You aren’t really in any way, proving that homosexual sex is a transgression of the first or second commandment.

    I could say that cutting the edges of my beard “violates the innate nature of man as a living creature and inspired the authors of the Old testament to not shave our beards in covenant with him and God’s created order in which he gave man a beard as a gift and that cutting it destroys man’s innate gift by shaming his natural dignity.”

    But I still haven’t established how cutting my beard violates either commandment, other than again “God intends it that way”, even though it doesn’t transgress either law, which is basically what your argument IS here, with a bunch of flowery language in between.

    If you are saying that something transgresses the first commandment (is damaging to our relationship with God) merely because “God intends it differently” then that’s a bit pathological isn’t it?

    I could say “No roller skates, God didn’t intend that, so it’s destructive to your relationship with God.” Or “No cutting your beard, God didn’t intend that, so it’s damaging your relationship with God.”

    Or “No wearing clothing with a cotton/poly blend, God wrote that was wrong in the Bible and we must obey it, otherwise it’s damaging to our relationship with God.”

    >No, the Bible is not God…but it contains the special revelation given by God >to His people. Therefore, to overturn or deny what it explicitly and >unambiguously teaches, on any subject that it is explicit and unambiguous >about, is to deny God’s authority and replace it with an authority of one’s >own making.

    No, it isn’t replacing the authority of the Bible with one of your own making. The Bible is exactly what you say, it is a SPECIAL REVELATION. Any law that isn’t written on our hearts (the two commandments) are SPECIAL REVELATION. There is no way to know about it, other than that revelation.

    You are equating SPECIAL REVELATION with UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW and that doesn’t work. Why?

    Because to say that something is universal moral law, it CANNOT BE special revelation. If it were, then you would have two different sets of morality, one that is evident to everyone (written on our hearts, and conscience) and one that is only available to those with access to that SPECIAL REVELATION.

    Since there is no way to deduce that homosexual acts are wrong from it transgressing the first and second commandments, and the ONLY way that you can deduce not to do it is from what is written in the Bible, there is no way that you can claim that the injunctions against it in the Bible mean that it is morally, universally wrong.

    The injunctions in the Bible are SPECIAL REVELATION. They are specific applications of the two great commandments, for a special time and a special purpose.

    This is why setting up a “what is harmful is wrong” vs. “what the Bible says is wrong” dichotomy doesn’t work. If the only way you can know that it is wrong is from the Bible, then it ISN’T universally wrong! It cannot be! That injunction is temporal, specific, and thus relative, rather than a universal morality known to every conscience on earth.

    What I am saying is that Paul’s injunctions against homosexuality, just like Moses’ are temporal, not eternal universal laws. You can’t deduce from your conscience alone that trimming your beard is wrong, or that pulling a red thread from a dove’s foot cures leprosy, or that traveling up a flight of stairs without a loincloth is improper.

    And you aren’t inserting your authority over scripture’s to deduce that these things are no longer morally relevant. The measure has always been the two commandments. And even if I had never read the Bible, or had lived before it was written, it would still be the two commandments that are the standard for judging any law or action. That’s because the two commandments are eternal, and Paul or Moses’ ideas to guide our behavior aren’t. They are both just men trying to follow God’s will, like you or me.

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:35 am

16. Listen JMS. If we’re just going over and over old territory again and again, I’d just as soon stop here. I feel I’ve said my peace and made my points clear. If you want to just leave it at this, it’s fine with me.

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm

17. Chris,
    The equation of beard-trimming and same-sex sex is understandable (both prohibitions initially explicitly appear in Levitical law), but it is illegitimate because 1) there was no clearly emphasized intrinsic paradigm for facial hair growth in Torah before Sinai (as there is for sex), 2) the lack of beard-trimming was not presented as reason for God’s judgment on the nations surrounding Israel (as the Holiness sex prohibitions were), and 3) the New Covenant does not uphold the prohibition against beard-trimming (as it does with same-sex sex).

    However, you would certainly agree that for an Israelite living under the Mosaic Covenant to dismiss or reject the beard-trimming command (or any other explicit Torah commandment) would be sinful, wouldn’t you? If God’s commands don’t apply to God’s people, they don’t apply to anyone. Likewise, you (and Chad) would agree that if the New Covenant specifically prohibited an action, regardless of our ability to see why, New Covenant believers would be obligated to obey such a prohibition, wouldn’t you?

    This is what I’m having the most difficulty understanding in your and Chad’s hermeneutic approach. You both seem to argue that New Testament commands or prohibitions are only valid if we can understand and approve of their underlying rationale for having been given. Is this a fair assessment of where you’re coming from?

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm

18. Chris,
    Wonderful comments. I think you would make a far better discussion partner on this topic than I, since I find myself wanting to simply say, “What Chris said,” over and over.

    Re: universal and temporal, we Methodists do that regularly, as JM knows. We do not deem Paul’s injunctions against women speaking in church or holding authority over any man as “universal” for all times and all places but as specific, local and particular. Yes, JM and others will say that we at least have evidence that suggests women did this or that in the Bible but I don’t believe for a second that if those few mentions of women going against Paul’s direct, didactic teaching were not in Scripture that women would still be in the dark ages in the Methodist church (as they still are in other church circles). We did not give women ordination rights because Deborah’s story trumped Paul’s didactic teaching – we gave them ordination rights because we discerned that this was in keeping with the Gospel story.

    The same is true of the few passages addressing homosexuality – specific, local and particular – just as the passages about women are. I don’t need a counter-example to support this any more than I need a counter-example to prove that slavery is sinful.

    JM, is it fair to say based on what you’ve said so far in your responses to Josh and Chris that apart from “God said so” there is no reason why same-sex relationships are inherently sinful, or harmful to God or neighbor?

    I have perhaps 2 more posts to publish in response to this first one – yours was long!! 🙂 I’m trying to keep them short. I hope before we move on I can have time to address your questions.

    Thanks!
    Chad

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

19. Chad,

    About the issue of women in ministry, I’ll simply say that I disagree with you on why we allow ordination of women and I would encourage you to read Ben Witherington’s work in this area, as well as Scot McKnight’s popular level “Blue Parakeet” (if you haven’t already) in order to see the perspective from which I am operating.

    You ask: “JM, is it fair to say based on what you’ve said so far in your responses to Josh and Chris that apart from “God said so” there is no reason why same-sex relationships are inherently sinful, or harmful to God or neighbor?”

    No, this is not what I’m saying. I believe that same-sex sex is inherently harmful in the same way that all other forms of “porneia” are inherently harmful. Same-sex sex violates the intended male-femaleness of the sex act, distorts the image of God which sex is meant to reflect, and spiritually damages the people involved. My point thus far in the discussion, however, is that EVEN IF we could not discern why an action is prohibited by God, if it is in fact prohibited by God–especially among His Covenant people–then to violate that prohibition, regardless of our rationalization for doing so, is in fact sinful. Indeed, this is precisely the case with the very first sin in Scripture. There is nothing inherently harmful about eating fruit from a tree…unless God, for an unknown reason at the time deemed it to be so.

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:29 pm

20. […] began the discussion on his blog  HERE and followed that up with part 2 HERE.   If you haven’t done so already I invite you to check those out.   This post will be a […]

    by Same-Sex Relationships Discussion Part 1 : Dancing on Saturday on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

21. Wow, can you guys put the cookies on the bottom shelf? I work in the realm of the prayer ministry and with “prodigal sons and daughters” coming out of addiction. While your discussion may be intellectually stimulating and interesting, it’s not that helpful for a lay person who has homosexual (can I still use that word?) friends. What I understand you are saying: We are supposed to love God and until someone can use scripture to prove that same sex “love” is harmful to their relationship with God, it’s a moot point. What about heterosexuals who really love each other and are living together? That doesn’t harm their relationship with God. As pastors, do you counsel them to get married? If so, what is your rationale? What about two unhappily married people who are in an adulterous affair but really love each other? That doesn’t harm their relationship with God. Where do we draw the line at what “love” is? How do we suddenly have a new way of defining love so that we can be inclusive of same sex partners who love Jesus? To me, THIS is making God’s word culturally relevant, not the arguments JMS brings in? Seriously, can you clarify? I made a comment last night on Chad’s blog exaggerating the difference between “love relationship” and a one night stand. In the point for same sex relationships, what do we use to determine the difference between these two because Chad conceded that whether heterosexual or “same sex”, a one night stand is wrong. (Chad if I misrepresent your point, please clarify). Also, Chris, can you go into further detail on your statement that God is not the Bible? That Paul was just a guy working out his faith like you and I. Come back to John 1 and Jesus being the Word if you will because to this lay person who is not a scholar, this is fundamental to my faith. I appreciate you guys lowering your threshold for debate to include a response to my questions. Thanks much.

    by JessiSo on Oct 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm

22. JM, you wrote:

    “I have not spent much time discussing Chad’s “6 Clobber passages” in much depth yet primarily because I think it’s important to lay out our presuppositions and hermeneutical foundations before moving into actual textual examination …”

    Let’s talk about this some more. I don’t think you are generally opposed to establishing ethical guidelines by distinguishing cultural and contextual embedding from timeless truths. So there’s actually no real disagreement in that particular aspect of presuppositions and hermeneutics. Words cannot be understood and applied isolated fom their respective context. You just take your starting point for timeless truth elsewhere – in this case the establishment of heterosexual marriage and relationship in the original creation. You define “sin” accordingly as any deviation from that design and purpose and as disobedience regarding God’s instructions on wholesome sexuality. The design itself cannot change because it is reflective of God’s own unchangeable nature. I hope this is a fair summary of your opinion.

    Chad and Chris (if I understand them correctly) find their starting point elsewhere. Morality in terms of God’s guidelines for a life of love which – according to God’s own definition – sums up the purpose of the entire law (!), is always based on God’s own goodness and love, and accordingly has a very specific purpose in mind: glorify the creator by embracing all that is reflective of (and not in opposition to) selfless committed love. In their definition, no act within this expressed purpose of love can ever be sinful or harmful. In their view, scriptural evidence against homosexual acts are limited to “unloving” contexts of pagan worship, homosexual rape, abusive relationships of pedastery etc. Since Scripture is silent on the origin of homosexual orientation or the morality of a loving sexual union in a commited same-sex relationship, we have no reason to call it a sin or postulate harmfulness when there are no indications that it is inherently evil or harmful.

    JM, you seem to be suspicious of our own ability to define both “love” and “harmfulness” apart from the divine directives. The problem remains that we are still left with our own individual interpretations of what constitutes limits within a biblical understanding of love and to what degree the creation account marks these borders clearly and universally for all times. It would be fair, I think, to ask the question why polygamy was ever condoned by God if deviation from the original design is what constitutes the “abomination” in His sight.

    by Josh Mueller on Oct 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm

23. Josh,
    That is a good question, and one that I would like to hear Chad speak to as well, since there is far more evidence that polygamy is acceptable than there is that same-sex sex is acceptable, yet I know he is not in favor of allowing polygamy.

    My own belief is that while polygamy transgresses the borders of intended sexual bounds, it does not completely overthrow the intended “natural function” (to quote Paul’s phrase in Rom.1) of sex as being male-female. This does not mean that it is approved by God (it is explicitly prohibited in the New Covenant, regardless of its allowability in the Hebrew Bible); it is never explicitly condoned. However, same-sex sex is not just not condoned in both Testaments, it is explicitly condemned in both Testaments.

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:11 pm

24. JM,
    Why do you say polygamy is never “explicitly condoned?” I would say that God’s directives about how many wives (and horses) a king should have (not “too” many) is a condolence of polygamy. Playing by your rules of inspiration, you have to concede that God condones polygamy since God did not, when given the opportunity, make the case for one man and one woman.

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 5, 2010 at 11:06 pm

25. JM,
    Do you believe Gen. 1 and 2 are literal, historical, events? IOW, you believe Eve was tempted by a talking snake and literally ate a piece of fruit?

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm

26. That’s a fair question, Chad. I don’t believe Gen.1-2 are allegorical, nor do I believe they are “parable” (contra. Goldingay, for instance) or pure mythology. Likewise, I don’t believe they are literal in the modern post-enlightenment scientific sense of the term (contra. Young Earth Creationists). I believe the texts could be described as “myth” in the sense that Enns proposes in Inspiration and Incarnation, and that they are more concerned with function than with simple historical detail (on this point see especially John Walton’s recent work in ZIBBCOT for instance).

    Beyond that, I don’t like to press too many details. I believe that Gen.2-4 (that’s really what you’re asking about, are you not?) are true accounts, composed according to ancient Near East oral/literary norms, as well as being Inspired by the Holy Spirit which lifts them above other ANE texts in truthfulness and authority, involving primordial spirit-possessing humanity at its earliest stage of formation and the conflict between humanity and Sin which resulted in humanity’s broken relationship with God. All of Gen.1-11 is the prologue to the actual heart of Scripture that begins with the call of Abram and His seed in ch.12.

    Does that help? I don’t accept Genesis “literalism” which many Conservative/Fundamentalists hold to, nor do I accept a “Genesis-as-fable” approach favored by Liberal Protestantism. I’m somewhere between those extremes with the likes of scholars such as Walton, Kidner, Hamilton, Kline and Stuart.

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm

27. That makes sense, JM. I wonder then, how you can say this:

    There is nothing inherently harmful about eating fruit from a tree…unless God, for an unknown reason at the time deemed it to be so….

    When I think we both agree that there is a lot more to the story than just eating a piece of fruit from the tree. I don’t think it’s fair to use this as evidence that God just makes up arbitrary rules for people to obey just because “I said so.”

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm

28. Yes, there is definitely a LOT more to the Gen.2-4 account than random prohibitions by God. However, regardless of what the actual action looked like, the main underlying point was that God commanded humanity to refrain from doing something in particular that they were otherwise free to do (i.e. eating from a particular tree). God did not need to give in depth justification or independent rationale for WHY they were not to do this; His command was enough (just as for a parent “because I said so” often IS enough of a reason for a child to be obedient). It was humanity’s independent rationale and appraisal of the situation, at the tempter’s suggestion, that led them to “overrule” God’s clearly stated prohibition and act in a way that they thought would not only not do any harm, but would be more healthy and beneficial for them and make them more like God.

    The Gen.2-4 narrative has much to say to the current discussion on same-sex sex and the reasons why it is accepted/opposed by people within the Church (I believe it is the foundational starting point for any discussion of human sexuality and sin). I wish it were given more weight by proponents of same-sex sexual relationships rather than them spending so much time trying to get around the “6 clobber passages.”

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 8:02 pm

29. See, I see this entirely differently (and I’m not alone on this).

    First, to wish that more people would look more to Gen 2-4 for sexual ethics is to completely dismiss, IMO, the entire narrative which follows which shows anything BUT good sexual ethics as we would think of them today. What is “normal” for sexual ethics in the Old and New Testament (even up through the Industrial Revolution) is not considered “normal” today. So, sexual ethics obviously change – as the acceptance of a eunuch by Philip and Jesus illustrate (what was abnormal becomes accepted).

    Second, and perhaps more important, to read Genesis in a linear, historical way like you are doing, ignores, I think, that Genesis is most likely a nascent understanding of the Hebrew self in the shadow of Sinai. What I mean by this is, within the Garden we already have the truth of the Law – and Grace. In it we have covenant. This is not about showing God to be arbitrary or making rules that we disobeyed due to temptation but about the condition of all of humanity as it reaches beyond its Limit (God) when it transgresses the Law (Sinai) – and when this happens, we fall. The Garden shows that God is BOTH our LIFE and our LIMIT. We cannot grasp at life outside of God (which is what the fruit of the tree of knowledge symbolizes) and we cannot transgress the Limit God places on us (God’s Law), or we will die.

    And yet, even in death, God gives life.

    Genesis 1-3 is a POWERFUL theological vision revealing the very nature of who God is far more than it is an encyclopedic exposition trying to tell us how we were created or how sin first entered the world.

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 5, 2010 at 8:21 pm

30. Chad, I believe that while Genesis was composed mostly around the time of the Sinai/Wilderness wandering/entry into Canaan period (with of course editorial work following to a small degree), it is important to read it in the order in which it is presented in order to see the flow of the story that Moses (or whoever the final redactor was) intended to present. Gen.2-4 must be read as-is and then that used to interpret Exodus-Deut. rather than vice versa. I believe many readers (particularly those who focus on the NT more than the OT) misread the text as a result. When read in narrative flow, the Gen.1-2 accounts offer implicit judgment on the following deviations from the intended relationship between man and woman. This is seen in the boastful Lamech’s introducing polygamy in the line of Cain to the havoc wreaked within the families of the Patriarchs whenever they move away from the intended one-man-one-woman marriage covenant.

    Perhaps we’re moving off topic a bit, but it’s important to realize that one cannot separate the issue of same-sex sexuality from the larger issue of Biblical human sexuality in general. Anyway, this is helpful because it helps clarify how you and I approach Scripture and why we do so. I’ve always maintained that at the end of the day, the same-sex, as it pertains to the Church’s debate over it, issue isn’t really an issue about sex, rather it’s an issue of presuppositions regarding hermeneutics and Biblical authority. This is why it’s so easy for people to talk past one another in the debate…they never clarify how widely divergent their underlying presuppositions often are.

    by jm on Oct 5, 2010 at 8:41 pm

31. > And this is exactly why I believe same-sex sex
    > IS intrinsically harmful in addition to being merely
    > commanded by God, Chris. It distorts the Imago Dei,
    > removes from sex its most basic and God-honoring
    > component (the male-female joining that takes place
    > which reflects the Imago Dei),

    David and Solomon, having engaged in the “God-honoring
    component” many times with many women, surely must
    have become “perfect in love in this life” and mirrored the
    Imago Dei in ways that few others have achieved! (insert
    sarcasm emoticon here).

    My goodness, what in the world would we think that the
    “male-female joining” reflects the Imago Dei? Setting
    aside the male-male or female-female joining for a moment
    and thinking this through theologically from a Biblical
    perspective I am hard pressed to understand why this is
    the case. Surely you don’t mean that all male-female
    “joining” reflects the Imago Dei. Surely there are other
    qualifications than that the “joining” be between a male
    and a female to constitute or at least reimage the Imago
    Dei!?!?!

    Which leaves us then with only some male-female “joinings”
    as reflections of the Imago Dei. I don’t think that I need to
    explain why and which “joinings” might be disqualified. That
    is too obvious.

    So the criteria for reflecting the Imago Dei are not male-
    female dependent then.

    Do you really believe that the “most basic and God-honoring
    component” of sex is simply heterosexual “joining”????

    by Fred on Oct 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm

32. Yes, Fred, I absolutely believe the joining of the two parts of the Imago Dei, male and female, is the most basic and God-honoring prerequisite for Holy sex…but it’s certainly not the only component! As you note, there are many ways heterosexual sex can deviate from Holiness, even in “marriage”–Solomon being a prime example!

    [For the record, since Chad mentioned it, I don’t believe Song of Songs was written by Solomon, nor do I believe he is the “beloved” in the song. I believe Solomon is actually the foil in the song and the true “beloved” is a lowly shepherd/field-worker man. There’s no way to be absolutely certain, given the fluidity of the song’s imagery and the uncertainty as to who is speaking at which point; but the traditional view that it’s about Solomon and his bride (like you said, ‘which one??’) is the least likely in my opinion.]

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 1:35 am

33. “God did not need to give in depth justification or independent rationale for WHY they were not to do this; His command was enough (just as for a parent “because I said so” often IS enough of a reason for a child to be obedient).”

    I’m sorry but the rationale is clearly stated. He did not want them to experience death (and this may refer to both spiritual AND physical death). As any responsible and loving parent would do for their children – good and necessary rules are never arbitrary but always based on a specific purpose. Romans 13:10 reiterates Jesus’ summary of the law WITH the rationale behind it: love does no harm to our neighbor!

    Rather than saying: God has every right to command to do us things without always (or ever) explaining the rationale behind it, let’s stick to the repeated criterion of profitableness (1 Corinthians 6:12) vs. harmfulness, like: being a slave to our desires rather than mastering them. IF God really forbids it, it IS / WILL BE harmful. The question is: who carries the burden of proof (as Liz remarked on Chad’s blog) whether ALL same sex relationships are inherently and necessarily harmful? It’s not just a question of clear commands against the practice but also whether the rationale that is also stated each time the prohibition is given, applies and fits the contemporary context as well.

    JM, would you be ready to assume and claim that every same-sex relationship carries an element of uncontrolled lust? If not, then I don’t see how we can arrive at a blanket statement here, especially since Romans 1 describes either a change of orientation or acting against one’s own orientation (as the consequence of God allowing us to pursue idolatrous means of fulfilment and validation).

    by Josh Mueller on Oct 5, 2010 at 11:48 pm

34. Josh,
    I’m afraid I have to disagree. God simply told them the outcome of their action; He did not tell them WHY that outcome would happen. Why would that particular tree bring death when all the others did not? That question was one of trust. They did not trust; rather they disobeyed. Similarly, many of Torah’s commands contain no demonstrable or perceptible harm (wearing garments of mixed thread, etc.) but for an Israelite under Torah to disobey or disregard them was deemed sinful. Likewise, if the New Covenant contains commands which possess no demonstrable or perceptible harm (which, again I must emphasize, I believe same-sex sex DOES entail; but for argument’s sake I’m conceding the point at this moment), it is still sinful for us to disregard or dismiss them.

    ***My point is that EVEN IF same-sex sex was not intrinsically harmful as far as we were able to perceive, it would still be sinful by mere virtue of the fact that God–who’s wisdom, judgment and sense of morality is the basis from which all notions of things like, “goodness” “harm” and “loving” flow–declared it to be sin.***

    [I use “***” simply for emphasis for those who may be skimming this discussion]

    I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from.

    BTW, since you initially asked about the passages in question, here is a link to where each are treated and what they actually do and do not say are examined:

    http://tinyurl.com/2fkucmc

    And here is more on why the comparisons with slavery are not valid:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gyvjcw

    Anyone interested in a detailed presentation of these topics but who does not have access to journal articles or a theological library would do well to give a fair and honest reading rather than dismissing them. Otherwise, why even discuss the issue, right?

    Blessings,
    JM

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 1:29 am

35. Chris,
    >The equation of beard-trimming and same-sex sex is understandable (both >prohibitions initially explicitly appear in Levitical law), but it is illegitimate >because 1) there was no clearly emphasized intrinsic paradigm for facial hair >growth in Torah before Sinai (as there is for sex),

    JMS, I don’t agree with your (what seem to me) to be extra textual and inferred interpretation of Genesis. I do not see the current prevailing Anglo Saxom Christian Sexuality as representative of the IMAGO DEI, nor that any other kind of sex is an affront to it.

    The idea that sex is somehow very restricted to only certain acts in the Bible, and only a one woman-one man marriage is legitimate, and all other sex acts are some sort of affront to God is completely false.

    The Judaic culture (and the Bible specifically) had a WIDE view of sex acts, FAR WIDER than the view of Anglo Saxon Christianity.

    For instance, the idea that if your brother dies, you MUST (not can, but MUST) marry his wife and have sex with her in addition to keeping your own wife happy is a COMPLETELY different form of sexuality than we have today in Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality. Yet Levirate marriage is condoned and commanded by scripture. (Deuteronomy 25:5)

    If that were to happen today, we would call it horrific and morally wrong in the Anglo Saxon culture. In fact it was the subject of Hamlet, which the society (as today) saw as completely horrific and morally wrong. Your brother marries your wife after you die? Disgusting! Abomination! Porniea!

    Or we could take the fact that the Arab culture at the time had a practice of taking multiple wives for pleasure, (or because of conquest) as David did, and the fact that God gave many wives to David and even said to him “I would have given you more” (2 Samuel 12:8). Having multiple wives for the pleasure of the man is a completely different form of sexuality than is accepted in Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality. Multiple wives were a part of Jewish culture all the way up to the formation of Israel in 1948.

    And then I could go on about how Ruth offered to give Boaz a handjob while he was drunk in order to entice him into marriage. (Ruth 3:8-9) This was hailed as a good act as Ruth would become the new line of the Israelite people.

    Or I could talk about Tamar, who dressed up like a prostitute in order to trick her husband’s brother into siring children for her when he didn’t want to marry her in Levarite marriage.(Genesis 38). Which is hailed as the Bible as a good and just thing.

    Or I could mention the unnmaried, unnamed woman in Song of Solomon, who wishes she were related (by blood) to her lover, so that she could kiss him without being ashamed, and then take him to her mother’s house and either have him suck her breasts, give her oral pleasure, give her a handjob, or all three, we can’t really tell from the text, since it’s in slang terminology. (SOS 7:1-3)

    And we could speak of the ancient Hebrew custom of having castrated Eunuchs, which are blessed and promised eternal communion with God. And before you claim that castrated Eunuchs were simply castrated men who didn’t have sex, let me remind you that Eunuchs after being castrated have severely reduced testosterone and increased estrogen, appeared as women physically because of that, dressed as women, and often engaged in homosexual sex as the passive partner. They were a completely different sexuality.

    So your idea that Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality is exactly what is represented by the Bible is false, and your idea that the Bible takes a very narrow view of sexuality and that only ONE form of sexuality (The Anglo Saxon Version) is alright while all others are banned is also false.

    Perhaps your claims that Hebraic Sexuality is identical to Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality would work on someone more naive about Hebraic Sexuality, or someone who hasn’t studied sexuality in depth in the Bible, but it doesn’t work on me.

    >2) the lack of beard-trimming was not presented as reason for God’s >judgment on the nations surrounding Israel (as the Holiness sex >prohibitions were),

    I’m not sure I agree, but go on…

    >and 3) the New Covenant does not uphold the prohibition against beard-
    >trimming (as it does with same-sex sex).

    Quite true, but what I am saying is OT:NT as NT:modern day. I am saying that just as prohibitions in the OT were dropped in the NT (because time and circumstances had changed), prohibitions from the NT no longer apply because we are no longer living as minority Christians in an ancient Roman Culture.

    >However, you would certainly agree that for an Israelite living under the >Mosaic Covenant to dismiss or reject the beard-trimming command (or any >other explicit Torah commandment) would be sinful, wouldn’t you? If God’s >commands don’t apply to God’s people, they don’t apply to anyone.

    Of course. And if I WAS living in Paul’s time, I would NOT go to Temples of Hermes and engage in temple prostitution, I would not go to Bacchus’s orgies
    and get drunk and have sex with random people (male or female), nor would I join the Roman Legion and engage in Pederasty. I would not pick up small boys as prostitutes outside the bath houses. In fact, I might skip my visits to Corinth all together, just to avoid being mired in that sinful culture.

    And if YOU lived under Hebrew Law, you would have to admit that it would be morally okay to marry your brother’s widow (or the widow of anyone on the male side of your family who is younger than your father) even though having two wives would be an anathema to your Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality.

    >Likewise, you (and Chad) would agree that if the New Covenant specifically >prohibited an action, regardless of our ability to see why, New Covenant >believers would be obligated to obey such a prohibition, wouldn’t you?

    Nope.

    Because if you don’t need to justify as to WHY an action is wrong (make it demonstrable), you can simply prohibit anything you want to that you (or current Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality) doesn’t like. Don’t like democrats? The Bible says voting for them is wrong. Sorry, I can’t explain why it violates either commandment, you just have to obey it. Also one could say interracial marriage is wrong. Why? Sorry, that’s what the Bible says, and how I interpret it, even though I can’t explain why it violates either commandment.

    You see JMS, I view certain strains of Christian culture (throughout history) as using the false claim of “sin” so as to oppress the masses. By calling something a “sin” (even though it isn’t), you can control people.

    We can go up and down the list, from slavery to Copernicus to the Catholic Church and the sacraments, to indulgences, to the Cathar annihilation, to the Inquisition, to the Salem witch trials, and so forth and so on. Labeling something a “sin” (when it isn’t) is a means to oppress people.

    Falsely convince people that something is an evil thing, and you can quell it and suppress it, and vilify it, whether that thing is theological (as with the Cathars), national (As the papacy convinced the Spanish crown that England was evil), sexual (as with homosexuality), or cultural (Gypsies are sinful, they must be purged in the Inquisition).

    >This is what I’m having the most difficulty understanding in your and Chad’s >hermeneutic approach. You both seem to argue that New Testament >commands or prohibitions are only valid if we can understand and approve >of their underlying rationale for having been given. Is this a fair assessment >of where you’re coming from?

    YES.

    I reject the claim “I interpret the Bible to say X is evil, even though I can’t tell you WHY or demonstrate why it is evil. You must simply accept that it is evil, and obey ME (oops, I mean the Bible) about that.”

    Anyone can “interpret” the Bible to mean that ANYTHING is wrong or anything is permissible. The real rubric is the two commandments, and any protestation of something being wrong or right outside of that rubric is invalid.

    If you abandon the rubric and accept that anything can be interpreted as sin outside of it, you turn the Bible into a WEAPON used to wage cultural warfare on people who are different, a minority, or marginalized in society.

    By supporting an interpretation outside that rubric, JMS, you are aiding the oppressive side of evil. Since people agree with you that it is a sin it justifies denying people marriage rights (We can’t endorse sin), denying them recognition (as what they are doing is just a sin, not really a part of their identity), denying them employment if they are openly gay (we can’t have people working here who support sin), and so forth and so on.

    Your false claim and incorrect interpretation that homosexual acts are a sin, with no demonstrable way in which it is violating either commandment is furthering the cause of evil.

    It’s exactly the same situation as in the movie “Book of Eli” where Eli realizes that giving a Bible to an evil person will allow him to interpret it in an evil way, ignoring the two commandments and using it as a tool of control and oppression, rather than its intended purpose of liberation and goodness.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3utXOYEqK3o

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 6, 2010 at 2:39 pm

36. Chris,
    Your use of “Anglo-Saxon” is a strawman so I will ignore it. Likewise, the various passages you appeal to–even if I were to agree with your readings of many of them–do not in any way demonstrate that Hebraic culture at any point saw same-sex sex as anything other than illegitimate, so there’s no need to address them either.

    Your primary point seems to be that we don’t follow the NT commandments in the same way that the NT believers don’t follow the OT commandments. There is one CRITICAL event that separates the OT from the NT…and it isn’t “cultural change.” The long-awaited NEW COVENANT was inaugurated. This is the ONLY reason that the Mosaic Covenant was seen as no longer binding. However, this is the very New Covenant we find ourselves under today. Therefore, if commands or prohibitions are universally given to New Covenant believers (rather than situation-specific applications…and THIS is the crux of my discussion with Chad), then regardless of whether or not we can demonstrate why they are given, we are obligated to obey them as unto the Lord.

    In short, if same-sex sex is seen as illegitimate by the New Covenant (which it is, I’m arguing) then to participate in it, regardless of the reasoning or attitude of the person doing so, is to disobey God and therefore is a violation of the Greatest Commandment of them all, regardless of whether or not it “causes harm” to the individual or others involved (which I believe it does in fact do).

    And as much as I enjoyed the book of Eli, the difference between myself and Gary Oldman’s character is that I actually have the desire to submit myself to the teachings of the book and have no desire to use it as a weapon. (But I have a feeling you just wanted an excuse to post that clip…)

    BTW, your posts are too long. Shorten them or I’ll be forced to cut them with the fury and precision with which Eli wielded that crazy awesome knife of his! 😉

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm

37. I want to make clear JMS, that I am not trying to indict you personally for doing something evil against homosexuals, but rather that it is your theology of upholding Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality that is doing it. And really the culture at large is the biggest contributing factor, not you personally.

    And although you might find it offensive, or that I am attacking or villifyingyou, I don’t mean to. Yet, I can’t deny that I maintain that calling homosexual acts a sin IS CONTRIBUTING to persecution of homosexuals and of them as people.

    Sarah Silverman makes this point quite well in the following video.

    WARNING: This video drops the F bomb, please don’t view it if that offends you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM6xbW1DZyM&feature=player_embedded

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 6, 2010 at 3:59 pm

38. I don’t find it offensive, Chris. I find it irrelevant. You are attacking a Fundamentalist position and associating it with everything from medieval persecution of witches to slavery. And I prefer Andrew Marin’s youtube response over Silverman’s, for what it’s worth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMOG09yG-6I&feature=player_embedded

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:48 pm

39. I didn’t mean that YOU were attacking witches or slavery. I was saying that using a rubric outside of the two commandments, of the “The Bible says so” variety is what makes these oppressive things (as well as opression of homosexuals) possible.

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 12:14 am

40. JM,
    I don’t think anything Chris said was a straw man at all and yet you seem to use that as an excuse to gloss over the meat of his long (yet meaty) comment.

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:19 pm

41. Chad,
    The “Anglo-Saxon” term is absolutely a strawman as I have no desire to defend such a concept (if one could even define it). It’s a rhetorical way of elevating his position by assertion rather than representing anything I am arguing for. But Chris and I have danced this dance many a time over the years, so I didn’t feel the need to rehash covered ground with him. However, if he makes certain points that you would like me to answer, feel free to pose them in our discussion and I will do so.

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:45 pm

42. Here are a few things I wrote on the subject for the same ethics class that Chad took I think. It’s not the complete paper, and it’s not even a really good paper, but I think it gives a fairly decent summary of some differing interpretations of those “clobber” passages as Chad calls them. I also give a few rambling thoughts at the end that may be helpful and/or worth subjecting to critique. Happy to send the paper with footnotes to anyone who is interested. Peace.

    Scriptural, Historical, and Philosophical Considerations
    There are several biblical passages that are pertinent to the homosexuality debate in the Church. The passages that are generally cited are Gen 19:1-29, a similar story in Judges 19:22-30, Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:10. There are a variety of conflicting opinions as to the meaning and relevance of these passages for the modern debate. Traditionally, however, the Church has had a remarkably consistent and unified view of homosexuality compared to recent times.
    According to Marion Soards, in spite of John Boswell’s untenable claims that homosexuality was accepted in the Church until the thirteenth century, Church documents from the middle of the second century to the end of the nineteenth show a consistent negative appraisal of homosexual behavior through clear condemnation and stringent punishment of it. Indeed, Christian leaders from Justin Martyr to Augustine to the protestant reformers unequivocally condemned homosexual behavior. Unfortunately at times the Church or some Church leaders were, perhaps, overly harsh in their condemnation and punishment of it. Although there was a consistent negative view throughout the vast majority of Church history, the twentieth century has witnessed a shift that sparked the major controversy.
    Prior to the 1960’s virtually all Christians viewed homosexuality as sinful. During the 1960’s mainline Protestants began to make a distinction between homosexual orientation, which was viewed as a disease, and homosexual practice, which was viewed as sin. After 1974 when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) ceased labeling it as a mental disorder, while still recognizing it as a disturbance in some cases, some mainline church leaders began to view homosexual orientation as an incurable disorder beyond one’s control. Based on this view, some began to call for allowing homosexuals to live out their orientation; and some went even further arguing that homosexuals should not be considered disordered at all, rather just ordered differently.
    Consequently, there are a number of theological and philosophical questions that are raised by this shift and the debate that has ensued. As mentioned above, there are questions concerning biblical authority and other sources of authority. The main philosophical questions seem to revolve around the understanding of sexual orientation, and what that means in broad terms if the Church accepts the notion that sexual orientations across the spectrum are part of Gods original creative intent. Additionally, there are questions regarding the nature and definition of sin in general. Different Christians approach these issues from different perspectives, and, inevitably, reach different conclusions. According to Wells and Quash some Christians approach homosexuality from a universal (ethics for everyone) perspective, others from a subversive (ethics for the marginalized) perspective, and still others from an ecclesial (ethics for the Church) perspective. Using this paradigm we will explore some of the competing views below.

    Universal Perspectives

    For those who look at this issue from a universal ethical perspective, there tends to be strong deontological and consequential concerns. The starting point tends to be divine command, followed closely by natural law. That is, they view the Bible as being the primary source of authority in the church that supersedes and trumps other potential sources of authority. In their view, although there are only a handful of passages that deal with homosexuality the Bible is univocal in its condemnation of it. Additionally, they also argue that natural law reflects the divine commands found in Scripture. Some maintain that scientific evidence regarding sexual orientation is too ambiguous to affirm homosexuality as good, while others believe scientific evidence actually shows that homosexuality is inherently problematic. Nevertheless, the Bible seems to be the starting point for all.
    Genesis 19:1-29, for instance, tells of the men of Sodom at Lot’s door demanding to have sex with two angels, whom they believed to be men. The homosexual desire on the part of the men of Sodom is often interpreted as a defining characteristic of its depravity. However, even many of those who hold the traditional view about homosexuality acknowledge that this particular story says nothing about committed homosexual relationships, only homosexual gang rape. People on both sides of the debate argue that, in fact, based on commentary on the incident in Ezekiel 16:49-50, Sodom’s depravity had much more to do with neglect of the poor, and idolatry.
    Robert Gagnon, one the other hand, insists that homosexuality in general, is more in view than a surface reading indicates. Although Ezekiel 16:49-50 clearly indicates that neglecting the poor and needy was a major component in God’s judgment of Sodom, Gagnon argues that the word abomination (Hebrew: to’evah) in verse 50 also connects the transgressions of Sodom with the proscription of male homosexual activity in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where it is also labeled as “abomination.” He refutes the claim of some that in Ezekiel it is economic injustice only that is encompassed by that particular term by showing that acts of “abomination” (singular) are distinguished from acts of economic injustice and other vices in Ezekiel 18:10-13 all of which Ezekiel labels as “abominable things” (plural of to’evah) in verse 13. Moreover, he argues that “given that the two other singular uses of ‘abomination’ in Ezekiel refer to sexual sins (22:11; 33:26), it is likely that Ezekiel intends ‘abomination’ as a metonym or substitute for male-male intercourse.” To Gagnon this demonstrates that Ezekiel likely read the Sodom story in light of the Levitical prohibitions, which, according to him, rules out all forms of homosexual activity. Reading Gen 19:1-29, and Judges 19:22-30 for that matter, in light of the Levitical proscriptions indicates that the mere thought of male-male intercourse in addition to the coercive and violent intentions of the men of Sodom was a contributing factor to the heinousness of the situation.
    Gagnon argues that because Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 use the general word “male” (zakar) rather than more specific words, such as “homosexual cult prostitute” (qadesh), among other contextual factors, makes them unqualified and absolute proscriptions that cannot be restricted only to exploitative or coercive forms of homosexual intercourse. Richard Hays, likewise, sees these as unequivocal prohibitions of all forms of male homosexual activity. Nonetheless, Marion Soards, who also takes the traditional position, concedes that the Levitical proscriptions of male homosexual behavior occurs within the holiness code wherein other things, such as mixing different kinds of cloth, that Christians find morally acceptable today were also proscribed. That considered, he says it is difficult to show the necessary relevance of these passages for the Church today.
    Generally, the above are the only passages in the Old Testament that most scholars deal with as being pertinent to the homosexuality debate. Gagnon, though, argues that there are additional passages that must be considered too. For instance, he suggests the story of Ham, “who saw the nakedness of his father” (Gen 9:22) Noah, is a case of an incestuous homosexual rape for which, among other things, Ham and his descendants, the Canaanites, were severely judged. This story, like that of Sodom, was also meant to be read in the light of the proscription of incest and male homosexual acts in Leviticus. However, Gagnon seems to be trying to squeeze more out of the text than really can be because it is not all that clear exactly what “saw the nakedness of his father” means. The context seems to indicate that it simply means literally what it says (See 9:23). Nonetheless, Gagnon also describes Genesis 1-3, especially 1:26-27 and 2:24, as advancing “not just the normal state of affairs but, implicitly, a prescriptive norm,” which Jesus (Mark 10:6-7) and Paul (1 Cor6:16; Rom 1:23-27) both acknowledged. Furthermore, he adds, “it is implausible to suggest that the narrators of Genesis 1 (the Priestly Writers, P) did not understand the implications of their story about the creation of male and female and God’s blessing upon their sexual union for ruling out all same-sex intercourse.”
    In the New Testament, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10 include forms of homosexuality in a list of other vices. In 1 Cor 6:9 the NRSV uses the term “male prostitutes” to translate the Greek word malakoi and “sodmites” as the translation of arsenokoitai. According to Hays the former was pejorative slang in Hellenistic Greek to describe the passive person in a homosexual act, and the later describes one in the active role. Moreover, arsenokoitai is a term coined by Paul from the Septuagint version of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 that combines the word male (arsenos) with the word lying (koitēn). This term is used in 1 Timothy as well, although malakoi is not. In spite of counter claims that these words are really ambiguous, Hays insists that these definitions are almost certainly correct, and Soards and Gagnon concur. Hays adds that Paul’s use of the term arsenokoitai “presupposes and reaffirms the holiness codes condemnation of homosexual acts.”
    The only other passage in the New Testament that mentions homosexuality is Rom 1:26-27. Here Paul describes homosexual behavior, including lesbianism, as a sinful symptom of idolatry and rebellion against God, the Creator (1:18-25). Hays believes that Paul uses homosexuality as the epitome of how fallen human beings have rejected the Creator, in this case specifically by rejecting God’s creative intent for sex to be for naturally complementary males and females only. Indeed, it vividly demonstrates “humanity’s primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the Creator” because they commit acts that are contrary to nature (NRSV “unnatural” from the Greek para physin), the created order. By such actions they are “demonstrating their own alienation from him [God].” Likewise Gagnon argues that there are clear echoes and allusions to the creation stories in Genesis and Paul sees homosexual activity as contrary to God’s creative intent for sex to be exclusively heterosexual. Hays and Gagnon both see Paul as appealing to God’s creative intent, evident in nature, for sex to be predicated male-female complementariness. Gagnon even adds, “Paul employed an argument from nature to which even pagans could be held accountable.” Although both are accused of bringing natural law presuppositions to the text, clearly Hays and Gagnon believe that Paul himself is appealing to the created order and, thus, nature.
    Gagnon also appeals to consequential arguments to support his position. For instance, he argues that promotion of homosexuality leads to increased health risks, relational problems, and disproportionately higher rates of psychological problems among those who engage in it. Even among lesbians, he says, studies show there are significantly more relational and psychological problems compared to the heterosexual population. He also notes that statistics showing disproportionate relational and psychological problems for homosexuals hold even in societies where it is accepted. Other conservatives, however, do not seem to appeal to scientific studies regarding harm suggesting that they are too ambiguous.

    Subversive Perspectives
    Obviously not everyone agrees with the traditional conservative position. There are subversive ethicists, who speak on behalf of those whom they feel have been unfairly marginalized, that take exception to the broad strokes painted with the brush of universal ethicists. Samuel Kader, an openly homosexual pastor, asserts that those who oppose homosexuality are simply ignorant of what the Bible actually says about it, in addition to being ignorant of scientific data, implying that it proves that homosexuality is perfectly normal. Rather than being condemning of loving, committed homosexual unions, he insists the Bible not only does not condemn, but affirms such unions. Regarding the story of Sodom, for instance, he posits that the text has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. The main problem in Sodom was inhospitality and apathy toward the poor. Kader also argues, albeit rather unconvincingly, that the word to know (Hebrew: yada) in Genesis 19:5 only means to become acquainted with and has no sexual connotations. He also argues that the crowd that came to Lot’s house was not entirely men because the word for men can be translated in a more generic way referring to human beings in general. He completely removes any type of sexual activity from consideration at all in this passage. Others, who do see that there is some type of illicit homosexual activity in view, do not find it to be central to the problems in Sodom, nor to have anything to say about modern committed homosexual relationships. Kader’s arguments also apply to story in Judges 19:22-30.
    Regarding the Levitical proscriptions Kader argues that they only have to do with homosexuality associated with idolatrous cult practices. Strangely, though, he attempts to prove this by defining male (zakar) as “someone special” rather than as male humans in general because part of its meaning according to Strong’s concordance is “to be remembered.” He says, “in other words you’re not to lie with this person (to be remembered), somebody very important, the way you would lie with a common harlot or prostitute.” This is odd because Genesis 1:27 clearly uses zakar for the newly created male human juxtaposed to the newly created female. Additionally, there seems to be no good reason to interpret the word “woman” in Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, which is also used in Genesis 2:22 for the newly created woman, Eve, as ‘common harlot’ or ‘prostitute’. At any rate, Kader clearly sees these as simply proscriptions against idolatrous and exploitative sexual relations rather than as against all forms of homosexuality. He also challenges the legitimacy of highlighting these proscriptions as more relevant than other Levitical proscriptions that Christians clearly ignore today.
    With regards to 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 Kader argues that the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi is too uncertain and translations too dubious to speak conclusively about them. He also finds it highly unlikely that Paul was referring to anything resembling modern monogamous homosexual relationships. What Paul is talking about in Rom 1:26-27, he says, is people who were only having homosexual relations contrary to their natural heterosexual orientation. Thus there is no condemnation of someone whose natural orientation is homosexual engaging in homosexual activity.
    Furthermore, Kader finds affirmations of monogamous homosexual unions in the stories of Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan, albeit without support of explicit evidence. Kader also points to the inclusion of gentiles in the Church as a strong analogy for fully including homosexuals in the Church today. He suggests that we replace the word gentile in Eph 2:11-22 with gay community to get an idea of this new work that God is doing in the body of Christ. Hays would counter that a good argument for including gentiles can be made from scripture, (See Gen 12:3) without having to conclude that scripture was just wrong, but the same cannot be said regarding homosexuality. Obviously Kader would disagree with Hays’ claim that scripture univocally condemns all forms of homosexuality. Gagnon, however, may further argue that the analogy of gentile inclusion and, for that matter, the analogies of slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage, are very weak as analogs compared to other sexual categories, such as incest, polyamory, adultery, and bestiality. Kader, nonetheless, seems convinced that science has proven that sexual orientation is a fixed part of a person’s identity like race or eye color, and therefore sees a perfect analogy to gentile inclusion. Kader would completely reject Gagnon’s interpretations of the biblical passages regarding homosexuality anyway.
    Similar to Kader, Jack Rogers and Dan Via both argue that the proscriptions in Leviticus simply deal with ritual uncleanness in relation to keeping the nation of Israel distinguished from their pagan neighbors. Both, Rogers and Via, however, do not limit the prohibition only to exploitative forms. Rather they both see them as absolute and unqualified proscriptions, but not necessarily any more relevant to Christians today than other Levitical prohibitions.
    Nonetheless, Rogers also argues that the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi are unclear, and that Paul’s description in Romans 1:26-27 is only applicable to those in an idolatrous context not to “faithful gay and lesbian Christians who are not idolaters.” He sees no condemnation of committed homosexual unions. Furthermore, Via makes a clear distinction between sin, rebellion against God, and uncleanness, coming into contact with something that makes one ritually impure, in the Old Testament, and places homosexual activity in the later category insisting that it is not sin in a moral sense. He says Paul redefines homosexuality as sin rather than as uncleanness. Contrarily, however, Hays says that there is no clear distinction between ritual and moral impurity in the Old Testament; and Gagnon argues that Leviticus actually categorizes sin as moral uncleanness verses ritual uncleanness. To Gagnon homosexual behavior would clearly fall within the category of sin as moral uncleanness.
    Via, nevertheless, does concede that Hays’ definitions of malakoi and arsenokoitai are probably correct, and that Paul had any form of homosexuality in view in Rom 1. Moreover, he agrees that the witness of scripture is univocal in its condemnation of all forms of homosexuality. However, he believes that Paul’s knowledge regarding homosexuality was severely limited, compared to our knowledge today. He writes, “Given what we now about the genetic, social, and psychological causes of homosexuality, and the graciousness of God’s creative intention, it is difficult to accept Paul’s view that universal human rebellion and God’s wrath, in their mutual interaction, are the primary cause of homosexuality.”
    Via has much confidence in claims regarding the natural fixity of sexual orientation, whereas others find such claims to be too ambiguous and open to interpretation. Furthermore, although he claims that scripture is of highest authority, he says that he holds to a view of biblical authority called the “experiential or existential view” that says “the Bible is authoritative only in those parts that are existentially engaging and compelling – that give grounding and meaning to existence.” Based on this view he believes that even the unconditional condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible may be overridden in light of “contemporary knowledge and experience.” Evidently he feels that reason and experience can sometimes trump scripture. To Via it is obvious that modern science and experience has demonstrated that homosexuality is simply an inalienable destiny of some people just as heterosexuality is for others; and as part of God’s original creative intent homosexuals should be allowed to live out their created destiny in the spirit of the abundant life promised by Christ in John 10:10. He also believes that biblical revelation is not static, and the church should be open to new revelations. Gagnon counters that the church should not be open to new revelations that directly contradict core values of scripture.
    Giving voice to the marginalized these subversive arguments challenge the notion that there is a one-size-fits-all ethic. Some argue that universalists misinterpret the Bible and nature, while others call for a revised and new way of thinking about homosexuality in light of contemporary knowledge. There are still appeals to nature, but with a different understanding of what nature says about sexual orientation. (note: Class, race, gender and disability are not discussed in particular because homosexuality crosses all those boundaries and tends to be a subversive category of its own.)

    Ecclesial Perspectives
    Certainly this debate is dominated by universal and subversive ethical arguments. Rather than focusing on what is right for everyone or just certain marginalized groups, ecclesial ethics focuses on what is right for the church. Based on Rowan Williams description of sexuality being fundamentally about learning to be desired by God rather than procreation, one may argue that homosexuality has much to teach the church about desire in its own right apart from the instrumentality of sex. Eugene Rogers, in fact, takes this up by advocating that homosexual as well as heterosexual sacramental marriages entered for the sake of sanctification bear witness to the fact that “sex is for God.” This is obviously an ecclesial ethic based on an assumption that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.
    J. I. Packer, who holds to the traditional view of sexuality, offers a different ecclesial approach. Although most of his views are grounded in universal arguments, he does advocate a communal church setting in which the “virtues of modesty, self control, restraint, and the capacity to feel shame” are cultivated. His focus is not only on the development of habits of sexual purity, but also habits of practicing Christian care, companionship, compassion, and accountability to ensure fidelity in marriages and sexual purity in singleness. The focus on virtues and character development in a communal setting is a significant characteristic of an ecclesial ethic.

    Concluding Thoughts
    Obviously, there are a variety of different perspectives from which vastly different conclusions are reached, and this paper only scratches the surface! There are conflicting opinions and not everyone can be right. The question is which arguments are we going to trust? Personally, I largely agree with Hays and Gagnon, and am concerned about the chaos that may ensue if biblical authority is taken too lightly or not at all. Honestly, determining authority based on what is “existentially engaging” sounds too much like doing what is right in one’s own eyes, which biblically speaking is not good. Who decides what is existentially engaging?
    Furthermore, if the argument that a person should be allowed to live out their “natural orientation” is true then how can the Church only accept monogamous homosexual and heterosexual unions. What of those who are bisexual? Should they too not be allowed blessing of their polyamarous unions? Furthermore, if Paul’s view of homosexuality is obsolete because of the modern understanding of sexual orientation then it seems that his whole notion of sin in general is too considering the way he seems to describe sin as an inherited, thus, un-chosen condition (Rom 5:12) that overwhelms the will (Rom 7:20). Humans sure seem to be naturally oriented toward sin in general. Does this mean the Church should do away with such a theistic, theological way of viewing anthropology in favor of a more naturalistic worldview? Without a clear doctrine of sin and grace would Christianity even be relevant anymore other than as a siphon for other agendas, such as certain political agendas?
    Being trained in psychology at a graduate level I know that psychological researchers are certainly not considering a theological notion of sin when they present their findings. They are describing their findings as is without any regard to the notion of pre-fallen verses post-fallen human nature because they are not doing theology. Besides, there are myriads of other psychological conditions, many of which most people would find undesirable, that are also theorized to have a congenital, genetic basis. Those things are considered for virtually all psychological conditions. Those who lean heavily to the nature side of the nature-nurture argument certainly would. As Hays says, “Surely Christian ethics does not want to hold that all inborn traits are good and desirable.” I think the Church needs to stick with theology and interpret the opinions of the APA, which are often ambiguous and open to interpretation themselves, in light of scripture and Christian tradition not the other way around. Theology certainly need not be subordinated to the social sciences.

    by Cliff on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:37 pm

43. Thanks Cliff. Perhaps since you have graduate psychological training you and Chris can discuss the psychological/sociological data more in-depth, since I admittedly lack that expertise in that area.

    Blessings,
    JM

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:51 pm

44. JM,
    To flesh out my last comment, you have made the claim that Scripture declares the male-female sexual relationship as normative. Chris (and correct me if I’m wrong, Chris) is pointing out to you that we have an ENTIRE corpus of Scripture that suggests otherwise. You need to account for that in some way. What was normal for the Bible we would call wrong and sinful today. So what changed? God? Or have our contexts changed in such a way that demand a new sexual ethic unlike previous generations?

    One more thing that I feel must be said.

    I would caution you and anyone from pushing to far on this idea that the Imago Dei is best realized (or fully realized) in the male-female union. This move of yours sends all sorts of alarms off for me. Who are any of us to name WHERE or in WHOM the image of God fully or best resides? At best I might be able to say that anywhere where 2 or 3 are gathered, there too is God. But the moment I make your move, and suggest that it is fully found in a modern day nuclear husband and wife, I have then by default just created an entire world of “others” who are deficient. Even single people like yourself are less-than when your theology is carried to it’s logical conclusion.

    I’m currently in a Barth class and given his time of life we are of course reading a lot of literature detailing the rise of the Nazi state (a great book that I can’t recommend enough if The Nazi Conscious by Claudia Koonz). Now of course I’m not suggesting that you are on a slippery slope to a Final Solution but I feel it is imperative to point out that the German people rallied around the “Volk” or their “German-ness” – that which made them special….and pure. All I am saying is We have a loooong and checkered history as human beings of what happens when we set a type of people over and against another, especially when we invoke God in the mix.

    I wish, for that reason, you would rethink this idea that the Imago Dei is fully found and only found in a male-female couple. Though I know you don’t intend it, it bears the marks of violence and oppression upon those that don’t fit your bill.

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm

45. “you have made the claim that Scripture declares the male-female sexual relationship as normative. Chris (and correct me if I’m wrong, Chris) is pointing out to you that we have an ENTIRE corpus of Scripture that suggests otherwise.”

    Where is this ENTIRE corpus, Chad? Where is ONE passage or group of passages which explicitly allow for same-sex sex within the Covenant people of God? They do not exist–unless like the revisionist scholars Chris appeals to, you read into the texts concepts that simply are not even remotely present (Ruth/Naomi as lesbians, David/Jonathan as married, etc.).

    I stress again, EVERY instance in ALL of Scripture in which sex is blessed by God and held up as a positive example is sex between male and female. There are no exceptions to this in Scripture; thus proponents of your view must appeal to modern concepts of psychology, sociology or other extrabiblical criteria. This is, of course, not automatically illegitimate, but unlike other issues where this has been done (i.e. Astronomy, physics, etc.), this has direct bearing on a SPECIFIC MORAL ACT which is universally condemned in Scripture whenever it is mentioned.

    To claim that the burden of proof is on the one holding a more traditional view or that Scripture is neutral or silent on this subject is an outstanding claim which requires outstanding evidence, to say the least.

    by jm on Oct 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm

46. Chad

    Although you say you are not making such a suggestion that JM is on a slippery slope it sure does seem that you are at least hinting at that, no? Pulling out the Nazi card may be a bit premature and stiffle the discussion unnecessarily don’t you think?

    by Cliff on Oct 6, 2010 at 5:55 pm

47. I’m no expert on that literature either because other things have kept me from keeping up. But I’m pretty sure there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is just like eye color, race, sex, etc. And I’m also pretty sure that just because a psychological condition is intense and strongly resisitant to change that it necessarily qualifies as an intrinsic good.

    The debate over choice is irrelevant too in my opinion because noone chooses one’s desires. You can’t always determine an ought from an is. We all make choices often between competing desires.

    I think the crux of the issue for Christians is what do Scripture and tradition really say about this issue and what will be the final authority on the subject.

    One of the arguments that seems to come up rather frequently is that there are some, who enaage in homosexual relations who seem to really love the Lord and manifest gifts of the Spirit. The assumption seems to be that the giftedness for ministry demonstrates that the sexual predilections have to be ok. However, I think it a mistake to try to determine genuineness based on gifts. Besides the fact that the Spirit works through us all in spite of us rather than because of us, Jesus didn’t seem to be all that impressed with everyone who laid claim to excercising powerful gifts in his name (Matt 7:15-23). Doing the will of God is the key. Does engaging in homo-sex and/or promoting the homosexual agenda fall within the parameters of the will of God? Some think so, I do not.

    by Cliff on Oct 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm

48. Cliff,
    No, I don’t think it’s premature at all nor should it stifle discussion. I don’t understand why it is that when anyone makes any sort of historical comparisons with Nazi Germany (as opposed to just throwing it out there randomly), rather than people actually take head-on those comparisons they instead just label it as a “card” and act indignant that it was brought up (and thus, conversation ends).

    What would be an acceptable historical event that I could compare the setting up of one people as those who are pure and possess God more fully against some other group?

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 6, 2010 at 6:32 pm

49. Chad, I will respond to your hesitation about my Imago Dei comment in my next blog post because you raise a valid point that I want to be sure to address and clarify.

    Regarding the passages Chris listed, it’s important to note that even though they are (or I would argue, seem to be) in tension with the original sexual mandate for creation from Gen.1-2, they never come close to portraying the most basic and primary requirement for sexual union–that of male and female. They cannot be used to argue anything about the acceptability of same-sex sex because every time sex is spoken of favorably (or even reported neutrally) in Scripture, it is always and without exception an act of male-female union. That is my point, and one that I believe proponents of same-sex sexual relationships often overlook or downplay.

    Lastly, I don’t take issue with the comparison to Nazi Germany for the simple reason that I don’t think it is remotely applicable to the position I embrace. Unless you are prepared to have members of Polygamy sects in Utah similarly denounce opposition to them as Nazi-like. I will try to make clear in future responses that there is nothing about “better” or “worse” people in the position I am advocating. In the same way that you don’t relegate addicts to 2nd class citizenship, but rather love and care for them while seeking to help free them from their brokenness (which sounds patronizing to anyone who would deny that such brokenness is present within them!), such is my desire when it comes to ministering to those who struggle with the burden of same-sex attraction (and who recognize it as such).

    Blessings,
    JM

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 6:54 pm

50. >They cannot be used to argue anything about the acceptability of same-sex >sex because every time sex is spoken of favorably (or even reported neutrally) >in Scripture, it is always and without exception an act of male-female union. >That is my point, and one that I believe proponents of same-sex sexual >relationships often overlook or downplay.

    The point JMS, is that Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality is entirely different from Ancient Hebraic Sexuality.

    While your sexuality personally (in that you allow for masturbation and oral sex, whereas many conservative pastors would not) is different from the dominant paradigm of Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality, on other points it is largely the same.

    You seem to be portraying your sexuality as if it’s a Xerox copy of Bible sexuality: it isn’t. You don’t believe in having multiple wives, nor are you bound by the covenant of Levarite marriage.

    The fact that homosexuality is mentioned negatively in ancient Moloch worshiping culture of the middle east, or that homosexuality is mentioned negatively in the promiscuous days of the Roman empire, doesn’t prove that ALL homosexuality is wrong, any more that the acceptance of polygamy by the early Jews proves that it is ALWAYS morally right!

    Birthdays are mentioned negatively in both the New and Old testament. For this reason, following your rubric, Jehova’s Witnesses contend that it is morally wrong. They regard the celebrations of birthdays as immoral. Does that make any sense? Of course not!

    The reason for Birthdays in the Roman Empire was to celebrate Caesar’s divinity, and likewise for the Pharaoh’s birthday. Of course early Christians weren’t going to celebrate that holiday. Does that mean that because Birthdays are ONLY mentioned negatively that ALL Birthday celebrations are immoral? Of COURSE not.

    While celebrating Pharoah’s Birthday and Caesar’s Birthday violates the first commandment (as you are worshipping a human idol), a nice birthday cake for Fran in accounting does not.

    When it comes to sexuality, you are cherry picking out of it the customs that parallel your Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality, and ignore the parts that don’t fit, like polygamy and Levarite marriage.

    The ancient Jews didn’t like Moloch sexuality and the Ancient Christians didn’t like Roman sexuality, and that matches the Anglo Saxon Christian sexuality. So you say “See, I’m following what is mandated in the Bible”.

    But when I mention Levarite marriage, or Polygamy, which was overwhelmingly endorsed in the Bible, it doesn’t fit your Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality, and just put your fingers in your ears and go “LALALA I can’t hear you LALALALA!”

    In the end it’s just confirmation bias, you accept the things that support your argument that you are following “Biblical Sexuality” and ignore all the differences between Hebraic Sexuality and your own.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 12:39 am

51. Chris, see my most recent post for a response to most of this.

    Also, please watch my videos that I mentioned on the relationship between the Old and New Covenant, as that is the primary point which you are misrepresenting my views.

    by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 2:27 am

52. JM,
    I have to come back one more time to Genesis 2:17. I admit that the interpretation of the causal connection between “you must not eat” and “for when you eat of it you will surely die” as an expression of God’s loving concern is MY interpretation. I will not claim that it is the only possible interpretation. But it is a possible one. The verse itself may say nothing more than: don’t do this because this terrible destiny is the consequence. Many have read into this (just as legimitately as my own interpretation) a warning regarding God’s wrath towards disobedience and rebellion.

    So I openly confess that I can’t help but reading any text in the Bible not just on its own terms but also through the Christ lense, particularly when it has direct implications regarding our understanding of the character of God. This is not an arbitrary choice of lenses though. I see it as both legitimate and necessary because of the overall understanding that Christ is God’s supreme and exact representation and in this function supercedes and qualifies previous words and revelations of God (Hebrews 1:1-3; John 14:9). God has never been seen as clearly as through Christ. And it is through Christ that we know without a doubt that God is love and that love does not seek to condemn anyone, rather the opposite (1 John 4:16; John 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 2:3-4). Maybe we can agree that nothing God says or does can be properly understood apart from His love. And so I believe it’s legitimate and proper to interpret Genesis 2:17 as an expression of love as well, especially in regards to the warning. And if we assume a previous loving relationship of Adam and Eve with God in the narrative, then they would have heard it as such as well.

    There were times when God did not provide a rationale for His actions. Job and the cause of his suffering may be a good case in point. I don’t see the same in Leviticus or in Paul’s statements regarding unwholesome sexuality. There simply is no “because I said so” reasoning but very clear references what is wrong and harmful about it. In all the cases, there is a very clear break from loving God and loving our neighbor which – according to Jesus – sums up the entire law.

    One more thing: I find it ironic that you posted Marin’s youtube clip who has argued all along for a focus on the “love” question rather than the “sin” question. Have you read his book “Love is an orientation”?

    by Josh Mueller on Oct 6, 2010 at 8:25 pm

53. Yes, Josh. I read Marin’s book and recommended it here: http://www.examiner.com/methodist-in-national/homosexuality-the-elephant-the-room

    as well as here:
    http://www.examiner.com/methodist-in-national/elevating-the-conversation-between-christians-and-the-glbt-community

    I’ve also followed the controversy between Marin and Gagnon and I find myself in a mediating position between them.

    As for Genesis, I think Walter Brueggemann put it well in his commentary in the Interpretation series. In talking about the prohibition of eating from the Tree he remarks:
    “Nothing is explained. The story has no interest in the character of the tree. What counts is the fact of the prohibition, the authority of the one who speaks and the unqualified expectation of obedience…The prohibition which seemed a given is now scrutinized as though it were not a given but an option. The serpent engages in a bit of sociology of law in order to relativize even the rule of God.” (pp.46-48)

    This is where I am coming from hermeneutically. If God “has indeed said” something is sinful in the Covenant in which we find ourselves living within, and has not elsewhere allowed it or condoned it, then regardless of what we may think or reason about it, and regardless of how much time and cultural distance passes, it is sinful nonetheless.

    BTW, I agree entirely with your point to Cliff and I am grieved at how horribly people have behaved in Jesus’ name towards those dealing with same-sex attraction throughout history. Yet this grief and the desire to reach out in genuine self-sacrificial love to those who struggle with it (or those who openly embrace it) cannot be the lens through which I reinterpret Scripture. Therefore, I find myself in the unenviable situation of holding the teaching of Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy in one hand and reaching out with the other to those who have been hurt, alienated and ostracized by the Church. That’s why I relate to Marin’s heart on this and his desire to “live in the tension”…and yet I also relate to Gagnon’s scholarship and faithfulness to the exegetical foundation of the historic position on same-sex sexual relationships.

    by jm on Oct 6, 2010 at 11:36 pm

54. Cliff,
    I wonder if you’re able to put yourself mentally in the shoes of a gay Christian man or lesbian Christian woman who in their own attempt to be faithful to God’s will as THEY perceive it from Scripture to live out their commitment in love and faithfulness, and then read about the “chaos that MAY ensue” because of churches and denominations possibly allowing and encouraging such a union in the future.

    It sounds rather hollow and strikes me as incredulous compared to the very real chaos and the trail of blood left behind after continuing gay bashing and bullying that has at least part of its roots in “biblical” insistence that all homosexual behavior is not only wrong but punishable by death and sure of eternal condemnation in God’s sight. Yes, it’s a trail that can be seen throughout the centuries because one interpretation has prevailed. Your sentence “Unfortunately at times the Church or some Church leaders were, perhaps, overly harsh in their condemnation and punishment of it” is so sad and such a painful minimization of what’s happened, it’s beyond my comprehension when I think of the lack of empathy such a statement reflects.

    I realize that none of what I just said has any direct implications on the argument itself but I still think we are dealing with way more than just exegetical disagreements here and should watch every word we’re saying very carefully. As Marin said so poignantly in his clip: “The blood is on my hands too!” I wonder what’s the greater “sin” in God’s eyes: coming to a possibly faulty interpretation of a commandment restricting sexual activity or failing to speak up for those who have been vilified and demonized throughout history? (Yeah, yeah … false dichotomy, I know!)

    by Josh Mueller on Oct 6, 2010 at 9:26 pm

55. Chad,

    The Nazi comparison is always jolting. Just the way it is. But it seems that you were doing exactly what you said you weren’t doing. I assume JM thinks since God created humankind in God’s image, male and female then he’s probably saying something like both sexes together (not necesarily in marital union, but certainly including it) give us a fuller apprecaition of the imago dei than either sex alone. I doubt he means that married couples are better than singles or anyone else. So it doesn’t really seem fair to compare the above way of thinking with the way Nazis thought one race was superior to others and therefore justified genocide. It probably really is a bit premature to draw that comparison unless someone starts saying that heterosexual married people are inherently superior to all other people. Is that what JM is trying to say?

    Peace brother! I’m off to other responsibilties.

    by Cliff on Oct 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm

56. Cliff,
    I realize that is what JM is intimating. It’s what I disagree with. And yeah, the comparison is jolting but does that make it any less true? My issue with the way this is framed is this: Who are ANY of us to say in what sort of anthropological design the image of God is the most “full” or most “realized”? Do you really believe the image of God is at it’s fullest in ONLY a male-female sexual union? If this is the case, why didn’t Paul exhort EVERYONE to marry? Instead, he encouraged everyone to remain single. BUT, he did insist ALL to be members of the body of Christ – the Church. This is why I said we can possibly say “where 2 or 3 are gathered, there so is God” (as Jesus said) but we presume FAR too much (as Germans did in the 1930’s) when we insist God is most FULLY expressed HERE but not THERE.

    Surely we can all see the danger is such presumptions, can we not?

    see ya in chapel? peace!

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 12:24 pm

57. Another thought…

    Jesus is said to be the FULLEST expression of the image of God. Jesus was a single male. Does this mean that all single males are the fullest expression of this image? Of course not. Yet what we know of Jesus is that Jesus is not an isolated being unto himself but a Triune Being.

    What I am getting at is this: A same-sex couple has as much capability to “perform” or “be” the image of God as a single person in community or a traditional married couple or a church or whomever is living in such a way with Christ as mediator in all their relationships and all their doings.

    by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 12:46 pm

58. Jesus never expressed the Image of God as reflected in the sexual union of male and female. For it to be expressed in human sexual relationships, which is the main point being discussed, the joining of male and female (as per Gen.2) is necessary to create the One Flesh bond that defines Godly sexuality. Individuals can express many aspects of God’s Image, but only collectively is the fullness of the Imago Dei represented and only in the union of male and female does the sexual act reflect it (at least, we have no counter evidence to suggest otherwise from the entire record of Scripture when it teaches explicitly on sexuality and holiness).

    by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm

59. A point that I think needs to be kept in mind in all of this is that what the Bible records is not necessarily condoned, and what God allows (i.e. polygmay, slavery, divorce) doesn’t necessarily mean that it was God’s primary will. For example, Jesus said the law of Moses given by God only allowed for divorce for any reason because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, right? According to Jesus the primary prescriptive norm is found in the creation account in Gen 1 and 2 (Mk. 10:5-9) . Was Jesus wrong for dismissing what came after as not being the primary will of God? I don’t think so.

    The implication of what Jesus says seems to be that in creation God never intended for people to engage in serial polygamy via divorce anyway. From that, and based on the ethic of the NT, and the conseverative trajectory of the Scripture overall, I would gather that God never sanctioned polygamy as an ultimate good, but rather something for which allowance was made because of falleness. So the changing moral world of the Bible is no indication that sexual morality is maleable with the sexual mores of any given culture.

    While we are here arguing over whether the Church should condone and bless monagamous same-sex unions there are other Christians who feel that the Church should also condone and bless non-monagamous relationships and be more accepting of many types of sexual activity outside of marriage. Someone I know who is (or at least was) living with another man in a committed, albeit not exclusive, same-sex realtionship would not be satisfied with simply a sanctioning of exclusive monagomous relationships. From what I understand there is also a push to allow for clergy non-celibacy in singleness, hetero or otherwise, as well. For some I’m sure that is no big deal, but you have to admit that it does seem to be a reversal of the trajectory we find in Scripture. Does that matter?

    by Cliff on Oct 8, 2010 at 2:54 pm

60. Josh,

    I think you’re right about that statement you pulled. Poor wording. Not sure why I threw “perhaps” in there.

    And yeah! False dichotomy is right.

    by Cliff on Oct 9, 2010 at 12:12 am

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required, but never shared)

Web

Δ