In the unbelievably long interaction after my recent post "Show me where I am wrong", we've reached a point where I have been challenged to do two specific things. The first is to show where the Bible says that a man can marry a man (I have been accused of arguing from silence). The second is to show where homosexuality has been affirmed (or at least allowed) through church (and/or Jewish) history.

This is not a reponse to either of those requests - I have recently moved house, and my whole library was packed into boxes and still in the process of being shipped to me. It will take another month for them to arrive, and I need my reference books in order to a good job of responding. So, a decent response will have to wait.

But here are some thoughts, and a few links (mainly for my future reference, but also for anyone following the discussions who wants to look at this stuff in more detail now).

Just briefly, on the issue of arguing from silence, and needing a Bible verse to cover every issue of our lives. This is a ludicrous request. How are Christian scientists meant to decide about whether to get involved in genetic modification or stem cell research if you need a specific verse to guide you? The Bible never condemns pornography - does that mean it's OK? The Bible doesn't tell us to obey the speed limit, so surely Christians can just drive however they want to? But, of course, the argument is that the Bible tells us to obey the authorities. So, if your country tells you to accept homosexual marriage (as my home country, South Africa now does), then does that mean you have to? Or, can you ignore the government on some issues? Of course you can - when you believe they've gone against God's law. And so the discussion comes full circle...

We have to just admit that the Bible is not a legal textbook, providing full and final evidence for every issue facing us. It was never designed to be like that.

This is an important starting point for discussions on how we interpret the Bible on the issue of homosexuality.

The second issue related to whether we have historical evidence. This is how we develop theology over time - we rely on the gathered wisdom of the saints over the ages, as we have slowly over 2,000 years argued back and forth on numerous issues, slowly weeding out bad arguments and interpretations, and becoming ever more orthodox (in the sense of developing a single voice and view on an issue). Well, that's the theory, anyway. In reality, historical theological studies will show that almost every issue you can imagine the Christian Church has become increasingly divided over the years.

Brian McLaren has a lovely phrase to explain why. He calls it the "church of the final detail". Instead of looking for the core elements of our faith that unite us, as Christians we often look for the smallest excuse to start a new church or denomination or movement, that claims to be more orthodox - more right - than the church it just broke away from. This tendency to break away and be confrontational in our attitudes to those who don't see every issue exactly as we see it, was a tactic of the Reformation, and it's no surprise that the disciples of Luther and Calvin still favour this approach (it was not Jesus' approach, as far as I can see).

Regardless of this tendency, there is another reason why I see this request to provide historical evidence as a bit ironic. The whole point of looking to historical theology to prove orthodoxy is that the purpose of looking to history is to correct history's excesses or oversights. One of the very tenets of the Reformation was continual reforming of our theology. So, asking me to show the church's historical views on homosexuality is a win-win for me. If I can show that the current mainstream position has not always been held, I have a strong argument for changing it. If I only show that the church has never accepted homosexuality, I can simply use this as a basis for saying that they have always been wrong, and it's about jolly time that we did some good theology in our own generation and corrected this galring historical mistake. Either way, I am being absolutely, 100% orthodox!!

OK, enough philosophy. As I said, it will take me a few weeks to formulate an adequate response, but here are some online resources I will be using:

• History of Christianity and homosexuality (wikipedia)
• Saint Aelred the Queer: The Surprising History of Homosexuality and Homophobia
• The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality
• The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979 (by John Boswell)
• Pro-Gay Texts in the Bible
• Homosexuality in History
• Judaism and Homosexuality - a very short article
• Homosexual Eros in Early Greece
• The Experience of Homosexuality in the Middle Ages
• Religious groups' policies & beliefs about homosexuality

Here are some annotated bibliographies:

• Homosexuality in History: A Partially Annotated Bibliography
• by Paul Halsall (an earlier version of the one above, I think)

One or two other articles that are interesting:

• A CURE FOR HOMOPHOBIA
• The World History of Male Love
• People with a History - the history of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people
• Swade's Lesbian History Page

PS - it should be obvious, but this is not a list of sites or resources I endorse. Just a list I will be referencing.

Thanks Graeme, I'm going to be musing over these and then I'll enter into the debate again :)

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 20 Sep, 2008 - 00:04:04

eagerly awaiting your full response...

But just in passing...

a biblical theology gives us principles which we can apply to life as it is today - that's pretty obvious. So of course the bible says pornography is wrong! it says it explicitly when Jesus tells us to even look at a woman who is not your wife with lust is the same as committing adultery - in principle then, any lustful gazing is sinful. And added to that, causing someone to sin is also wrong so the person committing pornography is also in the wrong.

So in your task, you need to show us what biblical principles show that gay marriage is blessed by God, whilst dealing with those biblical principles that where quoted (in the discussion) which suggest to us on this side of the argument that any homosexual activity is not blessed by God.

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 20 Sep, 2008 - 09:53:46

Graeme,

I am deeply concerned about what you do with arguments that have been put to you coherently and, I hope, articulately. For instance:

What on earth does the particular argument from silence that I identified in your thinking have to do with “needing a Bible verse to cover every issue of our lives?” To point out an argument from silence does not add up to requiring a Bible verse to cover every issue of our lives. Surely you know this. It also has absolutely nothing to do with treating the Bible as a legal textbook. I do not treat the Bible that way. The argument from silence has to do with the following:

You argue that because those Scriptures that refer to the sins of Sodom do not mention homosexuality, THEREFORE homosexuality was not part of the sins of Sodom. That is an argument from silence. There is no disputing that. There is no room for disagreement there. It simply IS an argument from silence. My pointing that out does not mean that I require a Bible verse to cover every issue of our lives. That would be a position of the omni-sufficiency of Scripture and not the position of the sufficiency of Scripture that I hold to. Still, what any of that has to do with your argument from silence that I pointed out is beyond me. This is the only part of your post that I’ll respond to now, for two reasons: 1.) I am running around between BU Assembly meetings (we have been blessed, even with snow!). 2.) Your post, if you’ll pardon my saying so, strikes me as shadow-boxing mixed with some Googling. We’ll talk soon.

P.S. For the record, Graeme, you are not orthodox just because you insist that you are. Your position (for that is what it seems to have become rather than merely an innocent discussion) is quite heterodox, despite the Googling list. O, yes, and my pointing out the argument from silence is not an "accusation", it is merely pointing out a logical fallacy.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 22 Sep, 2008 - 13:44:17

Willem,

I have fully answered your arguments on Sodom and Gomorrah. Your logic is twisted and difficult to follow, but let me try again.

I am NOT arguing from silence. The Bible itself, throughout the Old and New Testaments, states precisely what the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were. These are stated repeatedly, and include inhospitability, abuse, crimes against the poor, arrogance and more. Homosexuality is never mentioned.

To call this an argument from silence is ridiculous. The Bible never mentions that God punished them for breaking speed limits, for wearing red hats or for having tatoos (I choose these at random). So, do I have provide evidence of these?

I seriously don't understand your issue here.

In an email to me that was too long to post as a comment, you go into even more tortuous detail on this issue of silence and circular reasoning.

I don't understand it.

No-one is arguing that the men of Sodom tried to homosexually rape Lot's visitors. That was their sin: rape, abuse, lack of hospitality. Maybe because it was homosexual rape - something done in those times to humiliate defeated armies - it was especially disgusting to God. I don't know - the Bible is silent on that issue, and the burden of proof rests with you.

The Bible is NOT silent on the sins of Sodom. But, the Bible itself lists these sins differently to how you would want it to. No mention is made of homosexuality - not at all.

I am not sure why you would say that I have not answered you on this issue.

The post I put here was clear. It was a list of resources I will be coming back to, when I get around to dealing with the issue properly. It wasn't a laid out argument - in fact, I specifically said it wasn't.

I am happy to have these interactions and conversations - that is what the website is for. I realise they can be frustrating because there are multiple threads intersecting at different times.

We will deal with all the issues in time. Have patience, and trust the process.

Posted by: Graeme 22 Sep, 2008 - 14:14:28

PS, orthodoxy is defined as: Soundness of faith; a belief in the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, or in some established standard of faith.

Orthodoxy relates not only to WHAT you believe, but also HOW you believe it and how you COME to believe it.

My point is that I am following an evangelical hermeneutic and exegetical process. Sure, at this stage, the outcome appears heterodox. But, then, do did almost everything Luther and Calvin did. Some of what Augustine, Anselm and other early church fathers laid out was considered heterodox at the time. Not so now. The point is to remain true to accepted PROCESS as well as accepted OUTCOMES (content).

Posted by: Graeme 22 Sep, 2008 - 14:29:28

Graeme,

What can I say but that it is quite clear that my logic is difficult for you to follow. How this makes it "twisted" is hard for me to see. You clearly are having trouble grasping what an an argument from silence is. Go check it out. You will not be able to answer my arguments until you do. Here's a clue: Those passages (other than Gen. 19) that refer to the sins of Sodom do not necessarily supply us with a complete list of Sodom's sins. Therefore the fact that homosexuality is not mentioned in those passages does not mean that those passages wish to EXCLUDE homosexuality (or any other unmentioned sin) from the list of Sodom's sin. To say that just because those passages do not mention the homosexuality as one of Sodom's sins THEREFORE homosexuality is not one of Sodom's sins is, to borrow your term ludicrous. It is, to borrow another one of your phrases, twisted logic because it is an argument from silence.

P.S. I think your attempt to place your work on a par with that of Luther and Calvin is somewhat premature. Your definition of "orthodoxy" I like. Your application of that definition, I like less.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 22 Sep, 2008 - 15:10:51

Willem,

I assume from your tone that you have done formal studies in Logic. I try to keep this blog at a reasonably "popular" level, but am happy to engage every now and again at the detail of textual analysis (which I have formally studied), ancient languages (which I have studied, and won awards in), logic (which I have formally studied, doing Philosophy 1 and 2) and other areas of study that interest me, and in which I have some proficiency.

So, let's deal with "an argument from silence".

A definition would be: The argument from silence (also called argumentum ad silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.

As far as I understand your argument, you are saying that we cannot use other portions of Scripture to help us understand what is happening in Sodom. I agree that the other passages never supply complete lists of the sins.

But, where do you then stop? Can we add anything into these lists, or must we ignore the lists completely?

This is where an argument from silence comes in. You're right - we cannot say that just because they don't mention homosexuality they didn't have it in mind (this is the technical definition of the argument from silence). However, neither can you argue that they DID have it in mind. The argument from silence cuts both ways. We must return to the original passage to see what it does, or does not, say.

And, we must also add in the issue of divine revelation and inspiration. If God is opposed to homosexuality, and He wants us to know this, and Sodom and Gomorrah are in the Bible as a HUGE incentive to steer clear of homosexuality, then you need to explain to me WHY God does not indicate this in the many opportunities He had when inspiring the writers of the Bible. Why do the authors throughout the Bible stay silent on the homosexuality issue when writing about Sodom and Gomorrah?

It seems, when stated this way, that if you want to appeal to the argument from silence, then the appeal is in my favour. Are you saying that the authors intended to talk about the sin of homosexuality, but then decided not to. Why not?

But, for the sake of carrying on our conversation, let us assume that we cannot appeal to other passages in Scripture, and must look at the account of Sodom and Gomorrah itself. You will discover no specific sins listed when God decides to destroy them. He sends angels to check them out because they were just generally all-round bad. The angels are abused, harrassed and Lot has his hands full keeping them from being raped. Lot even offers his virgin daughters to the crowd (in the parallel story in Judges, the crowd accepts the offer, and rape the woman to death. Is this not the most awful thing in these stories? Why do we think there only homosexuality lessons to be learnt here?).

Yet, nowhere does God specifically condemn homosexuality. We are left to suppose what the actual sins were. We impose a very Western, individualistic framework on the passage to single out homosexuality from all the other issues present in the passage.

So, because the passage itself does not explicitly state the sins for which the town was punished, is it not appropriate to look elsewhere in Scripture? (This is the difference between inductive, logic and abductive reasoning approaches. In this case, the logical and inductive have not been adequate.)

This is why I say that your claiming my argument is an argument from silence is itself a logical fallacy - of circular reasoning.

How is this to be resolved?

continued...

Posted by: Graeme 22 Sep, 2008 - 16:22:14

... continued ....

Simple. Firstly, logical fallacies are not all the same. An argument from silence, although technically present, does not invalidate an argument, ipso facto. One has to measure the strength of the argument from silence, and look at the strength of the abductive reasoning approach. In this case, if Genesis or Judges had specifically listed some sins, and then the prophets and other writers had listed others, the argument from silence would be very strong. Let's say, in Genesis, God had said, "it is because you are homosexuals that I am going to destroy you", then we could not say that because the prophets don't mention homosexuality that it was not actually the reason. In such a case, we would say that "<b>in addition to homosexuality</b>, there were also other issues, not mentioned in Genesis that were also important in God's judgement".

This, however, is NOT the case. No sins are actually listed in Genesis. Therefore, if sins are listed elsewhere, we must take those lists as authoritative. I agree that we cannot take them as comprehensive.

Either way, though, we cannot then infer anything from silence back into the Genesis passages.

We still reach the same conclusion, and, Willem, it is my point, not yours that has been proven. The stories in Genesis and Judges cannot be used to state that God is against homosexuality. They can be used to say that God is against rape, abuse, homosexual rape, harrassment, mistreatment of strangers, inhospitability, etc. But not homosexuality. THAT would be an argument from silence, and not a good one either.

Posted by: Graeme 22 Sep, 2008 - 16:22:27

Graeme, thanks for the work you're doing on this - challenging me in many ways, but I'm following these posts as a kinda silent observer. Let me give you a hat tip or a pat on the back or whatever is an appropriate way of saying, "Keep it up!"

Question/observation: if everything that the men of Sodom did was bad (and I haven't re-read that passage) then if they were into sex with other men, couldn't we deduce homosexuality was bad?

Posted by: Roger Saner 22 Sep, 2008 - 18:46:45

Roger, thanks for your comment.

The men of Sodom also ate food, breathed and urinated. I am guessing they also slept, read books, plowed fields and bathed. By the logic you set out, these would also be included in their evil ways. That's the problem with an argument from silence... you have to read into the text certain things.

Nice try, though :-).

Thanks again for the encouragement to carry on the conversation.

I seriously don't think there is much to be gained by going over and over this Sodom issue. That is not where this issue is won or lost.

Posted by: Graeme 22 Sep, 2008 - 19:10:17

Graeme,

Thank you for the CV and congratulations on the awards. Thank you also for the Latin. To get back to some points, briefly, between BU sessions:

You say:

“As far as I understand your argument, you are saying that we cannot use other portions of Scripture to help us understand what is happening in Sodom”.

No, that is precisely what I am not saying. What I am saying is:

We cannot USE SILENCE FROM OTHER PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE TO BOLSTER WHAT WE WISH TO BELIEVE HAPPENED OR DID NOT HAPPEN IN SODOM.

I hope you were not REALLY thinking I thought we cannot use Scripture to interpret Scripture?

You ask:

“But where do you then stop? Can we add anything into these lists, or must we ignore the lists completely?”

Stop where Scriture stops. Don’t take anything away, don’t add anything. You know this better than most.

“However, neither can you argue that they DID have it in mind. The argument from silence cuts both ways”.

Indeed, the argument from silence would cut both ways, IF, as you rightly say, I were to argue that they did have homosexuality in mind. I have never presented such an argument, so mine is not an argument from silence, as you have seemingly finally realised yours to be.

You say:

“We must return to the original passage to see what it does, or does not, say.”

This is a major point in my “too long to post e-mail” to you, which, as you recall, was actually an entire article that I wrote in reply to your article, and which I sent to you at your request.

You ask:

“Why do the authors throughout the Bible stay silent on the homosexuality issue when writing about Sodom and Gomorrah?”

Without acknowledging that they were as silent as you make them out to be, let me say, I don’t know. May I take a guess, seeing you avail yourself of the same liberty by saying their silence implies condoning of homosexuality? Perhaps everybody, going simply on what little God DID say on the matter had just got the point so clearly that homosexuality was against God’s will and order that few Christians, if any, before this present generation saw a necessity to make this already clear point all over again.

You say:

“It seems, when stated this way, that if you want to appeal to the argument from silence, then the appeal is in my favour. Are you saying that the authors intended to talk about the sin of homosexuality, but then decided not to. Why not?”

The key here lies in the clause “when stated this way”. Hope I have pointed out how that way of stating it is faulty.

You ask:

“Are you saying that the authors intended to talk about the sin of homosexuality, but then decided not to?”

What makes you think I said that?

You conclude:

“So, because the passage itself does not explicitly state the sins for which the town was punished…”.

There are a couple of problems with this conclusion:

It does not, to my mind, flow from the argument you present to reach it. Here is one flaw in the argument by which you reach your conclusion: Whilst the Sodom account does not STATE the sin, it certainly describes homosexuality per se and not just homosexual rape. The reason why I say so is that if it was the RAPE issue that was the objectionable part, why was Lot, a righteous man, prepared to “transfer the sin” to his daughters? A more probable explanation, is that Lot was aiming at the lesser of two evils. Or would you say that homosexual rape was in Lot’s mind a greater evil than heterosexual rape, or that heterosexual gang-rape, of his own daughters, was, in Lot’s mind, a lesser evil than inhospitable behaviour?

That is how this is to be resolved.

You conclude:

“This, however, is NOT the case. No sins are actually listed in Genesis. Therefore, if sins are listed elsewhere, we must take those lists as authoritative. I agree that we cannot take them as comprehensive.”

Of course those lists are authoritative. But they are, nevertheless, as you clearly state, not comprehensive. I am truly glad that you see this so clearly now, for you seemed to want to present them as comprehensive earlier on in the discussion, which produced your argument from silence. Glad to see you fixed that now.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 22 Sep, 2008 - 23:19:47

You say:

“One has to measure the strength of the argument from silence”.

True. And the weakest one is to unceremoniously fill the silence with whatever I wish to be (or not to be) there, in the way you did. You bluntly assumed that because homosexuality was not explicitly mentioned in those texts, therefore it was not ONE of Sodom’s sins. You seem to have moved from denying an argument from silence on your part to claiming a GOOD argument from silence on your part?

You assert:

“Willem, it is my point, not yours that has been proven.”

You are the sole arbiter of that? It’s all over now?

You say

“The stories in Genesis and Judges cannot be used to state that God is against homosexuality.”

The stories in Genesis and Judges are not to be “used” for anything. They are simply to be read and accepted as they stand.

You say:

“…(The stories in Genesis and Judges) can be used to say that God is against rape, abuse, homosexual rape, harrassment, mistreatment of strangers, inhospitability, etc. But not homosexuality.”

That’s not the right conclusion to draw from your reasoning. This is closer to home:

“The Sodom stories can be used to say that homosexual rape, harrassment, mistreatment of strangers, inhospitabile behaviour, etc. were lesser evils in the eyes of a righteous servant of God than the heterosexual gang-rape of his own daughters”. Ca you see why I have problems to agree with you?

You say:

“THAT would be an argument from silence, and not a good one either.”

An argument from silence is never a good one, to my mind. That’s why I take great care to avoid them.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 22 Sep, 2008 - 23:21:11

Terribly wrong word in this statement:

“The Sodom stories can be used to say that homosexual rape, harrassment, mistreatment of strangers, inhospitabile behaviour, etc. were LESSER evils in the eyes of a righteous servant of God than the heterosexual gang-rape of his own daughters”. Ca you see why I have problems to agree with you?"

It should read:

“The Sodom stories can be used to say that homosexual rape, harrassment, mistreatment of strangers, inhospitabile behaviour, etc. were GREATER evils in the eyes of a righteous servant of God than the heterosexual gang-rape of his own daughters”. Ca you see why I have problems to agree with you?"

Truly sorry about that. That's what happens when one inverts a good sentence during editing, and late night during BU Assembly, at that.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 22 Sep, 2008 - 23:33:22

Willem,

This post is supposed to be about homosexuality in church history, so I am going to draw a line here on this discussion about Sodom.

But, I do want to appeal to all other readers of these posts. Why on earth can Willem and I not seem to get onto the same page here? Both of us think we have bomb-proof arguments. Who is right, and how can we get each other to see our points of view?

Help...

Posted by: Graeme 23 Sep, 2008 - 00:21:43

Up earlu for final BU Assembly day.

Won't overstep the line, Graeme, although I thought Genesis and Jufges were historical accounts. Nevertheless, it's your blog, I'll respect your lines.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 23 Sep, 2008 - 05:45:51

P.S.

Just a little peek over Graeme's line, by means of a word to our readers (such as there may be):

Graeme replied to Roger:

"I seriously don't think there is much to be gained by going over and over this Sodom issue. That is not where this issue is won or lost."

May I, respectfully say that unless Graeme can indicate that it is even probable that Lot, a righteous man (as we can deduce from his having been spared together with righteous Abraham) considered the HETEROSEXUAL GANG-RAPE of his own daughters, with his consent, A LESSER EVIL than HOMOSEXUAL RAPE, and/or inhospitibility, and/or harrassment, and/or abuse, and/or mistreatment of strangers, and/or etc., the argument is indeed lost, RIGHT HERE, by him. You decide for yourselves who is on the right page. No more from me. This side of the line now.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 23 Sep, 2008 - 06:34:16

Gents - with respect, I think you're arguing down a false trail.
1. Willem I still don't think there's enough in the Genesis text to make a water tight case.
2. Graeme it seems obvious to me that there was unacceptable homosexual practice (attempted homosexual rape that you have already mentioned) that was most likely part of the sin that ultimately saw Sodom judged - I don't think the lists in other parts of the OT are exhaustive.

But conceding these two things doesn't really bring us any closer to resolving Graeme's orginal question about monogamous homosexual relationships.

If you are wanting to work from proof-text point of view then Romans 1 must be the text to be wrestled with. However I think another fruitful avenue would be to explore the way certain themes are played out in the Bible storyline, themes such as marriage. My guess is that by tracing out the theme of marriage you'd come out with something of an argument from silence in that you'll find monogamous heterosexual marriage affirmed but never monogamous homosexual. An argument from silence in this case wouldn't be the weakest in the world and would need to be reckoned with.

I also think Dr John Ronning's (I have never met Dr Ronning but by reputation I understand him to be possibly one of the most learned Hebrew scholars in South Africa) contention about 1 Cor 6 and Paul's invoking of Levitical language needs to be wrestled with because it might then turn the 1 Cor 6 passage into a far more substantial text in the argument then it currently is.

I'd like to see those issues wrestled with. Graeme can I make a suggestion - that you delineate one, two or a few of these issues and make a seperate post for each with the issue clearly stated so that comments can can stay on track on each post and hopefully be easier to follow.

BTW - I've just finished reading "Walking with Gay Friends" by Alex Tylee - she's a celebate Christian homosexual who shares here journey, the journey of others as well as all the research she's done along the way in the bible, biology and psychology - it's crucial reading for ministry amongst homosexuals.

Posted by: Stephen Murray 23 Sep, 2008 - 11:06:06

Stephen,

Thank you for your opinion. May I remind you how we got onto this trail. Graeme wrote an article which was published in Baptists Today. He took heat for it and issued the following challenge:

“I have claimed that you cannot use the OT stories about Sodom and Gomorrah, because the Bible interprets itself and tells us what the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were.

I have claimed that you cannot use the OT law to oppose homosexual relationships, since you have no way of doing so consistently.

I have claimed that Corinthians and Timothy are not relevant, as we have misinterpreted the words malakos and arsenokoitos.

I have highlighted some options for interpreting Romans 1. Which of these are unacceptable hermenautically?

I have shown why you cannot use Genesis 1-3 in the argument, and the dangers of a "creation order" approach.”

That’s the trail. I responded to the challenge by pointing out an argument of silence in Graeme’s first claim. This is the point that we (at last, and by some detour) have finally come to wrestle with now. That’s the trail. You are, of course, free to follow whichever other trail you may wish to into the debate, but we don’t really have to follow you, I’m sure you would agree. I for one, would much rather stay on this trail, if you don’t mind, especially since we have only just gotten back some traction on it after some spinning.

To respond to your comment to me, because it is precisely on the first point of Graeme’s challenge:

I am not arguing that “there is enough in the Genesis text to make a water tight case” (that the sin of Sodom in focus there was HOMOsexual advances?), although I am wondering what you would have expected in such a text (given its genre) to make it produce a water tight case (against homosexual advances). But I think it takes us closer to such a conclusion and further away from the proposed alternatives than you seem to realise, with respect. This reality, to my mind needs much further exploration. I offered an argument towards that, namely that if the sin in focus in the Gen. 19 text was attempted homosexual RAPE (rather than homsexual advances as such) as an extreme expression of inhospitability (by the way: every time I say that I cannot help but hear how silly it sounds) then it follows that Lot’s response reveals a mindset to which such an extreme expression of inhospitability was a GREATER sin (or at least less acceptable to him) than the heterosexual gangrape of his own daughters, with his consent. I have, without success, tried to find something in the Ancient Near East customs that would explain such a mindset in an ANE father. The hospitality customs just don’t do the necessary, I’m afraid. So, the whole notion makes no sense to me, I must say, This reality in my thinking, turns the finger back at homosexual advances AS SUCH such, as the sin of Sodom in focus in Gen. 19. I think you hand the text to the opposition (it is your opposition too, if I understand you correctly?) too readily.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 23 Sep, 2008 - 16:18:35

Willem,
Just to jump in on the discussion, I'd like to comment on your last paragraph about the notion of hospitality.

I remember being told, when traveling around Asia/Middle East (although I forget exactly which country), that men will often hand their daughters over to their guests for the night as a sign of honour. Guests are highly regarded there!

I remember being shocked that it still happens! But we have to remind ourselves that our sense of honour/shame in the west has pretty much been lost, and replaced with manners and what have you.

However, without taking that cultural understanding into account, I don't believe we can ever accurately understand the Sodom situation. In addition, when we use terms like "the heterosexual gangrape of his own daughters", it does sound horrific to us, but those are our terms and Lot may not have described it in that way!

I don't see how we can escape the fact that hospitality was a crucial issue!

Posted by: GrayMac 23 Sep, 2008 - 21:02:30

Wow guys, just reading all these comments is enough to cause serious mental fatigue.

I would like to throw my weight in with Stephen's suggestion that Graeme deal with each passage or argument separately, that way the discussion can remain focused. I would also agree that we need to turn our attention to the Rom 1 passage and a biblical theology of marriage.

Just my two cents at this time.

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 23 Sep, 2008 - 22:34:53

Martyn and Stephen,

I agree. I'll set up the different discussion threads soon. Not this week, though. I am off to Barcelona tomorrow for a few days.

Posted by: Graeme 23 Sep, 2008 - 22:56:15

GrayMac,

That is an argument well-put. Their are a couple of problems, though. The first part about your having been told in an unknown Asian/Middle Eastern country in which men give their daughters to guests I can hardly comment on, because it is hearsay to me (and even to you, depending on your source and the measure to which you verified the source and the information). What I do wish to say is that I would be very interested to know which country that was and how reliable and well-verified your source and his/her/their information is. Although I speak outside of my field now, I am surprised to hear this, because even the urban legend of Eskimos lending their wives to guests has been soundly debunked as an exaggeration of Eskimo ritual spouse exchange, which has for a long time ceased to be practiced (I forget my source, for the moment, but can quite easily track it down). I therefore think your exclamation that “Guests are highly regaded there!” is premature because you can’t even remember where “there” is. In all seriousness, you cannot fairly expect me to say, “O well, this unverified information passed on to me by a guy called “Graymac” changes everything”. But, having said all that, even if you were to produce verification of this very surprising information (can some anthropologist out there help?), it would temper slightly the force with which I am state my argument (I like to be careful). But it would not destroy my argument. For that you would have to produce compelling evidence from Ancient Near East hospitality customs (and I am not saying my knowledge about that, or anything else is exhaustive or infallible). I am therefore impressed with the care with which you disallow that unverified cultural information into account. That is careful thinking.

Now, the second part of your comment, that you “don't believe we can ever accurately understand the Sodom situation”, is problematic on more than one level. Firstly: If we can never understand the text accurately, why then is it in the Bible, and so prominently so? It may as well not be there. But it is, and that, I assert, is ecause it means something, and something quite clear. That is where the debate lies. We cannot simply say “O, well, we can never understand it” and walk away, because, and here is the second problem with your statement, the question then becomes what are we walking away to? What if the account really demonstrates how God feels about homosexual advances as such? Must people with homosexual tendencies give themselves the benefit of the doubt? Which way must that benefit go? Towards practice or abstention? This is how complex the situation becomes when we walk away from the text in a claimed agnosticism.

Finally, if you’ll pardon my long reply, I absolutely agree with your statement that “when we use terms like ‘the heterosexual gangrape of his own daughters’ (don’t forget the ‘with his consent’ part), it does sound horrific to us”. Indeed it does. It sounds even more horrific when we suggest that because of some (unproven and undescribed) cultural nicety Lot would not have found it as horrific as we (with our different cultural niceties) do. The mind of Lot seems even darker when we suggest that he might have found hospitality a more “crucial issue” (to use your terminology), than so horrific a thing as the gangrape of his daughters (or are you suggesting that because of some cultural nicety it would not have been gangrape but simply more hospitality). I hope these comments indicate just a little how strained the argument the sin of the Sodomites was mere inhospitability, rather han homosexual advances, really is.

P.S. Martyn, if you will pardon my replying to you in a P.S. (only saw your comment now), Graeme's challenge is put quite clearly, as i explained in my previous comment. I am responding to that challenge here. Sorry if it's getting heavy, but it is actually all about hermeneutics, remember? no-one ever said it was easy. If you and Stephen want to put challenges of your own to Graeme, you are, of course, free to do so, and Graeme is free to accept or reject that. Incidentally, Graeme has dealt with each passage. Go check it out in his original post. This discussion is the outflow of the response to exactly that, as it appeared in Baptists Today.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 23 Sep, 2008 - 22:57:31

Quick on the draw Willem! :-)

Ok, first of all, I was not using my semi-anecdote as proof that such behaviour occurs, as much as to simply point out that we need to be careful not to impose our cultural understandings on a different culture.

And, yes, it does seem odd that I wouldn't remember where I heard this, but it's probably because I found it difficult to believe myself. While I'm thinking of it, there was another place I went to (and this time I do remember where and who, but think it best not to disclose that on a public forum, for the safety of the missionaries), where the men would send their teenage boys off to "practice" sex on animals. Again, I'm not expecting you to go on hearsay, but I'm merely pointing out some of the vast differences in various cultures.

Next, you misquoted me! I did not say we could NEVER understand the Sodom situation full-stop. That was preceded by, "..without taking that cultural understanding into account", ie: the fact that we may not actually realize how significant an honour/shame was to them.

Again, I think you missed my point. I'm not saying Lot would have seen "gangrape of his daugthers" as ok, necessarily. What I'm saying is that because it was by his consent, he may not have seen it as "gang-rape" at all.

Another thing, why is there no mention of God having a problem with Lot handing over his daughters to be raped? (An argument from silence I suppose, but the problem is it's always "Righteous Lot", not "righteous.. except for the fact that he didn't love his daughters enough to protect them from homosexual rapists..Lot")

Posted by: GrayMac 24 Sep, 2008 - 01:54:47

GrayMac,

I didn’t realise it was so quick. It was not intentional. That just happened to be the moment I could spare. As you can see, the draw is much slower this time. I just got back from another long trip and am grabbing some moments just to give you the courtesy of a reply. It won’t be in detail.

I know you weren’t pushing you “semi-anecdote”. You said so, and I commended you for that. I also know that we must be careful not to impose our cultural understanding on a different culture. There is so much to say about that point that I have trouble knowing where to start. For now I’ll only pose a question: Which culture is being imposed on which, and to what extent, in this instance, given the reality that our culture (if we mean by that Judeo-Christian culture) is woven from precisely such ANE (Ancient Near East) cultural strands as the one under discussion here.

As to my misquoting you, I see my mistake, and I apologise unconditionally. I see what I did. I replaced “the Sodom situation” in your statement with “the text” in my reply. It shows me that one can never be too careful in communication. Having said that, I am not too sure that it makes too much difference to the argument that I presented. But I shall have to rethink that.

I did not say that you said that Lot would have found the gang-rape of his (VIRGIN, I left that part out) daughters “O.K.” I understood your argument to imply that in Lot’s mind the gang rape of his daughters was a lesser evil than inhopitability. I see your point that, if eveidence from ANE culture is presented that proves that such bevaiour on the part of ANE fathers was nothing but a cultural nicety, then, of course, it would not have been gang-rape at all.

Your question: “Why is there no mention of God having a problem with Lot handing over his daughters to be raped?” is an excellent question. It is precisely the kind of exegetical question that we must ask of the text. I have been wracking my brains and books for a while over that one.

I really am glad that we have finally begun to engage the text. This deals directly with Graeme’s first claim as he puts it in his challenge to be proved wrong. At the same time it sets us on the way (albeit in the negative) of checking the evidence of the acceptability of homosexuality in Judeo-Christian history (Genesis being a historical book).

Just for the record, Martyn and Stephen, I am fully aware of the difficulties my (our?) position faces when it is argued purely from these texts. But I am convinced that these texts are too often handed on a platter to “our adversaries”. I have never been able to understand why. The questions raised in the conversation between Graymac and I highlight the unresolved problems the other camp has been allowed to get away with.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 24 Sep, 2008 - 20:52:12

I shall probably be out of circulation for a while. Loose ends to tie up in a thesis and some article deadlines to chase. Also need some rest after some hectic months in prep. for the BU Assembly that took place in our town.Thanks evryone, so far, for the discussion.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 25 Sep, 2008 - 10:35:05

Hey all,

I'm not really wanting to jump into the conversation until I've read through all of Graeme's links (as I am still doing) but I wanted to hi-light this passage I read in 2 Peter 2:7 the other night.

2 Pet 2:7

NET Bible : "...and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man in anguish over the debauched lifestyle of lawless men"

NASB : "...and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men"

The word, specifically translated as 'sensual' or 'debauched' or 'filthy' in some translations is "aselgeia," which according to the net bible homepage can be translated as follows :

In NET: debauchery 2, sensuality 1, licentiousness 1, depravity 1, indecency 1, debauched 1, license 1
In AV: lasciviousness 6, wantonness 2, filthy 1
Definition: 1) unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness,
wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence

It seems that something about the Soddom and Gomorrah situation WAS sexual, sensual, or debaucherous. Whether or not it means homosexuality itself is/was debaucherous is up for discussion, but the truth is that there was a sexual excess or depravity happening that goes beyond just inhospitality, that God was unhappy with.

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 25 Sep, 2008 - 11:42:49

Ryan Peter 2,

Absolutely. Thanks for this. I agree 100% with this statement. There can be no doubt that in addition to all the other sins listed throughout the Bible, there was some serious sexual immorality going on in Sodom.

I would be happy to specify that this may have been the MAIN reason that God wanted to destroy Sodom (although that would be an argument from silence). I would also specify that sexual indulgence and abuse was the FINAL STRAW reason that puched God "over the edge" and settled the issue.

But, to then take the next leap and say, "SO, therefore, God is against homosexuality" is not acceptable. Why don't we then say that God is against all sex of all types? Or that God is against all forms of marriage? This seems a ludicrous conclusion to make - obviously God is not against marriage. He is against abuse, rape, licentiousness, etc.

And that's my point. The sin of Sodom certainly had a sexual element. But the sin was not the sex acts themselves, but rather the abuse, list, violence, rape, indulgences, etc that went with their sexual acts.

Homosexuality that is loving, mutual, lifelong, monogamous, etc, is not dealt with in this narrative.

Thanks for the comment.

Posted by: Graeme 25 Sep, 2008 - 11:51:25

I just cannot let this last exchange go by without comment, much as I really need to get into some way behind academics.

RyanPeter: Strong stuff! Very strong stuff! I was getting to that, but I'm glad you did.

Graeme,

I am so grateful for the very clear and categorical statement on your part that:

“There can be no doubt that in addition to all the other sins listed throughout the Bible, there was some serious sexual immorality going on in Sodom.” And: “I would be happy to specify that this may have been the MAIN reason that God wanted to destroy Sodom (although that would be an argument from silence). I would also specify that sexual indulgence and abuse was the FINAL STRAW reason that pushed God "over the edge" and settled the issue”.

The only issue to be settled now is: What was that sexual immorality that the men of Sodom were guilty of?

There are only two possibilities, really:

The attempted HOMOsexual RAPE, or the attempt RAPE as such? My contention is that it was the attempt at HOMOsexual rape. This I say, because, for some reason, RIGHTEOUS Lot considered the HETEROsexual rape of his virgin daughters a lesser evil than the HOMOsexual rape of the visitors. Now, even if we freely grant, for the sake of the discussion that there was some kind of ANE custom by which, as an act of hospitality, an ANE father could of his own free will give his daughter to benign visitors, Lot’s offer of his daughters to these HOSTILE visitors could still not be seen as a mere expression of that ANE hospitality custom, because he mad the offer UNDER COMPULSION, and not freely and spontaneously. Action under compulsion or pressure is not free action. So, even if the men of Sodom had accepted Lot’s offer (made in circumstances that constituted compulsion) they would still have been guilty of heterosexual rape. For some reason, I argue, righteous Lot (2 Pet. 2:7) considered giving, (under compulsion, and not as an entirely free act of hospitality) of his daughters to HOSTILE visitors, a lesser evil than their intended HOMOsexual abuse of the visitors.

So, my argument is that the abusive element of the sexual intent of the men of Sodom, in itself, is not enough to explain what God found wrong with it (because rightieous Lot’s behaviour indicates that he found it a more acceptable thing to “transfer’ the abuse to his daughters). What then, was the problem? Inhospitability? Hardly, because Lot’s made his offer under compulsion, to HOSTILE intruders, and not to benign visitors). What other possibility remains? In my view the accusing finger points at the HOMOsexual nature of the advances of the hostile intruders of Sodom.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 25 Sep, 2008 - 17:48:14

Willem,
I don't think that it's fair to assume that every act Lot performed was righteous! That is to say, we can't assume that just because Lot handed over his daughters, he considered it a lesser sin. Who knows what his motive was?? Maybe it's wasn't a moral issue. Maybe fear? Maybe something else!

Then, even if you narrowed down their sin to "homosexual rape", does it prove that this passage condemns homosexuality in other contexts? I don't think that would be treating the text fairly!

And on your last point, I don't think we can say it was that sin alone that God found wrong. They were wicked people, and God was dealing with the whole city's sin in general.

Posted by: GrayMac 25 Sep, 2008 - 22:18:05

Okay, so, this is nerve wracking because I do not have the academic ability to hold my own in the debate going on here... but two things kept sticking in my mind as a I read back and forth.

1.) I am pretty sure women were not valued equally to men during the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, so while it may have been abhorrent for a male guest to have been attacked in someone's home by his neighbors, it is possible that, like other personal property, women/daughters seemed a more reasonable concession. In addition, I highly doubt the Lot thought to himself, "Hey I'll offer up my daughters for gang rape." Any more than later those daughters thought, "I'm going to rape my dad in his sleep, because forcible incest is okay by me."

2.) [And maybe I TOTALLY missed this in all of the posts and comments] But it was my understanding that the current argument that Graeme is putting forth is not that Scripture CAN be used to CONDONE homosexuality [although perhaps that will come later] but that Scripture CAN'T be used to CONDEMN homosexuality. And so it seems from what I've read of some the comments so far that maybe that isn't clear. Or also maybe I just didn't understand.

Anyways, I just thought I'd pose those two thoughts, I am not trying to prove anything, just asking more questions and clarifying the current debate.

Posted by: melanie lorenz 26 Sep, 2008 - 07:16:30

The more I read the reasoning of folk who seemingly just simply refuse to even consider even the possibility that the sin of the men of Sodom was indeed the HOMOsexual element of their intended sexual abuse, the more I am amazed at the twists and turns people will take in order to avoid facing that possibility. It simply boggles the mind.

GrayMac,

Where did I claim that"every act that Lot performed was righteous"? The only claim I make is the claim of Scripture: Lot was a righteous man in the eyes of God. Sure we cannot pin down his precise motive. But we don't have to. All we have to assume, is the obvious: Whatever Lot's motive was, he acted righteously, otherwise God would not have decared him a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:7). So, whatever his motive was, his action certainly indicated that he considered the heterosexual abuse of his daughters, at the evry least, a lesser evil than whatever the men of Sodom had in mind for the male visitors.

Your statement: "Then, even if you narrowed down their sin to "homosexual rape", does it prove that this passage condemns homosexuality in other contexts?" You miss my point. The point I am making is that the RAPE part would have remained had they accepted Lots offer, for the consent was given under compulsion. This has always been a simple legal principle, in any culture, ancient and modern. My argument is that this fact left only one possible element to constitute the sexual advances of the men of Sodom a sin, namely the HOMOsexual nature of the advances per se. A simple argument, really. You have not made even a dent i it, I humbly submit.

Your last point: I agree. We all know that the sin of the men of Sodom was more than just their homosexual advances.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 26 Sep, 2008 - 18:32:35

Willem,

Quite simply: so what?

I think Melanie has hit the nail on the head. I am not trying to argue that there was no homosexuality in Sodom. I am not trying to argue that the homosexual rape was the only sin in Sodom.

All I am saying is that you cannot prove that homosexuality was the only sin - or even the primary sin - for which God initially judged Sodom. Remember, Willem, that God had decided to judge Sodom long before that fateful night.

I think you are placing WAY too much emphasis on what Lot did or didn't do on that night. Whatever happened then was only the final straw, and certainly not the core of the judgement against the city. And let's not forget that in the parallel story, the woman is actually sent out to crowd and is raped to death.

Willem, you may be right insofar as you can show that God condemned the homosexual lusts that inflamed the men of Sodom. But that does not, and cannot prove that God is against homosexuality.

Willem, I asked a few days for you to leave this issue alone on this particular blog entry. You said a few days ago you would, and that you had other things to do.

Can I now say that you need to leave it alone!

Posted by: Graeme 26 Sep, 2008 - 18:47:36

Otta here, Graeme, I humbly bow. Wow!

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 26 Sep, 2008 - 19:00:30

Willem,

I know Graeme has requested this issue be closed for now, and I'd like to respect that.

Just a quick response (and if you'd like to reply, we can continue discussing elsewhere if you wish).

I believe I do understand your argument, and without responding to each of your points (though I do have comments to make about them), I want to briefly explain something.

I feel that you've already placed me in a certain "camp" as it were, simply because I was arguing a point in this passage, and you've wrongfully assumed that I'm trying to prove a certain theological position on homosexuality.

I have not read all of Graeme's argument, and therefore I don't know whether or not I agree with him. I wouldn't even say that I'm coming from any particular stance on this issue - it's one I'm still working through.

What I've said on this blog is simply to defend the position that the passage on Sodom is not a very useful one when dealing with homosexuality, simply because - I believe - we don't have sufficient information to make the conclusions that are being made.

Posted by: GrayMac 28 Sep, 2008 - 22:24:06

GrayMac,

Where can we talk?

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 29 Sep, 2008 - 07:23:47

Hey Graeme,

I'm still going through these links you've provided which is a lot of reading.

Still, as I'm going through these articles the issue of gender keeps coming up again and again. Since my first reply to this is so long and may actually require a separate conversation, I've posted it at my blog at : <a href "http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-need-for-a-definition-of-homosexuality/...">The Need For a Definition of Homosexuality.</a>

Guys are welcome to comment there or here. The comments field here only accepts 155 words or something, and my first reply is over 800 words long. As a result I thought it would be better to just create a separate post there.

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 29 Sep, 2008 - 23:46:46

Why did God not create a same sex partner for man in the beginning. Cause man needed a helper a companion. Man did not need another man....

He knew in all His wisdom how messed up society would end up...... It just blows my mind how homosexuality is so against all of natures laws. God created gender for a reason. Accept it or don't the choice is your - but in the end you would have to defend your choice. I'd rather be wrong in saying that homosexualism is sin. That way there is no punishment for my decision. But if I am correct then boy a lot of people will perish.

Posted by: Mr Nobody 17 Feb, 2009 - 13:54:57

"Mr Nobody",

Firstly... come on, just use your name. Why would you need to be anonymous? Especially to make the type of comment you made. This is part of the problem with this issue and the church - it forces people to have to cover their identity to participate and creates strange behaviour when they do.

Then, to your point. You (not so) elegantly strike right at the heart of the issue, in my opinion. Why did God create two genders? And why are these two genders on a sliding scale?

By my second question, I mean: there are some really "butch" guys (call them 10 out of 10 men, if you must). Then there are more effeminate men (call them, say, 2 out of 10 men). Then there are those who are born with both sets of genitals. Then, there are those who would argue they are women by character, but in men's bodies. There are of course "butch" women (call them, say, 2 out of 10 women) and really feminine women (if we must, we can call them 10 out of 10 ten women). These labels are horrid and could have all the wrongs meanings (they are not meant to indicate perfection or "right" and "wrong" ways of being male and female). I use them just to verbally illustrate a scale from one extreme to another. The point is simple: there is no "normal" when it comes to gender. Equally, "male" and "female" are not binary conditions. There are degrees of masculinity and femininity - with some people having both, and a fewer proportion neither.

Why? And what did God intend by this?

My first question, though, is even more important (if my second is a possible red herring). WHY did God create gender at all? The obvious answer would appear to be for procreation. If so, then the logic that follows would be that proceation is commanded by God. There are many people who believe this! I do not.

Why does God encourage singleness? Is it a curse or blessing? Is barrenness a curse or blessing? Is the image of God only truly complete during the act of sex (think about it - this is the logical conclusion of some of the arguments presented here)?

I just don't get it.

Your question, Mr Nobody, is exactly the right one. I just don't think the answer is as obvious as you think it is.

Posted by: Graeme 22 Feb, 2009 - 23:02:14

Hey. Hares can gambol over the body of a dead lion.
I am from Latvia and also now'm speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Unfortunately though, just like marriages, civil partnerships don always work out."

THX 8-), Dionysus.

Posted by: Dionysus 07 Jul, 2009 - 15:17:30

Good afternoon. Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.
I am from Kuwait and learning to write in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Meet local lesbians by cleo spicerif you are a lesbian looking to meet other local lesbians, it is not always straightforward."

Regards 8) Gemma.

Posted by: Gemma 07 Jul, 2009 - 18:42:45

Badly need your help. If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Gay phone dating. I found only this - Dating gay hunk. Male to female feminization appearance tips by paul rj wilsonthere are some things that you should consider when it comes to male to female feminization appearance. Some of the female attributes that we are looking to achieve is breast growth, full hips, a softer texture. Thank :-( Portia from Barbados.

Posted by: Portia 08 Jul, 2009 - 21:00:31

Sorry. He who is not very strong in memory should not meddle with lying. Help me! I can not find sites on the: cosmetics and cosmetic process lotions early think points actual as muscle, manufacturers, bacteria, pricing face, etc.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.miriade.it/Members/Elfcosmetics...]organic beauty cosmetics[/URL]. But it invariably has specific orders for the impact as writings receive to save it. Asian sales enterprises are rather hormone-like to spend migraines bags by building the information turnover gone on the cosmetic time or pda. With love :-(, Addison from Kenya.

Posted by: Addison 13 Sep, 2009 - 02:47:58