I recently submitted an article on homosexuality to the Baptists Today magazine in South Africa. This is the denomination I grew up in, and in which I was ordained, and at whose Theological College I studied (coming top of my class). I was going to start this entry, "You would not believe the response to my article", but sadly, you probably would.

I wonder if there has ever been a time throughout church history when Christians who have disagreed with each other have also been able to be charitable about it. I do not expect my detractors, and those horrified by what I wrote, to respond lightly nor do I expect them to ignore me. But, I do not expect them to respond with hate, vitriole, personal attacks (and questions about my sexuality), and the like.

I ask for something evry simple. Engage! Engage your minds. Engage God's Word. Engage with me.

My position is very simple, and, if it is wrong, could be easily shown to be so. The issue is not so much, "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?", but rather, "How do we decide what the Bible says about homosexuality?". It is therefore really an issue about hermeneutics (the science of Biblical interpretation) rather than morality (how we should live).

So, show me where I am wrong.

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.

Show me where I am wrong.

I have NOT said that orientation is an issue. It is not. If homosexual acts are sinful, then they are sinful regardless of people's orientations. Besides, we are all oriented to sin anyway. And, we all have an "orientation" to seek God, too, by the way.

I have NOT tried to interpret Scripture in the light of my culture. In fact, I am trying to do the opposite by understanding more deeply the times that shaped the Biblical writers.

I have never claimed any postmodern hermeneutic. I live in postmodern times, as do most people who can read this website, but I do not claim a postmodern interpretation, and do not like the postmodern label for myself. You cannot simply label me "postmodern" (or "liberal" or "new age") and think you have refuted my points.

Show me where I am wrong.

Do not waste your time railing against me, bewailing and bemoaning what I have said and its dangers and implications. Do not accuse me of heresy (that is a very significant charge that should not be used wildly). Do not get upset with the editor for publishing the article.

Just show me where I am wrong.

If you are right, I will change my views. I am really open to changing my mind on the basis of God's truth.

So, please, for my sake, the sake of my eternal soul, and for the sake of all those who read what I write and listen to what I say, show me where I am wrong.

You can do it here. It really is that simple...

Hi Graeme

First off - I don't think you're a heretic and I think its shocking that people would call you so - I don't think you're denying the gospel here. I know I've had my differences with you on this blog on occasion but I'm with you on a number of issues on this one:

I also don't think the OT stories of Sodom and Gomorrah are directed primarily against homosexual sin - yet given the levitical law an OT believer would have still read the account and seen homosexual sin as at least one of the sins being condemned - but by and large I think the bible sees the issue with S & G as being far bigger than sexuality.

Whilst I don't quite agree with your approach to the OT law (i.e. only following what the NT re-iterates. If you want to know my view then check out Douglas Moo's contribution to the book '5 Views on Law and Gospel'.) I don't think one can use an argument from the levitical law because, as you've stated, it tends to appear like people are picking and choosing their laws based on personal preference - if you're going to condemn homosexuality based only on leviticus I think you're obligated to stone your kids the next time they're disobedient.

I also think the Corinthians and Timothy passages are to difficult to provide a concrete case. That's not to say that those passages don't condemn homosexual practice - but I think its difficult to tell.

Like you I think Romans 1 is where the issue is at, at least from a systematic point of view. Personally I hold to the first view you mention out of the four. I think view 2 radically adjusts evangelical views on Scriputre which would be against your evangelical presupposition that you set out in you opening paragraph. I also think that William Webb completely blows view 2 out of the water in his book, 'Slaves, Women and Homosexuals'. View 3 doesn't fit the context because its 'man with man' - not man with kid - there is no indication that one of the participants is a subordinate. I think view 4 is pure speculation and has no exegetical warrant - it relies on a matter of 'ifs' and 'maybes'.

I think the creation order argument needs more work. 'Creation order' might not be a biblical phrase but both OT and NT writers appear, at times, to appeal to the pre-fall state in some sort of paradigmatic way. The hermeneutic task is to figure out what that paradigm is (if its constant or fluid) - I think it might have more to say about monogamous hetrosexual relationships being God's pattern in the bible.

The 'against nature' issue is difficult and needs to be teased out more.

Graeme I appreciate your desire to see the bible rightly taught - especially against the backdrop of what has passed for 'bible teaching' in many of our evangelical circles here in South Africa. I do at times wonder though how these issues should be addressed because if we're simply exploring issues that could, at the end of the day, be found out to be wrong (and harmful?) then surely we must have some sort of pastoral sensitivity as we continue in this discovery. So for example maybe it would be helpful to post a survey on what one or two contemporary conservative commentators say about these key passages? Why not look at Doug Moo on Romans or Craig Blomberg on Corinthians? Just so that both sides of the coin are open for all to see. William Webb's 'Slaves, Women & Homosexuals' sealed the deal for me. After reading it I was absolutely convinced that God sees homosexual practice as sin (ironically its actually a book on hermeneutics rather than homosexuality).

I'm sorry for the unfair heat you're recieving and the refusal of others to really engage you. I know my comment is not a very substantial engagement but hopefully it can move in the right direction.

Blessings

Stephen

Posted by: Stephen Murray 11 Aug, 2008 - 09:28:02

Stephen,

Your comment is EXACTLY the type of engagement we should be able to have as Christ-followers. I will most definitely get hold of Webb's book and study it. I think that the point is that this issue is precisely about hermeneutics, and not homosexuality. I think that's why evangelicals are so rabid about it - because it strikes at the core of our identity.

Thanks for taking the time to engage. That's all I am asking for, and your comments show it is possible.

Now, let me get to Amazon for a book ordering!

Thanks again,

Graeme

Posted by: Graeme 11 Aug, 2008 - 10:08:41

Hi Graeme

I don't know the history of this post, and I don't know the subject of homosexuality, or what the Bible says about it very well.

Perhaps this is because the Bible does not say a lot about homosexuality at all. On the other hand the Bible has a lot to say about man/woman relationships, from the very first book in the Bible where God created a woman as a companion for Adam, and the Bible even has a whole book dedicated to beauty of such relationships.

As Christian we are called primarily to live a life that brings Glory to God, and secondly to love others, even if they do wrong things or things we don't know to be wrong or right.

So whether homosexuality is wrong or right? It's not our jobs to judge. That's God's job.

Will I support homosexuality as "right"? No.

I will not that, because from what I've read in the Bible there's a better chance of it being wrong than right, even if I cannot know for sure.

To anyone who asks me, I'll say that I recommend to not partake in homosexual activities. You don't need it to survive. But if there is a chance that it is something that does not bring glory to God, why partake in it?

Francois

Posted by: Francois Viljoen 11 Aug, 2008 - 13:57:21

Francois,

Thanks for your comments. Maybe it will be helpful for you to understand why this is such a huge issue.

Firstly, there are many people (some estimate as many as 15% of the population) who claim to be homosexual "by orientation" - in other words, it is the way they are born, not a choice they make. These people would like to experience the same level of physical, emotional, psychological and other bonding that heterosexual couples legitimately experience within marriage. If the Bible is against homosexual activity (I think you are right that in any discussion of homosexuality, the Bible is concerned only with activity, and not orientation), then these people must either be "cured" of their orientation or fight against its lure their whole lives (in the same way that I, as a heterosexual married man must fight against sins like theft, lying, adultery and lust). We know God gives us strength and grace to fight and win in these cases.

However, many people believe that the Bible does not classify homosexual activity between monogamous, lifelong partners as sinful.

This statement cannot be ignored or simply put in the category of "personal choice", since the Bible is clear that people who disobey God's law will not inherit the Kingdom of God". If we tell homosexuals it's OK to be homosexual, but it actually is not, then we will condemn them to being forever outside of God's Kingdom! I personally do not want that to be on my head at the judgement seat! So, I need to be sure about this, and about what I tell people about this.

Finally, you cannot say that you would be opposed to homosexuality if, in fact, God would have no problem with it. You would then be imposing your personal preference onto someone else as if it were objective morality.

So, thanks for engaging with this blog entry. I hope you will see why engaging with the topic of homosexuality is important for every Christian. I hope you find this blog site helpful in that process.

Posted by: Graeme 11 Aug, 2008 - 14:10:44

Hi Greame

Your article and reply stuck in my head, and I thought about it all for about an hour, while having lunch.

I agree with you, having an orientation one way or the other is not wrong. You cannot help what you feel or how you're tempted. It's what you do that's wrong or right.

As Christians we are called to love all people, like God loves them. That means love, no matter what their orientations, are or even what they do. You may not agree with it, but you should still love.

However, where I don't agree with you is that this is a big issue.

Who cares if 15% of the Western world are having happy homosexual relations with each other, without feeling judged, while a good half of the world's peoples' biggest concerns are things like hunger, aids and violence?

I admire your thoroughness in looking for truth, and how you research the Bible for that. But wouldn't it be better to direct this passion elsewhere?

Kind regards & God bless,

Francois

Posted by: Francois Viljoen 11 Aug, 2008 - 15:49:20

Graeme,

Pity about the flack. I've had my fair share to and really sympathise.

Regarding hermeneutics and sexuality a few comments (to clarify for any theological police reading this - this is not a positional statement or logical argument or similar but conversational):

1.) Surely there was ample opportunity throughout OT and NT to provide a corrective regarding the Hebrew and Christian bias against homosexuality?
2.) In the OT sex is linked to marriage just as the bits themselves link pleasure and function.
3.) In the OT even the king is instructed to only have one wife (safe to assume that this then applies to everyone). We can't say that Godde was prohibiting trade by doing so? If so, then the logic of this requires exploration.
4.) The Greeks, just like other groups in the OT, romantacised and legitimised not only homosexuality but also cultic sexuality. Why would the Bible not present a distinction between valid homosexuality and invalid homosexuality?

It would seem that two things, at least in my opinion, require further clarity:

a.) There was ample opportunity to clarify and affirm. Sof where is it? If it isn't, then should we not go with the general acceptance that homosexuality is a sin.
b.) If sexual intercourse is only legitimated in the context of marriage, why is there no legislation, or recommendations at keast, in relation to homosexuality?

Posted by: Tim Victor 13 Aug, 2008 - 08:29:32

Graeme,

I have ready a comprehensive response to your article. It is too long to post here. Your blog keeps on complaining about its length. I have been looking how to clip it into bitesizes for posting here, but this has not yet come together. I'll find a solution- either break it up into smaller bits, or post it on my blog as a whole, or submit it to Baptists Today. I'll see.

How's London?

Regards,

Willem

P.S. Thanks to your dad, I am now the grateful owner of your late grandfather's baptisma cloak. I shall wear it with honour and dignity.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 14 Aug, 2008 - 14:20:29

Stephen,
Can you see that this statement by you: "I don't think you're denying the gospel here" does not gel with this statement by Graeme? "So, please, for my sake, the sake of my eternal soul, and for the sake of all those who read what I write and listen to what I say, show me where I am wrong".

Graeme seems to think that if his view on homosexuality is wrong his eternal soul, and those of others would be at stake. Can you explain how this is possible if his view is not a denial of the gospel? If his views, if wrong, will place souls at stake, can you explain how people are unfair to call him a heretic if they believe he IS wrong?

Also: stick around and you'll see that the heat that Graeme is receiving is not so unfair. Besides, Graeme can take it as much as he can dish it out.

You are wrong to think that there is refusal on the part of others to "engage" him or anyone else, for that matter. He has been engaged, and he is being engaged at this very moment.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 14 Aug, 2008 - 21:18:03

No Willem - I don't agree. I think Graeme is showing a fair bit of sarcasm when he makes his comment and it needs to be taken in the light in which it comes.

Willem do you honestly believe that a person, who after serious, humble study, comes to different doctrine of homosexuality is denying the gospel? If so you'd have to rule out a whole lot of the church fathers and other figures in Christian history who fudged doctrines.

I'm also pretty sure that all your doctrines are right either - does that make you a heretic? If you get to heaven one day and find out that the paedo-baptists were right after all does that make you a heretic? Or conversely, since you're convinced of believer's baptism does that make me and all the ministers in my denomination heretics?

Posted by: Stephen Murray 15 Aug, 2008 - 09:19:10

Stephen,

I was kind of hoping that it was NOT sarcasm, as you will see soon, I hope, when my response appears. If it is, how "humble and serious" can we make that out to be?

One thing I do say in my response to Graeme (which I have submitted to him) is that I think that this is possibly the only place where the debate must lie now: Is this matter of life or death? Should we, or should we not make it a matter to break fellowship on? To put it in the terms of yourquestion to me: "(Should) we believe that a person, who after serious, humble study, comes to a different doctrine of homosexuality (what shall we name such a 'doctrine', by the way) is denying the gospel?" This is the question and it needs to be answered. It cannot be answered by lumping it with the answered questions on such things as mode and timing of Baptism, because, for instance, we have no record in Scripture where God destroyed a city full of paedobaptists, or even Baptists, for that matter. What were you thinking?

I think I hear the orthodox Evangelical sensus fidei say that we cannot walk together unless we are agreed on this matter. But I acknowledge that this is a question, and one that we have not, as far as I am aware, debated carefully and answered articulately enough. Perhaps you know something that I don't? It is quite possible. I would be only too grateful to be filled in.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 15 Aug, 2008 - 10:47:49

Willem - I think I was a little bit rash in my last comment. Let me back track and try and say what I mean.

What I intended to convey to Graeme in my first comment was that I didn't think he had 'lost his salvation' - i.e. I still consider him a Christian. I've listened to a few of his sermons online and I've heard him clearly affirm a historic evangelical orthodox gospel. (BTW Graeme feel free to chip in at any point if I've misunderstood you) At the moment I see him wrestling with our evangelical understanding of homosexuality. As far as I can tell he has made use of evangelical hermeneutics to show us that the issue is not quite as cut and dried as we might have thought. I think he's helpfully showed us that to use certain passages debunk homosexuality is simply bad bible handling. As of yet I'm not sure I've actually seen him clearly stick his neck on the block and unequivocally declare his view on homosexual practice. For that reason I refuse to label him a heretic.

Were he to openly affirm homosexual practice as congruent with God's will I would then have to enter into discussions about where this leaves us in terms of fellowship. Although I have a difficulty with how those would proceed because as I understand it we still fellowship with people who have deviant views from our own in many other contexts today. For example (back to the baptist issue): I have met a number of Baptists who think that paedobaptism is disobedience. In my book disobedience to God is sin - therefore they must think us in sin yet they retain fellowship with us. Hence my difficulty in understanding how to proceed because in what way is disobedience different from homosexual practice? This would need further discussion.

I hope that explains my point of view a bit clearer.

Posted by: Stephen Murray 15 Aug, 2008 - 13:40:22

Hi Stephen,

No, I do not think you were rash. You were clear (as always, no flattery). I never take offence.

No, Graeme has not "made use of evangelical hermeneutics to show us that the issue is not quite as cut and dried as we might have thought"- far from it. The matter is indeed as cut and dried as we thought- believe me. Graeme has either abused or misapplied Evangelical hermeneutics in order to sow doubt about this (as he does with many things). By means of hermeneutical sleight of hand (if he did it on purpose) or through misapplication of a valid hermeneutical principle (if he did it accidentally, which would be unlike Graeme), he has silenced a pivotal text on homosexuality (Gen. 19:1-13). He has then taken this wrong start further along its wrong course by means of a logical error (or some more sleight of hand, as the case may be), namely a common old garden variety argument from silence, and ruled homosexuality out as one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. That's just for starters. Go back to his article and to the Bible (especially Gen. 19:1-13). Let it speak for itself (here's a clue: let each passage speak for itself even while you are interpreting it in the light of the rest of Scripture, as we have been taught, and taught rightly, to do in Evangelical hermeneutics). Here’s another clue: Keep in mind what I say and have another look at this statement of Graeme’s:

“…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”.

See if you spot the sleight of hand and the logical error. If you go carefully, you will. See if your eye can be quicker than Graeme’s hand.

Your final comments: “Were he to openly affirm homosexual practice as congruent with God's will I would then have to enter into discussions about where this leaves us in terms of fellowship. Although I have a difficulty with how those would proceed because as I understand it we still fellowship with people who have deviant views from our own in many other contexts today”. True enough. A good place to start would be to see if we are talkng about things that fall in the same category or not, when we compare them with one another (e.g. Baptism and homosexuality). We must not compare apples with pears. But that is exactly where I believe the debate should probably begin and not so much with even hermeneutics.

Regards,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 15 Aug, 2008 - 14:53:43

Willem - I'm still not quite in agreement with you. One of the hallmarks of evangelical hermeneutics is to interpret scripture with scriputre. Now consider how the rest of the Bible interprets Sodom and Gomorrah. The absence of the condemnation of homosexuality is rather striking in light of the way the passage has traditionally been used in evangelical teaching. As a reformed evangelical who believes that homosexual practice is sin I cannot agree that the Gen 19 account is a cut and dried issue. And I think to do so, on the basis of that passage alone, is inconsistent with evangelical hermeneutics. That does not mean that I don't think homosexual sin was one of the reasons for God's judgment on S & G - I can affirm this from working backwards from other points - I don't think though, that it can be reasonably affirmed on the merits of the passage alone.

Posted by: Stephen Murray 18 Aug, 2008 - 11:51:37

I appreciate the fact that we need to interpret God's word for today and I realise that my view is very simplistic but surely we cannot put all of life's issues in neat, tidy boxes and have it all sorted out, neatly and cosistenty organised and understood. the God I have come to know. OT and NT, are faceless, powerfull and what He is most consistent in, is inconsistency ( I say this in the greatest awe and respect). He always has the last say and could change His mind in an instant or not at all. I am reading and studying Hezekiah's life and have come under renewed realization of the unimaginable power and authority of Yahweh and frankly who are we to try and understand Him or think we can understand how He thinks!!!!? I think, in all of these issues, God is also more concerned in engaging with us. More concerned with us seeking redemption than in the sinful acts. Who of us can say we are even obeying one simple command ALL of the time. So it's definitely not about orientation and I think it's not about the sin either, but about God's grace and mercy which we can never understand or consistently explain. I am asking for forgiveness and mercy ALL the time, so what makes me different from a homosexual. If it is about sin, we are all doomed. But it is not. It is about God, about MY walk with Him, MY heart, MY search for redemption and ultimately God's decision. I really think there are some things- no, most things- we will never be able to agree on, because He holds it all together and He is just too BIG!

Posted by: Helet 18 Aug, 2008 - 14:06:36

Stephen,

Yes the abscence of the condemnation of homosexuality in the passages that mention Sodom and Gomorrah is striking. What are you letting that silence tell you? Are you letting it function as an overturning of how God felt about homosexuality in Gen. 19:1-13? You could if you wished to, but this would be an argument from silence, which is bad logic and, when used in hermeneutics, bad hermeneutics. It is “bad Bible handling” (to borrow a phrase from your previous comment), because it makes silence in Scripture say something, and say something opposite to what it said before, at that. If we do this accidentally, we are sloppy; if we do it on purpose, we are slick- we are practicing hermeneutical sleight of hand. Either way, its wrong.

Those passages that have such “a striking abscence of the condemnation of homosexuality” (why this is so “striking”, I fail to see) are not intended as expository analyses or comprehensive statements on Sodom’s sin. They are merely quoted as it were, as illustrations of points they are making about OTHER SINS of Sodom and the consequences of those. (By the way: One of the very things I find troubling in this kind of handling of these texts, is the seeming failure to give proper consideration of-or weight to, as the case may be, the intent behind their use by these New Testament writers and speakers. Is this another principle of Evangelical hermeneutics that has quietly fallen by the wayside?).

The passage has not been “used" in Evangelical teaching- that sounds like a veiled accusation of imposition rather than exposition. To let a passage say what it says is not to "use" it, but to hear it and let its weight be weighed in on our interpretation. This is proper Evangelical hermeneutics. It is not Evangelicals who have “used” the passage, but this new hermeneutic which fails to “use” it (because they let the rest of Scripture silence it for them, because they don’t like what it says).

I don't know what you mean by the Gen. 19 account "not being a cut and dried issue". Why are you trying to make it a "cut and dried issue" or not (whatever that means)? If you mean that we cannot be so sure what it says...well, I suppose some will never hear what it says. But if we let it speak freely and naturally for itself, (which would be consistent with Evangelical hermeneutics), I hear it saying some pretty categorical stuff on how God felt about homosexual advances of men to men and how He responded to those. I am glad to hear you don’t think that homosexual sin was not one of the reasons for God's judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah. I am just a bit puzzled as to why you feel the need to work so backwards to arrive at such a negative statement of truth. The more natural way to arrive at the same conclusion and a more positive and natural statement of the same truth is to simply work ahead from the passage (i.e. let it speak for itself, grasp its natural meaning and drive, and know that you would have to come up with a categorical statement from later parts of Scripture to turn that meaning and drive on its head) and then to simply say "I think that homosexual sin was definitely one of the reasons for God's judgement on Sodom”. A grade five child would have told you this after one reading.

Besides, I would be interested to see how you work your way backwards from passages that “have a striking abscence of condemnation of homosexual sin” to the conclusion that “homosexual sin was one of the reasons for God's judgement on Sodom”. It would spin my head, I’m sure. So, I assume that these passages are not among those points that you work your way backwards from? Still, I find it easier to just read the passage, let it speak for itself and then, in the face of the abscence of a single categorical statement anywhere in Scripture to turn this natural meaning on its head, I believe it and apply it. This is simple Evangelical hermenuetics and not this new thing that reminds me of the sign in front of the ironmonger’s workshop and which read “All kinds of fancy twistings and turnings done here”.

In Christ,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 18 Aug, 2008 - 15:19:01

Hi Willem
I've been wondering where you got to. .. we had an interesting conversation going a while back and then you had to do a doctorate of something - how did that go?

Posted by: nic paton 20 Aug, 2008 - 08:52:01

Hi Graeme,

I don't know if you're going to get this or will have the time to reply to it, but I hope you do give it some thought.

Firstly, I would challenge some other doctrines you seem to hold closely to. One is that you seem to advocate that one can lose his salvation (as you've said, "for the sake of your eternal soul") - am I right? And secondly I would like to know whether you think Christians still have a sinful nature or not.

The reasons for these questions are obvious. Firstly, if a Christian cannot lose his salvation it changes the emotive way the argument goes (both from your side and the other sides) and secondly, if Christians no longer have a sinful nature it doesn't matter any more that 15% of people feel they were born with a homosexual orientation. We live in a fallen world, and if homosexuality is sin (in the sense of inherited sin, ie. a result of a sinful nature) this changes COMPLETELY when one is born again. You are set free from sin and slavery to sin and (therefore) no longer have a sinful nature (we could debate the term 'sinful nature' which is a paraphrase/theological term, and not really an original greek/scriptural one). This would render what people were born with absolute moot, whether or not homosexuality is something you are born with or not. For me, the idea of whether one is 'born with it' is really a red-herring argument when it comes to Christianity. Every sinful inclination we were 'born with' we are set free from when we are born again. (Such the phrase "born again".) It then becomes a process of healing and transformation towards Christ.

I would say that since our relationship with Christ is always groom and bride, I find it difficult to see where homosexuality fits in with the greater picture and purpose of marriage (to show this relationship between the church and Jesus). This may not be a hermeautical argument, but a relational one, and that's where I feel everything needs to be addressed at its core.

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 20 Aug, 2008 - 10:08:14

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay in responding. I am busy moving house - and don't have Internet access yet. Will give more detailed replies in the next week or so.

But very quickly let me answer a few queries.

I do believe that we are all born with a sinful nature, and agree completely that the issue of orientation is not an issue in this discussion. If homosexual acts are sinful, then it does not matter whether they are part of a homosexual orientation or not. I think that much is clear and easy to deal with.

In terms of me denying the Gospel - this is a similar issue to Ryan Peter2 asking about my view of salvation. The only reason I made the comments I did is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexual offenders (in the NIV) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If this is true, then all those who TEACH that homosexuals are OK will be subject to the same judgement as "homosexual offenders". In terms of "losing your salvation", some would argue that if I am saying homosexuals will get into heaven then I am an agent of the devil and was never saved in the first place. But that little evangelical slight of hand aside, the whole book of Jude is a fearsome letter against those who would lead people astray. I do not want to be one of those. And Hebrews 6:4-6 clearly shows that it is possible to fall away, but then never restored. I clearly don't want to be one of those.

I do not believe I am. I certainly do not deserve the label, "heretic", "apostate", "devil's tool" and others that have been applied to me, just for wanting to have a conversation about homosexuality....

But more on all this later

Posted by: Graeme 20 Aug, 2008 - 12:04:31

Thanks Graeme,

I would argue that losing an inheritance is different to losing your salvation, keeping the parable of the prodigal son in mind (a son is a son despite him squandering his inheritance). However, we would get into a major soteriological debate which I think is very relevant to these kinds of discussions but, nevertheless, it may detract from the conversation. I don't interpret Hebrews 6 to mean what you think it means, I interpret it to mean a loss of reward not salvation.

With that as a base I can see sin differently an in a matter of greater grace. I can also see homosexuality not as some sort of damning sin.

The sinful nature thing is the second side. I don't believe Christians have a sinful nature, so I do believe that if homosexuality is something of the 'old man' (ie. a sinful nature problem) that the Christian doesn't have to live with it. Through choices and discipling and a (probably painful) process they can live without it.

However, my issue now goes around marriage. Marriage is, by scriptural definition, a prophetic act/life of Jesus and the Church. In other words, it prophetically points to the relationship the Church has with Christ. The act of sex is a prophetic act, as well. So, my struggle is this:

a) I don't see how homosexual marriage contributes to the prophetic nature of marriage (in fact, it may distort it).
b) The first marriage was male and female.
c) Even if your interpretations of the greek words in the NT are correct, the argument of silence is still a strong one. The NT does not say, for instance, that marriage to animals is wrong but we certainly don't think that it is ok. On what basis? One law in the old testament? Or because we know, somehow, that something about marriage tells us something about creation? The God created man male and female, and that the two become one flesh, as the two (Christ and the Church) become one?

There are other examples of silence which certainly don't condone - marriage to minors, for instance.

Scripture seems to me more about what you CAN do than what you CAN'T do. So, if God says marriage = A we can't say "well, he didn't say that it DIDN'T equal B, so B must be OK to." The truth is he said it equals A, by that implying that it doesn't equal B, C, X or D.

Is homosexual love ever used as a prophetic picture in the Scriptures? If not, why not? It's not like it's anything new.

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 20 Aug, 2008 - 13:46:30

Hi Graeme,

I am relieved to hear that your comment: “So, please, for my sake, the sake of my eternal soul, and for the sake of all those who read what I write and listen to what I say, show me where I am wrong”, was not just sarcasm, as Stephen thought it might have been, but far more serious than that. Thank you for this keynote statement: “The only reason I made the comments I did is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexual offenders (in the NIV) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If this is true, then all those who TEACH that homosexuals are OK will be subject to the same judgement as "homosexual offenders". My own feeling is that you are right in this regard. The Evangelical sensus fidei (sense of the faithful) seems to agree (that this is a matter of spiritual life or death) but I have not thought through the matter carefully enough to be articulate and categorical enough about it right now. Your comment sets us well on the way, though, towards answering this important question as to whether or not this matter of what the Bible says, or does not say, about homosexuality, is matter of spiritual life or death.

As I understand you, you have not actually come to a conclusion on what the Bible actually says about homosexuality being sin or not, but you are just “having a conversation” about it? If this, and only this, is where you are, then I agree that no deduction regarding your salvation can be made from that, (just as, by the way, no deduction can be made that any person IS saved, just because he is sure, and says so, that homosexuality IS sin). To borrow Stephen’s words, I must say that as of yet I'm not sure I've actually seen you clearly stick your neck on the block and unequivocally declare your view on homosexual practice. For that reason we cannot label you a heretic. Have you actually taken a stance with regard to homosexual practice, or are you still just having a conversation about it? Could you clarify this, please?

Hope you are settling well. Do take your time and enjoy this important time in your life.

Regards,
Willem

P.S Nic, almost done with the Masters, working on thesis proposal for PhD.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 20 Aug, 2008 - 14:33:04

Willem,

At the moment, I am 100% convinced that we cannot use the Old Testament narratives or legal statements in deciding on God's view of homosexuality. They are helpful in determining how to handle abuse, rape, divorce and other issues, but not loving, lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships.

I am pretty convinced about the bad translation and traditional interpretations of arsenekoitos and malakos, the words used in 1 Cor and 1 Tim.

Which leaves us with the passage in Romans, and the overall witness of Scripture and God's character. I think the "creation order" argument is fundamentally flawed, but the issue of marriage is a strong one.

I am leaning towards acceptance, and am very very dubious of traditional responses. Not BECAUSE they are traditional, but because they don't seem to make sense.

The big one in my head at the moment is people arguing that God instituted a particular kind of marriage ("between a man and a woman") which represents the relationship between Christ and the church. That bit I agree with (tough to argue with Paul's Corinthian logic). But, what I don't understand is what that means. Why would a loving homosexual "marriage" NOT be fully repesentative of this relationship between Christ and the church? Seriously, why not?

But, for now, you are right. I am undecided. I am earnestly seeking truth. I am not prepared to retreat to the comfort of my inherited beliefs. I don't like how I am being treated (not on this blog, but elsewhere), but I am now embarked on this journey, and for my sake and the sake of the church, I will not stop now.

To be clear - I am on a journey, and I do not know where the end will be, except that I know God promises all those that earnestly seek Him will find Him, and all those who seek after Truth will find it.

Posted by: Graeme 20 Aug, 2008 - 15:29:09

Thank you for your response, Graeme. I know it must be a pretty hectic time for you. I have heard it said that relocating, with all the excitement that it may bring, is nevertheless quite a traumatic thing. Also, although I envy your being in that greatest of all cities, I do not envy you your skipping a summer!

Also, let me say again: Whilst I have no problem with forthright statements that may be difficult for the ones they are directed at, I think ad hominem arguments really mark the bottom of the intellectual barrell and, most often, say more about the ones using them, than about the ones they are directed at. And so,. I really am sorry that you have had to hear hurtful things.

I appreciate your last comments. They define the parameters of the debate a little better. Your having come to a 100% conviction on the Old Testament texts, I think nothing remains to be said in that regard, except that I strongly disagree with you on that score. I am sure you are aware of the counter-arguments and so I shall not bore and frustrate you by stating them all over again. I think, with regard to what the Old Testament says about homosexuality, then, we shall just have to agree to disagree and move on. The same goes for the Timothy and Corinthians passages although your statement “pretty sure” you seem to be keeping the door open to debate on who, exactly, the “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” are?

You aslo seem to be hesitant to totally discard the argument against homosexuality dveloped from the “creation order”?

I must say, I am rather surprised to hear your verdict that “traditional responses do not seem to make sense”. Also, I do not think that it is the traditional view that embodies a “response”. I think they have made great sense to the best minds that Christendom has ever seen, and they remain intact until the contemporary response overturns them. As I see things, the burden of proof lies on the contemporary reinterpretations of the Biblical data on homesexuality. This becomes especially clear, I think, when we consider your question: Why would a loving homosexual "marriage" NOT be fully repesentative of this relationship between Christ and the church? Seriously, why not?” The question is, rather, seriously, WHY SHOULD IT? The burden of proof remains on you, because, as I see things, that question is nowhere invited by the Biblical data itself. It simply never enters into the equation. In fact, the question seems to jar with the Biblical data from the very moment that it is put. It has been brought into the discussion, , not upon invitation from anything in the Biblical data on the matter, but rather, it seems to me, by the gay and lesbian agenda and its sympathisers. That fixes the burden of proof on them.

And so, given the serious implications that a desertion of the traditional view carries, I am truly worried about your “leaning towards acceptance”, but I am truly (I really mean this) glad to have it on record that you are undecided on the matter, because I do not think that the asking of sincere questions are an indication that one has never been saved in the first place.

You have thus far avoided an important question, and so I shall ask it again: How’s London?

In Christ,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 20 Aug, 2008 - 16:55:29

Graeme and other contributors,

This is a BIG issue! Let's not forget that our little conversatio on this blog is a tiny part of a very big deal that is and has touched many lives.

A while ago I sat with someone and discussed this issue in depth. This person has a great deal of experience on this topic as he has lived as a "celibate homosexually orientated Christian" for several years now. I put that in quotation marks becuase that is how he would describe himself.

It struck me, after several hours of conversation that at the end of the day what we decide to believe about this boils down to hermeneutics, as Graeme said in his article and the personal testimony of those who are living in this.

You can't argue with personal testimony, you can say that you disagree with their conclusions but you can't nullify their experience as if it didn't happen.

And time and time again we have seen that arguments over hermeneutics can be so complex that only the gifted theologians can engage in it to the highest level.

So where does that leave us?
I believe we must ask ourselves three questions:
Does the plain reading of scripture promote same sex activity or does it oppose it?

Marriage is clearly defined as one man one woman. Sex is given for marriage.
Romans 1 clearly states that same sex relations are a perversion of the natural.

Do we still believe that the Holy Spirit is able to sanctify us from all sin?

The problem with many personal testimonies is that after many years of struggle people have lost faith at some point in the power of God to sanctify them.

Will the church be willing to stand alongside those struggling with same sex orientation?

The church needs to help people who struggle with sin, becuase we all do. And, i believe, much of the problem will be solved when the church cares with compassion for those struggling with same sex orientations.

that's my two cents.

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 02 Sep, 2008 - 17:59:06

Hi Martyn,

Your question "Does the plain reading of scripture promote same sex activity or does it oppose it?" engages hermeneutics at the highest level. The question is, immediately: "What is THE PLAIN READING OF SCRIPTURE"?. This is exactly what this little discussion is about.

What do we make of people's personal experiences? Well, who knows. What would be a "plain reading" of THAT? All we have to go on, really, is people's own subjective report of their own subjective experiences. Too often we make too much of that, I think.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 03 Sep, 2008 - 14:35:41

Graeme - I don't have time to go into it now - and when I get a chance I'll look into it more - but I'm still wondering about the dismissal of the 'creation order' argument. I think there's more to it than you give credit to it. Might be interesting to do a study of how other biblical authors use pre-fall Genesis in their argumentation because it seems to me that both Moses and Paul appeal to it in some sort of paradigmatic way which begs further study.

Posted by: Stephen Murray 04 Sep, 2008 - 00:01:01

Sorry that I have been so quiet - moving house and having a holiday.

But let me respond to the issue of "the plain reading of Scripture", because this comes up all the time. Does the plain reading of Scripture support slavery? Yes. Does the plain reading of Scripture support the contention that the world is flat, and the sky supported on pillars? Yes. Only by imposing a fairly modern interpretation onto the plain reading of Scripture can we get beyond these "problems" in the Bible.

We need to be careful of appeals to "the plain reading of Scripture". Throughout almost all of history, the Bible and its interpretation has been guarded carefully by those trained in the task of interpretation. It is thoroughly postmodern to think that anyone as the right and ability to just apply the "plain reading of the Bible" to every and any issue.

I am not saying that people should not read their Bibles. I am just saying that this appeal to a plain reading is a red herring in this debate.

Posted by: Graeme 04 Sep, 2008 - 00:11:52

Come on now, Graeme; you are comparing apples with pears. Reading texts on Biblical cosmology "plainly" is a different exercise to reading Biblical texts on moral and social matters "plainly". Even reading the Bible "plainly" on matters of sexuality is a different exercise to reading it "plainly" on, for instance, slavery, even though both are moral and social matters. The reasons why they must be treated in different categories are surely well-known to you? Cosmology and morality do not fall in the same category and not even all moral and social matters fall exactly in the same category. Matters of sexuality fall into a category of their own, distinct from other moral and social matters, such as, for instance, slavery because, to name just one distinguishing factor among several, the creation order has a vital bearing on all matters of sexuality, whilst it has very little bearing on slavery. Our reading of them must therefore be governed by a unique set of hermeneutical principles. So, the "plain reading" of Scripture on matters of sexuality and on matters of slavery (not to mention cosmology again), whilst having much in common, is not exactly the same exercise. Still, there is such a thing as the "the plain reading of Scripture". In fact, that could function as quite a workable definition for hermeneutics. The debate is not whether or not there is such a thing as the plain reading of Scripture: The debate is about what constitutes a plain reading of Scripture. It is not a red herring. You seem to want to present it as one in order to gain an excuse to blow up the whole pond.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 04 Sep, 2008 - 13:56:33

The plain reading of Scripture without any references to Scriptural reading or references at all is curious and disconcerting. That's like saying "Simon says" without reference to who Simon is and when he said what he said. I read in the Bible of circles not a flat earth and no reference to pillars (Job 22:14; Pr 8:27; Isa 40:22). I read a recognition of slavery as a fact and God's principles applied to slaves (1Cor 12:13; Eph 6:4-8; Col 3:22) which, even in the plain reading of Scripture is not at all the same as supporting slavery. If I visit someone who's very sick in a hospital bed and say to them, "You shouldn't be sick and lying here. Get up and leave now." That would be true, but not helpful.
Facts supported by texts are necessary for clarity. Are we all simply going to mill around in the mists of what we think Scripture somewhere claims to say? The focus then is not the Scriptural text, but my understanding of what is claimed somewhere. So, no, the Bible does not attempt to end slavery - it recognises it and speaks to slaves in it. No the plain reading of Scripture does not lead to a flat earth supported by pillars for the many Scriptural passages referred to above when plainly read indicate otherwise or am I not reading Scripture plainly enough? If we do not read Scripture plainly then we're lost. I admit not all Scripture is equally plain but that's where plain reading is even more necessary.

Posted by: Lance Laughton 04 Sep, 2008 - 14:37:51

Willem,

Give me a Biblical argument. Why should these matters be treated differently, Biblically?

Posted by: Graeme 04 Sep, 2008 - 15:36:57

Graeme,
Thought I already gave one when I pointed out that the creation order has a vital bearing on all matters of sexuality, whilst it has very little bearing on slavery. Still, I do not really understand your challenge. Are you asking me to give you Scriptural passages that lay down hard and fast hermeneutical instructions to not confuse or jump categories in our thinking? That's not divine revelation- its common sense. I learnt to avoid that mistake not from my Bible reading but from my reading of Mortimer Adler's "How to read a book". But I can see this whole point truly becoming a red herring now, so let me abandon my entire argument for the sake of the discussion and say: I think Lance has indicated just how plain the plain reading of Scripture can be, and indeed is, even on the shape of the earth and slavery. Not too many "problems" there that require the "imposing (ouch! as opposed to exposition?) (of) a fairly modern interpretation onto the plain reading of Scripture so that we can can we get beyond these "problems" in the Bible". Lance's comments and Adler's book show us that plain reading is way more than a red herring, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 04 Sep, 2008 - 17:51:33

Any dispute that there exists the possibility of any human being picking up the Bible and reading it and knowing what the overall truth about life, God and the future is takes us straight back to the dark ages!

Need I remind you that in those days scripture was not accessible to every man, people needed special learned men who would tell them what scripture said and what it meant. Thank God we are out of that sad state!

But by suggesting scripture is not clear on teaching which it explicitly and regularly affirms is taking us back to the dark ages where only some men can understand scripture and others need to follow their lead as they "read between the lines".

If you are not comfortable with accepting homosexual sex and homosexual thought as sin, then that is fine, there are millions of other people who feel the same. But don't try and twist what the bible has to say about it to appease your conscience!

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 07 Sep, 2008 - 16:46:22

Martyn,

You have horribly misread me. If you read the entries I have made on homosexuality, and everything I have written on the Bible on this blog, you will see that I am committed to a proper interpretation and application of the Bible as God's Word.

I am more than happy to have civil discussions with people prepared to engage on the issues I have raised. There is no value in having discussions with people who are name-callers and/or not prepared to actually read (or listen to) what has been said.

Having said all that, I am not trying to go back to the dark ages. But neither am I intending to fall into the trap of postmodernism that allows anyone to be an interpreter (because, after all, "it's how I see it that really counts"). This is the fun bit for me, Martyn. Many people think that I would claim to be postmodern (I do not), and use "postmodern" as an accusatory label. Yet, when it comes to discussing technical details of exegesis and hermeneutics, these very same people retreat to the very postmodern corner, claiming that "it's too difficult", "well, I never studied Greek", or "it's just the plain reading of the text" or something similar.

On the issue of homosexuality (the current area on which we find our exegetical and hermenautical approaches under fire) , they are very quick to condemn millions of people to eternal hellfire, but quite slow to acknowledge that they haven't actually done the hard work of interpretation in order to do so. I find that frightening.

So, far from returning to the Dark Ages, I am trying to cast real light on certain issues. Remember, Scripture translation is an art, a science and a spiritual endeavour. In all three of these areas, we cannot claim precision. We therefore must continually "test the Scriptures" to ensure we have understood them, interpreted them and translated them accurately.

On the issue of homosexuality, I contend that we have not. And it is THAT contention that I would like to discuss.

To have my conscience called into question is both irrelevant and uncalled for.

Posted by: Graeme 07 Sep, 2008 - 19:11:29

Graeme,

I agree with the drift of you last comments that in order to have civil discussion we must accept one another’s bona fides as compassionate Christians and responsible exegetes. But you seem to scuttle your own ship when you say that:

“On the issue of homosexuality (the current area on which we find our exegetical and hermenautical approaches under fire) , they are very quick to condemn millions of people to eternal hellfire, but quite slow to acknowledge that they haven't actually done the hard work of interpretation in order to do so. I find that frightening".

Your statement implies that interpreters who have come to the opposite conclusion to that which you are tending towards are aimed at little more than condemning people to hell. Whilst there may indeed be those ungracious hearts out there who operate from that dark desire, most responsible Christians who believe the practice of homosexuality to be a cardinal sin are driven by exactly the opposite consideration, namely to warn homosexual folk away from hell (in the negative) and to prompt them towards heaven (in the positive).

Your statement also seems to bluntly assume that those who disagree with you, do so because they have not actually done the hard work of interpretation. Again, there may indeed be some who disagree with you because they have not done their homework. But some, as I’m sure you now, have actually done the hard work of interpreation and, while they acknowledge that you have done it too, they simply believe that you have done it wrong. I’m sure you can see that? So, why are you so frightened by their slowness to acknowledge something that is not necessary for them to acknowledge at all?

To get back to a point: I know this is somewhat philosophical (and I am the most inept of amateurs in that field) but I am a bit puzzled as to how an insistence on the plain reading of the text (or the possibility thereof) is a retreat to the postmodern corner. How is the claim that plain meaning can be quite present in written language aretreat to a postmodern corner, of all things?

Hope you are enjoying a blessed holiday (don’t let us intrude on it too much).

Regards,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 08 Sep, 2008 - 01:22:54

No, Willem, this is a conversation, so my response was not to ALL people who condemn homosexuals. Specifically, I was not accusing you of not doing the hard work.

I am happy with a "plain reading" of the text that you and I both agree to be infallible, inerrant, inspired, etc... That text, as you know well is "as originally given". This key phrase is included in all evangelical statements of faith, and is critical!!

But that means that it is the ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts we must plainly read. Everything else is interpretation. Translation is interpretation. No-one argues with this point, do they?

Is this not the heart of the issue? What did Paul mean when he said X, Y or Z? I am suggesting that when Paul said X, we have misunderstood him for 2,000 years. I am not suggesting that we cannot know X, but I am suggesting that part of the problem we have is that we have translated X as "Y" for the last 500 years, and we are wrong to do so.

So, as long as we are prepared to do the hard work to look at how we interpret the original text, then we can definitely look at the plain meaning of the text. (PS - in about 98% of the Bible, I am happy with the current English translations).

Posted by: Graeme 08 Sep, 2008 - 01:48:38

Thank you Graeme. I am in full agreement with you, except with yoir suggestion that the church has misunderstood Paul for 2000 years. But that is precisely the debate. I find your lates comments encouraging. I think it clears the air in many ways.

Now, enjoy some uninterrupted holiday first. We can talk afterwards.

Regards,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 08 Sep, 2008 - 11:16:50

I just want to say that you do not know what you are talkingabout Graeme, and that you should get saved, (Born Again)

Posted by: Billy Baker 08 Sep, 2008 - 16:49:17

Thanks for your contribution Billy. This is precisely the type of response, from "Born Again" that is exactly what Jesus would NOT do. I considered deleting your comment, but then thought I would leave it so that others can see the level to which some Christians descend.

It's unacceptable.

For the record, I am saved.

Posted by: Graeme 08 Sep, 2008 - 17:38:31

@Billy Baker: you're claiming that you know the mind of God and to know if Graeme is saved or not? That's a pretty cool ability (think: Heroes) - can I send some names of people whose salvation I'm unsure of to you and you can let me know what the destination of their eternal soul is? Do you do future conversions too?

Everyone else: I'm enjoying these thoughts - excellent contributions on all sides.

Posted by: Roger Saner 08 Sep, 2008 - 19:42:32

Billy, believe me, much as we may disagree with Graeme, he always knows what he is talking about- no flattery, just fact. Also, to question someone's salvation is not a light thing. If we are concerned about someone's salvation, we should speak to such a one with the utmost compassion. Doubting people's salvation, especially in a derogatory tone is neither glorifying to God, nor helpful to the argument. I mean, what do you expect us to conclude from your statement? Do you expect us, regardless of where we stand o this issue to just say: "O yes, that's it, Graeme's going to hell. What a stumping argument. Why didn't I think of that?" I can hear that an emotional chord has been touched in you by Graeme's arguments. But let's try to answer arguments and not just vent emotions at the other side's expense.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 08 Sep, 2008 - 21:38:50

Hi Graeme,

What's the historical basis to say that monogamous homosexual relationships didn't exist in the Greek days when Paul would have written his letters? (Or, even when guys like Clement or Augustine wrote their letters)?

Also, what kind of references to homosexuality do we see in the early church fathers? (I'm thinking Clement and those guys...)

Just wanting to see what research you did in this area - what you read etc. I'm just wanting a starting point to research those two greek words.

Secondly, I tend to feel that creation and eschatology are linked in a very big way which makes me surprised at your statement about the 'creation argument'. Tied in with that, we know that marriage is a creation ordinance, which makes the metaphors used with Christ and the Church a very good basis for saying that homosexuality was/is not God's intent for any man or woman.

Which means, in many ways, that the creation argument should be a whole lot stronger than what you are implying -- both because creation is eschatological in nature (new creation), marriage is a creation ordinance, and that both of these always (and always) refer to man and woman alone within the scriptures.

What may be interesting to see is that homosexuality may not have been seen as a sexual problem in the early church (I'm speculating here). I'm wondering if it is even a sexual problem. Maybe the sexual nature of it is the great red herring. The sin of it may not be nature as much as rejection of what God made you-- or, it may not be a sexual problem as much as an emotional or identity issue (as is often discussed). At any rate, we may find that if your interpretations of the greek words on homosexuality are correct we would still find homosexuality somewhere else - we're just not looking there because we assume it's a sexual problem (I'm really just talking to get someone out there thinking).

Very lastly, well done Roger! He he! Loved that response!

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 08 Sep, 2008 - 22:34:09

Ryan Peter,

I am not going to answer all your questions now (I am not ducking them - just on holiday, moving house and have a day job :-). I'll come back to them later.

I am, however, interested in your linking of creation and eschatology. I agree (I think). So, if marriage is a "creation ordinance" (this is NOT a Biblical category, and we use it without ever defining it or defending it - it is a man-made, imposed category), why then will there be no marriage in heaven? If God's image is so clearly shown in marriage, then why abolish it in the new creation?

So, for us to have this conversation, you'll need to be more specific about what a "creation ordinance" is. Are there any others? How did they become ordinances? What does it mean to be an ordinance?

Having done that, you must then also explain why Paul encourages singleness. Is an ordinance not a requirement?

I am not trying to be pedantic or silly about this, but I really do believe that part of our problem is that we've created all these categories to help us understand the Bible. But the categories were never IN the Bible in the first place, and can get in the way of proper interpretation and analysis.

Posted by: Graeme 09 Sep, 2008 - 10:09:03

"By their fruits you shall know them" Matthew 7:20

Yes when I typed the words above yesterday I knew I was saying more than I might be qualified to say, then again I know of humble carpenter (I call him LORD) who once told some very learned religous people in His day that they were children of their father Satan, (no I am not GOD or Jesus) but Christians are able to tell saints apart from the ungodly/backslidden.

I read the other day of a Christian man (Church father) who would not be seen in the company of a heretic because non Christians might get the wrong idea.

I would sooner invite a homosexual person into my home than I would Graeme (forgive me for being personal here)

"but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.
For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?" 1 Corinthians 5:11-12

There are other people who claim to be Christians who do the same thing to scripture as Graeme does, and I have told them on the street that they are not Christians (and I say this to them lovingly with compassion persuaded by scripture that should they die in their present state that they MIGHT go to hell) These people fellow humans like Graeme created by my Creator, blessed with life and breath by my GOD are known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Who hates Graeme more those who indulge his petty fantasies or those who will be in his words "see the level to which some Christians descend." I have scripture on my side, and I have many Church fathers, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Pentecostal on my side.

But most of all should you wish to judge me for this you are all welcome I am zealous for my GOD and His word, and the most loving thing I could do for Graeme is call him to salvation/repentance.

I pray GOD that there were more people zealous for Him.

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear sin because of him." Leviticus 19:17

Posted by: Billy Baker 09 Sep, 2008 - 13:10:52

Billy,

I too believe that I have Scripture on my side, and am zealous for God's work and fame. That's the problem isn't it? It's not that you are zealous for God and I am a horrid backslider who lost my first love. If that were the case, your approach would work (and it may indeed work with those people who try to abuse the Bible and twist it to their own desires). But, your approach is not going to work with people who take the Bible seriously, consider themselves to be devoted followers of God and His Christ and are passionate in their cause.

I would love to see a photograph of you. If you take Leviticus 19:17 so seriously, I hope you also take Leviticus 19:27 as seriously...

Also, if you take 1 Cor 5:11-12 seriously, then I hope you're committed to having short hair - because of the angels (see 1 Cor 11). Maybe to be true to both books you quoted from, you need to keep one side of your head of hair short, and allow the other to grow. Just to be safe...

Seriously, though, I would like to know which sins in 1 Cor 5:11-12 you are accusing me of? I do not read in these passages that you should break fellowship with me simply because I am talking about these issues... so, be specific, or consider taking your approach somewhere else.

Thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: Graeme 09 Sep, 2008 - 13:36:09

Graeme,

I am sorry if I came across in the wrong way, my point is simply this:

We have heard the arguments concerning the words used in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The arguments are mostly vague at best becuase it remains very difficult to know the authors intent in the context of the culture and its views around the issue of Homosexuality.

The problem is that in none of those passages are there any divisions made between monogamous homosexual relationship and the "sodomy" that is
spoken of. Which I realize is part of the point you are making.

But either way it remains an argument from silence. So what does the Bible say clearly where there are no disputes over meanings of words?

Well, that's a hard question becuase scholars are able to find disputes in almost any text - which is understandable when you realize that these texts are written in cultures that where so different from ours.

So let's look at it at an even broader level. What major themes that are traceable throughout scripture which can help to give us direction in this matter.

Well marriage is the obvious one. And I believe that this is the point that has been made several times already. Marriage is instituted at creation and is affirmed several times throughout scripture.

Then Jesus comes along to put the cherry on the cake, he takes the whole thing to a new level by suggesting that even lust outside of marriage is sin. ie. the entertaining of a thought which is derived from our sinful nature or orientation.

So what is marriage?
Surely this is clear from the many biblical texts. Is there anywhere in scripture where marriage is opened to same sex couples?

I believe not. Marriage is often and explicitly spoken of as the bond between 1 man and 1 woman.

So all I am trying to say is that when we get past all the nuances of the interpretations of this word and that at the end of the day it does not matter becuase we have been given a blue print in the bible which outlines the structure for society: Marriage and Family.

And homosexuality of any sort is simply not included in that blueprint.

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 09 Sep, 2008 - 15:08:20

Billy,

Did you read the replies you got from Roger and from me? I appreciate your zeal for the Lord and His Word. But the kind of argument you are using is called an "ad hominem" argument: an argument aimed at the man and not at the issue. To put it differently, it plays the man and not the ball. Even if Graeme had to plead guilty to every single charge you bring against him, this would not affect his arguments one bit. Can you see that. The value of your arguments in this debate is...zero. We do value your help in contending for truth, but this is not helping.

Graeme, thank you for not deleting Billy's comments. But why do you respond to them?

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 09 Sep, 2008 - 15:11:35

Because it's my blog, and I try and respond to everything :-).

More seriously, though, it's to make the point you have just eloquently made.

Posted by: Graeme 09 Sep, 2008 - 15:29:53

Martyn,

Thanks for clearly laying out where the issue lies - I think this is precisely where it does lie.

But, here are some thoughts. In Matthew 5, Jesus does not talk about marriage. He says that any man looking lustfully at any woman commits adultery in his heart. We can impose the marriage overlay onto this if we want to - and it makes sense to do so - but we must still admit that we are putting words into Jesus' mouth if we talk about marriage.

We have to ask why Paul commends singleness.

You have also made a factually incorrect statement about the Bible. The Bible does not have a consistent voice on the "1 man 1 woman" in a marriage issue. The Old Testament has no issue with polygamy, and many (most!) of the patriarchs and mighty men of God were polygamists. Even when the New Testament talks about this issue, it chooses strange language. 1 Timothy, for example, when laying out requirements for deacons and elders talks of being "a one woman man" (that is the literal translation), rather than "one woman and one man in a marriage".

AND, while we're talking about it, if we take these provisions for church leadership so seriously, why do we not INSIST that deacons and elders HAVE to be married and have at least 2 children (the requirements also specify they must manage their children - plural - well)?

You see, we take some things literally and look for patterns in some areas. Then, in others, we completely ignore them!

So, if you concede that the verses are difficult to understand, and we need to look at the whole witness of Scripture, I think you're really making MY point for me. The whole witness of Scripture is actually very INconsistent on these issues.

If you read it's plain meaning, that is... :-) (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Posted by: Graeme 09 Sep, 2008 - 16:04:48

Graeme,

Jesus is not talking about marriage in Mat. 5:27-28? The very difinition of the term “adultery” (heterosexual relations outside the bond of marriage, i.e. voluntary sexual intercourse between a MARRIED man or woman and a partner other than the legal spouse) shows that he is indeed talking about marriage. How does one think “adultery” without thinking “marriage”? How does one talk about adultery without talkng about marriage? To assert this this point is not imposition, but exposition of the very term “adultery”.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 09 Sep, 2008 - 17:36:03

Graeme,

Missed a paste of part of my response there, so here it is: "Adultery" only has plain meaning, and plain meaning indeed, in the context of "marriage".

P.S. Couldn't resist that.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 09 Sep, 2008 - 17:45:03

Willem,

I must be honest and say that I secretly *hoped* you would fall into this logical error. It makes my life *so* much easier :-)

This part of our conversation started when Martyn said that we must look at how marriage is portrayed in the Bible to provide us with a framework for interpreting the difficult verses that specifically deal with homosexuality. He then pointed to Jesus' teaching on adultery to prove his point about marriage.

You cannot now explain the definition of adultery by appealing to the very definition of marriage you are trying to prove. This is a lovely example of circular reasoning. It is also one of the most common mistakes in logic.

And this is one of the problems with this issue. It goes round and round like this. Part of what I am trying to do is unravel the ball of string, and find where it all starts. It seems the place to look is the creation, but I am not convinced about the "creation order" argument. See a previous post I have written on this for more detail:
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/some-thoughts-on-the-creation-order-argument...

Posted by: Graeme 09 Sep, 2008 - 19:43:24

Couple of things:

In the OT there is no explicit decree against polygamy, as would also be the case on the issue of slavery. But does God give some hints toward what his ideal is, I think they are there subtly. But that is really irrelevant becuase we need to move beyond systematic theology and look at this from the perspective of biblical theology. Where does this theme of marriage reach its high point? Ultimately there we will see God's perfect intention.

Surely you don't suggest that when Jesus was speaking about adultery that for that brief moment he completely forgot what he and his father's intentions for marriage and family are?

Of course when he brought that teaching he had marriage in mind. I agree with Willem. Surely you cannot disagree with that based upon the text Graeme?

Let's not get side tracked about elders and deacons, the Bible is very clear on the issue of marriage.

Its the very nature of God's word to progress in revelation and the highest revelation of God's intentions for social order is the very tight almost blurred link between marriage and the relationship between the Church and Christ (eph5). This is the highpoint of God's revelation on marriage becuase it is linked with the eternal relationship between Christ and his Church.

This image carries with it several implications:
1. Marriage is not just a earthly structure but it is symbolic of a divine order
2. Marriage is pre-creation. Before the foundation of the world Christ chose his bride.
3. Christ's love for his church is expressed in the terms of marriage and again that marriage is between a husband and a wife just as it is between Christ and his bride.

I can't see any room in this passage for Christ and his "life long male partner".

The beauty of His love for us is expressed in the terms of a marriage relationship between one man and one woman.

If this does not show us the intention of God's heart for marriage and sexuality then we are doomed never to find it!

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 09 Sep, 2008 - 21:52:07

Graeme,
Heard that one before, so I was secretly hoping you would throw it at me so I can toss it right back (devious aren’t we). A bit of fun is O.K. , I’m sure. Now let me answer you:
You misunderstand the nature of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when one simply keeps on repeating the same argument in different or stronger terms without indicating its validity. The reason given is simply a reassertion of the conclusion that is presented as the reason for the conclusion. It is like saying: “You should eat carrots because doing so improves your eyesight”. This is the same as saying “you should eat carrots, because you should eat carrots”, because there are no merging elements present in the definitions of the key-terms involved in the statement (carrot-eating and eyesight). Carrot-eating and improved eyesight are not related by definition, and therefore not of necessity. The relationship between carrot-eating and good eyesight remains to be proved. The case is different with the relationship between adultery and marriage, though. In the Judeo-Christian context in which the issue is being discussed here it is not circular reasoning to say: “Adultery is sin because it violates marriage”. Why is this not circular reasoning? Well, because in every Judeo-Christian use of the term throughout history (the term is, as you no doubt know, of Judeo-Christian origin) adultery has, by definition, been related to marriage. Look at any definition of the term “adultery”, throughout Judeo-Christian history and you will soon see how futile it is to try to find a definition of “adultery” that does not contain a necessary reference to marriage in some sense or form. In fact, I could present quite a workable argument that, in itself, the etymology of the word, (which I shall not bore you with here, except to say it has nothing to do with “adult”), indicates an effect on some contract. Adultery is rendered adultery by a marriage somewhere in the mix. Where there is no marriage, there may be other sexual sin, but there can be no adultery. This is not a circular argument, because, unlike carrot-eating and good eyesight, adultery is by definition related to marriage. Now you may feel that this reality (for reasons of your own) needs revision. But you cannot expect me to simply agree with you and give up the classic Judeo-Christian definition of adultery just because you say so. The burden of proof remains on you that the definitions of adultery in common use have always been faulty and therefore need revision. You cannot simply say “I don’t like the way definitions of adultery have always tied it to marriage, therefore I’ll take them back and fix them for you now.” What you are trying to define (some kind of sexual offence other than fornication that is adultery but has nothing to do with marriage) may well require definition and you are free to knock yourself out in having a go at it. But I for one see no reason why I should give up the definition of adultery for your purposes just because you say so.
So, in conclusion: I would be guilty of circular reasoning only if you could indicate that by no accepted Judeo-Christian definition of the term is adultery related to marriage.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 09 Sep, 2008 - 22:34:26

Graeme,

P.S. The same goes for the definition of marriage. Show me the slightest hint in any definition of "marriage" (older than 50 years) in the long Judeo-Christian tradition that takes even the tiniest step in the direction of your attempts to redefine it to accommodate monogamous homosexual (sic!) relationships. I do not need to prove my definition of marriage- the burden of prove that it is wrong rests on you.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 09 Sep, 2008 - 22:48:49

Martyn (and Willem),

I agree completely with your points about marriage, and God's intention for it to be an ongoing symbol of Christ's relationship with the church (in fact, Paul says this when he is talking about marriage - he gets drawn into the marriage picture, and then seems to almost come out of it with a "but I am talking about Christ and the church". Interestingly, he also says that it is a "great mystery" and not one that he fully understood).

So, we have no disagreement on your points 1, 2 and 3a. Here's my question: WHY can this love and relationship between Christ and the church not be expressed in the love between two men?

IF homosexuality is condoned by God, the rules of sexual behaviour and the requirement for fidelity would not fall away, but would equally be imposed. In this case, the love of the two men (which the Bible states clearly can be greater than the love of a man and a woman - 2 Sam 1:26) could just as easily be a symbol of Christ's relationship with the church.

In fact, the Bible is full of those man-man love symbols (David and Jonathan, Jesus and his disciples, Paul and his companions). There is nothing lewd or ugly in these symbols. In fact, they are celebrated.

So, my question, now properly phrased is simple: WHY can a homosexual relationship not portray the relationship between Christ and the church?

We agree that this is the spiritual intent of marriage from a Biblical theology perspective. I now ask a simple question. I know you don't know the mind of God, but if this is so important, then the reasoning must be knowable. WHY is God so opposed to a homosexual relationship being used as a picture of His love for His people?

Posted by: Graeme 10 Sep, 2008 - 10:41:55

Graeme,

To answer your “simple and properly” phrased question: “WHY can a homosexual relationship not portray the relationship between Christ and the church”. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not up to us to show WHY (your emphasis) this love and relationship between Christ and the church cannot be expressed in the love between two men. That possibility has never, in all of Judeo-Christian history been even considered. There is absolutely nothing in any text in the Bible that invites homosexuality into a discussion on marriage. You want homosexuality in the matrimonial equation? You show us anything that indicates God wants it there. We don’t have to rule it out; you have to rule it in and show that this is how God has always wanted it.

Comments such as the one you make that "the Bible is full of those man-man love symbols (David and Jonathan, Jesus and his disciples, Paul and his companions). There is nothing lewd or ugly in these symbols" will not do it for you. Of course there isn't anything lewd or ugly in those relationships. We know that. We also know why. These "symbols" (I am not quite sure why you call them thus) are not lewd or ugly and are, as you say, “in fact celebrated”, because they are simply brotherhoods and friendships. They are not homosexual "symbols" as you seem to be trying to make them out to be (and almost blasphemously so, I might add, especially in the case of Jesus and His disciples). These friendships and brotherhoods are celebrated because they were sanctified and proper man-man relationships. There is nothing in the Biblical text that even hints at these relationships having been homosexual relationships. (Goodness! I hope you are not implying that the relationship that Jesus had with his disciples were of a similar nature to the relationships that men have with their wives?).

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 11 Sep, 2008 - 09:55:25

Willem,

Marriage is not the only analogy used in the Bible for our relationship with God, and Christ's relationship with the Church. There are almost countless such analogies. And, those analogies have evolved and developed and matured over time.

The example of the church, as the "new Israel" is maybe the most obvious one. Marriage itself has morphed over time, from something arranged by the parents almost at birth and involving polygamy and levirate marriages, to (in the modern Western world) relationships based on mutual feelings of love and monogamous (that's the current ideal anyway. In reality this hardly ever happens).

This is where it all breaks down.

What is the heart of the marriage analogy?

Does God want to have companionship with his people? Yes. Marriage is about two people choosing to share their lives and journeys. But, would God have any issue with two men or two women sharing companionship through life? No.

Does God want to share resources with his church? Yes. Marriage is about two people combining their life resources and working together. But, would God have an issue with two men or two women sharing their resources? No.

Does God want to live together with his people? Yes. Marriage is about a level of physical intimacy, living in the same space and being in proximity to each other. But, would God be unhappy with two men or two women choosing to live together, sharing a common space? No.

So, what is it then? What is the marraige picture that homosexuality so badly distorts?

Of course, you knew where I was going...

It's all about sex. Does God want to have sex with the church? Of course not - I even feel embarrassed having to ask that question in that way... But, what is it about sex that portrays God's intimate relationship with church?

Is it just that homosexuals can't have children?

What is it about SEX that portrays our relationship with God?

Posted by: Graeme 12 Sep, 2008 - 11:02:47

Graeme,

Of course marriage is about all those things you mention, and of course we can draw wonderful analogies from that with regard to how God, through and in His Church, wants to relate to people. All this is true and wonderful. It is also not the point in this debate. It will not be good enough to show that you can indicate wonderful and heart-rending parallels between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But you seem to want to sneak in a "therefore" from those parallels that homosexuality should be allowed into the Judeo-Christian matrimonial equation. You seem to want to launch this from the silence of Scripture on homosexuality in its treatment of marriage. You are, of course, aware of the dangers of trying to interpret silence or to let it exert undue influence on our arguments. You could, for instance, argue that the silence of Scripture on homosexuality in its teatment of marriage leaves the door open for us to let our Christian view on marriage "morph" to include homosexuality. You seem to be thinking we can use some melodramatic presentations of parallels between homosexuality and heterosexuality to produce this "morphing". But I could with more validity argue that the lack of Scriptural reference to homosexuality in its treatment of marriage indicates an assumption and presumption that homosexuality does not belong in a Christian discussion of marriage and that everyone- from the human authors of the books of the Bible, to every subsequent generation of readers- has always known and accepted this. You aeem to be doing your utmost to wedge homosexuality into Christian matrimony and you are employing all kinds of "thin ends" to do so- including the problematics of sexuality. This will not do. Show us the slightest bit of Biblical evidence or evidence from the long Judeo-Christian history and tradition that rules homosexuality into the Judeo-Christian view on marriage as clearly as it rules in heterosexuality and I should feel only to honoured to have a proper discussion with you the significance of sexuality in God's relatioship with His Church. This, and nothing short of this, is the challenge you face in this debate.

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 12 Sep, 2008 - 11:54:34

Hi Graeme,

The system has rejected my comments for some reason-- looks like Roger is working on it.

In the meantime, I'll just outlay a short version to the question about sex you posed above. I think it's fairly obvious.

Firstly, the scripture's reference to Husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the church boils over to an issue of gender within marriage - females submit, males love unconditionally. Males pursue, females are pursued. There are many more we can draw from the scripture.

Does homosexual marriage create this picture? How do husbands love their husbands? The scripture exhorts husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. But, how does it exhort husbands to love husbands? Is one husband in a homosexual marriage to become a wife? Someone, after all, must be 'the church' in the marriage, and another 'Christ'; otherwise the picture of marriage is not completed.

Secondly, sex portrays the spiritual union Jesus will have with his church. If you ask whether God wants to have sex with his church, I would say that - in the truest picture of what sex is - the answer is yes. God wants spiritual union with His church. It's obviously not sex as we know, but sex is only a pointer to something higher - a spiritual, intimate, union between christ and his church. Again, in a homosexual marriage, who is the church and who is Christ?

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 13 Sep, 2008 - 16:14:49

Ryan Peter2,

Thanks for your comments. The analogy here is slavery. In recent times in church history, we have come to understand that when the Bible talks about slavery it does not do so because the Biblical model of slaves and masters is the correct model, or is definitive for Christians, but rather just because it was the prevailing social model at the time.

It is a good analogy with marriage, since Paul also uses slavery as a picture of our relationship to Christ. The argument you use above is frighteningly similar to some of arguments used by Christians to oppose the abolition of slavery!

Let's assume God were to write on the walls of every church next Sunday, "I am OK with gay" (or something more profound, but with the same effect). Would we need to rewrite the Bible? I don't think so at all. We'd simply see that what God has always said about marriage now equally applies to same sex unions.

So, I don't buy your argument. And I hope you wouldn't have been someone who would have opposed the abolition of slavery on these grounds...

Posted by: Graeme 14 Sep, 2008 - 12:25:07

Willem,

You asked me to show you where people have accepted homosexuality in church history. You hint that if I can do this, it would sway your opinion in favour of my argument.

I don't think it would.

I think you're right that this needs to be done, and I promise that I will show the history of the acceptance of homosexuality in church history. You will be surprised. But, to do so requires me to access books in my library that are currently in a container off the coast of West Africa somewhere. I will only have access to them in a few weeks time.

However, before I do that work, I have a conceptual question for you.

How many supporters of homosexuality do I need to find in the last 3000 years or so? If I find 10, is that enough? The reason I ask is that this has obviously been a minority view over the years, so I am not going to find entire branches of the church who have been openly gay.

But, even if I did, what would your response be? I don't think this is going to convince you, is it?

So, why ask me to give you the evidence? Are you feeling cornered :-)

Posted by: Graeme 14 Sep, 2008 - 12:36:19

Graeme, you misunderstand my challenge. My challenge to you is not that you come up with some quotes and examples from some obscure heterodox fringe or fringes of the Judeo-Christian heritage. I am sure (people being people) we can always find anything somewhere in history (or put it there if it is not, as bishop John Shelby Spong, among others, is so adept at doing). Even if you were able to come up with such examples from heterodox quarters, each such instance would require its own examination in the light of history and Scripture. You rae right: this would not convince me, because that is not my challenge. My challenge is that you come up with the tiniest shred of evidence from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and/or the Judeo-Christian tradition and heritage that rules homosexuality into the Judeo-Christian understanding and expression of marriage as clearly, naturally and spontaneously as it rules in heterosexuality. Show us where Judeo Christain orthodoxy rule homosexuality in (in the positive) or (in the negative) that it did not condemn homosexuality where it spoke on it. You do not have to find "entire branches of the church that have been openly gay" (especially not by merely Googling the concept), but just for interest sake: are there such “branches”, just for interest sake?). You need to point out even ONE branch within Judeo-Christian orthodoxy that has been even covertly gay, and out of conviction and acceptably so (to the rest of orthodox Christianity), at that. But, you are right, even if you were able to come up with an example it would ceratinly surprise me (as you promise to do. Hope your books get to you safely. Is Spong among among them? I hope not. That would bore rather than surprise me). I acknowledge, up front, that I am not aware of a single example. But, you are right, it would not necessarily convince me because it would require examination in the light of the Scriptures and in its own historical context. But something clear from the Scriptures or the Church fathers would truly stun me.

So why do I ask you the question? You invite questions on your blog. Do I feel corenered? Of course. I always feel cornered. I am a Reformed Baptist, remember. What does my feeling (or not feeling) cornered have to do with anything? This is not about me. Even so, what, in your arguments thus far do you suspect make up the walls of the corner you think I might feel myself in? Your apparrent side-stepping of some of my most important comments such as that I hope you are not implying that the relationship that Jesus had with his disciples were of a similar nature to the relationships that men have with their wives?

Anyway, the real reason for my question? Because you seem so insistent that the conclusions you seem to be driving at are not heterodox, my contention is that you need to find compelling evidence from Scripture and from Judeo-Christan orthodoxy that rules homosexuality into the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage. I thought that this went without saying. It strikes me now that in this instance I do not feel particularly cornered at all when I put it like that (although I do feel cornered in quite a few other areas, still). To repeat my challenge, then- Show us the slightest bit of Biblical evidence or evidence from Judeo-Christian ORTHODOXY (again, because, you seem to insist that this is where you see yourself) that rules homosexuality into the Judeo-Christian understanding and expression of marriage as clearly, naturally and spontaneously as it rules in heterosexuality (remember, please, my contention that you have to rule it in- the orthodox position does not need to rule it out).

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 14 Sep, 2008 - 16:42:02

Everyone,

Please pardon all the tpos and the shoddy cut-and-paste job in my previous entry. Just got back from a five hour trip: dog-tired.

Regards,

Willem

Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst 14 Sep, 2008 - 16:50:05

Graeme I'll shoot from the hip to bring something into this conversation :

Firstly, the relationships between men in the Bible (such as you have referred to) is one of friendship. The fact that friendship can be so close and we don't understand how that can be (or, as some do, think it can only be explained as a homoSEXUAL thing) shows the horrible disregard and narrowmindedness of our culture and understanding of friendship.

Which leads me into asking a homosexual why friendship seems that it's not good enough? Why must it become a sexual thing, if friendship can actually be better than the intimate love between partners? This may require some careful thought.

Which does, then, take us into the sex argument. Is it the love between men that's the problem, or sex between men that's the problem? It appears that the former is celebrated and encouraged; the latter not.

The latter not because it seems that not only marriage but the thing that consummates marriage - sex - is a picture of Christ and the Church. As you obviously know, sex represents the union between Christ and his church.

It may be difficult to say that this union can be represented clearly in male-male (or female-female) relationships because, perhaps, of 'passive' and 'active' roles played out in male-female relationships. The male is to lead the relationship, the female to be his 'help-meet' as Genesis puts it. God created the female to help the man. This includes submission (woman to man) and loving unconditionally (man to woman). The picture of Christ and the Church is clear here, too - one of submission (church to Christ) and loving unconditionally (Christ to church).

You would have to show how a man-man relationship is able to show this prophetic and spiritual picture clearly in a natural way. This is because one in the relationship takes the submission role (church to Christ), and one the leadership role (Christ to church). With two men and two females this picture doesn't really work, or it doesn't work naturally, because one of the males (in a male-male relationship) needs to exchange who they are, by creation (a male) for who they are not (a female).

God called males to do certain things, and within a male homosexual marriage one of the males would have to take a female role to complete the prophetic picture correctly. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I just want to get it across clearly.

It's clear that one of the male's would have to 'abandon' the male calling to take up the female. Even if they keep switching roles it becomes evident that a male in the relationship is not being male but female at some point - emotionally, spiritually and physically. But they aren't female, by creation; yet the prophetic picture cannot be seen visibly without a female role. I think you know where this is going.

Which, also, makes the whole point of hermaphrodites still moot because this isn't about who hermaphrodites are, this is about who the homosexual person is. They are not hermaphrodites, they are males or females.

Leads me into a question no one has really answered when I ask it - is homosexuality a gender?

I feel bad speaking about it like this because I'm not homosexual myself nor had to really struggle with homosexuality. I know that homosexual guys and gals are probably reading this, and I don't want to pretend as if homosexual attraction isn't a difficult thing.

Continued on next post

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 14 Sep, 2008 - 18:50:05

Also, Graeme, earlier on you did ask me about ordinances and I'm yet to give you an official answer on it. What you did ask, however, was whether ordinances are 'requirements' and I thought I would add some thought to that question. Surely marriage is not a 'requirement' by being a creation ordinance, which is why Paul can probably encourage people to be single (for apostolic purposes, mostly, it seems). However, the ordinance is there to show how marriage should be if one decides to get married. The pattern it gives us ought to be followed when one decides to marry, but that doesn't mean that the pattern is that ALL marry - it's just a pattern FOR marriage (am I making sense?)

Lastly, and this was something else you mentioned, was that since marriage will be done away with in the new creation it's questionable whether it is a creation ordinance in the first place. I answer in three ways that may be contradictory, but nevertheless interesting (perhaps). Firstly, marriage still does continue with the church marrying Christ so the marriage Jesus may be referring to is the kind of marriage instituted by society, not God. Secondly, it's a creation ordinance but not necessarily a NEW creation ordinance. The current 'ordinances' are merely pointers to the eschatological and bigger picture that God always intended (I believe God's intention was always to marry Christ and humankind) and, thirdly, we don't really know about heaven so we can't be entirely sure if there won't be some sort of marriage in the new creation. As I said, Jesus saying there would be 'no marriage or giving in marriage' may mean that marriage as it is now, as society has it, would be no longer. But there is no mention of what (if anything) would replace it. We can't rule out that there may be a surprise there, too.

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 15 Sep, 2008 - 00:04:24

I totally get your point.

But it is still an argument form silence.
And we don't build doctrine on what the Bible doesn't say.
We build it upon what it does say.

Before we answer your question please could you give us the evidence in the text that suggest that God does want to display his love through same sex relationships?

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 15 Sep, 2008 - 00:14:29

Hello Graeme (This will be my last comment)

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person." 1 Corinthians 5:11

You ask, "I would like to know which sins in 1 Cor 5:11-12 you are accusing me of?"

I would answer: sexual immorality as in the promotion of homosexuality.
Idolatry, you teach another gospel; another god.
Reviler you abuse the Word of GOD in speech/writing.

And if you interpret my debating you as having any ability of myself to make you see your error, then as was asked of me after my first comment "am I God", no I pray that the Holy Spirit might convince you yet, and in the mean time protect those who are not Christian, and / or immature in the faith when they read your articles.

In the mean time I will leave the debating to more qualified persons such as Willem, and Martyn both of whom I respect.

For now here are two links that I found to be of much help on this issue.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/transcripts/45-16...
What the Bible Teaches About Homosexuality by John MacArthur
and
http://www.sbministries.org/thebible.html... of Stephen Bennett ministries.

Oh and this letter below from the article by John MacArthur.
"Dear John MacArthur: I realize you probably get some criticism for preaching on subjects like homosexuality. I'm not writing to you for that purpose....(you know, after that line I was okay cause I was waiting...waiting to get it)...I've been attending Grace Church for so long...one night while attending a baptism service I was moved by a young man's testimony that he was saved from a homosexual life style. I was saved in 1977, I was a Lesbian. I was so full of joy that the Lord took that sin away that I thought it would be a good testimony to say I'd been saved from that life style. I was told by the pastor of the church I attended to keep it to myself because people at the church would fear it and not understand my feeling and just praise the Lord for taking my sin away.

For four years I have kept this thing bottled up inside of me. I feared I would be condemned by my fellow Christians if I told anyone. After I attended a number of baptisms, I wanted to be able to give my testimony because it seemed that it wasn't wrong to tell other Christians what you were saved from. And when you were talking about homosexuality, all of a sudden I felt like a terrific weight had been lifted off my shoulders, the tears started flowing and they didn't stop until you finished your sermon. I felt like God took away all the bottled‑up emotions I've held inside for four years and allowed me to get it out in the open. I really want to thank you for the sermon. I know Jesus saved me from my sin years ago, but tonight I feel all clean because the burden of hiding my sin is gone."

Posted by: Billy Baker 15 Sep, 2008 - 00:47:00

Hi Graeme, you said : “The analogy here is slavery. In recent times in church history, we have come to understand that when the Bible talks about slavery it does not do so because the Biblical model of slaves and masters is the correct model, or is definitive for Christians, but rather just because it was the prevailing social model at the time.”
I feel somewhat disgruntled that you've straw-manned the argument here. We are not talking about slavery, we're talking about homosexuality.
Secondly, I don't even see how we could lay over the interpretation of 'social norm' over the scriptures of marriage, because those scriptures are gender issues (slavery is not) and the prevalent social norm at the time was pedastry (as you have hi-lighted, at least with many of the Greeks). If the arguments were of the same type we would see Paul say things such as “since pedastry happens, here is how to cope with it” rather than “it shouldn't happen”.
You need to show how husbands are to love their husbands or wives are to love their wives in the light of Eph 5. I don't know where you're getting slavery from.
You said : “It is a good analogy with marriage, since Paul also uses slavery as a picture of our relationship to Christ. The argument you use above is frighteningly similar to some of arguments used by Christians to oppose the abolition of slavery!”
Dude, you're not answering the question. You can't say that since the argument “sounds the same” it's a moot argument. Eph 5 shows the roles genders play within marriage, and Genesis also shows the role of genders. Women were made as a 'help-meet'. Who is the “help-meet” in homosexual marriage? Is homosexuality a gender?
You said : “Let's assume God were to write on the walls of every church next Sunday, "I am OK with gay" (or something more profound, but with the same effect). Would we need to rewrite the Bible? I don't think so at all. We'd simply see that what God has always said about marriage now equally applies to same sex unions.”
Yes, because God would have changed his mind (*snicker*).
You said : “So, I don't buy your argument. And I hope you wouldn't have been someone who would have opposed the abolition of slavery on these grounds...”
There's tons of questions you haven't answered and you're straw-manning of sorts with the slavery thing. We're talking about homosexuality, not slavery. I'm not going to throw an issue of gender and identity into an issue of social problems. Firstly, it's up to you to show how homosexuality and slavery should be treated the same (which I don't recall seeing you doing anywhere, but you can point me in the right direction) and whether homosexuality is a social issue alone; how male-male / female-female unions are representative of Christ and the church; and how homosexuals are to approach gender and gender distinctions in the Bible. There's more, but that would keep anyone occupied.
Once you've done that, you would (in the name of discipling) need to show how a person knows whether they are homosexual or not, which is a big problem. If it's a sin to go against your nature (say, if you're homosexual it's then classified a sin to be heterosexual) then how does someone know whether they are homosexual? Or is gender by our choice?
Then, you'll have to show whether bisexuality or peadophilia is a gender or not (and if not, why) and decide whether bisexuality or peadophilia cannot represent Christ and the church adequately. See if you can find scriptures outlining its wrong to marry a child. If you're going to see homosexuality as merely a social issue, and accept it as a gender, you're going to have to answer for bisexuality and peodophilia by default...

Posted by: Ryan Peter2 15 Sep, 2008 - 16:55:51

Amen and Amen to Ryan Peter 2!

I think you have your work cut out for you Graeme, but seriously, please do answer these questions from the text.

Posted by: Martyn Kilian 17 Sep, 2008 - 22:15:24

Ryan Peter,

You ask, who is the "help-meet" in homosexual relationships? Well, who is the "help-meet" in heterosexuality marriages? We know, of course, that the King James translated this concept in ancient English, and we should talk about it as a "help, meet for him", or, in modern English, "a helper, suitable for him".

So, in what ways was Eve suitable for Adam? The heart of this issue goes to sex. Men can be companions for other men, they can be emotional supports for other men, they can be financial partners for other men - as women can be for women.

So, what does it mean for Eve to be sexually suitable for Adam? Has it simply got to do with the design of the human body (the vagina and penis?) or is it more than that? If t is simply to do with sexual design, then do we use these verses to be as equally strongly opposed to oral and anal sex within hetersexual marriage (and, if not, why not)?

This may seem like a strange line of discussion, but I think this must be dealt with. What does it actually mean that men and women were created to be married to each other? Why do we allow (and even encourage) people to be single, then? What is it about heterosexual SEX ACTS in particular that shows the image of God - it seems to me that this is the only thing homosexual relationships could not emulate?

As to your other excellent issues and questions, I need to wait for my reference books to arrive. When they do, I'll respond in more detail.

Posted by: Graeme 18 Sep, 2008 - 13:24:49

I think where you are wrong is that you opened a door for satan....
Homosexuality is and was always wrong.

Posted by: Marscha 19 Sep, 2008 - 17:09:47

Well, actually, Marscha, it has not always been wrong. Before God created Adam and Eve, there were no sexual beings. The angels are always talked about in masculine ways, appear in masculine forms, and appear to have masculine characteristics. But, as far as we can tell, there is no sexuality in them.

There is a large prevalence of homosexual behaviour in nature which is considered "normal" by biologists, and actually have specific explanations, such as over population. So, in that sense, homosexuality was in built into creation.

So, it was only with the advent of human sexuality that the issue even arises.

Your response fails to address a very simple issue. WHY? Why does God prohibit human beings from homosexual intercourse?

That's the key to dealing with this issue.

Posted by: Graeme 19 Sep, 2008 - 17:18:01

Hi Graeme,
I appreciate your effort to engage in a productive dialogue regarding a rather complex issue that we may never be able to solve in an unambigious way, even with the best exegetical and hermeneutical efforts. Personally, I have no interest in proving you or anyone else wrong. I'd only like to make 2 short comments: First, arguments from silence, in my view, do not carry a whole lot of weight either way. This is particularly true of the repeated argument that the commonly used bible passages on homosexuality did not address committed lifelong relationships. Why would anyone expect our 21st century's context of gay marriage issues to be addressed in those texts? The only thing that we have from Jesus is an affirmation of the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. This does not answer the question whether other forms of marriage may possibly be supported by Scripture or not.
Secondly, I'd like to say that even if we all miraculously came to the same conclusion that (biblically) homosexuality is not God's ideal for human sexuality, the main problem is not that conclusion but what we do with it. How does Jesus approach someone with an issue of brokenness regarding the Creator's intent? What hypocrisy would he point out today when it comes to the lines we draw between homosexual and heterosexual marriage? Also, what do we think about people born transgendered (clearly not a choice!)? The list goes on. My beef with the "Christian" anti-gay movement is not their hermeneutics but the shocking absence of love and compassion towards those with homosexual orientation and an obvious lack of understanding that we are all in the same boat when it comes to issues of personal sin and brokenness - in hetrosexual relationships just as much as in homosexual ones, and a wide range of other areas that Scripture places at least as much weight on, if not more.

Posted by: Pastor Josh 16 Nov, 2008 - 11:20:04

Come on, Graeme, we're dying out here waiting for your response to Willem's challenge. Are your books still on the water? And I think he has got it right too. 1 verse that clearly endorses homosexual behavior would change everything. By the way, a good book on this and other moral topics in the NT is Richard Hays's "The Moral Vision of the New Testament." [SPOILER ALERT: He disagrees with you too!]

Posted by: Chris E 18 Nov, 2008 - 07:49:45

Hi everyone.
This is the first time I'm reading this blog. Saying so, it's imposible taht I could read all abouot the different toppics you are touching here yet, but I will. I've found your blog interesting and enlighting.
First for all, forgive my English. I'm not a native English spoken person so for sure I'll make too many mistakes from now on. So, I'm very sorry about that.
I've found in this blog people who are encoraging themselves to be better teologicans, better religous people, in a way, better people following the good rules (and by that I mean not every rule) of Church. It doesn't matter to me wich Church we're talking here to. It's irrelevant. As, in fact, very deeply at the core of everything, any topic is either.
Why? God is Perfection, and is Kindness, and is Justice and, most of all, above all and first of all, is Love, is a Father (or Mother: leave it as a parental figure.) Any discussion we try to establilsh about "God interpretation" is useless because of it. And any religous position we take from now on it's our very own, formed and thought in based of our believings and experiences.
No one is better person than other; maybe one is more lost than the other, but not better all the way. God made us as his reflection, or, better, as a seed that contains his pefection, just like a father or mother makes his very own children.
We don't need to follow rules blidness because we have concience and a very busy mind and eyes to see and ears to hear what's right or wrong.
Jesus told once (please, I'm just recalling not rememebering literally) taht we have to turn out like childeren to have the Kingdom within us. We have to be wash of everything that doesn't matter to be able to enter in Heaven, to win the right to be really free.
Freedom requieres responsability. Our very own responsability, not rely on others, a Church, a priest or a nun for that matter. Freedom requieres Faith, a strong one, and a Careless or, better, a Lack of Fear taht, event 2000 yeas after, is ot easy to achieve.
The moment that we found taht Gos is really All, we'll find ourselves totally free of other's chains, and with this free spirit in which this great responsability isn't as heavy as a feather.
In our true soul we know, deeply inside of our heart, that Creation is perfect because Who made it truly is. Who can blame God to be not so? Please, throw up the first stone.
Homesuality isn't a choice. It's a fact. As the sun brights during the day and the stars titiling at nights.
Love is only what truly matters. We don't need a book, misinterpretated during thousand of years, to tell us what's right or wrong, because life isn't white and black. Never it was, never it will be.
But The Bible, and Churches and people around us help us to achieve this interpretation... Hey! Not alloed us, just help us to achieve what we need to grow...
Life is beautiful without sin because sin isn't exist in real Life.
After all, we need to leave everything behind us to fin the real treasure: our Father.

Posted by: Juan Ramón Fernández Villanueva 09 Dec, 2008 - 21:47:08

Hi everyone. See things as they are and write about them. Don?t waste your creative energy trying to make things up. Even if you are writing fiction, write the things you see and know.
I am from Arabia and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Licorice is also known for its anti inflammatory and anti allergic effects.Hesperidin. Also mediate the allergic response and act as a diuretic."

Best regards 8), Ova.

Posted by: Ova 07 Jun, 2009 - 07:07:04

Badly need your help. You guys really rule. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Payday loan. I found only this - payday loan online. To have strong anti bacterial, anti inflammatory, and anti allergic actions. Access indications for each of the cold and allergy medicines. :eek: Thanks in advance. Kern from Senegal.

Posted by: Kern 10 Jun, 2009 - 13:24:48

LCD Monitor

Posted by: teresa 22 May, 2010 - 11:16:55

Do you know that it is correct time to receive the loans, which can make your dreams come true.

Posted by: LynnBullock 22 May, 2010 - 18:27:29

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:14:39

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:14:40

The Wholesale Wedding Gowns belonging to the an excellent high quality Wedding Gown needs to be colorless the clarity or Cheap Wedding Dresses, the capacity of the light to pass readily round the Low Price Wedding Dresses the cut will be the shape of the wholesale wedding gown the cut may also have an effect on the actual short wedding gown all appearance of the designer wedding gown.A poorly cut one will not casual wedding gown. The carat is the weigh from the formal wedding gownthat will have an impact the strapless wedding gowncost of the diamond.If you are trying to find diamond jewelry which simple wedding gown big and striking then a asscher or emerald cheap wedding gown is going to do.

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 09:09:10

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it