For those of you who have been following this blog over the past few weeks, you will know that we have been having some interesting discussions over the issue of homosexuality and the church. You can read my initial post here: http://www.futurechurch.co.za/?itemid=113

Thank you to all those who took the time to respond, especially the numerous e-mails I received. I will try in response to each of them in time, although I cannot do that now. I will also be giving some general feedback on this blog.

The most common response I have had on this issue is that although I may have a point with the specific exegesis of the specific 7 verses that specifically refer to homosexuality, one must take the whole context of the Bible into account (I agree with this, by the way - that is the context of a loving, gracious God, who wishes all to be saved, and constantly surprises us with his inclusiveness).

But most people who have disagreed with my (perceived) stance, have pointed me back to the "Creation Order" argument. This is an interesting line to take.

This argument uses the second creation account in Genesis 2 as the basis for claiming that a marriage (and in fact, any romantic relationship) is limited to one man and one woman joined in lifelong commitment and union. Of course, Jesus put his stamp of approval on this ordinance (Matt 19, Mark 10), and Paul refers to it (Eph 5), although admittedly he calls it "a great mystery".

Let me quickly point out that if the Genesis could allow for homosexual marriages (lifelong, monogomous, etc), then these new Testament verses would still make sense. They are all about relationships, commitment, mutual submission, divorce or abuse. They would apply to any form of relationship, and any form of marriage.

So, we must go back to Genesis 2:18-25. The argument goes that these verses are more than simply a description of what actually happened to the first men and first woman, but they are also the creation of an institution that is meant to endure for all time and apply to all people everywhere.

I do not intend to do an exegesis of this passage today (although I do plan to do so soon), but what I can do is ask some questions about this approach to this particular passage. We cannot have our cake and eat it - at least that's what I'm always told. If this "creation order" is an immutable law of God's universe, then it applies in other areas as well. Or at least it should!

• Shouldn't the concept of a creation order impact how we select church leaders?

If this creation order does exist, then church leadership should be the sole domain of married people (men?) with more than one child. I am talking about priests, pastors, elders and deacons. 1 Tim 3 appears very clear on this issue. There is no space for single people in the church. There is no space for infertile couples in the church. They are "against nature". Of course we still love them (we "love the sinner, but hate the sin"), that they should repent of their sinful lifestyle can choose the godly path of marriage.

In case you don't get the irony, I know were very few Christians who would feel comfortable with the position like this. But isn't this one of the implications of claiming a "creation order".

• What else would the concept of a "creation order" affect?

Can a man marry an older woman? No. Eve was younger than Adam - that is a fact, and as part of the "creation order". Can you only marry some from your own family? Or, at worst, from your own genetic pool - i.e. no cross-racial or cross-cultural marriages allowed? Is the purpose of marriage to "fill the earth" - i.e. childless marriages are inferior, and if they are childless by choice, then are they sinful? I cannot believe this. And finally, is any sexual act in marriage that is not intended to create a baby a sinful act (I have had someone interact with me who truly believes this)?

You see, the "creation order" must be consistently applied, if in fact, it is a principle that can be applied at all. Since its other applications are clearly ridiculous, I wonder if it is in fact a principle at all.

• Can we interpret Genesis 2 like this?

I am not sure that those who fall back on this argument is the last bastion of defence against the issue of homosexuality have fully thought through the implications of their chosen hermeneutic. Why do they not apply similar literalismto some of the other old Testament passages? Although I have often been accused of being selective with Scripture, I think the same accusation can be directed against those who interpret Genesis 1-11 literally and extract immutable principles from it, but then create completely unBiblical categories for the laws of the Pentateuch (e.g. ceremonial, moral, cultural, etc).

• Does man come from woman or woman from man?

As an aside, Paul may also destroy the false claims of the "creation order" in 1 Cor 11, when, in order to counter some of the abuse by men (and by women) in Corinth, he points out that although women came from men and was "made for man", men also comes from women. And everything comes from God.

• The unclean becomes clean

Peter's vision of a sheet filled with unclean animals which God commanded him to eat is under quoted in these debates. God specifically "changes the rules" about Gentiles. Is it not possible that he has also changed the rules about other things?


So, there you have just a few more thoughts on this issue. Not sure they're helpful - but then again, I am not sure that an appeal to a "creation order" is helpful either.

Hi Graeme et al.

I have been following these discussions with avid interest and have been longing to jump in but have been away and then been sick. Anyhoo, I just wanted to add a thought That’s been bugging me (and That’s all it is, a thought):

It has to do with the way that we are designed (created). To put it crudely, it seems very clear from the way that our anatomies are designed that male and female are "designed" to fit together - it takes a male and a female to procreate. Two men don’t really fit together (anatomically) neither do two women.

The question is, does this have anything to say about God’s intention for marriage? Obviously marriage is more than just about sex and procreation. But the question still niggles, why design something to work one way only if there isn’t some reason?

Just another thought to add to the pot.

Till l8r

Steven

reply to this comment

Posted by: Steven 01 Jun, 2005 - 10:08:05

"To put it crudely", does the creation ordinance forbid anal sexual intercourse between married husband and wife? I don't think that was its intent.

But that seems to be the real problem people have - the physical "fit" of the bodies. What about men and women who are short and tall?

I just don't see that this is what the issue is about.

reply to this comment

Posted by: graemec 05 Jan, 2006 - 11:19:22

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.

reply to this comment

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 09:46:59

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

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription