The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Opinions on this article please?

Studies Articles
#101

Hi Dick,

Wow… thanks for such an interesting synopsis of the issues with the CofE as an “official” church. Fascinating stuff, especially for Americans, since our constitution’s 1st Amendment was written, in large part, to ensure that **nothing **like the CofE could ever be instituted here!

There’s some interesting American context, too. Not too long ago, gay people here were not so much pressing for the right to marry, per se, as they were pressing for what are called here “civil unions.” From a legal perspective, there really isn’t a difference. But I think gay folk were actually trying to be sensitive to how hot an issue the idea of marriage might be and saw civil unions as a reasonable compromise. What they were mostly interested was some legal protection and respect for their relationships. There are horror stories of surviving partners losing their homes after the death of their loved one. Or partners being denied hospital visitation. Or being shut out of funerals. Or not being able to share health-insurance coverage the way spouses are able to. Or scores of other important matters between loved ones. “Civil unions” might not be marriages, in name or in any religiously recognizable sense, but they at least achieved the important things gay people believed, I think quite rightly, were their reasonable due in a free society with equal justice for all.

So, the idea of civil unions was floated around in several states. Vermont was the first to legally institute them in the 1990s, I believe. And it looked quite promising that other states would soon follow suit. Alas, despite the effort to keep the word “marriage” out of the debate, the firestorm came anyway. The idea of “civil unions” as an acceptable compromise went down in the flames of conservative outrage. Several of the more conservative states passed laws banning their recognition. Many conservatives in Congress were up in arms. So, rather than serving as a compromise, civil unions actually served to up the ante, as it were. And all legal hell has pretty much broken out ever since.

Several state supreme courts have ruled that refusing to allow gay marriage is an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the laws. Several states have passed constitutional amendments against gay marriage. The congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration has refused to enforce. And the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the issue. It’s what you guys in the UK might call a rather bloody mess. Right? :wink:

American opinion, as on most issues, is rather sharply divided. Most polls show that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, yet most of those same polls show even larger majorities that favor giving gay people the civil rights Vermont’s “civil unions” provide… shared health benefits, home and estate protections, tax advantages, hospital visits, etc.

EDITED TO ADD: One great complicating factor is that our federal U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of our country, contains a clause obligating the states to give “full faith and credit” to “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Now, certain things can still be legal in one state and illegal in another, but among the matters that have always been considered binding and enforceable on every state are marriages and contracts. So naturally, if Vermont allows civil unions or Hawaii allows gay marriage, you can see the implications this would have on a more conservative state like Alabama. Therefore, either judicially or legislatively, this matter must somehow come to a head at the federal level.

No one can predict how all of this will pan out here. I certainly can not.
Andy

#102

Hi Andy (and Sass too, because this is relevant to a private conversation we’ve had :slight_smile: ) –

Andy the complimentary ‘Wow!’ is returned is returned to you :smiley: . Your post is so helpful – and I don’t think progress with legislation in the USA is a ‘bally awful mess’ :laughing: ; it sounds confusing but you have a huge country with such variety to somehow unify and reach consensus in.

Civil partnerships for gay people should not be a problem with Christians in my view, however much they may think gay relationships are ‘sinful’ – this is not a matter of conscience; it is rather a matter of ‘loving the sinner’ if you see things in this way. It is an affront to human dignity that any dedicated couple should fall foul of inheritance law etc. and if Christians are not concerned about this they are giving bad testimony for Christ. According to one poll published here it seems quite a lot of gay people in the UK (as many as 60%) are not fussed about gay marriage as such – as it seems is also the case in the US. I think people need to have a debate about what marriage means legally and religiously – and bear in mind the distinction between civil marriage and marriage in a Church when deciding this issue; it’s only fair that all should have an informed debate

Now regarding the Church of England and the First amendment of the American Constitution– what a very interesting topic to raise :ugeek: (and something that Sass has also raised with me) . IT’s not immediately related to the question of gay rights but it has a big bearing on this issue and other issues of freedom and acceptance – so I’ll give it a look. We don’t even have a written constitution or Bill of Rights in the UK – but the whole muddle of ancient charters and institutions’ have tended to work for the common good and for the protection of liberty (especially since the rigid class system started to break down after the First World War). The Anglican Church is part of our muddled but workable settlement in England (and I have a Jewish friend who is a practising Jew but passionate about the importance of the Church of England as a protector of good things – I guess he did spend the happiest years of his life at a Church of England School where he felt loved accepted and included , so he may be biased)

However, kooky and funky our different styles and ways of liberty may well seem from the other side of a very large pond :laughing: , but I am convinced that our different traditions of liberty in the USA and the UK have common roots.

Roger Williams the governor of Rhode Island whose writings anticipated the separation of Church and State was born in England and his thinking was influenced by the English Universalist sect The Seekers.

John Milton – the English poet of Christian liberty is also a common treasure, I understand that a verse from his ‘Areopagtica’ – a defence of the free press is inscribed over a portal in your Senate building. And I note that a sizeable number of settlers from America returned to England to fifth for Parliament in the English Civil War.

John Locke the Anglican who wrote a famous essay ‘On Toleration’ influenced both the Founding fathers of America and the party of tolerance in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Church of England (who won the day!)

Tom Paine, who greatly influenced the American Revolutionaries, was an Englishman of Quaker stock and his ‘Rights of Man’ shows clear Quaker influences as well as continental Enlightenment ones.

And the whole of the older universalist tradition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was fully behind religious tolerance and by extension other types of political tolerance. The argument went something like ‘- The true Church is an invisible church and should not be identified with any particular sect or party. Everyone is being added to this CHurhc in God’s own good time. Therefore in the season of the wheat and the tares complete tolerance should be allowed in all matters of religion and conscience – truth should not fear error or truth ceases to be truth :ugeek:

Anyway – regarding the First Amendment – for the benefit of non-Americans, I understand the wording of this is -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It interesting that there appears to be a divergence of opinion on what this actually means between the Christian Right and most of the rest of America. Since this issue was actually alluded to in Tim’s article that is the catalyst for this thread, I’d like to quote some stuff written by the American Professor of Religious Studies, Walter H. Capps, during the Regan years because I think it places the gay rights issue and other issues of liberty in clear context (hope you ifnd it interesting)

*On the first amendment:

What is the moral of the story of America, and how can we expect this story to develop?..

’For it is not a story about the successful creation of a Christian America, or an account of how the United States was itself transformed into some desecualrized theocratic state, Rather we expect it eventually to be an exhibit regarding the continuing triumph of the First Amendment sensibilities. And the story line goes something like this, namely, that approximately two hundred years after the constitution was signed and the Bill of Rights drafted there was a crisis in the land regarding the status of religious freedom. The [then]President of the United States, Ronald Regan, invoked the First Amendment in of his view that Thomas Jefferson’s famous ‘wall of separation’ between church and state was designed, as he put it, ‘to protect religion from the tyranny of government.’ And he was supported in this view by millions of evangelical Christians, large numbers of whom had been incited to action by recognition that the spiritual vitality of the nation had been adversely affected by pervasive moral degeneration. To recover from this condition, this reconstituted conservative evangelical force offered a vision of what could (and should) obtain on the basis of biblical images…presented with literal explicitness and dogmatic authority [but actually a specific selection of images and texts, interpreted in a specific way, often a rather modern way without ancient authority].

For a time the effort was remarkably successful. For a time the movement’s leaders did secure the attention of the people. For a time it even appeared that hits reconstituted religious and political force might make some headway, because its leadership seemed to comprehend something of the nature of the challenge. But in formulating their response they betrayed the constitutional principle that religious pluralism is the primary protector of religious freedom (and all freedom).

That same Thomas Jefferson whom President Regan loved to cite wrote some sobering words in the opening paragraphs of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1779 (passed by the Virginia senate in 1786). IN this document Jefferson asserted that Almighty God has created the mind free so that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burdens…tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion.’’ He also rebuked some legislators for presuming that they enjoyed ‘dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as being true ad infallible,’’ and he suggested that this is the process through which ‘false religions’ have been ‘established and maintained’ throughout the world. He asserted that ‘our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions,’’ and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.’’ In the final paragraph of the statement Jefferson asserted that these religious freedoms belong to ‘’ the natural rights of mankind,’’ so that ‘if any act shall hereafter be passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such an act will be an infringement of natural right.’’

On Frances Schaeffer – as a representative figure of the Christina Right

One can find biblical warrants for the Schaeffer position, if one searched selectively enough, and reads the Scripture from his theological vantage. But there are other perspectives on the subject, and here are other biblical supports for additional and alternative views. In this regard, there is nothing in the religion that forces the reader to place emphasis upon Jesus’ words, ‘’I came not to bring peace but a sword.’’ to the virtual exclusion of any personal attention to the need to create a society in which justice and righteousness prevail. There is nothing in the religion that requires the believer to fix attention on biblical and/or dogmatic statements that speak of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ without regard for the statements that the God the Christians worship is the God of all peoples, who desired the well being of the earth.

Nicholas F. S. Grundtvig, the great nineteenth century Danish theologian, poet and bishop…was fond of employing the principle ‘’human first, then Christian’’ to clarify for believers how they were to relate to others, and understand their own stats in a world that is understood to be the creation f the living God. According to Grundtvig’s view, any diminishment or foreshortening of any natural human capacity, even in support of the cause of religion, constitutes a direct violation of this divinely ordered formula. Francis Schaffer would reverse this sequence. He believed it to be an essential article of faith that the genuinely human is that which is born again. This, then, is to limit the genuinely human to that which is specifically Christina [the latter being defined in a controversial and sectarian sense that is open to question anyway]. It is to require a person to become born again if human life is to posses any substantial meaning and worth. And the world itself must be born again if it is to become the occasion for genuine satisfaction or pleasure…Approaching every form of faith in humanity with deepest suspicion, and manifesting a kind of ‘world weariness’ of his won, his only recourse is to advocate some idealized alternative that can only be portrayed in the very sharpest contract to the order of life that prevails.

By way of contrast to Schaeffer, St. Iraneus, Bishop of Lyon, talked of the gospel in terms of the vision of ‘’Christ extended lengthwise throughout the entire created world.’’ The force of the imagery was to affirm that if this world is merely a shadow, or a dim reflection of the transcendent , idealized world, then God is not truly God. Iraneus was insistent that the world that human beings experience enjoys real status, which status is undermined when the present world it too sharply distinguished and too thoroughly separated from some idealized society. Furthermore, when declaring that ‘the glory of God is a human being fully alive,’’ Iraneus attested that ‘ the creation is suited for man, for man was not made for creation’s sake, but creation was made for the sake of man.’’ Iraneus’s affirmations apply to this world, and to his own society, as decadent as it may or may not have been, and not to some idealised alternative.

What Iraneus attested to centuries ago must be attested to again: That which deserves to be improved, and perhaps to be transformed, must first be affirmed. When Iraneus made this profession, he understood he was offering a testament of genuine Christian Faith. When the nations’ Founding Fathers described the workings of democracy they knew themselves to be declaring that this world too is of God…*

Well its worth a thought :ugeek: …

Blessings

Dick

Opinions on this article please - backgornd reading
#103

OK – my last post was a real party pooper and conversation has dried up. So let’s crack ahead with the Biblical witness concerning gay relationships. I’ve got a nice easy post to do now because Bret recommended earlier in the thread that we take a look at Ruth’s article on the sin of Sodom (hope you don’t mind Ruth)!). You can find the complete article over at
General Theology at -

Alex and Bret both comment there about how well written this is –and i think it is wonderfully well crafted – as well as being heartfelt - and I can imagine it being broadcast. Since I doubt that people always open links I include a big chunk of Ruth’s article below now:

The sin of Sodom is rife in the world today. The Western nations are particularly guilty. And it takes very little research to discover that in many churches, even evangelical and fundamentalist ones, this terrible sin is not only tolerated and condoned, it is even encouraged! Videos, tapes and books are freely, even openly, passed from person to person telling church members how to indulge in this disgusting practice: children are exposed to this material, and preachers tell congregations that it is quite OK, even right, good and desirable. Television programmes and adverts shown at family viewing time carry the same message.

Yet many of the prophets thundered against it. And the apostle James warns against it, and against giving honour to those who engage in it.

We know that the messengers who visited Sodom to rescue Lot and his family were threatened with a dangerous gang who wanted to abuse them. The men in the gang were quite frank about their intentions and cravings, which were definitely directed at the messengers as men (they wouldn’t accept Lot’s offer of his daughters to protect his guests). Lot knew that this kind of incident was common; that was why he had insisted on the messengers spending the night in his house. Probably because of this shocking account, it has been concluded that open and habitual homosexuality was the reason, or the main reason, for God’s disapproval of that city, hence the term “the sin of Sodom”.

Sodom’s notoriety has not been based alone on the attack of this gang. Long before the messengers ever set foot in Sodom, the city was already doomed to destruction. Genesis describes the inhabitants of Sodom as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against YHWH,” and records that when God visited Abraham to talk over his thoughts of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, he said that, “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave.” No more detail than that is given, but since Genesis is generally pretty blunt in describing intimate behaviour, perhaps delicacy was not the overriding reason for this vagueness.

Yet Ezekiel is the only one who will come right out and describe the sin of Sodom in detail. He says,
“this was the guilt of … Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me.” (Ezekiel 16:49)
Violence, coercion, degradation, exploitation, and indifference to the sufferings of their victims; these are most of all what characterise the gang of men in Sodom, and indeed the whole attitude of that society.
The behaviour of this mob shows plainly that they had no interest in the friendship or welfare of those they were asking for; they did not even care whether the objects of their lust gave consent. We do know that this particular gang had a marked preference for males - but would their attitudes and actions be any less reprehensible if the intended victims were women? Gays are an easy target: the great majority of the population are not remotely tempted by homosexuality, and many even find it repugnant, so they can safely and comfortably condemn it.
Acquisitiveness and a lust for luxury and novelty, however - well, that’s a different story, because these are temptations for nearly all of us. And this is not merely a private temptation, or even one aroused only by bright, bouncy adverts offering gratification to our senses. Which of us hasn’t been urged by family members, pastors and mentors to acquire bigger and better homes, furniture, cars, audio equipment, more fancy clothes and jewellery? Who among us has never been encouraged to find an occupation with higher pay, even though they are happier and more useful in the job they hold? We all know what this is like. We know the sense of shame when well-meaning people pity or chide us for not having the luxuries they think we shouldn’t be able to live happily without. Yes, shame! - even when we have freely chosen simply to use our money in a different way. It’s easy to denigrate those for whom we feel no identification, especially when they are tempted by, or even practice, what we find revolting. But it’s not so easy to resist and speak out about the unthinking expectations of people amongst whom we want to relax and be accepted.

There was a man called Amos who would not keep quiet about this. Here is part of his well-deserved rant:
"Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, Who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, “Bring wine, let us drink!” … You tread down the poor and take grain taxes from him … afflicting the just and taking bribes; Diverting the poor from justice at the gate … resting on beds of ivory, stretched out on soft seats, feasting on lambs from the flock and young oxen from the cattle-house … drinking wine in basins, rubbing themselves with the best oils…”

Amos had an important message which is still urgently needed. But most of us would never have even heard of Amos if someone had not lived and died the exact antithesis of his description.

Jesus was always motivated by love, making the needs of others his top priority. His birth, life and death were motivated by concern for others, not himself, nor his own development or enrichment. The writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus, though he was rich, yet for our sakes (not for his own sake) he became poor.

To rescue the world from death and evil, Jesus did not use the wealth and power at his disposal as the Son of God - instead, he laid it aside…’

I agree with Ruth’s article wholeheartedly. ‘Judge not’ and in this case ‘Thou Art the man’ because Ezekiel sees the sin of Sodom not primarily as sexual wrongdoing but as oppression and injustice.

Have a ponder on what Ruth says: I think even more can be said about the sin of Sodom as a complement to her thoughts (although I’m not going to try and attempt to emulate Ruth’s fine style when I write/post about it by the weekend).

Thanks for letting me volunteer to do this.

Blessings

Dick

#104

I’ve said that I think seeing homosexual unions as immoral seems wrongheaded and unloving. But don’t serious students agree that relying on Ezekiel’s concern to exegete what Genesis intended by, “Bring the men out so that we can have sex with them,” to be a backwards hermeneutic. Isn’t it a primary rule of exegeting an original source, that appealing to its’ own language and context should especially control what the writer meant to say? When doing this has seemed almost universally plain, it seems that the burden is on those who challenge the traditional interpretation.

#105

Ok Bob - point taken. I will try to do an exgesis of the orginal source (that’s always been my plan, as a complement to Ruth’s article - although I still think the sin of Sodom can be seen primarily as one of injustice and oppression, even in the original Genesis account). I’ll be very grateful for your feedback - because I’m a Jack of all trades, master of none, humanities teacher (with a keen interest in history) rather than an experienced biblical exegete. But I think I can get the discussion going -and you just tell me if I’m going too far off the track.

I’ll try to post tommorow night (or Saturday during the day) and then you can tell me what you think. I think the best I can do is give my own exegesis according to my own lights rather than give a balanced view of differing interpretations.

Greatly looking forward to the chat with an experienced biblical scholar. I’ll keep my discourse humble and exploratory - because that’s all I can rightly do. I think I’ll address the nexy post to you, thinking of you, and trying to imagine you - because that will help me (if it’s OK by you). And it’s all going to be very ‘broad brush’ coming from me.

All very good wishes

Dick :slight_smile:

#106

Hi Bob –

I’ll chance my arm at biblical exegesis now from the perspective of ‘very general knowledge’ and as someone who hasn’t been an evangelical of any shade for thirty years – although I have been a Christian Universalist for all this time. Today I am more influenced by Christian traditions other than the evangelical one in how I see the Bible than by the evangelical one – although I’ve huge respect for the broad evangelical tradition and for the fine tradition of evangelical scholarship (which is by no means all fundamentalist or even conservative evangelical in its emphases and methods).

I’d place myself as someone from the broad Anabaptist spiritual tradition – a tradition I’ve encountered in both Quakerism and in parts of the Church of England. I take the authority of scripture very seriously. However, I do not see it as begin the ‘complete’ and ‘clear’ Word of God –in the sense that most Muslims see the Koran as the pre-existent Word of God outside of time and history (and some evangelicals seem to do the same for the Bible). I see the Bible, the outer Word as bearing testimony to the truth of Christ and disclosing the truth of Christ, but not as that Truth in its entirety. I also believe in the inner of Christ that enlightens every person – but that both inner and outer Words only give us access to the truth of Christ partially because we are limited creatures, The complete truth of Christ remains transcendent - something beyond us but always inspiring us and drawing us onwards. I reckon that in spirit I’m not far from you – but our specific traditions have slightly different emphases. I certainly agree wholeheartedly when you say -

If I risked being transparent, my instinct, given what I have read, is that it’s true that Biblical writers probably couldn’t have imagined that they were addressing the modern concept of a Christian homosexual union. Yet my guess is that in their outlook they assumed that any homosexual activity was a perversion of proper morality. I’m afraid that I just see it in progressive revelation as akin to views of women or slaves as property, purity laws, etc, which strike me in light of Jesus’ emphasis as wrong-headed. Thus, while a few try to make a pragmatic case against homosexuality, I’m struck that most just appeal to revelatory authority, leaving most Christians with no answer to my question, as to what would make it reasonable to see a homosexual commitment as sinful in light of the values and priorities clarified in Jesus.

I can see we both have a place for progressive revelation in the light of ‘priorities clarified by Jesus’(although it’s easier for me to be less cautious about transparency because of my specific Christian peer group -it takes a lot more courage for you to be speaking up in this way).

I too see the issue of affirming or denying gay relationships in the light of former debates about slavery and the subordination of women (which have both been justified with appeal to an inerrant Bible).

Another historical issue that seem analogous to me is the case of religious toleration. In the sixteenth century all of the mainstream voices in magisterial Protestantism and Catholicism argued for the necessity of religious persecution, by appeal to scripture, to stem to contagion of heresy – yet by the eighteenth century this view seemed eccentric and even wicked to most Christians. In the seventeenth century the exegetical argument from scripture seemed evenly balanced as the tolerationist case gathered momentum. I know that in England – a small country and a country in which the Church was never too forward in persecuting zeal, the arguments for persecution or ‘charitable hatred’ was given good airing. However these arguments were defeated as much by people’s experience as by theoretical debates from scripture. As religious diversity increased, with people from the Church of England living cheek by jowl with Catholics and Protestant dissenters neighbour love developed between them; and therefore Church of England neighbours often protected their Catholic and dissenter neighbours from the prying eyes of the authorities. And it was this ,as much as the arguments of John Locke, Roger Williams, the Seekers, the Levellers and the Quakers that turned the tide. Indeed i have reason to believe that neighbour love came first before the new arguments from scripture.

Of course toleration of religious diversity and of sexual diversity are different issues – but if see lots of parallels when I read the debates about toleration in the seventeenth century.

Now for the matter in hand: I remember seeing a TV diary programme in which a young gay man over ten minutes gave a snap shot of his life over the period of a week His parents were very hard line fundamentalist Christians who insisted that because he was gay the Bible taught that he would ‘boil in his own blood’ (and I’m amazed he could still love his parents – which he clearly did). I thought at the time ‘boil in his own blood’ – that’s not in my Bible, but then I realised they must be referring to the people of Sodom ‘boiled’ by fires of Divine wrath sent down from heaven.

It doesn’t matter too much what it says in Leviticus, or what Paul says about homosexuality – it’s this story that really can make some Christians blood boil with homophobic rage.

I think I will try and tell the story from memory now – since the couple on the telly clearly felt this was OK - and leave it to you to say how far I’ve got it right.

Lot – Abraham’s nephew, has given up the nomadic life and settled in the city of Sodom with his wife and daughters

Two of the three messengers of God, who we have met earlier in the Genesis Narrative, come and stay with Lot in his house in Sodom – they are strangers in the city.

A crowd of men gather outside of Lot’s house asking that Lot hands the stranger messengers over to them so that they can ‘know’ them – which means that they want to have sex with them

Lot tries to placate the crowd by offering up his daughters to them in place of the messengers

Yahweh tells Abraham that he intends to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their unrighteousness

Abraham showing boldness/chutzpah, plea bargains with Yahweh to spare the two cities, but Yahweh will only spare the righties.

In the end Yahweh agrees to spare Lot his wife and his unmarried daughters for they are righteous (but I think Lot has some married daughters who are not covered by Yahweh’s clemency)

Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed with fire from heaven as Lot and his family escape but his wife looks back at the destruction – against all warning- – and is turned into a pillar of salt

Lot and his daughters take shelter in a cave above the scene of destruction. His daughters, wanting to people the earth again and be fruitful in the wake of this destruction get Lot drunk twice and commit incest with him. The result of this is that they become pregnant and their offspring are patriarchs of two gentile tribes.

That’s as good as I remember it – and my first thoughts are this is a very strange story - quite alien and shocking. I find it hard to draw out a clear moral from the tale. It’s on a par with other stories from the Old Testament such as Moses being made a ‘Bridegroom of Blood’ by Zipporah to avert Yahweh’s attack, and Jephtah’s sacrifice of his daughter. I’m not breathing the same air here as when I’m reading the Great Prophets, and I reckon Origen probably allegorised all of these stories to get over the moral difficulties, whereas I know he left the Great Prophets alone and let them speak literal truth. I know that the Rabbis of later Judaism also found these stories problematic and debated their moral significance hotly.

So I think I’m dealing with a very different world from my own here – so I have to try and see it in some historical/cultural perspective.

The significant part of the story for our purposes is focussed on the men in Sodom who want to gang rape the messengers. If it was simply a case of homosexual men driven mad with lust then why odes Lot try to placate them by offering his daughters to them? Well it is possible to give some sort of context to this story in my view because societies with similar morals and taboos are found throughout history and still exist in parts of the world today.

The crime of the men of Sodom that cries out to heaven is primarily, in my view, that they want to abuse guests in their midst. In nomadic societies, where all people depend on hospitality from strangers from time to time for survival, when a stranger asks for guest sanctuary – whatever their clan allegiance – it is a sacred duty to give this. Abraham and Lot are both nomadic people – Abraham has given up all security for a life of precarious living to follow Yahweh alone, and it is nomadic morals that the men of Sodom seek to abuse in my view. (The horror of a nomad at violation of guest sanctuary must be akin to our shudder at the idea of an ambassador being murdered even from an appalling state – because ambassadors are necessary to negotiate and maintain our peace and security).

So why are the men of Sodom so determined to violate the strangers in their midst? Well Sodom is a ‘City’. Cain founded the first City after the murder of Abel. Cities in the Books of Moses are seen as places of covetousness, luxury and rivalry in which trust is often broken and violence escalates easily, in contrast to the ‘ideal’ nomadic life. Cities are places where people develop an insider mentality against strangers – therefore the Torah says ‘Love the stranger and the sojourner within your gates for you too were strangers in the land of Egypt’. I see the gang in Sodom as people who want to turn on strangers to cement a sense of their own identity (this has many parallels in history – like the punishment days in European cities during the sixteenth century where strangers were given death by inches over several weeks to the delight of the crowds)

Why is rape the context for ‘stranger hatred’ in this story? and is it actually homosexual rape? I think I need to be frank here – although I don’t wish to dwell on unpleasant details. To my knowledge it is perfectly possible for heterosexual men to indulge in acts of gang rape on other men. Sadly sex, in some people and in particular circumstances can be totally detached for attraction or even desire. It can be purely about power – as is the case with all acts of rape. In a strongly patriarchal set up with ‘honour shame’ ethics – that is where it is not so much conscience that drives you to act in a certain way, but the thought of losing face in public amongst your peers – gang rape can be an ultimate power trip. The raped man is humiliated publicly among other men and – in terms of brutal patriarchal. And oppressive values – the raped man is also humiliated by being forced to play the passive role assigned in such societies to women in the sexual act. So they are transformed into a ‘woman’ by the act (and this is seen as making them into a lesser being. This sort of rape is still common in extremely macho cultures – and it happens in prisons where a brutal regime makes strong heterosexual men want to pick on weaker ones as scapegoats. This much is clear. Some of the crowd in Sodom may have been gay but I see no reason to think that we are actually talking about an exclusively gay mob here.

I also think it possible that the intended rape by a mob was to be a prelude to murder. Again it is not unknown for sexual depravity to be part of a ritual that leads to the murder of a scapegoat that enables violent and rivalries people to have some release from their rivalries as they unite in rage against the outsider. The Gladiatorial Games in Rome often had an element of extreme public sexual abuse of victims for example.

And why did Lot offer up his daughters? This is always going to be problematic because Lot is accounted ‘righteous’. Did stranger love override his duty to protect his own daughters? Is it possible to make judgment about a time and a context so remote from our own experience? These are open questions – and the Rabbis, for example differed widely about them; but they do make the narrative really problematic if we wish to use it to inform contemporary moral debate.
I grant that Lot and his unmarried daughters are spared, by why was the destruction upon Sodom so indiscriminate. Presumably all the children were incinerated too. In the books of Moses the sins of the fathers can be and are visited upon the children – in the later Prophets this is denied. Clearly there is progressive development happening even in the Old Testament.

Well that’s my higgledy piggledy thoughts – so I hand it over to you now Bob.

Blessings

Dick

#107

Sorry to butt in before Bob has had a chance to reply. I’m listening in on your dialogue with interest! I do agree with Dick’s explanation of the crime of Sodom 100%. When men rape other men, for example in prison or in the aftermath of battles, I’m convinced it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation and these crimes are almost invariably carried out by heterosexual men. Just ask any prison officer to confirm this. I don’t think this passage of scripture would even be quoted in the sexuality debate if it weren’t for the unfortunate word ‘sodomy’.

#108

Some very good points made here by Dick, Drew and Bob.

Drew, I think you are spot on about rape often (but not always) being about power, not lust, and having nothing really to do with sexual orientation. And I think Dick is spot on in his exegesis of the story of Sodom.

I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement, Dick. Leviticus is irrelevant to this debate - I never met or even heard of *anybody *who follows all its injunctions and proscriptions to the letter, not even the most rabidly inerrantist members of the Evangelical right. As for Paul, I don’t think what he has to say is irrelevant, I just think his teaching has been wilfully mistranslated and misinterpreted by successive generations of bigots to shore up their own personal prejudice.

For me, one of the biggest issues here is that those who condemn homosexuality as a sin often appeal to the Biblical ‘evidence’. But when you look into it properly, it immediately becomes apparent how flimsy this evidence actually is. A handful of disputed verses in Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, a similarly disputed handful of verses in Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

Surely if God really *does *view something as basic to our humanity, and as contentious, as a specific type of sexual orientation and practice (ie same sex) as sinful, He would have made this abundantly clear. As I’ve said earlier on this thread, Jesus spoke not a single solitary recorded word against homosexuality - although he said some *incredibly *harsh things about heterosexual sins like adultery.

Personally I’m fed up of being in the position of having to ‘justify’ my absolute conviction that homosexuality *isn’t *a sin. Again as I’ve said before, the burden of proof ought to be on those who oppress, marginalise and condemn their brothers and sisters in Christ purely for doing what they themselves do all the time - ie expressing their God-given sexuality.

And just in passing, it’s very instructive to me how often one reads of a right wing televangelist in America railing against homosexuality and sexual immorality, only to be exposed later as being either secretly gay or secretly adulterous. Yes, course, anybody can fall into sexual sin such as adultery. I do not judge or condemn them for that. I’ve never committed adultery, but God knows I’m no saint otherwise. But why such a focus on the ‘sins of the flesh’ anyway? Why don’t these people hit their audiences where all of us *really *hurt - in our selfish and pride-filled hearts?

Might it, perhaps, be because they don’t want to awaken the kind of genuine pangs of conscience that might lead the faithful to stop thinking they can buy their way to forgiveness and prosperity and quit making the ‘seed donations’ that pay for the preachers’ lavish lifestyles?

Keep up the excellent debate everybody. Thanks again Ruth for your brilliant contributions. And Dick, let’s have some more good and honest exegesis that will help sound the death knell for the appalling and appallingly unChristian prejudice that has blighted our society and our churches for so very long now.

All the best

Johnny

#109

Hi Drew –

Thanks for that my friend – and I’ll bet you meet prison officers quite a lot in your pastoral work. So your testimony is very sound indeed here.

Hi Johnny – me old son of a gun

I don’t know about ‘good, honest exegesis’ – but I’m trying to be true to what I know about history informed by my experience in what I’ve written about the story of Sodom. I really, truthfully and honestly don’t think that this text can be used by Christians as a pretext to condemn gay relationships. Regarding the other texts – they are a separate issue from the story of Sodom with a different context and of a different genre – so they are best considered separately in my view. But again I do think that the story of Sodom because, it is a story full of powerful images, is the key text for Christian homophobes – (as opposed to conservative Christian’s with honest scruples – but it does not have the authority to inspire prejudice in this way. It’s not about consensual and loving gay relationships; it’s not even about ‘gay’ gang rape.

I can’t say I’ve excelled in exegetical method – because I don’t have the scholarly competence to do this. I don’t know Hebrew, and don’t even possess a Bible commentary–.and that’s why I chose to consider the story as I remember it rather than trying to pretentious and appear like a kosher textual exegete (but I do have enough knowledge about historical and cultural context to proffer a serious opinion on these two I hope). . I hope Bob can fill us in on textual and linguistic matters if these are relevant here (as well as pointing out any flaws in my arguments).

All the best

Dick

#110

Hi Dick,

(I’m headed on a 2 week road trip and may not have internet, but here’s an initial reaction.)

We indeed similarly see the Bible’s nature, religious toleration, and how problematic OT stories can be.

On Sodom, I’m not up to speed on competing interpretations. I’d be interested to review how scholarly evangelical devotees like Rober Gagnon interpret this text. I think no one literate thinks Sodom’s sin was mostly homosexuality. And I think that most agree that the main focus here is on the sin of violating Middle Eastern nomadic hospitality (which IS gloriously fervent; Judges 19:22-25 portrays a similar violation of guests). So sure, how a Lot who offers his daughters can be “righteous” puzzles us. But it does fit Lot putting “sacred” primacy on “guest sanctuary,” by offering the alternative available to him, and indeed putting his daughters’ interests as lesser than offering “the protection of his roof.”

Yet we also seem to agree that Gen. 19:5,6 says that this “wicked thing” that violates hospitality involves men seeking to have sex with other men. My understanding is that such homosexual acts were central in Canaanite religion, but seen as an abomination in Israel’s law. So I perceive that Gen. 19 can be consistent with my notion that Biblical writers saw homosexual acts as morally perverse (while also being unable to address our concept of a faithful homosexual union).

You suggest that this text need not mean an exclusively gay mob. Sure, and of course it would be crazy to think gay men have a monopoly on rape. Everyone knows it’s most often heterosexuals who do it. But wouldn’t traditionalists think that your proposed kind of homosexual act (as a “power trip”) was even more perverted than if a gay man did it? (I sense some supposed heterosexual angst about homosexuals is fear that folk such as they could be pushed into homosexuality; I.e. your interpretation might worsen their horror at this text. I personally have no fear that homosexual unions would ruin my own marriage at all!) In sum, I’m not sure that this text’s use to bolster the traditional negative view has been eliminated.

#111

Thanks Bob –

Lovely to hear from you :smiley: . Well I thought/knew we’d probably agree about lots of things – but I think it is just common courtesy to check things out. I feel very at ease now.

I’ll have a think about the detail of your response and hope to get back to you tomorrow.
IN the meantime – if anyone else wants to chip in, please do. As far as I’m concerned we’re still considering the story of Sodom and will move on to Leviticus once we’ve pondered a little bit more.

Happy Saturday to All :slight_smile:

#112

Just a note that while Sodom’s potent images may indeed play an important role in malicious attitudes, I have not experienced that evangelicals tend to offer it as “the key text” in concluding that the Bible is consistent and clear in treating homosexual acts as sinful. I find some recognition that OT texts are problematic because its’ law (Lev.) condemns a number of things that most Christians do not assume are wrong. Thus, it seems that the NT texts, esp. Romans, are what is held as decisive.

#113

Hi Bob –

First of all – enjoy your road trip Bob. Happy holiday. While you are away I’ll do is do a few more posts finishing up Sodom and looking at Leviticus (on which I already know what you think and can provide some examples). But I’ll wait until you return before considering the Pauline texts.

I’ve now had a thought, think, thunk – and here are my observations on your comments (I’ll quote you in italics):

Just a note that while Sodom’s potent images may indeed play an important role in malicious attitudes, I have not experienced that evangelicals tend to offer it as “the key text” in concluding that the Bible is consistent and clear in treating homosexual acts as sinful. I find some recognition that OT texts are problematic because its’ law (Lev.) condemns a number of things that most Christians do not assume are wrong. Thus, it seems that the NT texts, esp. Romans, are what is held as decisive.

I’d say agree that reasonable, compassionate mainstream conservative evangelicals who do not feel able to affirm gay relationships primarily use what Paul has to say about this as their authority. By way of contrast, emotive fundamentalists will appeal primarily to the story of Sodom in their hell fire preaching against homosexuals as they ‘work the crowd’ or fire their readers (for example you’ll find that Jack Chick’s anti-gay stuff majors on the story of Sodom– and he has a wide influence among fundamentalists evangelical). A lot of people who are mainstream evangelicals have moved away from more extreme forms of the faith embraced in their youth – and lots of people on this site are in transition in this way, or so it seems to me. So I think it is well worth while ‘unpacking’ the story of Sodom instead of fast forwarding to Paul.
I wholeheartedly agree about Leviticus -

***We also seem to agree that Gen. 19:5,6 says that this “wicked thing” that violates hospitality involves men seeking to have sex with other men. ***

Agreed here Bob – but the ‘wicked thing’ specifically involve a gang of men seeking to commit ‘male on male’ rape on two other ‘men’ (they don’t know that these men are God’s messengers). The intention behind the act is domination, injustice, oppression of the stranger – the act is a symptom of a corrupt society (so Ezekiel’s gloss on the sin of Sodom does not seem unusual to me). Men that can oppress strangers are the sort of men that oppress the ‘poor’ in their own society etc.

The ‘wicked thing, as I’ve said, is not even about same sex attraction in my view – even in terms of the narrative details. Why does Lot offer his daughters to the crowd as a substitute and not himself? He obviously thinks that the violation of his daughters might placate this crowd of men. So I see the ‘messengers’ as being targeted because they are strangers, the daughters as being a possible substitute because ‘insider’ women in this society are of far lesser status than ‘insider’ men – and almost on a spar with ‘outsider’ men as targets for violation and dehumanisation. However, Lot himself is not an appropriate substitute – because he has lived in the City for several years and thus is an insider man; so he cannot act as a lightning rod for their sexual rage.

My understanding is that such homosexual acts were central in Canaanite religion, but seen as an abomination in Israel’s law. So I perceive that Gen. 19 can be consistent with my notion that Biblical writers saw homosexual acts as morally perverse (while also being unable to address our concept of a faithful homosexual union).

I’d like to do a separate post on Canaanite religion next (I think it may also be relevant when we look at the first chapter of Romans. Yes ritualised same sex acts were considered an abomination, as were the activities of heterosexual temple prostitutes)

So I perceive that Gen. 19 can be consistent with my notion that Biblical writers saw homosexual acts as morally perverse (while also being unable to address our concept of a faithful homosexual union).

I’d agree that the scope of the biblical witness tends to suggest that homosexual behaviour is broadly speaking morally wrong/problematic in the same way as slavery and the subordination of women is accepted as morally right in much of the Bible. However –I don’t think this text supports the other texts; it’s too problematic for this.

***You suggest that this text need not mean an exclusively gay mob. Sure, and of course it would be crazy to think gay men have a monopoly on rape. Everyone knows it’s most often heterosexuals who do it. ***

Agreed Bob. Regarding rape as an individual act of sexual violation that one person commits against another – yes it is most often heterosexuals that do this (because there are a lot more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the world). I’ve no idea of the statistics but I would hazard an informed guess that the incidence of this type of crime by heterosexual men and by gay men is probably proportionate to the numbers in each group in the world as a whole.

***But wouldn’t traditionalists think that your proposed kind of homosexual act (as a “power trip”) was even more perverted than if a gay man did it? ***

If we are talking about gang rape as a form of ritual humiliation of strangers, our traditionalists might well have this reaction. Gang rape of strangers is a horrible and terrible act whoever participates – something we should all shudder at… Our traditionalists might shudder more at the idea of heterosexual men engaging in this act – but that probably says more about their won sexual insecurity and perhaps their inability to face their own darkness for fear of being overwhelmed.

(I sense some supposed heterosexual angst about homosexuals is fear that folk such as they could be pushed into homosexuality; I.e. your interpretation might worsen their horror at this text. I personally have no fear that homosexual unions would ruin my own marriage at all!) In sum, I’m not sure that this text’s use to bolster the traditional negative view has been eliminated)

In my experience hetero-angst about gay people is unwarranted. I’m heterosexual. I went to a church for a number of years which had lots of gay men in the congregation – more gay men then straight men probably. I formed a close frindhship with one dear gay friend there and had many other acquaintances. I went to several partite sin which there were lots of gay men from the Church during this time. And all of this time I was single. I never for one moment felt ‘tempted’ (as they say) to be gay – it never crossed my mind.

However, in a different sense, when reflecting on this story I do think ‘there but for the grace of God go I’… If I was in an ecstasy of blood frenzy in battle, or in the intoxicating fury of a lynch mob – whether the abomination was rape of whatever kind, murder or massacre, mutlilation and desecration of the dead – we are all capable of this stuff God save us. I think this is what the story makes me consider

Thanks for the good discussion Bob :smiley: (even if the matter is grim!! :frowning: )

Have a lovely break

Dick

#114

Dear Drew –

I know you are reading this thread but that you are also very, very busy at the moment– but I thought that while Bob’s away it would be the right time to say something about Rene Girard . His thought is appropriate to the discussion at this stage for many reasons in my view.

I know that the last time the topic of gay relationships was aired on site you raised an interpretation of Romans Chapter 1 made in the light of Girard’s thought by James Alison as suitable background reading. I remember reading answering posts on the article seemingly rebuffing it with volleys of proof texting – but I don’t think the posts showed any real understanding of the article.

If I try and make a case for the relevance of Girard for our discussion – especially regarding Canaanite religion (and archaic religion in general, and how this still persists in our behaviour today), wrath human and divine, scapegoating violence, the demarcation of sexuality from the ‘order of creation, and gay people as victims - I wonder if you could you just tell me from time to time if I’m making sense (no need to go into details. Just the occasional ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ will do)

All the best my friend

Dick

#115

Dick,

Thanks for the good wishes. By 2nd week of July I’ll be at U. British Columbia’s Regent College for an exciting study of Galatians with Durham’s John Barclay, and should have good access to comment on this and the NT.

We agree that Jack Chick type “emotive fundamentalists” aren’t worth serious time.

Any variance for us here doesn’t seem exegetical, but perhaps nuance in beholders’ eyes on how to characterize these agreed upon facts. I’ve agreed the implicit portrayal may be pursuit of “rape” with a preference to humiliate strangers (tho for all I know Lot doesn’t offer himself because he’s selfish). But to traditionalists, most explicit is specifying that same sex acts are what’s sought. And you agree that if heterosexuals are seeking such acts, that would not reduce their censorious reaction to this.

So you say, “the ‘wicked’ thing is not about same sex attraction,” and that this text doesn’t support other passages condemning gay acts. It obviously is more complex, but your characterization may work for you because you (and I) resonate with condemning the pursuit of humiliation, but not with seeing same sex acts as innately sinful. But for those who already believe such acts are immoral, this text still seems to imply to them (consistent with the other texts) that part of what is specified as wicked is the explicit pursuit of same sex acts. They assume that is delineated because it will be recognized as a further evidence of Sodom’s corruption of what God intended.

#116

G’day all,

I’ve refrained from speaking up for several reasons and I still think I should probably keep my mouth shut on this topic. I wanted to point out one reason I haven’t said anything lately. The things you all are Talking about, IF I were to present the same exact things on this forum or even elsewhere, I appear to be defending MYSELF for wanting to KEEP my “sin” and justify it!! I have been told this in those exact words. So for y"all to be discussing this amongst yourselves is probably better that way I am NOT accused of wanting to hold on to my “sin,” which I did NOT choose. Emphasis on did NOT choose. I have presented some of your ideas in the past to other well meaning Christians and as I’ve just stated, then been accused of WANTING to KEEP my sin and STILL believe I have a shot at heaven. So I do think it’s better that you heterosexuals saying and talking these things out in such a loving, kind, and compassionate way, is, to say the least, very, very humbling for me. I am so very grateful that this time around this topic has not gotten out of hand or stones are NOT be hurled at each other through cyber-space and no one is attacking the other. Again, I’m humbled by the respect and dare I even say love with which this topic has been handled??!!! :slight_smile: I don’t really feel at this point in the discussion MY experience would be helpful except to say that a couple of you males referred to “experimental sex” with the same sex in your teenage years. I have a male cousin my age who I “fooled” around with up until I was about 15. HOWEVER, I KNEW instinctively that his experience around this activity was totally different than mine. His was COMPLETELY for the physical “feeling” with his hormones raging. That’s all it was for him plain and simple. He went on to become a pastor, a counselor, married with children, etc. and lead a perfectly “normal” life. My experience on the other hand, had an emotional component to it, I KNEW my experience with him was different. My outsides were about my insides, while his were strictly about his “outsides.” If you get my drift? I just wanted to confirm what had already been mentioned prior around the teenage explorative years. That’s all it is for most!! Then there are those of us who KNEW from the age of 4 that we were different inside. And that is the REAL point. It’s not necessarily what happens physically as what happens emotionally and inside or between my ears and in my heart. Ok, enough of that ramble.

And Corpselight, I’m sorry I have not replied to your very gracious remarks way early on. Please dude, I’m just this guy trying to find my way so please do not make me out to be so Christ like. That actually scares me. I try yes, to be like Him, that IS my goal, but I don’t think I necessarily have anything you can learn from me. And I will say thank you for the kind and loving words though. Remember dude, I too, am human and make way more than my share of blunders in this world, much to my dismay. I wish I could treat ALL more kindly and even handily, but I have a long way to go on that. Thanks Corpselight, YOU inspire me to do better.

And Professor, I’ve truly enjoyed reading your words. And while y’all are teasing apart what the Bible says and doesn’t say, we gays go on living THIS life whether or not this topic every gets “worked out.” We still breathe and have lives, etc. so whatever y’all come up with is fine by me. It’s the spirit of which y’all are conducting yourselves that totally encourages one such as myself. So my hat is off to ALL of you!!! I just hesitate and pause with adding to much as I don’t want to be seen as protecting and hanging on to MY sin.

On another note, we have a fire presently about 10 miles from us in the mountains and it is spreading very quickly so I don’t know what or when or IF we will have to evacuate. Ten years ago, this entire mountain had 500,000 acres burn down!! So we all are a bit apprehensive, to be sure. Coupled with the fact that my health has been extremely poor as of late, therefore I stay off the board so I don’t say something I have to make amends for later or be totally humiliated for saying. It’s a bit difficult living with pain and still believing in a loving God… I don’t seem to like the suffering one single bit!!! :imp: God has some splain’ to do when I get to heaven!! :open_mouth: It’s very hard to stay on track with my thoughts and words, so again, I think it best if I keep my sharing here to a minimum. Please indulge me as I try to find my way around my illness and our present situation with the fire. BUT, as a side note, I truly believe that each of us has a story so NO pity for me, please!!! Y’all have your trials and tribulations, sufferings and sorrows, coupled with your joys, happiness, and peace… so we are all in this together. I just don’t want special treatment as I’d rather be praying for one of you (not that I want you to have problems) so that I can get my mind off my selfish self and “do” something for someone else… like pray!!! :slight_smile:

I think y’all are doing a fine job without me here, truly!!! And I AM proud to call each of you friend, brother, and sister in Christ. You make me smile… all of you, so a huge thank you.

May God richly bless each and EVERYONE of you regardless of where you fall on this topic, and that IS from my heart.

Fondly and in Him,
Bret

#117

Of course Dick, I’ll be happy to chip in here and there, but will be very occupied this week. I think Alison’s Romans 1 article was misunderstood by some readers in the earlier thread. His ‘On being liked’ also presents a challenging perspective which is both gay and biblical. Blessings to all, Drew

#118

Hi Bret

So glad to hear that you feel positive about how this discussion is going. But I’m very saddened to hear that some ‘Christians’ would stoop so low as to accuse you of ‘wanting to hold onto your sin’. But don’t worry about that, Bret. They’re the ones with the problem, not you, mate.

Am also sad to hear that you’re experiencing a lot of pain at the moment. There are no easy answers to this one. Personally, the thing that keeps me going through my pain (not that I’m comparing the trivial things that get me down with serious and painful illness like yours) is that Christ knows our pain - he suffers with us. And one day it will all be gloriously eradicated in ways we cannot really understand. CS Lewis talks about the mystical, and mysterious, notion that our utlimate salvation will somehow ‘work backwards’ from glory, to undo all the pain and evil we suffer in this life. I don’t understand that all. But I trust God that it will indeed all come right in the end.

Keep safe from the fires, my friend.

All blessings and love in Christ Jesus

Johnny

#119

Bret,
Don’t worry, i wasn’t trying to add pressure or put you on a pedestal lol
i know we are all flawed and complicated beings, sometimes shining God’s light, and sometimes hiding it under a bushel.
i was just saying i really like the attitude you are displaying. it must be hard won…you have doubtless been through alot developing the way you respond to the world and its judgements. i’m just trying to encourage you…doubtless it’s hard to maintain an attitude of love and forgiveness and humility. i am particularly bad at it :laughing:
so i know it must be hard sometimes, but you’ve injected this thread (which has become pretty awesome anyway) with something i think is precious and beautiful. there’s a grace in your words that to me shows that you’ve also met my Saviour, and aspire to be like Him as He gives you the ability. don’t be discouraged and don’t feel pressured by what i said…it was purely to build you up and let you know that i appreciated what you said :slight_smile:

Prof, thanks so much for starting us thinking about some of the Scriptural “support” for homophobia. i agree that starting at the beginning with Genesis is a good place.
i think Bob might be right…in those days, just as it was “natural” for women to be subservient to men (an attitude many of us find repellant now! and clearly God does, He even appointed at least one woman judge over Israel, and prophetesses existed, etc, to say nothing of Jesus attitude towards women, but i digress), it may’ve been “natural” for men to dislike the sort of acts one might describe as homosexual (leaving true orientation out of it).
obviously anyone, homosexual or otherwise, using forced sex for the purpose of power or pleasure is a truly wicked thing, and if a town were to do this as a means of policy, i doubt many of us would sympathise all that much if fire rained from heaven on them (so long as eventually they’d be saved after judgement had cleansed them). but it’s not that convenient, as Ruth says, and as Dick concurs…the sin of that town was not homosexuality, and it wasn’t even “just” this awful mistreatment of strangers. when God pronounced judgement on nations later in the Bible, He specifically singled out oppression of the poor and injustice as the things that made Him most angry. as much as idolatry enraged Him, it really seems to play second fiddle to the awful things they did to those less fortunate.
He does condemns temple prostitution (both homo and heterosexual), but this is hardly what we’d see as a committed, loving, consensual relationship.

i guess what i’m saying is that yes, there should be some progressive revelation on the topic, similarly to what we do with some of the institutional sexism and slavery that was “natural” to the people of 2000+ years ago. however, like Johnny and Dick and ,i’m sure, Drew, i feel that Scripture does have alot of authority, and some hints of God’s opinion of loving same-sex relationships should be there somewhere. or at least the absense of His disapproval…which to be honest is a big deal.

i really think that in Jesus day and thereafter, when appropriate AND inappropriate (as in with young boys) sexual activity was rife in the Greco/Roman world, He (or the Apostles) might’ve thought it’d be worth their whiles to decry it with no ambiguity if it was truly wrong.

on the contrary, we have a few ambiguous words being translated as “homosexuality” etc, and we have Jesus healing the servant of that Centurion…and well, that relationship may’ve been more than platonic (given the time and culture at least), and yet Jesus commended the centurion on his faith.

it just seems to me, if something was widespread in our culture, and God didn’t like it, wouldn’t there be unambiguous condemnations of it from His word? like for example the greed of the “church”, the oppression of the governments, etc etc.
oh wait, there ARE! are these to be conveniently ignored compared to homosexuality?

in a strict comparison lacking ambiguity, it seems to me that if God disapproves of same-sex relationships/orientations, He is FAR more bothered by some of the other stuff we get up to. He leaves the homosexual behaviour (whatever that is) couched in vague terms, and He outright condemns the way we treat other people, which naturally includes gays.

Jesus would go to gay clubs, and He would show the people there divine love. He would frequent bars and rock concerts. He would go to motorcycle and tattoo conventions. He would hang out with goths reading poetry, He would bang His head at a Slayer concert. you would not find Him in many churches. you would not find Him in big business. why? because He is searching for real people…not hypocrites and liars and those afraid to question. He’d be out with the people society throws away. and so should we be.

and out of all the “sinners” He hung out with…the only ones He to my memory that we are told He instructed to “sin no more” were a crooked tax collector and an adulteress. interesting.

#120

Hi All –

Just a quickie.

I agree Bob that there is very little between our standpoints. You were playing advocate for the other party and I take what you’ve said on board. You have a jolly nice trip and look forward to conversation when you get back.

Bret –

I’m really glad you are enjoying this thread and I think you are absolutely right that it is the spirit behind it rather than the content that is most important – for you and of the rest of us too. I’ll continue with the systematic trip around the scriptural issues because it will keep the opportunity for good, tolerant and loving conversation alive – and for periodic outburst of free and informal conversation in the coffee breaks. What is interesting is how much looking at a hot topic like this opens up other difficult areas of conversation – what is the authority of the bible, how do the Americans perceive the British and vice versa, freedom and pluralism, the relationship between Church and State, and the meaning of being truly human – so that’s really great.

Drew –

Well I’ll get me thinking cap on about Girard then – it will take me all week to get a handle on the subject I reckon

Johnny and James –

Love you both…

I hope recent interlocutors Sass and Andy are still in the conversation (missing you both)
And – to all – if you want to call me ‘The Prof’ that’s cool by me, but put it in inverted commas – because I’m not actually a real Professor

Love to all

Dick