The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles just elected someone whose homosexual behavior goes completely against the Bible. They are doing a disservice to people of faith everywhere.
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles just elected someone whose homosexual behavior goes completely against the Bible. They are doing a disservice to people of faith everywhere.
“The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles just elected someone whose homosexual behavior goes completely against the Bible”
Wait a minute before you all start screaming: just how many biblical texts are there that discuss lesbianism anyway? I don’t think it was even mentioned by the writers of Leviticus, was it? As male homosexual behaviour only gets three mentions in the Bible, and nothing in the Gospels at that, and therefore can hardly be a crucial communion-breaking issue, how much space in the Gospels is taken up by condemning lesbianism?
The harsh Protestant law which first executed and later imprisoned homosexuals in Britain from the time of Henry VIII until 1968 did not cover lesbians, as they were not understood to be part of the biblical strictures.
There is a great deal more in the Bible both in support of slavery and against allowing women to speak in church or be equal to their husbands in the home than there is against lesbianism per se.
The Bible, to a some extent, treated problems as they arose, and to a great extend, as they threatened the relationship between God and his people. It is a matter some surprise, therefore, that homosexuality gets a mention at all in the context of the agrarian, tribal, and patriarchal society of ancient Israel, and bespeaks the importance of this threat to the holiness, purity, and calling of Israel to be an exemplar of a people in relationship to a Holy God.
A similar case may be made for the mention of lesbianism in the New Testament, in a society where women had little opportunity for travel or independence. St. Paul considered that lesbian activity was a threat to the people of God, and made sure that he identified that activity as something to be shunned.
Fr. Mark (#1),
Would it not be more constructive for both sides to admit that there are competing theologies of the body, one – held by the majority of readers here, I suspect – being a procreative model and one being a companionate model?
In the procreative vision, it’s not simply the Levitical and Pauline injunctions that are relevant but an understanding of heterosexual marriage as participating with God in the process of creation. That is what drives the belief that the active expression of sexuality is [i]limited[/i] to this particular sphere. Yes, the aged and the sterile have little chance of conceiving, but physiologically it isn’t impossible. This doesn’t mean that sexual interaction has no other function (expression of affection and commitment, physical pleasure) but the procreative is assumed to be a necessary part. This is why most priests who hold such a view advise couples they marry that while spacing a family is legitimate, the deliberate [i]choice[/i] not to conceive is not something to which marriage calls us (which doesn’t apply to the naturally infertile, though that can be a heavy cross for them to bear).
In a companionate understanding, sexual expression is not assumed to be related to procreation, per se. Procreation is a choice and sexual behavior that conforms to the other requirements of Christian behavior – charity, self-giving, bearing one another’s burdens – would seem to be as legitimate for same-sex couples as heterosexual ones.
Much of the vitriol currently being thrown around at the moment might be avoided if we could get everyone to recognize this. After all, it would be absurd to say that every homosexual couple is a moral affront to society or that every heterosexual couple – even in the Church , sadly – is a moral exemplar. That is not, I think, what most of us are saying.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Just to clarify – since ambiguities tend to get picked up around here – in my last paragraph I meant that a homosexual couple might well exhibit many Christian behaviors – separately and together – not to be found among their heterosexual neighbors.
Romans 1:25 “. . . because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, . . . ” So far as I know this is the only explicit condemnation of same-sex sex between women. But we’re all sinners, saved by God’s grace in Jesus Christ.
However, #4, homosexual acts are an affront, both biblically and secularly. As to the Bible, in spite of #1, the case is obvious. #2 has made the case: It is remarkable that homosexuality rises above the radar at all. Still, Paul couldn’t be clearer, could he? In the “secular” sense, it is an affront because evolution clearly and obviously has no use for homosexuality, if the survival of the species is the test. And if normality is any test, then homosexuality fails here as well, since it is radically abnormal (in the literal, bell-curve sense). ( One of the sure earmarks of decadence is its obsession with ignoring and overriding normality and normative behavior.) Larry
Fair enough Larry, but only as long as one accepts that a heterosexual couple – especially a professedly Christian one – significantly departing from the values of Christian marriage is even more of an affront.
Divorced conservative clergy anyone?
RE: ” just how many biblical texts are there that discuss lesbianism anyway?”
Who cares? Revisionists have already demonstrated that they don’t give a hoot in the holler what’s in the Bible — not their gospel. This is all about their gospel.
Heh — look at the comments. The liberal activists are expressing themselves with their usual rational and objective sense. ; > )
†just how many biblical texts are there that discuss lesbianism anyway?â€
At least one more (Romans 1:26) than those that discuss women bishops. You’re right – doesn’t seem to be in Leviticus, but it is in the New Testament. Keep sending your questions, ‘Father’ Mark, plenty folks here happy to teach you the Bible. 🙂
[Comment deleted by Elf – off topic – please can we raise the bar on the level of comments and stay on topic with the above article]
[Comment responding to deleted comment also deleted by Elf with regret]
You know God only said this once:
Genesis 2:16-17 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
I wonder if He meant it?
Does God have to hit us with a two by four to get our attention for understanding His plan for humankind? It would seem that the very nature of his creation implies that male and female would join together in a sacred union with procreation as the end result. He also sent down Ten Commandments with Moses, one of which states that man should not lust after his neighbors wife. By logical extension, this certainly suggests a heterosexual mankind and an element of morality.
From my reading of the New Testament, Paul received a direct commission from God and the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide him in spreading the Word. When Paul touches on sexual morality in his various epistles, it seems pretty clear that he was repeating and clarifying God’s instructions from the Old Covenant. Isn’t God consistent? This doesn’t negate Jesus’ (God’s) instructions to love your fellow man; however, there must be repentence followed by God’s forgiveness for salvation. A new “religion†or cult is being formed out of man’s proclivity to sin. There will be no salvation in that.
As I have tried to point out, I doubt very much you follow the rest of Paul’s one-verse teaching. Women keeping silence in churches is not generally regarded as appropriate today, for example. There are many other such examples one could cite. It is not generally our principle to take one single verse from outide the Gospels in the Bible and elevate it to communion-breaking doctrine. To do so would not be consistent with the way we read the rest of the Bible.
Well, she’s right. “this spreads a bad message to people who believe in the Bible.” This is true for those who have their view of the bible, as interpreted by those who believe that the bible says what she thinks ti says..
People generally mistake what they believe for what God believes. The bible affirms her beliefs, whereas it also affirms mine. Were all pretty much condemned. But some believe in biblical culture; some of us believe in a “market oriented” culture.
Did Jesus die for the sake of the bible? Well, I do think those who worship the bible will get their reward, and God bless them.
But if they’re afraid of this because they might possibly change their mind, (or “repent”), perhaps their faith could use a little strengthening. Or maybe they made a mistake. It’s always possible. I hope God’s grace is sufficient enough to look beyond our mistakes.
Perhaps she might be saying, God’s grace is not sufficient enough for gay bishops.
Who is this woman? Why is she important in this discussion?
#14- athanasius, if that were truly the case, then are single people and those who can’t procreate inferior or being punished by god? How about those past the age of child bearing? Or should annul all marriages that do not bear children within one year or two?
God’s purpose is the kingdom. It has little to do with sex, it seems to me. A resurection faith makes sex and sexual orientation irrelevant.
Last, there is nothing peculiarly Christian to this naturalistic view of sexuality. Seems that lots of religions – and even secular religions such as Maoism – believe that homosexual acts are wrong (or examples of Bourgeois decadence).
[blockquote]Jude 1:1-25 NIV Jude 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ: 2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance. 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home– these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals– these are the very things that destroy them. 11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm– shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted– twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21 Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. 22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear– hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. 24 To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy– 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.[/blockquote]
It is pointless to argue with false teachers.
Br Michael: I think the pointlessness lies in trying to be reasonable with fundamentalists, actually.
“Br Michael: I think the pointlessness lies in trying to be reasonable with fundamentalists, actually.”
‘Father’ Mark, since you have labeled us as ‘fundamentalists’ (a theological swear word if there ever was one!), then you waste your breath trying to persuade us otherwise. You think your brand of late 20th Century Protestantism (despite your paternal moniker, you hardly reason as a Catholic) is self-evidently correct. We understand, though our minds (yes, we do have minds & PhDs etc!) are not going to meet. Divergent assumptions about truth lead to divergent religions over time. Gresham Machen understood that in the 1920s! (Now theee was a man who understood ‘The Fundamentals’!)
‘THERE was a man’
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[i] Comments are becoming heated and close to off topic. Please don’t make me close the thread. [/i] -Elf Lady
azusa: but the disagreement seems to be over how people read Scripture. I don’t think it is either an intelligent or a Catholic way to treat single verses in the Pauline Epistles as the basis for an eternal harsh doctrine. As far as I recall, fundamentalist is a term used for people who do just that: it has not in the past been the Anglican way. I know you want to deride any of us who disagree, but I know the Anglican tradition well enough to know that it has been generously intellectual for centuries, and not narrowly exclusive in its reading of Scripture. Writing a whole group of people off on the basis of one verse in Paul is not consistent with Anglican tradition, in my view.
I think that the job of a Priest is to help sinners be saved which means the sinner will have to truly be sorry for his sins (repentence) and, with the Priests help and guidance, pray to God in the name of Jesus for forgiveness. Then, through the grace of God, will he be forgiven. In the meantime, us mean, pinched, narrow minded “fundamentalists” will avoid association with sinners and non-believing “Christians” (READ 2 TIMOTHY 3 AND ABSORB THE MEANING.. remember the part that says “AVOID SUCH PEOPLE”…
Paul does provid guidance for believers in 2 Timothy 2. Also, how about 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is breathed by God and profitable for teaching and reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Mostly humbug I guess.
The whole controversy is off topic. We cannot have a meaningful discussion until we agree on the premises. Without agreeing on what it means to be Christian and the authority of scripture it is pointless to argue about what how to interpret and apply scripture.
No bishop or priest should be ordained if they do not believe in the authority of scripture and if they do not believe in the saving role of Jesus Christ then they are not Christian. We can argue about the subtle meanings of some of these terms but we are way beyond that. At the moment we do not even agree on what we are really arguing about.
“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I Cor. 6:9-10
Jim the Puritan: but if you read I Cor in Greek, you will find the word used is not “lesbian” in English: it refers only to males. Indeed, the word (arsenokoitai) seems to have been created by Paul for the occasion, as it is not the Greek word used elsewhere to describe men who slept with men. The word “homosexual”, which your translation employs, only came into the English language in the 19th c, and cannot possibly be an accurate term to use here.
This is a good example of shoddy reading of the Bible; “we don’t know quite what the Bible says, or how it should be read today, but we’re jolly sure we don’t like lesbians, so let’s hammer them with it anyway.” This is poor theology, poor exegesis and not at all the traditional Anglican way.
When the Bible refers to men or mankind, are women eliminated – they don’t exist? Women can’t be sexually immoral? (This does relate back to the topic of practicing gay female Bishops).
athanasius: the term in I Cor 6 refers specifically and exclusively to men. Which men exactly is a cause of debate amongst exegetes, but none of them think it applies to women, which is why no-one except Jim the Puritan (who, from his moniker can hardly be an Anglican anyway) would use it in this discussion.
29, I would imagine that Romans might clarify just what Paul was talking about:
[blockquote]Romans 1:18-32 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator– who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.[/blockquote]
But you waste your time arguing. These people seek to justify what Scripture condemns. At some point you have to shake the dust off your feet and move on and leave them to their immorality.
Amen Brother Michael.
But Br Michael, this is Paul’s take on a specific strand within ancient Greco-Near Eastern culture and society, which is why he uses the past tense to describe what “they” did. There is much discussion, and little clarity, as to how, if at all, this relates to our modern context where two people of the same sex commit to long-term relationships.
It is very dangerous and very poor theology to launch into sweeping condemnations on the basis of a tiny amount of out-of-context biblical material. It is, as I repeat, not the Anglican tradition so to do. It is from the context of the mainstream of that Anglican tradition that I reject the sectarian and unintelligent holier-than-thouness which seems to be creeping into our church at the moment. I am well aware that the intolerant and fearful in the Church hate, more than anything, articulate voices raised in opposition to them, but, it must be said, that the Bible is not clear on this issue in relation to the experience of gay people today. So it is wildly inappropriate, as well as grossly disrespectful of God’s created image, to be so cock-sure in your anger at a good priest who happens to live with another woman. But you are not in the Anglican Church either anyway, are you?
Marcus Pius: Have you ever read Rev. Dr. John Stott? The Bible, for your information and updating, has universal application across cultural boundaries and is not specific to a nomadic goattender in a tent in the foothills of Gomer. The Bible is lucidly clear on sexual immorality from the Old Testament throughout the New Testament, the Apocrypha, and non-canonical writings of the Doctors of the early church. “Tiny amount”? Give me a break!
I note that this article, opposing the election of a lesbian to the post of Bishop, appears in a conservative African American publication. Isn’t that right? I find this a significant reminder that much of the Black church seems largely undeceived by the unbiblical turn of mainline churches. How does the Episcopal Church, then, claim to speak of a parallel between anti-racism and gay advocacy? This is one of the real ironies about the present Episcopal hybris in the United States.
#28, Marcus Pius: Yes, I’ve studied New Testament Greek and I’ve heard all these arguments from the Homosexual Handbook many times before as to why the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. Usually one starts off with the Shellfish Argument and goes on from there. Anything that doesn’t agree with the homosexual position is “shoddy reading” of the Scriptures.
The point is, of course, is that the scripture I quoted in #27 directly refutes your false teaching and you cannot respond to that other than with deception, mischaracterization of the meaning of the verse, and ad hominem attacks.
Throughout the New Testament, the need for followers of Christ to be sexually pure is repeated over and over. No one with any honest knowledge of Koine Greek disputes that the term porneia includes male and female homosexuality, as well as other sexual behavior outside of marriage. And as you know, Romans 1:24-27 specifically condemns both male and female homosexuality.
I generally don’t like to waste my time in this kind of unfruitful argument with unbelievers, because the lost are blind and will not see. However, it is different when falsehoods are asserted as truth to deceive others, as they are here. As Satan’s influence spreads throughout the church his false statements cannot stand unrebutted. Scripture commands that believers use the sword of God’s Word to fight spiritual deception. Ephesians 6:17.
Satan is powerless in the face of Scripture. If believers would read God’s Word and live by it, submitting themselves to God’s authority, Satan would flee and we wouldn’t be in this situation. James 4:7
28. Marcus Pius wrote:
[blockquote]Jim the Puritan: but if you read I Cor in Greek, you will find the word used is not “lesbian†in English: it refers only to males. Indeed, the word (arsenokoitai) seems to have been created by Paul for the occasion, as it is not the Greek word used elsewhere to describe men who slept with men. The word “homosexualâ€, which your translation employs, only came into the English language in the 19th c, and cannot possibly be an accurate term to use here.[/blockquote]
Well, maybe Paul “created” the word [i]arsenokoitai[/i] and maybe he didn’t. It’s a bit iffy to argue that it is a [i]hapax legomenon[/i], considering that we have only a minute fraction of Greek literature of the first century and absolutely none of the actual day-to-day vocal use of koine. The word is, however interesting in that it is very, very close to how the translators of the Septuagint rendered Leviticus 20:13 ([i]arsenos koiten[/i]–i.e., male coitus). [Compare Leviticus 18:22 ([i]arsenos ou koimetheoe koiten[/i]).] It becomes even more interesting when one realizes that ancient Greek was normally written without spaces between words: compare Leviticus 20:13 ([i]arsenoskoiten[/i] with ! Corinthians 6:9 ([i]arsenokoitai[/i].
Yes, the [i]arsenos koiten[/i] and [i]arsenokoitai[/i] are specifically male terms and wouldn’t apply directly to lesbians. Is female-female sexual relations thereby excluded? Talk about fundamentalism! 🙂
First of all, I would point out that the word [i]pornoi[/i], which is the general term for “sexual immorality” in koine, occurs in the list. It seems likely that any sexual relationship outside of the bond of marriage (of a man and a woman) would have been regarded as [i]pornos[/i] by a first century Pharisaic Jew, not to mention by many conservative pagans.
Second, the list is a typical broadside found in many Jewish moral polemics of the time. It is, however, obviously not complete. For example, murder, covetousness and disrespect of parents are not mentioned, even though those are amongst the “biggies”. So silence with respect to “lesbians” does not equate to exclusion from [i]didoi[/i].
Thirdly, Paul does speak of female sexual immorality in Romans 1:26. We can, of course, argue from now until hell freezes over as to whether Paul had male/female anal intercourse (a common birth control technique at that time and place) or female/female sexual relationships, which weren’t unknown at that time and place. And while probability seems to lie with the former to me, it isn’t a particularly happy argument for those who argue for more a more “liberalized” and “modern” sexual morality and lesbian bishops.
athanasius: that’s one point of view. I am not a Conservative Evangelical, however, and do not share it.
I think there is a multiplicity of sexual ethics even in the Bible – have you never read the marital relationships in the OT, for example? Sexual relations with all sorts of women – concubines, servants, family members – in situations we would now deprecate are the norm in the OT, which is why small boys for centuries have giggled over the ruder parts of it. Pious attempts to make everything fit one narrow exclusive narrative are not new, but neither do I find them compelling. Not all Anglicans share your view of the Bible: indeed, it was regarded as the view of an extreme and barely Anglican minority in the England of my youth.
“azusa: but the disagreement seems to be over how people read Scripture.”
No, it’s also over the status and authority of Scripture. The meaning of Romans 1:26 is not really hard to grasp. The question is: is it true?
“I don’t think it is either an intelligent or a Catholic way to treat single verses in the Pauline Epistles as the basis for an eternal harsh doctrine.”
It was not *the* basis but an actual illustration of the case in point. The opposition of Scripture to homosexual relations is pervasive. Read Robert Gagnon, Stephen Noll, Richard Hays etc. Let’s steer clear of intellectual snobbery. I have enough postgraduate qualifications to be aware of the limits of my own knowledge. I aspire to be like Socrates – or rather a Christian version of him. Don’t talk about ‘Catholicism’ unless you also involve Rome and Constantinople and what *they have to say.
“As far as I recall, fundamentalist is a term used for people who do just that: it has not in the past been the Anglican way.”
No, ‘fundamentalism’ is a moving target; once (70-80 years ago) it meant something fairly determinate; now it’s just journalistic shorthand for ‘Someone more conservative me that I look down on.’ That’s why I forebear from using the pejorative term.
“I know you want to deride any of us who disagree, but I know the Anglican tradition well enough to know that it has been generously intellectual for centuries, and not narrowly exclusive in its reading of Scripture.”
I’ll ignore the ad hominem. I know ‘the Anglican tradition’ pretty well too, and the idea that it is more “intellectual” that the Reformed, Catholic or Orthodox way is pure hubris. On the whole, Anglicans are fairly lazy thinkers. Anglicanism has produced little of outstanding worth in systematic theology compared to the Catholic or Reformed (or Lutheran) traditions. (I write as an Anglcian of many years standing.)
“Writing a whole group of people off on the basis of one verse in Paul is not consistent with Anglican tradition, in my view.”
Mine too. If you can find anything in the Bible, the Catholic Creeds, the Fathers of the first six centuries of the undivided Church, the English Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries and the 1662 BCP, supporting lesbian relationships, please let us know. (The aforegoing, I’m sure you know, is what ‘Anglican tradition’ essentially and historically means.)
33. Marcus Pius wrote:
[blockquote]It is very dangerous and very poor theology to launch into sweeping condemnations on the basis of a tiny amount of out-of-context biblical material. It is, as I repeat, not the Anglican tradition so to do. It is from the context of the mainstream of that Anglican tradition…[/blockquote]
First of all, it is clearly the [b]Anglican[/b] tradition that sexual relationships are appropriate only within the context of the marriage of a man and a woman. Anything else is clearly [b]outside[/b] of the Anglican tradition and the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by the Anglican Communion, not to mention catholic Christianity.
Secondly, this view of human sexuality is entirely consistent with the entire witness of Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. Even the much tooted patriarchal practice of polygamy is treated negatively by the Old Testament–it might not be specifically forbidden, but it certainly treated as “Not a Good Thing.” It lay at the heart of Israel’s covenant infidelity.
Thirdly, to overturn the doctrine of Scripture and the Christian Church where there is absolutely no basis anywhere in either, surely qualifies as “very dangerous and very poor theology”. And the consequences to “theologians” who endeavor in such mythology are grave indeed.
[blockquote]Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.[/blockquote]
Jesus, Matthew 18:6
has arguing theology on a blog ever changed anyone’s mind?
Azusa: Good observations which I was almost ready to bring up – getting tired of this though. Having facillitated the teaching of Scripture, Anglican History (going all the way back to the Jerusalem church), the 39 articles, various related literature and the 1559 prayer book (filled with scripture), I have no doubt of the validity of the “fundamental” position. Obviously, the Anglican communion is at war with itself over these issues.
“has arguing theology on a blog ever changed anyone’s mind?”
It does carry the risk of cultivating the ‘odium theoligicum’ when we forget that theology should be grounded in the love of God and draws further into it. But it does help me to clarify to myself at least what I believe. So sometimes my own mind is changed for the better.
38. Marcus Pius wrote:
[blockquote]I think there is a multiplicity of sexual ethics even in the Bible – have you never read the marital relationships in the OT, for example? Sexual relations with all sorts of women – concubines, servants, family members – in situations we would now deprecate are the norm in the OT, which is why small boys for centuries have giggled over the ruder parts of it. Pious attempts to make everything fit one narrow exclusive narrative are not new, but neither do I find them compelling. Not all Anglicans share your view of the Bible: indeed, it was regarded as the view of an extreme and barely Anglican minority in the England of my youth. [/blockquote]
Good grief, by that argument you can justify torture, jihad, lying, stealing–virtually anything.
Generally speaking the Old Testament is very good at describing “how things really are”. And it generally does a good job of making clear that “how things really are” are [b]not[/b] how God would have them. The Old Testament tells us about polygamy, concubines and adultery. It does not tell us that any of these things are “good” for us; quite the contrary, it tells us these things are not good for us. And that is why Scriptures–both Old and New Testaments–urge us to repent and to change our ways rather than continuing to obey the world, the flesh and the devil.
It is why the New Testament tells us we need God’s gracious intervention to break our boundage to sin and death, why we need a Savior, why we need to die to sin and death and to be born as new men in Christ Jesus. It is not about confirming and blessing our fallen state, our slavery to sin and death. It is about a radical change in our very nature, to be liberated from sin, death and the devil to exchange them for righteousness, life and Christ. It is about being liberated from the world, the flesh and the devil, and to exchange them for heaven, the spirit and God.
I think the sum and substance of the progressive/revisionist argument on this and the larger question of Scriptural authority is well-summed up by Marcus Pius:
[blockquote]…that’s one point of view. I…do not share it.[/blockquote]
Same with any resort to 2000 years of Church tradition by us pinched, mean, bigoted, fundie bibliolaters.
Save your collective breath.
Amen again. Off for rejuvenation.
In case people want to view the actual Homosexual Handbook setting forth various polemics to be used to argue against the authority of the Bible, the original version can be viewed here:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
It is intended to be used with people who are fairly ignorant of what Scripture actually says. There are a number of variants floating about the web. It is good to learn as much as possible about the arguments being fashioned. You will find a lot of the Episcopal false theology in here, although one significant Episcopal variant is the “inclusion of all the baptized” argument, meaning that every person, no matter how unrepentantly sinful they are, has the right to fully participate in all the sacraments of the church, including ordination.
If you spend just a little time thinking about them, most of the misstatements can be fairly easily countered. For example, it several times says the Old Testament “holiness code” is no longer applicable to Christians and thus implies we are free to do what we want in terms of our sexual behavior. The truth is that the first council of Jerusalem, as set forth in the Book of Acts, held that the Gentiles did not have to follow all the dietary restrictions of the Jews, but emphasized that among other things they were to abstain from sexual immorality. (Acts 15.)
Finally, a caution, some of the scripture passages cited in the Handbook, such as Ezekiel 16:48-49, have intentionally been mistranslated, so make sure you check what this source says the scripture says against the actual wording of the Bible.
Again, if you read the Bible and learn what it actually says, and be ready to quote it as Jesus did against the Tempter, those such as “Marcus Pius” will flee because they know they cannot successfully argue against the actual Word of God. For example, when they bring up the “holiness code” argument, just ask them how they reconcile that with Acts 15. They will be speechless because they have no idea what the Bible actually says or even what Acts 15 is.
Septuagenarian’s comment #37 is salutary and gives a good background for the word arsenokoites. Once more into the breach for 1 Corinthians 6:9:
From my academic work on Paul, here is verse 9c from the NIV: [blockquote] Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [/blockquote] There are three words relevant here: [blockquote] “Sexually immoral†is the Greek pornos, for “unlawful sexual intercourse.†Originally applied to prostitution or adultery, by Jesus’ time the Greek sense (for Philo, etc.) had broadened to include “incest, sodomy, unÂlawful marriage, and sexual intercourse in general†(Hauck and Schultz).
“Male prostitutes†is the Greek malakos. The root word is “weakness†or “softnessâ€. This word, translated “effeminate†by the KJV, refers to a boy or man kept by, or submitting to sexual relations performed by, a man. This was not an uncommon practice, and even fashionable conduct among educated Greeks, going back to the time of the philosophers.
“Homosexual offenders†is the Greek arsenokoites. It is a compound word, formed from arsen, “maleâ€, and koites, “sexual intercourseâ€. This is extreme, vulgar Greek slang not seen in print prior to Paul’s letter. “Paul is apparently not above the use of [vulgarity] if it will make its proper impact†(Gordon Fee). [/blockquote] Thus Paul identifies both the active and receptive participants in homosexual conduct, and seeks to convey strong feelings about such conduct. Rather than the inventor of the term, Paul was likely the first to commit it to print. Like most vulgarities, over the centuries it became less objectionable and entered the writings of other authors.
The verse in question is relevant to the topic for this post, for “unlawful sexual conduct” (pornos)–that is, unlawful according to the Law of Moses–clearly includes female homosexuality in the mind of Paul.
Marcus Pius,
Do you believe that repenting from sin, believing that Jesus is our Lord and God and obedience to him is the only way to be saved?
I understand that there about six words in that question we might need to discuss but if your answer to that question is “No” I would say that we are not part of the same religion and there is no point in arguing about scripture. It seems to me that the debate about who should or shouldn’t be ordained is merely a proxy of a debate about what it means to be Christian.
Last spring a new book came out which looked at the subject of same-sex attraction from a Jewish perspective. The book is by
Arthur Goldberg, titled [i]Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality and the Power to Change[/i] published by Red Heifer Press, ISBN: 978-09631478-9-9.
On the subject of female homosexuality (lesbianism), Goldberg looks at how the Torah, the Oral Tradition and the Talmud all speak to this subject, noting that this was one of the practices brought with the Israelites from Egypt. I don’t have more specifics to include, and the book’s on the shelf in my study at the church, so I can’t access it now, but I’d encourage people to read this book.
Well, light the touch paper and stand well back!
Isn’t it bizarre that the surest way to get a load of straight men worked up is to mention lesbianism? I wonder what that really says about the commenters here. It’s rather like Abp Rowan ignoring proposed judicial murder and life imprisonment in Uganda for the last 6 weeks and yet condemning Canon Glasspool a mere 11 hours after her election. Some Christians need to get a bit of perspective here: it is the God of love that we believe in, isn’t it? Is there nothing else in the world that you all think it worthwhile spending you energies on deprecating, I wonder?
Marcus, attacking the commenter rather then the issue is the last resort of a person who knows they have lost the argument. Rather like the child who declares loudly “If I can’t win, I’m taking my ball and going home!”
Or as the English say “Bad form, old chap!”
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
#37. I am much relieved by the clarity gained from your reading of text.
Larry
#48. This is an appreciation as an addition to my comment above.
Larry
#51. It is not lesbianism itself (or homosexuality itself) that has caused the turmoil. It is its invasiveness in Christianity. On the whole, poison ivy is harmless in the back lots and old stonewalls. When it appears in one’s backyard and spreads, then it becomes a threat, and homeowners, especially those with children, become distressed and reach for the Roundup. As many have pointed out, the Bible is clear on whether poison ivy is to acceptable in church or not. It is not. But many animals and birds feed on poison ivy without ill effects, and we allow them to do so. And so, for precisely the same reason, homosexuals fill the roles of artists,e.g., against whom we may rub ourselves without developing an intolerable rash and itch. After all, no one here has suggested that we spray the whole world with 2-4-D so that all poison ivy is extirpated. Larry
“Well, light the touch paper and stand well back!”
Hmmm… If you are referring to my question, Marcus, I would say that reading the emotional content is part of the challenge of this medium. I am curious to know what you think it says about the commentators here.
People seem to “get worked up” when they can’t believe that someone else would hold to some position they disagree with. I think part of the emotional force of these discussions comes about because we do not fully appreciate that we have completely different assumptions. I suspect that before you could answer my question you would have issues with the way I asked the question. I admit I was being a little provocative.
When the jailer in Acts 16:30 asks “What must I do to be saved?” we don’t know what conversation preceded the earthquake or exactly what he meant but we do know that Paul said that he needed to believe in Jesus.
We do need to explain ‘sin’ and what being ‘saved’ means in a way that deals with our modern understanding of psychology, physiology and the rest but if we do away with these concepts all together then I would say we are not Christian.
I think if you are honest you will admit that you get a little worked up too and your reluctance to answer my question directly says a lot about you. 🙂
Brother Michael, I’m well versed in scripture. But in the original greek text there aren’t any numbers.
Why is this important? Well you stop a few verses too early. Perhaps you’d eventually get to Paul’s main point, which is that you also stand condemned, and should refrain from judging.
#56 – for some of us, being “saved” means people do not need to live their lives in the closet, afraid of being stoned, knowing that God first loves them, and does not condemn their desire.
John, perhaps you also miss Paul’s point.
Yes, we all stand condemned. Particularly of the fundamental sin of idolatry, of worshipping gods of our own invention and the created rather than the creator. And, as a consequence of our sin we are enslaved to sin and death. Paul’s gospel is not that this state of affairs has been blessed by God and we can joyously continue in our sin. The very suggestion of [b]that[/b] brings forth “[expletive deleted]” (See Romans 6:2) from Paul.
For Paul, because we are enslaved to sin and death we are powerless to extricate ourselves from that state and stand in need of a Savior which, thanks be to God, God has graciously provided in Christ Jesus and his death and resurrection. We are to die with him in baptism; we are to rise with him in baptism–to a new life, to be reborn as new men, no longer conformed to this work, but transformed into the image and likeness of sons of God.
Paul likes lists of our condition.
[blockquote]filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Romans 1:29-31)[/blockquote]
…and…
[blockquote]immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)[/blockquote]
It is not that we should continue in these behaviors or approve them or bless them, but rather that we should shun them because now we are participating in God’s new creation.
[blockquote]1 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)[/blockquote]
…and…
[blockquote]Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? [expletive deleted]![/blockquote]
And that is the apostles’ teaching, in which we pledge to continue in our first baptismal covenant promise.
John, you know as will as I that Scripture is useful for correction and that is not judgment to call errors to the attention of others. You appear to view all Biblical rebuke as judgment. That is dishonest on your part, because on that basis Paul is guilty of the worst possible judgment in even writing his letters. God hates sin and you support it. God judges not I.
John A: yes, I admit I do get a bit worked up about it, but then I’m gay, and have had to watch Anglicanism define itself by dislike of gay people for the last 6 years or so, day in, day out. Prior to Jeffrey John’s appointment, the C of E was always a haven for gay people, so it is not correct, Larry Morse, to talk about us as being “invasive” in Christianity. Many areas of the C of E are largely run by gay people, and this has long been the case. I was a curate in a parish which had only ever had one heterosexual vicar in its whole history (and they certainly weren’t all chaste): such is not at all uncommon amingst Anglo-Catholic parishes in England. The disgraceful thing is the current attempt to drive us underground and speak as if we didn’t always exist in churches.
John (#57), No one should have to live their life in fear and the church has done a miserable job of loving people who are different. Even in the epistles we read about the different ethnic groups having trouble getting along and that continues today. People are insecure in their own sexuality and we have trouble with specks and planks but Jesus does not let us off the hook.
At the same time that Jesus ate with sinners he demanded perfection. When he saved the woman from stoning he said “Go and sin no more.” even though she probably did. Jesus tells us to forgive 70×7 and he does the same for us but this is not the same as saying there is nothing to forgive. We are commanded to demand perfection from ourselves and to forgive others completely and to love unconditionally but with our eyes open.
Marcus Pius, I get very worked up, but then I’m straight. I am sure at least the last 6 years have been very painful for you. There is a lot of injustice, hypocrisy, spite and denial but there is also love, hope and peace.
I have great hope that God will not leave me as I am. In those moments when I have the courage to acknowledge my own sin and selfishness I find it quite discouraging. Romans 7 and 1st John and the way Jesus related to people who clearly had their own issues amazes me and reassures me that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I am afraid we all most go through this sorting out time and for a time we will need to be in separate churches. Being Christian means we cling to the hope of being transformed from our spiritual orientation away from God toward new life in him but if this is not our shared goal we are wasting each others time.
John A: love is not what gay people are hearing from anyone in the Church at the moment. With respect, it is not straight people who are the target of the current constant vilification and persecution in the Church, so there isn’t really a comparison to be made there, is there? Read what some of those lovely African Anglican bishops say about gay people, and then read what some of those lovely Religious Right Americans say about us, and there is a continuum of self-righteous scapegoating there somewhere, is there not?
The truth is that some straight men are deeply challenged by the existence of gay people. And some of them get incredible excited by the topic of lesbianism. I don’t think there’s anything much more to it than that, really – dolling mere nasty prejudice up as theology does the greatest disservice to theology as a discipline.
Marcus, I agree we can all be more loving but I asked a simple question and it was interpreted as hate and you still haven’t answered the question.
#58 – and I’m not sure your point. Because if you think that homosexuals are perverts, then you’ve got yourself a nice little tautology that doesn’t need any further interrogation.
I think that homosexuality isn’t a perversion. I’m not built that way, but I don’t see it as a disorder. It seems to be a part of some people’s nature. Obviously, some people live out their homosexuality the way others live out alcoholism and the like. Others don’t.
I believe that forcing people into lives of celibacy or deception leads into the life that Paul condemns. What would happen if we were in a world where John A was told that the touch of someone who he desired, and desired him, was intrinsically sinful? What would that drive John A to do?
John A leads with the statement about be perfect – but what does that mean? I think it means be perfect as John A thinks God wants people to be perfect. We don’t have a “perfect” idea except, perhaps, we might be a little more humble and less judgmental. Perhaps perfection means letting people live more freely and trusting that they will find God in their own time. That seems to be what God actually does. Being perfect means not claiming righteousness as only your own.
John, I’m not quite sure which of your many questions you refer to. At #56, you ask “the emotional content is part of the challenge of this medium. I am curious to know what you think it says about the commentators here.”
If that is the simple question, then I don’t really have a clear answer. When 1 John says that “perfect love casts out fear”, this wording is interesting, because the opposite of love is given not as hatred, but as fear. I think the emotion driving many commentators here is fear, and only that would explain how extreme and disproportionate an amount of energy they are prepared to invest in fighting gay people, a topic which doesn’t even get a one-verse mention in any of the Gospels.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Sorry Marcus. I was referring to my original question: “Do you believe that repenting from sin, believing that Jesus is our Lord and God and obedience to him is the only way to be saved?”.
… And of course if you give more than a yes/no answer it would help me understand your position.
#67 John A.:
Your question isn’t aimed at me, but I’ll reply anyway.
If by “believing that Jesus is our Lord and God” you mean “an explicit belief in Jesus Christ by that name and no other” — then no, I do not. Because if that were true, then every Jew, every Muslim, every Hindu, every Buddhist — everyone who is not a Christian, including those who simply never heard of Jesus — will be damned. And I cannot reconcile that with a merciful and just God.
Now, if you take some form of the “anonymous Christian” stance — and in past discussions, most of the commenters here appear to do so — then that’s different. But in that case we have to be careful about statements like “believing that Jesus is our Lord and God… is the only way to be saved.” It’s better to say something like, “The way to salvation is through Jesus, even if you don’t know him by name.”
John: that’s a question which is hardly relevant to the topic here, is it? Are we discussing universalism?
I often seem to find people on the conservative side at the moment like to ask “killer” questions of us liberals, much in the manner of (and for the same purposes as?) the Pharisees questioning Our Blessed Lord, or, indeed, of the Spanish Inquisition.
Ross,
Thank you for answering the question. It is good to know that you care about other people and so do I. My feeling is that, in one sense, it is none of our business whether other people are ‘saved’ or not. We each need to work out our own salvation in ‘fear and trembling’. I do not think we will be admitted into God’s presence based on our answer to a trick question when so many people did not even realize they were taking an exam but being in heaven does mean being in an eternal relationship with God and if we are unwilling to enter into that relationship on his terms he gives us the freedom to live apart and that is a hellish choice.
Curiously, each of the religions you mention has their own version of heaven and hell and is at least as exclusive as Christianity. Buddhism, for example does not have a ‘hell’ per se. Rather, they teach that only Buddhism provides an escape from Samsara.
“John: that’s a question which is hardly relevant to the topic here, is it?”
It is *the* question. The whole sexuality discussion is secondary.
You still haven’t answered the question. If you don’t like the way I worded the question then try Jesus’ wording: “Who do you say that I am?” Or put another way “What is the point of Christianity?”. As far as I can tell you don’t like answering any question …