John Thorp’s case for is here and Robert Gagnon’s rebuttal is there.
This is a serious debate among our friends just to the North, take the time to read both pieces and pray for General Synod. Thanks–KSH.
John Thorp’s case for is here and Robert Gagnon’s rebuttal is there.
This is a serious debate among our friends just to the North, take the time to read both pieces and pray for General Synod. Thanks–KSH.
Mr. (Dr.?) Thorp begins with a breathtaking theological view.
He states that an evolving Church is implied by our doctrine of the Trinity.
The work of the Father in Creation ended at the beginning of time. WHAT?
There is no more creation? The Creator does not need to keep the world together? There is no binding necessary for life to continue? This is Theistic doctrine to an extreme; the watchmaker view of the world; I seriously hope that no one is deceived by this aberrant doctrine.
The work of the Son was done two millenia ago? WHAT?
If the Son is not at the right hand of God now, making intercession for me, I am in deep trouble. The work of the Son began at creation, and extends to the end of time, if I properly read the book of Hebrews. The opinion that Jesus is done flies in the face of all that He told His disciples in the farewell discourse in John. How was that again? I will go to the Father, and send the Spirit to you. The Spirit will continue to come, without Jesus continuing to send Him?
So the foundation of Thorp’s essay is rotten. He does not accept any reasonable Scriptural view of the Trinity. One leg is already dead.
As to the frozen-ness: The Puritan religion (since I know something of it) became enmeshed in the church-state union, and froze for cultural reasons of bureaucratic inertia and status by inheritance. Their frozen state had much less to do with theology than it did with land, and who got to pass it on to whom. I cannot speak to Geneva, as I do not know its history.
The commandment to love: as Warner Wolf used to say, “let’s go to the tape.” Jesus said that we showed our love by doing everything which He commanded us to do. He commanded that it was from the beginning that one man and one woman would form one couple, until the death of one of them. Now either we love Jesus by flatly disobeying His Word, or this Word is not authentic, or there is a Spirit which expressly reveals that what Jesus taught was wrong.
Now I ask you: is this Anglican? Where, in the past, has it been Anglican tradition to yank a part of the New Testament out of the canon and declare it non-canonical? Chapter and verse, please?
Several straw men are now introduced. Gambling, usury, public drunkenness, slavery.
No meat there.
And now we have the claim that the Church must do what is right, and supplant its history by adapting itself to popular morality. It was popular morality to worship idols in the days of St Paul. Why did he not urge the worship of idols? Where do any of the writers of the Epistles state that we must accommodate our teaching to that of this present age? Chapter and verse, please?
Where is the Scriptural approval for sexual intimacy with a slave? I missed that one.
Where is the Scriptural approval for slavery? Philemon does not strike me as approving, but rather viewing with regret. What did I miss?
Why, if it was popular morality in the first few centuries after Jesus, to worship the Emperor, and the punishment for not doing so was death, were there so many martyrs who simply refused to bow down?
There are no arbitrarily forbidden apples in the New Creation? Well, there goes Jesus. He had a VERY LARGE number of forbidden apples in His teaching. Don’t pray long prayers. Don’t do your alms before men. Don’t take the chief seats at feasts. Don’t make your fringes long. And so on. And so on. And so on. The First Council (in Acts) added a few. Paul, James, Peter, and John each added on to the forbidden apple list.
So I do not know what New Covenant Thorp is referring to here.
Divorce? God still hates divorce. So don’t go there. And it certanly should remain a disqualification for being a Priest or a Bishop. If a man cannot head his own house, how can he head a Church?
All the harms of homosexuality are nothing but delusions and chimeras? Well, forget about the Centers for Disease Control. Their statistics must be delusions and chimeras. Their life expectancy figures must be lies, imposed on us by some evil force. The spread of AIDS? Guess what. AIDS spreads by 1) sodomy and 2) sharing needles, far more than in any other way.
It was, after all, the serpent who encouraged Eve to look at the big picture. All the stuff in the Garden was OK, because God had said so. For God to overlook his own proscription of one little fruit on one little tree was just an oops which could certainly be disregarded.
So let’s just look at the big picture and ignore the Elephant in the room, named Jesus, born of a Virgin in Bethlehem, crucified under Pontius Pilate, who rose from the dead on the third day, in accordance with THE SCRIPTURES, who taught us how to live.
After all, we are now all modern and scientific, and don’t need to mess with any of that old-time religion anymore!
Gagnon argues (as usual) that ‘Same-sex intercourse radically offends against God’s intentional creation of humans as “male and female†(Gen 1:27) and the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24).”‘ [Emphasis added]
I’d read this argument from Gagnon before, but now he has convinced me; I’m slapping my palm against my forehead why I didn’t appreciate his brilliance before.
To my eternal shame, I now know that by marrying, more than two decades ago, my wife and I likewise radically offended against another aspect of “God’s intentional creation of humans” — as blue-eyed and brown-eyed.
Wait, you say: Genesis says nothing about blue eyes and brown eyes. Ah, but the answer’s apparent: There were no blue-eyed people around in the time and place where Genesis was written. That fact conclusively proves this particular aspect of God’s intentionality — it’s patently obvious that God separated his people into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups.
(How do I know there were no blue-eyed people around when- and where Genesis was written? The same way the Genesis authors knew what happened at the dawn of humanity: through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is protecting my thought processes, and of course my writing here, from error, just he did theirs.)
My wife will be as shamed as I am when I work up the nerve to tell her: Our mixed-eye-color marriage is a sin; our love is a lie; our children are the fruits of our wickedness.
What should I do to atone for my sin? That’s a tough one. The Bible clearly condones men having multiple wives; I suppose I could take an additional, blue-eyed wife, and we could do as God obviously intended for those of our eye color, which is to produce blue-eyed kids. (Unfortunately for my wife, she’s not allowed to produce more kids with a brown-eyed man: according to the Bible, she gets only one mate unless I happen to die [which might happen shortly after she reads this part :-)] .)
But there’s that unhandy catch: it’s my brown-eyed wife that I love. Even though I know it radically offends God’s intentional creation, I just don’t want to have kids with a blue-eyed woman.
I guess my only choice is to live in celibacy, acknowledging the deprativity of my love for someone of a different eye color.
And all the rest of you people out there in mixed-eye-color marriages: You’d better do the same . . . .
(End Jonathan Swift mode.)
There may be valid arguments out there for prohibiting same-sex unions (I stress “may”). Gagnon’s isn’t one of them.
D.C. – it is not for those who support the moral teaching of the Church to give our reasons for not changing. The teaching of the Church as the assumption of being correct. It is the responsibility of those who want to change the teaching of the Church to give their reasons and to convince the Church that its teaching is wrong and that their teaching better reflects the Mind of God. To act on the “new thing” before the teaching of the Church has changed is not to act prophetically, but to act schismatically.
The true schismatics are the ones blessing same sex unions and ordaining people who are sexually active outside of marriage (as traditionally defined).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
DC, you find Gagnon unpersuasive because you have a very low non-christian view of scripure. You and Gagnon are simply talking past each other.
Hi DC, Gagnon is debating someone on their own terms, not on yours. I’m assuming that if Gagnon were to respond to your argument [whatever it was], it would be on your terms, and that, as a person who does not believe the Christian gospel, your conversation would not have anything to do with Christian faith or belief or the authority of scripture.
But Gagnon is responding to John Thorp’s erroneous case, and as such needs to respond using Christian beliefs and arguments.
To D.C., from Adam Sandler:
“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
🙂
#2: Unfortunately, you choose to MOCK rather than engage Dr. Gagnon’s devastating critique of Thorp’s paper. Arguments ‘ad absurdum’ are only believable if their satire has the ring of Truth connnected to them.
Again: Gagnon has an impressive resume’ of writings on both biblical and historical/philosophical insights into culture and sexual practices. His books are explicit, well-documented, and, from the Christian orthodox prospective, unarguably true. Only those whose a priori premises deny the possibility of homosexuality as a sin can ignore Dr. Gagnon’s serious and deep reflections on human sexuality.
Dr. Gagnon knows that “true believers” of the homosexualist’s cause will not be persuaded by intelligent debate. He is hoping that those with truly liberal and inquiring minds might risk the wrath of offending this Western culture’s obsession with polymorphic sensuality by considering the wisdom of the Bibilical view on homosexuality.
Your comment in #2 belies your inability to open your closed mind. A pity.
DC, do incline to Swiftian answers for overpopulation by support of abortion as well – as in approval of the ECUSA/TEC here: http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm ? Or is moral theology just not a forte? or not correct? or what?
Is D.C. claiming that eye color is the same sort of thing as biological sex/gender?
I think that Gagnon’s interpretation of Genesis is too narrow, confining it merely to heterosexual sex. He uses Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 as a justification for exclusive claims of heterosexual primacy.
An alternate view is to identify the broader interpretation that human beings are social animals who relate to one another in faithful and loving relationships. Set aside the first Chapter of Genesis, as it was written after Chapters Two and Three. The earlier story of God creating a helpmate for Adam begins not with 2:24 but 2:18. God recognizes that it is not good for Adam to be alone.
In another place in his critique, Gagnon suggests that heterosexual relationships are ordained by God before the Fall. One might read deeper into the text to see that the Woman referred to throughout Chapters Two and Three undergoes a name change to Eve at the start of Chapter Four. This is the first reference to heterosexual sex. One might also look at Gen 3:16 with its reference to the pains of childbirth as a consequence of the Fall.
Yes, Jesus refers to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his reappraisal of divorce laws. The predicate for banning divorce is the primacy and sacredness of human relationships established in those texts, not necessarily an assertion of opposite-sex primacy.
I think Robert Gagnon’s article is excellent. The only thing I would have liked to have seen included is an argument from the Trinitarian nature of marriage. I strongly believe that central to a right understanding of a Christian anthropology is the Doctrine of the Trinity. Christians who defend Christian teaching on sexuality most develop and defend a ” Theology of The Body”
FaC(#10)
Can you show me any place where homosexual sex is blessed or encouraged in Holy Scripture? Can you show that the Authors of Genesis, Leviticus, Matthew, Mark, Romans, Corinthians, and other scriptures intended homoerotic relationships to be blessed by God?
Until you can do so, your arguments amount to: “I want this to be true.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#12 asks: <blockquote>Can you show me any place where homosexual sex is blessed or encouraged in Holy scripture? Can you show that the Authors of Genesis, Leviticus, Matthew, Mark, Romans, Corinthians, and other scriptures intended homoerotic relationships to be blessed by God?
Great, Faithful and Committed #10. “Human beings are social animals who relate to one another in faithful and loving relationships.” I assume you also stand foursquare in favor of “marriages” involving three, five or ten people. And certainly you must support faithful and loving groups of college friends mixing and matching partners as they hook up weekend after weekend. Glad to know where you stand.
# 14 observes: Great, Faithful and Committed #10. “Human beings are social animals who relate to one another in faithful and loving relationships.†I assume you also stand foursquare in favor of “marriages†involving three, five or ten people. And certainly you must support faithful and loving groups of college friends mixing and matching partners as they hook up weekend after weekend. Glad to know where you stand.
Now you’ve gone and mixed in marriage and sex. The particular passagae that I was commenting on pericope in Genesis beginning with 2:18 in which God recognizes that it is not good for Adam to be alone. It culminates with Adam awakening to find the woman whom God has created. What Adam sees is another human being like himself to whom he can relate. The text is not about sex or marriage.
The overgeneralization that you are making here is that God santifies heterosexual marriage, and exclusively so on the basis of that text. It just ain’t so.
FaC – the answer to your assertion that Gen 2:18 implies homosexual companionship is easily refuted because did not create another man for the man. It is not good for the man to be alone, so God created woman, not man. Gen 2:24 flows directly from Gen 2:18. Marriage is the answer to the problem “it is not good for the man to be alone.”
Again, can you show me where homosexual sex is blessed by God? Heterosexual sex is bless in Gen 1:28
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#13 – I have been lurking for a while but after reading your comment I felt compelled to finally join the group and respond. I was totally blown away by your comment that Genesis 2:18 supports homosexual behavior. Whew! Where on earth do you get that from that piece of scripture? Please read further than the “brief” line of scripture you referenced. The rest of Gen 2:18 reads “I will make a helper who it just right for him.” The it goes on to tell how God made the animals and Adam named them all. Then it explains how there was still no helper “just right for him.” Then the Lord God made a woman from the man and He brought her to the man. “At Last! the man exclaimed” Gen 2:23. Then the real biggie that really disputes your statements. Gen 2:24 states: “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined with his (wife), and the two are united into one. (emphasis mine).
So, sorry, but I’m not buying your argument. The words are quite clear to me. God’s intention in making a woman was to make a “just right” companion for the man. This does not spell man with man, or woman with woman, BUT ONLY man with woman. So, sorry good friend, you haven’t sold me on that one.
This is a classic case of proof-texting, which is not good practice. It’s also trying to twist God’s word for your own gain. May God rebuke you!
Best regards, Mugsie
#15 (The overgeneralization that you are making here is that God santifies heterosexual marriage, and exclusively so on the basis of that text. It just ain’t so. )
And who are you to say that it “ain’t so”? I’d personally prefer to err on the side of what the Bible actually says, than to profess that I know what God’s actually saying even though the words don’t actually say that.
Elves, I’d appreciate some technical help. I can’t figure out how to use your referenced tags to do italics, bold, etc.. Thanks!
Mugsie
In response to # 16 and #17: In each case, Phil Snyder in # 16 and Mugsie in # 17, have interpreted the text to mean that God created human beings to be heterosexual and blesses that type of relationship exclusively.
I do not think that is the central idea of the whole pericope. Yes, heterosexual relationships are one of the varieties for expressing human love and companionship. And, a very good one indeed. I celebrate the creation of straight relationships.
My interpretation of the precipe, taken as a whole, differs in challenging whether straight relationships are the only type of loving human relationship that can be termed “just right for him” (to use the translation of Genesis that Mugsie quotes). A heterosexual relationship is “just right” for heterosexual people. But, Adam is not just a heterosexual prototype. He is a prototype for all human beings. What strikes me are the words of 2:23, Adam’s words upon first awakening. In the NRSV, Adam says: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” What makes the Woman “just right for him” is not simply having a different arrangement of sexual plumbing, but the fact of the Woman being another human being–made of the same essential substance as Adam.
Look. Here’s the deal. The Reappraisers can support their case from Scripture by arguing inferences derived from emanations from the penumbras of Bible passages (which, of course, may change tomorrow with the shifting culture winds.) But for reappraisers, it is not sufficient that the Bible explicitly disapproves of homosexual activity in both the OT and the NT.
FaC – following the dictum that scripture should interpret scripture and that prooftexting is bad, can you show scriptural support for your assertion that “it is not good for man to be alone” implies blessing homosexual relationships?
Following my own challenge, There is Eph where Paul speaks of marriage (citing Gen 2:24) representing the relationship between Christ and his church and Jesus citing Gen 2:24 as well, so there are multiple passages of Scripture that reference Gen 2 in exclusively heterosexual terms and none (that I am aware of) referencing Gen 2 in homosexual terms. Can you help me see some support that Gen 2 is intended to show homosexual in addition to heterosexual relationships?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil Snyder has noted well that God’s answer to male aloneness is to create woman. F&C wants to expand the primeval man’s archtypal status to include “gay” people. If I am not mistaken, it would be eisegesis, pure and simple. Theories that posit a homosexual identity as a facet of our humanity equivalent to race, gender, eye color, or hand-dominance are simply theories with no support in science or philosophy, and certainly not in any recognizable Christian theology. One might go so far as to say they are wishful thinking on the part of those who can’t deal with human brokenness.
F&C – you are entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to organize your life around them (Ah! Sweet Mystery of Life!) and you are entitled to practice any religion you wish. You reading of Genesis, however, is completely without foundation in reason or responsible methods of interpretation.
Cousin Vinnie in # 20 observes: for reappraisers, it is not sufficient that the Bible explicitly disapproves of homosexual activity in both the OT and the NT.
Exactly. That is one of Thorp’s arguments: the scant references in Scripture deal with same-sex behaaviors, but are do not pertain to the same-sex relationships. In my view, that is why it is important to look at the early chapters of Genesis. These establish how God created humans to be in relationship. That is part of the essence of being human. God is a relationship (we underrstand this in light of our theology of the Trinity), and human beings, who are made in the image and likeness of God are created to be in relationship–with God and with fellow humans.
Adam and Eve had procreative sex that started the generations. If God had created another man for Adam, no babies, no Bible.
They could have had a “loving and committed” relationship with erotic mutual gratification. But there would be no future generations.
It is not just that the male and female sex organs match up, it is that sex between a man and a woman is how babies are made.
The first book of the Bible, Genesis, is about the first generations of human life. Same sex erotic behavior cannot, by itself, create new life. It is inherently sterile.
FaC – OK, we can bless homosexual friendships so long as both parties realize that homosexual sex is still sinful and that the sinfullness of homoerotic behavior is made plain in the liturgy that blesses the “friendship.” So, if any sexually activy homosexaul clergy wish to renounce their sexual activity or behavior, then good. Otherwise, they still living in violation of the church’s teachings and should be deposed.
You are right that we are made to be in relationship with each other. That relationship is to mirror the relationship within the Holy Trinity and be built on agape (not erotic) love. God explicitly blesses heterosexual marriage in Genesis and Paul calls it a great mystery (=musterion = sacramentum = sacrament) in Eph 5:32.
No where in scripture in homoerotic behavior blessed or even called neutral. It is universally condemned and condemned in the strongest terms. Can you show me otherwise?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In response to 21 and 22:
Words Matter notes correctly in # 22 that I aim to expand the primeval man’s archtypal status to include “gay†people. . Yes, you are correct. Adam is a prototype for all of humanity–straight and gay alike. Hence, God’s dictum that Adam should not be alone applies universally, not just to heterosexual humans.
In posting 21, Phil Snyder observes: <i>…following the dictum that scripture should interpret scripture and that prooftexting is bad, can you show scriptural support for your assertion that “it is not good for man to be alone†implies blessing homosexual relationships?
Mugsie, if you’re still reading, a reply to your #18 with a request for technical help.
First, let me note that there is still some technical glitch which means that the codes are not always working properly. Sometimes they are entered absolutely correctly, but don’t ever translate from code into the desired formatting. Greg G. is going to try to solve this when he gets some free time.
Ok. For bold, italic and blockquoting the principle is as follows. 3 steps:
1. Open code tag
2. the text you want formatted
3. Close code tag.
In every example the text being formatted are the two words “format this”
For bold: <b>format this</b>
For italic: <i>format this</i>
For blockquotes: <blockquote>format this</blockquote>
Hope this helps. And hope we’ll get the code problem sorted out soon.
No, FaC #15, I’m not making any overgeneralization – you are. You were the one that introduced gays not having to “be alone†on the basis of this text. If I was wrong to introduce “marriage and sex,†then you must only be arguing that, say, it is unobjectionable for a man to be a close friend with another man. On that we agree.
Yes, you are correct. Adam is a prototype for all of humanity–straight and gay alike. Hence, God’s dictum that Adam should not be alone applies universally, not just to heterosexual humans.
Well, it was you, not me, that said Adam is a prototype for “gay” people. I said that “gay” people don’t exist, in that since. In other words, no evidence that any alternative exists to heterosexual humans, except as a disordered condition.
Deja Vu observes in # 24: Adam and Eve had procreative sex that started the generations. If God had created another man for Adam, no babies, no Bible.
They could have had a “loving and committed†relationship with erotic mutual gratification. But there would be no future generations.
It is not just that the male and female sex organs match up, it is that sex between a man and a woman is how babies are made.
The first book of the Bible, Genesis, is about the first generations of human life. Same sex erotic behavior cannot, by itself, create new life. It is inherently sterile.
We all love babies! Generativity is a good, and the human race depends on it. But, the gift of producing children does not create the predicate for blessing relationships. Were that the case, pastoral counseling prior to a marriage would necessitate that the intending couple provide certification of sexual potency/viability and declare an intent to have children. I guess we would also have to police that by unblessing any couple that failed to live up to the terms of their promise. Moreover, Thorp addressed that very point in his argument. The church blesses relationships that are sterile, but that does not matter. It is the relationship of love and fidelity that counts. I also find it notworthy (not having seen the Canadian Prayer Book) the reference to the issue of children being an optional part phrase for the priest to say during the marriage rite.
since = sense, of course.
Comment deleted by elf. Personal attack on commenter.
Words Matter # 29 observes: Well, it was you, not me, that said Adam is a prototype for “gay†people. I said that “gay†people don’t exist, in that since. In other words, no evidence that any alternative exists to heterosexual humans, except as a disordered condition.
I believe that the order of being is that God created human beings, starting with Adam, modeled after the divine image and likeness–and that is one of relationship. God is thus in relationship with humanity. Adam (as noted in Genesis 2:18) needs companionship to be fully human. This includes divine companionship and human companionship. Thus we have the creation of Woman. I have contested whether this is an exclusively heterosexual state of being. It is a human state of being. I believe that gay and lesbian people–as for heterosexual human beings–are created in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, human love as expressed in Scriptures such as the Song of Songs illuminates the relational essence of God. Your theology would deny the humanity of gay and lesbian people, relegating human love to a disorder. I would simply ask you, if you see a loving same-sex couple in your midst, will you miss your opportunity to glimpse the love of God?
Phil wrote: No, FaC #15, I’m not making any overgeneralization – you are. You were the one that introduced gays not having to “be alone†on the basis of this text. If I was wrong to introduce “marriage and sex,†then you must only be arguing that, say, it is unobjectionable for a man to be a close friend with another man. On that we agree.
I was unclear. What I intended in that too quick response was that Genesis 2 is not just about sex and marriage. That is part of my beef with Gagnon’s original argument. He misses the theology of relationships–or reduces love to being heterosexual, only.
Phil Snyder [#25] writes: ‘OK, we can bless homosexual friendships so long as both parties realize that homosexual sex is still sinful and that the sinfullness of homoerotic behavior is made plain in the liturgy that blesses the “friendship.†So, if any sexually active homosexual clergy wish to renounce their sexual activity or behavior, then good.’
Let me make sure I understand the seeming implications of what you’re saying:
1. If two men (or two women) have exactly the same emotional relationship and mutual commitment as a married heterosexual couple, but with no erotic activity whatsoever, then the relationship is scripturally licit.
2. On the other hand, if either or both men (or women) intentionally experiences any erotic gratification whatsoever from the relationship, including from non-contact activity such as talk, that’s sinful (you say), because such gratification is (supposedly) reserved exclusively for married, straight couples.
For good or ill, I don’t see how this exclusivist view of sexual gratification can survive in the modern Western culture, and as it dies, so will the sentiment against same-sex marriage.
Look at the demographics: The generations raised to to hold a married-people-only (“MPO”) view of sexual gratification are all at least in the middle of the great escalator of life. Many of them are getting pretty close to the top.
In contrast, the young people near the bottom of the escalator have been steeped since childhood in “the culture,” where sex is ubiquitous on TV, in the movies, and on the Internet. And that’s not to mention the increasing frequency of people living together and even having babies without being married. These younger folks are increasingly unlikely to think of erotic gratification as reserved exclusively for married straight couples.
Now look ahead 100 years. It’s always dangerous to try to predict the future, but I suspect that, many and perhaps most proponents of the MPO view, at least in the West, will have died off. They’re likely to have failed to propagate the MPO “meme” into succeeding generations, and so that meme will die off too. Natural selection and its principal agent — Death — will have worked their wonders yet again.
As the MPO meme dies off, we can expect to see increasing cultural acceptance of same-sex unions and even -marriages. If traditional Christianity continues to insist on an MPO view, the younger generations may use that as the last straw they need to drift away from the church entirely — which implicates the saying that Christianity is always only one generation away from extinction.
Okay, I’m back. Firstly, I want to thank the elves for their promptness in addressing my technical questions. I’ll try again here and see if it works. It may just be that the codes are not working as you mentioned.
Now, down to the discussion.
F&C in #19 states that I’ve interpreted the text I quoted in Genesis to mean that God created human beings to be heterosexual and blesses that type of relationship exclusively. You bet I have!!!! If the wording had read something like God had created another man, or if He’d created both men and women in multiples and then went on to say enjoy each other in any way you like, then yes, I would have believed that he blessed homosexual relationships. However, He did not do that. He only created “one woman” and his following scriptures only tell that he planned for that one man and that one woman to come together to form one for the purposes of creation of more human beings. I haven’t read anything into the scriptures, but it seems you are trying to do that.
You state that Adam is not just a heterosexual prototype, but a prototype for all humana beings. Now, just where did you read that??? I read that “in the beginning” God created man, and then gave him a partner who was “just right” for him. Now, if a woman was what God called “just right for him” then can another man be such? If a man could be “just right for him” then God would have made another man. God can do anything. He created the whole universe in just 6 days. Don’t you think that if he wanted the earth to be populated with people of the same gender to have erotic activities with each other, then He would have created all people of the same gender in the first place? Why bother making a woman if God didn’t plan for us to procreate? Also, where God goes on to state in Gen 2:24 “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined with his wife (bolded), and the two are united into one.” Now, how the heck do you get anything but heterosexual marriage out of that. The definition of marriage is the joining of two (a man and a woman) in Holy matrimony. That is exactly how God describes it in Genesis Gen 2:24. Now, you can try to twist that, or read anything you want into that, but the words just say what they do. There is no hidden agenda there except for yours. Like I said before, I would prefer to err on the side of what the bible actually says, not on what it DOESN’T say. I have read almost my whole Bible over the past year or two and have used several translations. NIV, NLT, KJV,NKJV, God’s Word Translation, and The Message. No where in any of those translations can I find ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT, so like I also said before, I’m not buying it.
And yes, God will rebuke you! You can count on it. We will all have our chance on that judgement seat, and when I’m there, I don’t plan on telling God he told me something when in fact He did not. I respect the authority of His word, and always have. I’ve been Anglican my whole life, and the Anglican church taught the scriptures. I firmly believe that the truth behind what’s going on in the church right now is that the antichrist is at work in the Anglican church. It was well prophesied in the old Testament and new. The whole second half of Daniel addresses it, and so does Jude, where we were warned that this would happen and to be alert. Well, you know what??? I’m listening to that advice. I’m working on being alert. I won’t follow the actions of the antichrist into a sure eternity in hell. No thanks! If you want to do that, then you have the free will to do so. However, I won’t be joining you. Jesus is my only savior and I am abiding by the scriptures.
May God bless you before He rebukes you!
Mugsie
Like Cousin Vinnie in #20 says, (The Reappraisers can support their case from Scripture by arguing inferences derived from emanations from the penumbras of Bible passages (which, of course, may change tomorrow with the shifting culture winds.) But for reappraisers, it is not sufficient that the Bible explicitly disapproves of homosexual activity in both the OT and the NT.)
I agree with Vinnie. It seems every time I turn around I get another twisting of the scriptures from someone. I don’t go for categorizing everyone as “reappraisers” or “reasserters” or “liberal” or “conservative”, so you won’t find me using those terms. I prefer to just stand up for the the Word of God as it is written in the Bible, and so far, I can’t find anything to support any of the twisted versions of scriptures that I keep hearing. I only know of one Christian Bible, and I’m sorry guys, but it just doesn’t say that God approves of same sex erotic activities, marriages, etc. That, to me, is all just a bunch of excuses for a bunch of people who are just grabbing at straws to defend their sinful behavior. Yes, we all sin. The difference is that we don’t expect those sins to be proclaimed “not” sins by the church. That is the root of the problem here. It’s just pure arrogance (fueled by the antichrist) asserted by those who are not godly enough to come to repentance. When I was growing up, and I did what was wrong, my parents disciplined me. They didn’t tell me, okay, we’ll just call that one not wrong any more. It’s okay to do that now. That’s ludicrous!!! This is the same thing. God says clearly that a man laying with a man and a woman laying with a woman is an abomination. The bottom line is that it’s still a sin. The only thing that’s changed in the New Testament is that Jesus came and gave his life as “ransom” for our sins. He gave us an opportunity to have faith that He’s advocating with the Father on our behalf. He didn’t say, okay, go ahead and sin. It won’t matter any more. If that was the case, then he would have told the adulteress who was threatened with a stoning that she can just go ahead and keep sinning. It doesn’t matter any more. NO!!!! Instead he told her to “Go and SIN NO MORE!!!!!” (emphasis mine). How much clearer do you need it to be???
Mugsie
In response to #26, F&C wrote, (The core of my argument is that Adam is a prototype for all of humanity. So, we might turn to Paul, 1 Cor 15: 21-22. Sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam–the propotype. )
Again, you are adding your OWN words to what the Bible actually says. Yes, sin and death came into the world through one man. That’s quite true. HOWEVER, it doesn’t say in 1 Cor 5: 21-22 that Adam was the prototype. That is your OWN word. The bottom line is that Adam and Eve both gave in to temptation and disregarded God’s directions to them. We are now suffering the effects of their original sin, INCLUDING homosexual activity. That wasn’t God’s plan for us. The Bible doesn’t say that. How can you say that it does? The whole message in the scriptures you are referring to is that death came into the world through a man (Adam) and now we can be resurrected from the dead through another man (Jesus). Everyone who belongs to Christ is given a new life. Now, here is what you refuse to accept. In order to belong to Christ, you have to believe that He is the only way to salvation. You have to acknowledge your sins and repent on your knees before Him and beg his forgiveness. You have to have “faith” in Him, which you clearly don’t seem to. The current presiding bishop of the Episcopal church doesn’t even believe in Christ’s divinity, that He’s still alive and sitting on the right hand of the Father. That is one of my biggest concerns with the church right now. How can one call him or herself a Christian and not believe what the Bible teaches about his Divinity?
Mugsie
In response to #30, F&C references the Canadian Prayer Book. I was raised with the Canadian Prayer Book. I have a copy right here. This is what it says in regards to marriage: (Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church. This holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended in holy Scripture to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered upon, or taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matriony was ordained. Matrimony was ordained for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman; for the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord; and for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, in both prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can show any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.)
So there you have it. It VERY MUCH matches the biblical description of marriage in Genesis 2:24, and yes, it does tell us that the purpose of the marriage is for procreation as God intended. Yes, due to our sinful nature and the sins of a man being carried on to the children, some people end up being unable to conceive children. However, the parties entering into the marriage have no way of knowing that. Their intent upon entering the marriage, if they take their vows seriously, is to procreate. I’m afraid their is no “optional” phrase regarding children. So, dream on!!!
So, again F&C, I’m not buying your argument here either.
Mugsie
In #33 F&C states: (Adam (as noted in Genesis 2:18) needs companionship to be fully human. This includes divine companionship and human companionship. Thus we have the creation of Woman. I have contested whether this is an exclusively heterosexual state of being. It is a human state of being. I believe that gay and lesbian people–as for heterosexual human beings–are created in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, human love as expressed in Scriptures such as the Song of Songs illuminates the relational essence of God. Your theology would deny the humanity of gay and lesbian people, relegating human love to a disorder. I would simply ask you, if you see a loving same-sex couple in your midst, will you miss your opportunity to glimpse the love of God?)
Whew! What a mouthful! I’m afraid my Bible doesn’t say that Adam needs companionship “to be fully human”. It does say that it is not good to be alone, which “might” mean he shouldn’t be lonely. But I’m not about speak for God.
You have contested whether this is an exclusively heterosexual state of being. However, where is your evidence in the Bible to contest that? Then you state “it is a human state of being.” Yes, Adam is definitely a “human state of being”, but it stops there.
Then you reference human love in the “Song of Songs” or “Song of Soloman” according to some translations as “illuminating the relational essence of God.” Again, the book of Song of Songs/Song of Soloman DOES dialog the love between a man and a woman. It’s quite specific in outlining “his” statements versus “her” statements. I don’t see any reference of a man speaking any words of erotic love about another man, or a woman speaking any words of erotic love about another woman.
No one is denying the humanity of gay and lesbian people, as you further state. What is being denied is that God approves of erotic sex between humans of the same gender. You say we relegate human love to disorder. I, personally, do relegate homosexual erotic activity to human disorder, as a result of the sinful nature of man.
So, you ask if I see a loving same-sex couple in my midst, will I miss my opportunity to glimpse the love of God? NOoooooo!!!!!!! What I would be glimpsing is an abominable since that has not been repented of. I would be glimpsing the evidence that those humans involved have not accepted Jesus as their savior and hence, have no faith that He will give them salvation if they believe in Him. He paid the price for our sins. He didn’t tell us to keep on sinning.
Sorry, another one I’m not buying!
Mugsie
Your theology would deny the humanity of gay and lesbian people, relegating human love to a disorder.
Well, no it doesn’t. In fact, I would argue that by reducing same-sex attracted persons to their sexuality, you are stripping them of their humanity. And, of course, it’s not “human love” that is disordered, but sexual attraction to one’s own sex – male-to-male and female-to-female.
I would simply ask you, if you see a loving same-sex couple in your midst, will you miss your opportunity to glimpse the love of God?
In the first place, I have known a lot of same-sex couples, so let’s not go there, and I would never assume that I know what is going on in people’s lives from what I see in public. Actually, I have yet to meet a couple I am certain is monogamous (I could tell a couple of stories, but won’t). And you know, it’s really none of my business. What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business. Unfortunately, the situation before us is in the streets, in the schools, in governent, and in the churches.
You know, God “leaks through” in all sorts of places. Many years ago, I was working at a large urban night shelter, and left after dark on a cold December night. Some buildings had just been removed, and the whole east side of town slopped away before me; the sky was moonless and alive with stars that seemed almost continuous with the city lights. It struck me with great force that I was in Bethlehem (it was Christmas week, after all), that the shelter was the stable, and that Christ was being born there. Now, please understand that had absolutely nothing to do with some romanticism about homeless folks. There were truly evil people there, drugs everywhere, manipulation, violence, and so on. But Christ comes where He will. Small kindnesses and goodness – true caritas – could yet be found coming from the most unlikely folk. But we are talking about moral, and healthy behavior, and eternal salvation, not the power of God to break through with what light we will allow.
D.C. (#35) – so, we should relax our moral teaching because society wants us to? We should relax our moral teaching because the sexual mores of our society are so out of step with what we teach that we are in danger of becomming extinct?
There was a soceity where almost all forms of sexual expression were allowed and encouraged. One of that soceity’s luminaries wrote that the only virgins were those who hadn’t been asked. Homosexual marriages were performed for heads of state and many in thought that the Christian Church wouldn’t last long. That society was the Roman society of the first and second centuries. No faith has been declared terminally ill more times than Christianity and it is the world’s largest faith today. Christianity is in the greatest decline where it’s teaching is being driven by society (Western Europe and North America). Christianity is growing where its teaching calls the society back into relationship with God and is counter to the mores of society (Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe).
Please don’t be displeased if I am unimpressed by your argument that Christianity must change or die. (Didn’t a bishop write a book about that some time?)
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Gagnon’s problem is that he doesn’t understand that the bible is a human production, reflecting the knowledge of the day and the opinions of the men who wrote it – and severely limited on this and many other issues as a result.
The heightened authority given to this fallible and often incoherent and contradictory text is the main problem with conservative theology.
#43, God says, Himself, in the Bible, that it is HIS inspired word. Look at John 17:17 where Jesus says himself, “teach them your word, which is truth.” But then if you buy what the TEC is teaching these days, you don’t even believe that Jesus is God!!!!
Then also look at 2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” Pretty powerful words! I’m not about to be so arrogant as to say that I know better than what the Bible says. Paul was made an apostle by Jesus, himself, on the road to Damascus. This is his 2nd letter to Timothy. No way do I have any authority to dispute these words, and neither to you!
You are welcome to think otherwise. He did give you free will. However, I don’t want to have to see what He does to you on that judgement seat for blaspheming His word. I would rather be obedient and not mock Him. It’s due to His own grace that I even have a life.
Thanks my Lord!
MerseyMike’s problem is that he doesn’t understand that homosexualist ideology is a human invention, reflecting the narrow concerns of a materialistic era and the psychological needs of the men and women who espouse it – and severely limited as a result.
The heightened authority given to this unproven, often incoherent and self-contradictory ideology is one of the main problems with contemporary popular culture.