Rather than yield John, I have a few questions, and I would be interested in how you would respond to them:

1 Why ought your reading of scripture - namely that St Paul is condemning sacral homosexuality, be given any general credit, when the apostle mentions homosexual offenders in conjunction with drunkards, fornicators, idolators, thieves etc, in 1 Corinthians 6.  Is lifestyle-thievery okay, because the apostle is only condemning sacral theft?  Obviously Not.  You’d have to concede the list includes some ordinary garden-variety sins, all of which simply cannot be “read down” in the way you would say one of them is. 

2. On what basis could it be thought that St Paul was speaking of rape by soldiers, when the Pax Romana had banished civil strife from Archeaa and Asia Minor for several generations?  Invading armies do indeed do lots of terrible things, but no such horror had been inflicted in Corinth within any of his readers’ living memory.

3.  Given the literary evidence that classical Greeks were familiar with the concept of an ingrained homosexual inclination in some people (e.g. Plato’s Symposium), why should it be thought that St Paul was ignorant of this phenomenon?

In reading other advocates of the arguments you propound (e.g. Spong), it has always struck me that they relied on a fair degree of ignorance and credulity about the ancient world and its culture:  are not the cities to which Paul addressed his letters rather more like our own than we care to admit? 

Finally, and you may think I am being flippant, but surely it is a serious issue given the relative rarity of monogamy in gay culture…

4.  If homosexual activity per se is not sinful, why should promiscuity make it sinful?  Why shouldn’t homosexuals (on how you read the word of truth) be able to do whatever, whenever, with whomever - if done consensually and without abusiveness?

Heterosexual monogamy is specifically upheld by Jesus.  But when it comes to what men do with one another, or women, there is not a single word of condemnation in scripture that your reading would not already have distinguished by limiting it to some other, no longer applicable, context.  I know that people like to extend scriptural passages about marriage to gay relationships nowadays, but surely that is a rather flimsy basis on which to condemn a gay person’s choice to embrace a promiscuous lifestyle?

john clapton - 06 May 2008 11:01 AM

In the face of such erudite argument, I yield.  You win.

Keep your sarcasm and check your facts. You’re the one making the assumptions.

David A, it really does help to actually engage in the debate (as Alan has done above) rather than just get angry/snarky. Everyone’s welcome to their point of view, but it’s much better if we’re explaining our positions in the context of the ongoing discussion.

1 Why ought your reading of scripture - namely that St Paul is condemning sacral homosexuality, be given any general credit, when the apostle mentions homosexual offenders in conjunction with drunkards, fornicators, idolators, thieves etc, in 1 Corinthians 6.

My understanding is that Paul here refers to sodomy, which we know (from the Greeks) to have been pederastic in ancient times.  Paul thought that this kind of sex was contrary to the natural order (as he says, of lesbianism, in Rom 1)

Whether or not Paul had in mind sacral homosexuality I don’t know.

Also, translations like “homosexual offenders” are imprecise, as I think Justice Kirbs said in his recent letter to Rev Laney.
...

3.  Given the literary evidence that classical Greeks were familiar with the concept of an ingrained homosexual inclination in some people (e.g. Plato’s Symposium), why should it be thought that St Paul was ignorant of this phenomenon?

Romans 1 attributes homosexual activity not to any innate disposition but to idolatry.  This indicates that Paul thought it was contrary to the natural/created order.  For him it represented an entrapment in carnal desire.  But it is now commonly held that for a stable minority of the population, it is their natural disposition.  So should these prohibitions still apply? 

4.  If homosexual activity per se is not sinful, why should promiscuity make it sinful?  Why shouldn’t homosexuals (on how you read the word of truth) be able to do whatever, whenever, with whomever - if done consensually and without abusiveness?

Because promiscuity shows a lack of trust; it is often abusive of oneself and another.  Surely that’s quite obvious?  I don’t really get too worried about sexual experimentation among the young, but I think such a pattern of life can’t be continued in the long term without great harm.

Christopher Tyack - 06 May 2008 07:27 PM

Because promiscuity shows a lack of trust; it is often abusive of oneself and another.  Surely that’s quite obvious?  I don’t really get too worried about sexual experimentation among the young, but I think such a pattern of life can’t be continued in the long term without great harm.

It’s not obvious to me, No.  Promiscuity doesn’t always, or even predominantly, involve a lack of trust; it may be negotiated or consensual, such as in the case of so-called “open relationships”.

As for whether an act is “abusive of oneself and another” - I simply don’t understand what that means.  Can you elaborate, perhaps with reference to any passages of scripture you think might have some bearing on it.

Under the test of whether the act shows lack of trust or is abusive - is there any justification for the maintenance of the church’s hostility of polygamy?  I’m unable to see it, myself.

Thank you Alan for your considered response.  It is clear that we see the issue differently, and that is fine.  My starting point in this thread was to consider the possibility of an alternative understanding of the scriptures that refer to homosexuality.

The reason I suggested that there might be an alternative meaning was not because I considered that I had that all worked out; it was just that I know some gay and lesbian people who are deeply committed Christians, in whose lives the fruit of the Spirit are manifest and through whom God clearly works.  If it were the case that their same-sex relationship was so intrinsically abhorrent, as seems to be the view among some Christians, how can this be?

There are just two options.  Either they are deluded and living a sham of a Christian life - as has been suggested by some - or their relationship with a person of the same sex is not considered by God to be a barrier to the working of the Spirit in their lives.  And if the latter is the case, then we need to reconsider what we think those Scriptures mean.

As I said above, it is worth thinking about.

john clapton - 08 May 2008 11:00 AM

Thank you Alan for your considered response.  It is clear that we see the issue differently, and that is fine.  My starting point in this thread was to consider the possibility of an alternative understanding of the scriptures that refer to homosexuality.

The reason I suggested that there might be an alternative meaning was not because I considered that I had that all worked out; it was just that I know some gay and lesbian people who are deeply committed Christians, in whose lives the fruit of the Spirit are manifest and through whom God clearly works.  If it were the case that their same-sex relationship was so intrinsically abhorrent, as seems to be the view among some Christians, how can this be?

There are just two options.  Either they are deluded and living a sham of a Christian life - as has been suggested by some - or their relationship with a person of the same sex is not considered by God to be a barrier to the working of the Spirit in their lives.  And if the latter is the case, then we need to reconsider what we think those Scriptures mean.

As I said above, it is worth thinking about.

It definitely not the latter.

How many times do we need to read the same references for their understanding to be clear? It seems to me that the confusion exists only for those who want the answer to be different.

1 Cor 6:8-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Where is the ambiguity?

David wrote:

How many times do we need to read the same references for their understanding to be clear? It seems to me that the confusion exists only for those who want the answer to be different.

That’s the nub of it.  There is a revisionist reading of every passage in the Bible in which same sex unions or same sex sex are mentioned, and none of them stacks up.

We are told that in Sodom there was no homosexuall sin in Genesis 19:4-8, because the hebrew word ‘to know’ means the visitors to Lot simply wanted to know if the men/angels inside Lot’s house were spies.  That argument fails as soon as one reads verse 8.  In this passage to know is to have sexual intercourse. 

It It is argued that the word ‘arsenokoites’ means not those having homosexual sex but only those who commit pederasty or even, in some people’s view, only male prostitutes.  However, it is clear that Hellenistic Jews, possibly Paul himself, coined this term from the OT Greek translation of Leviticus, where we read: “With a man do not lie as one lies with a woman.” The words in the Greek in Leviticus 18;22 and 20:13 have the2 parts of the word Paul joins together to form ‘arsenokoites’ .  Now there is no suggestion that this text deals only with pederasty or prosititution.  See also Romans 1:32.  Paul takes the prohibiton from Leviticus and applies it in this NT era, demonstrating that this porohibiton is not about being ritually unclean or impure in the OT era, but rather this prohibition is about sexual immorality, sexual sin.  See also Jude 7. 

Thomas Scmidt makes the excellent point in his book: ‘Straight and Narrow’ that : ‘When any same-sex act- with angels, with prostitutes, with boys, with mutually consenting adults- is evaluated in relation to the marital union of male and female, it falls short of the plan of God present from creation.’

Philip Griffin - 08 May 2008 05:29 PM

Thomas Scmidt makes the excellent point in his book: ‘Straight and Narrow’ that : ‘When any same-sex act- with angels, with prostitutes, with boys, with mutually consenting adults- is evaluated in relation to the marital union of male and female, it falls short of the plan of God present from creation.’

Sure, but in terms of falling short of the plan of God from creation then surely homosexual orientation fits the bill also, but do you consider that sinful Philip?

I’m not trying to be tricky or anything, I just think there’s an open question, which I raised a while back, as to whether our current attitudes of gay sex being sinful, but gay orientation being not sinful (in and of itself) is really what the authors of the books which discuss homosexuality had in mind.

Yes, I would call such sexual behaviour sin, as Scmidt does in his book on the subject.  I think the passages that deal with homosexuality in the Bible make this very clear.

Hi Luke,

I suspect there is a subtle but important distinction between orientation and desire.  That is, while my heterosexual orientation is a constant part of me that does not mean I am or have to be in a constant state of sexual desire for any one female or females in general.  Desire is something which needs to be aroused, and part of being Christian is recognising when and with whom desire should be aroused.

So I think it could be consistent to argue that homosexual orientation, while a consequence of the fall, is not sinful in and of itself.  However, a decision to arouse homosexual desire may well be, even if that desire does not lead to sexual acts with another person (one would say the same for example of a heterosexual person viewing pornography).  Of course, sometimes desire catches us unaware - the issue is whether we choose to fuel it or acknowledge it and move on.

So I agree with that a simple orientation/act dichotomy probably doesn’t do justice to either the Biblical material ( see esp Romans 1:24, which talks about desires and acts, but not orientation) or to human experience.  But we can abandon the dichotomy without adopting a revisionist understanding of sexuality.

Of course, in a pastoral sitation all the above needs to be applied with a sensitivity and compasssion which cannot easily be expressed in a forum like this.

Mark

Sorry Philip, are you saying such sexual orientation (ie same sex attraction) is considered sinful in the bible (in and of itself) or only acting on that orientation (ie same-sex sexual behaviour) is sinful? The behaviour bit confused me.

Sorry, Luke, I misread your question.

Homosexual orientation is not dealt with in the Bible as far as I can see, and so the Bible does not give us an explicit comment on this.

It would seem to me that the answer to your question would be: I have all kinds of unhelpful thoughts and desires, and my task is not to succumb to them.  When I resist these desires, I am not sinning.  If I have a passion for same sex sex, then I need to seek God’s enabling to resist that passion. 

Now as to what causes that passion in the first place, I would say there is no definitive answer.  Why do some have an orientatation towards gambling, or alcoholism?  Such orientations are part of the human condition in this fallen world, and in a general sense we are all afflicted with orientations that lead us away from that for which we were created.  However, it is when we act on any orientation that we sin. 

If a man looks at a pretty woman he is usually prone to feel attracted.  But if he looks at her to cause her to lust (Matthew) then he has acted on this and sinned.

@Mark, oops didn’t see your reply before I replied to Philip. Anyway yes I understand what you’re saying, and I guess we would call that lust, and lust is sinful for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual

However on the heterosexual side there must be a non-sinful desire for sex, because at the very least it is what encourages procreation! And a part of that non-sinful desire (ahh I feel the English language failing me..) is what flows into marriage etc in a non-sinful way.

However if a homosexual person has the same non-lustful desires for sexual companionship that a heterosexual person does, is that sinful?

And more to the point, does the bible make that distinction?

Hi Luke,

both the psychology and theology gets a little complex at this point, I suspect (which why I don’t want to see the Anglican Communion spending the next generation debating homosexuality, because it will tend to focus conservatives on merely defending their position, rather than thinking through its pastoral implications)

I wouldn’t equate sexual desire with lust, since ‘lust’ suggests a desire which is always inappropriate.

What of orientation and desire?? I (very tentatively) suggest that one part of all sexual orientation, whether same sex or not, is a longing for things like intimacy and companionship which are not ‘sexual’ i and of themslves.  They may however find expression in a relationship which includes sexual acts, but they may also be expressed in a relationship that is not. Part of listening to the Scriptures involves deciding when sexual acts are or are not appropriate.

In individual instances this can be quite complex.  I’ve known of relationships between same-sex couples which were celibate but intimate ie they lived together and would express affection at the level of hugging but nothing more.  Were they placing themselves in a situation that risked inflaming inappropriate desires?  That’s a question probably only they were in a position to answer.  But certainly they were aware of their orientation even though they chose for reasons of conscience to abstain from certain actions.

Mark.