Alan, I don’t intend to give any scriptural evidence in support of my proposition that promiscuity is abusive of oneself and others.  One might have lots of consensual sex with lots of different people no doubt, but it is an inauthentic lifestyle.  It doesn’t allow for growth into relationship and community.  It shows a lack of trust, because commitment means trusting someone long-term and promiscuity is an absence of that commitment. 

Polygamy is not acceptable either because it unacceptably subordinates/disempowers women, among other things. 

I think what you are driving at is that if one supports gay sex, then one has to support all sorts of other unacceptable practices, because one has no scriptural anchor whatever.  But what I am saying is that ethics is broader than merely reading off prohibitions from the pages of scripture. 

When Paul faced ethical dilemmas, he did not start quoting the holiness code.  He talked about whether a practice accords with nature, whether it is carnal or spiritual, whether it “builds up,” or causes scandal, and so on.  That’s why I think we should bring all these general considerations to bear in the homosexuality debate instead of offering exegesis of a few words here and there.  So Paul thought homosexual activity was contrary to nature; are we bound to accept that, in light of new understandings, or shall we reason afresh? 

We also know that there is a radical equality in christ (’In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free’ etc) (sorry to wheel that one out again) and that Christ included those who were considered ‘unclean’ according to the law.  We know that the law of Christ is not oppressive (’my burden is light’...) All these considerations have their place, but I hardly ever hear them when people talk about homosexuality.  All I get is ‘what are the semantic limits of porneia?’ or ‘what does arsenokoitai mean’?

And to those who say that people who disobey the law cannot be christians, i say that the idea of grace is that we have new life as a free gift, in spite of our moral unworthiness.

Christopher Tyack said:

So Paul thought homosexual activity was contrary to nature; are we bound to accept that, in light of new understandings, or shall we reason afresh? 

Chris, to my reasoning, I guess we have to ask two questions about this:

1: Was Paul being guided, at all, by the Holy Spirit when he made a decision on this topic?
2: Should we dismiss scripture in light of the new ways of the world?

“All these considerations have their place, but I hardly ever hear them when people talk about homosexuality.  All I get is ‘what are the semantic limits of porneia?’ or ‘what does arsenokoitai mean’?”

I agree, Christopher.  I expect most conservatives would say that the meaning of these words is quite obvious and clear; but also that even if the scriptures were silent on the specific subject of homoexuality, the way God intends us to live our lives would be clear enough from numerous other passages of scripture endorsing marriage as a the only Godly context for sexual activity.

You have to disregard or distinguish a lot of scripture in order to make the general concept of “radical equality in Christ” do service for this cause. 

Of course, it comes down to what authority you think scripture has over us.  May we so construe some passages that they contradict others?  Does the Bible sit in judgment over us; or may we sit over it?

But even to say that it comes down to competing views on what authority scripture has is, I think, to narrow the true scope of the division.

It comes down to who or what we think God is?  And how we believe men and women relate to God?  Is God transcendance, or within?  Does God wand us to have “fulfilled lives” or to have a trusting faith in Him and His Word (these are simplistic alternatives, I know - but they begin to describe the competing concepts Christians use).  Has God truly spoken through the scriptures in an objective fashion?  Are there real eternal consequences to disregarding his laws?  What is salvation?

Behind the competing arguments about homosexual relations are - mostly but of course not always - entirely different answers to these questions:  although the different sides in this debate might use the same terminology - such as God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, Salvation - they mean such entirely different things by them that they amount to different religions.

That is not so say that many otherwise faithful Christians are not (on this understanding) just mistaken about this issue; but when I read the sermons of Anglicanism’s main standard-bearers for liberal sexuality, such as Katherine Jefferts-Schori or Gene Robinson, it isn’t just that they seem to treat the Bible very loosely; they do not seem to me to be commending faith in Christ at all, but something altogether different.

Excuse me guys if I might butt into this theological discussion, but noting the title of the thread I thought it worthwhile to draw your attention to a significant event the previous weekend to the one just completed.

Part 1

Last weekend the final piece in the ongoing saga of Relationship Registers and Civil Unions for homosexuals fell into place – I realise this issue has barely rippled the surface on this forum, but blood has been spilt over the issue, not just within the confines of the Labor Party or between homosexual activists and Christian lobby groups, but also pitting most of the parachurch groups – Saltshakers, Festival of Fife, Bill Muehlenberg, doughty culture wars warrior, Life Ministries, Endeavour Forum against the Australian Christian lobby and senior church leaders – Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian, big name Pentecostal churches to name a few. The problem has been whether to support relationship registers, now in place in Tasmania and Victoria – it is Federal Labor policy to have relationship registers in all states. These relationship registers have been fiercely condemned by the first group named above on the basis that they convey approval of the homosexual lifestyle. The second group basically deny that this is so (much as the existence of divorce laws does not convey approval of divorce) but rather argue the simple registration process as a mechanism for making it easier to access certain rights already in place in the law or about to be put into place and thereby taking the heat out of the charge toward same sex marriage.

This point hinges on the observation that there is a world of difference between a relationship register and civil partnership legislation: one secures property rights, the other the status of marriage, if by another name. (The first group for their own purposes have chosen to ignore this difference, likewise homosexual groups on occasion have said there is no difference between the two)

So what was so important about the weekend of the 3rd and 4th May?

Simply this. Mr Rudd advised Mr Stanhope, ACT Chief Minister that his proposed civil partnership legislation would be struck down, hence ending for the time being the push to what would have been in effect same sex marriage in Australia, for make no mistake, had Stanhope’s legislation not been rejected, the Victorian and Tasmanian legislation would have been undermined and we really would have had wall to wall same sex marriage around Australia.

In this way the strategy, not to say the prayerful hard work of the second group – Australian Christian Lobby and senior churchmen, has been seen to prevail. The significance of all this can be verified by checking out this article which appeared in The Australian.

What has been absolutely vital in the achievement of this outcome was the pre election work undertaken by Jim Wallace and the ACL in securing commitments from both sides of politics on this issue (amongst many issues as you will recall). In particular ACL was able to obtain the following undertaking from Federal Labor and I quote,

• Federal Labor does not support legislation to recognise same-sex marriage or civil unions.
• Labor supports the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship legislation based on the Tasmanian legislation which has no ceremony or celebrant and doesn’t mimic marriage.

On the 3rd May Labor honoured this undertaking, and Mr Stanhope of necessity capitulated.

This of course is not the end of the story.

On the 30th April, the Federal Attorney General, Mr McClelland announced that he would be bringing into Parliament at an early date amendments to alter around 100 federal laws granting equality to homosexual couples in areas such as tax, superannuation, social security, health, aged care, veterans’ payments, workers’ compensation and employment entitlements. This is not something which we welcome, I suggest, as it does amount to chipping away at the privileging of marriage, although not all issues are straight forward. Thus would we be opposed to granting benefits to a child because those responsible for caring for him/her are a homosexual couple? Refusing family benefits to the child of a homosexual couple would penalise the child on the basis of that relationship, something for which the child is not responsible.

In the State arena, in Victoria for instance, full equality was granted homosexual couples soon after the Bracks Labor Government came to power. Thus the Federal Government could be seen as catching up with State Governments.

There are ways of amending legislation (and as yet we do not know what is proposed) and some are less acceptable than others. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission we know has proposed “omnibus” legislation to the Federal Government that redefines ‘couple’ and ‘parent’ in non-gender terms. This is a simple approach from a legislator’s point of view but it actually gives away much more than some financial entitlements: it radically redefines our traditional understanding of couples and of parenthood, and rejects the uniqueness of marriage by suggesting that all relationships are the same.

I think this is going to be a difficult issue for us.

Part 2

Also, I personally think that in all our concern over the promotion of homosexuality, no matter how real and pressing those concerns are, it is possible to be overly fearful of the homosexual lobby and the gains it has and may yet still make. Christian marriage as the God given, God glorifying union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life has a tremendous attraction to it even for secular people. As Andrew Cameron, Moore College ethics lecturer has written, “The way to answer (the homosexual lobby) is over the long-haul, by living out God’s revealed alternative, by gently asking them to repent and rethink their view of sex and relationships—and by literally defending to the death our freedom to keep speaking about these things.”

Thanks for the updates, David, very useful.

The relationships register approach seems a far better way forward, both as a matter of justice and as a way of maintaining the distinction between other relationships and marriage.

Thanks Gordon.

Just this morning I received ”Life News” for April/May (Andrew Lansdown and Dwight Randall’s bimonthly missive) in which Jim Wallace and ACL have again been pilloried for their stand over relationship registers.

Once again we have this misinformation being put out and I quote from Randall’s article, “… there are no substantial differences between the two (ie, relationship registers and civil partnerships). Relationship registers grant homosexual and lesbian couples virtually all of the privileges that civil unions do.” To read The Australian article referred to earlier is to know that this is not so.

I find it very troubling that people, ie Christian people, in espousing a particular position are not more careful in painting the opposition position in a fair light, one that their opponents would themselves recognise as their position. I know this can be hard to do, but you will note in my post above I did say that the first group opposed relationship registers because according to their view it gave approval to the homosexual lifestyle or words to that effect. OK it may not be as they would say it but at least I’ve attempted to be fair!

Gordon said:

The relationships register approach seems a far better way forward, both as a matter of justice and as a way of maintaining the distinction between other relationships and marriage.

I’m happy you support gay partnerships (non-sexual no doubt) in some shape or form Gordon.  It is better for people to stay together domestically than to be required to separate.  I’m surprised actually, since I had you pegged as a hard-liner.

The sands must be shifting.

Christopher Tyack - 13 May 2008 01:03 PM

The sands must be shifting.

I’ve shifted my opinion on all sorts of things over the years, Christopher, but not on this one.

Gordo’s favouite Melbourne Anglican, Muriel Porter, wrote this article last week in The Australian. It seems to have been missed by the websites:
Highest praise for nuptials

Gordon Cheng - 18 April 2008 12:36 AM

What could be done to help people in this situation?

Going back to the original topic of this thread..

I think the thing that the church can do to help is to recognise that there are many people secretly dealing with unwanted same sex attraction within our ranks. Because it is such a taboo subject among Christians and is not preached about (in any helpful way anyway) they struggle in isolation.

What the church needs to do is recognise this reality and lift the taboo. If somewhere around 1-2% of people are affected, (the grossly inflated figure of 10% by kinsley is not supported even by pro gays scientists and is only a remnant of popular consciousnesses), then we should expect a few to suffer in every congregation.

The mens and womens ministry is probably the best place to tackle the topic in a more personal way, but the topic and how we should confront it in our own lives must be dealt with from the pulpit (or lectern :) ).

The reality that the issue of pronography is an even bigger problem for the church, likewise demands action where there is currently silence. A survey of American lay church leaders by Christianity Today found that nearly half had sought pornographic material in the last year. Thats staggering. What’s it like in Australian?

If somewhere around 1-2% of people are affected, .........., then we should expect a few to suffer in every congregation.

I too have read research that reaches the same percentages. However, as that statistic refers to the whole population, one cannot then refer that same rate to apply to a small gathering of people - be it a church or other group.

What the church needs to do is recognise this reality and lift the taboo

What exactly do you think should happen ?

Lars Norved - 19 May 2008 04:42 PM

The mens and womens ministry is probably the best place to tackle the topic in a more personal way, but the topic and how we should confront it in our own lives must be dealt with from the pulpit (or lectern :) ).

When was the last time you heard a seminar on same sex attraction? When was the last time when you heard a sermon that assumes then some in the congregation would be struggling with the issue of homosexuality?. When was the last time your mens breakfast seriously challenged the men of your church about the issue of pornography?

As for the percentages I actually think the church may well be the place people with unwanted same sex attraction do naturally gravitate to so I think the percentage may be higher rather then lower.

I’m afraid 1-2% just won’t do: the British Department of Trade and Industry has adopted a figure of 6%, based on some 15 years of study.  That’s the official figure in Britain.

Whatever the percentage of people affected, it does not alter the questions of principle involved.

Unfortunately people cannot remove or overcome sexual attraction, as it is an ontological category.  It is not at all like addictions to pornography or alcohol, which can be overcome.  Drinking alcohol is not a fundamental mode of being in the world.  What Kinsey usefully taught us is that sexuality occurs on a spectrum, with some people, at either extreme, being exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual.

In my view, Christians have to come to terms with the fact that Paul thought homosexual acts to be unnatural and idolatrous (Rom 1).  That is why they are prohibited, even amidst the moral freedom of the churches.  But Paul is not correct. 

No doubt this is difficult for evangelicals, but many have modified their stance with respect to evolution.  There is no reason why they cannot do so in this case too.

Christopher Tyack - 20 May 2008 05:37 AM

No doubt this is difficult for evangelicals, but many have modified their stance with respect to evolution.  There is no reason why they cannot do so in this case too.

Christopher,

What time do you go to bed, or were you just waking up, or had a brainwave in the night and sleep walked your way to the Computer?

Actually Christopher, we won’t be modifying our stance over homosexual practice. Fashions come and go. The longer this one goes on the clearer the evidence that homosexuality is bad for the nation, bad for the participants, bad for children who come into the care of homosexuals. There is a wealth of sociological evidence building for these assertions. I don’t intend unpacking this here but that can be done.

There is simply no way that Christians who hold confessional, traditional, orthodox, evangelical (however any group of Christians wish to be known) views will shift. That doesn’t mean that friendship with or compassion for homosexuals is withheld. To understand the position of such people, a good place to start is Robert Gagnon’s “The Bible and Homosexual Practice”.