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.
That is simply incorrect. There is no good evidence that homosexual attraction is a fixed and unalterable trait (like skin colour, but unlike addictions such as you have mentioned). Indeed the opposite is the case.
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.
Just to let you know, I am a Christian who has come to terms with the fact that Paul considers homosexual acts to be unnatural (as in against the intended natural order, as opposed to not occuring to some degree within a fallen creation) and idolatrous, but I am not of the opinion that he is wrong. Can you briefly indicate why you believe Paul is wrong on this issue? And also on what other issues Paul is or could be wrong, e.g. justification by faith, the need to shun greed, etc.?
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’?
Christopher, your stuff on Paul is overly simplistic to the point of being a distortion. Paul does actually use the OT quite frequently, and studies have shown he was apt to use Deuteronomic legislation to frame his Christian ethical stance. Further, to suggest that Paul argued from ‘nature’ is dodgy - what does Paul mean by ‘nature’ except that God is the Creator, and therefore that what is ‘natural’ is not outside of God’s purview. ‘Nature’ must be seen to be in line with God, not something abstracted from God (as your comment suggests).
The radical equality in Christ that you speak of is true - but your application of it to homosexuality is false. And it seems like a case of pitting Paul against Paul - ie., picking the bits that suit your position, redefining those that don’t. The ‘radical equality’ gets wheeled out to justify just about anything these days. But you need to ask, what does this radical equality mean within the context of Galatians 3? Then and only then can we take the next step and see what contexts it may apply to.
The point of Gal 3:26-28 is ‘Who can be an heir of Abraham?’ The usual points that precluded a person from being a legal heir in Jewish society - that of race (ie., Gentiles aren’t racially Abraham’s offspring), sex (females generally weren’t legally able to inherit because they weren’t sons - and in this context being a ‘son of God’ is vital [not ‘a child of God’ as per the NIV]), and status (slaves generally couldn’t inherit either) - are no longer an issue for those in Christ.
But you misrepresent Paul entirely by using this argument of Gal 3 to suggest that this passage represents a ‘radical equality’ that allows for sexual immorality (i.e., homosexuality). That would be like reading a friend’s letter half way through and not reaching the conclusion. Gal 5:13 says ‘do not use your freedom [in Christ] to indulge the sinful nature’ (see also Gal 5:19).
And you continue with a reference (again from Galatians - this time Gal 6:2) to ‘the law of Christ’ not being oppressive. However, what is the definition of ‘oppression’? To allude to Romans - the great powers that oppress humanity are Sin and death. The freedom that Christ brings is a freedom from sin, not a freedom to sin. And what does ‘the law of Christ’ mean in this context anyway?
It’s this kind of sloppy interpretation and application of the Bible with regard to this topic that sees people you disagree with constantly offering ‘exegesis of a few words here and there’. By the way, you missed one, ‘what does malakoi mean? (1 Cor 6:9 - because it’s the other word used in combination with ‘arsenokoitai’ - arsenokoitai being the active male partners in homosexual sex, malakoi being the passive male partners)
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.
Philip, I beg to differ. Actually, I think Romans 1 does a pretty good job of it. What it targets repeatedly is the plunging of our ‘desires’ into a chaotic and sinful mess as the just judgment of God - giving us over to what our sinful desires want. The word desire, lusts, or related concepts like ‘thoughts’ are used a number of times in Rom 1:18-32. And, with specific application to homosexual ‘orientation’, it is a corrupting of desire. You could put heterosexual lust in the same category.
I suspect that this is the case when we are looking at texts in the Scriptures that refer to the abomination of homosexuality. From my reading of them, they are referring to something quite different from the consenting and loving relationships that many same-sex couples live in today.
They seem to relate universally to sacral homosexuality - temple prostitution of adults and minors - and the abuse and degradation of those over whom the offender seeks to exert power. The homosexual rape of people in a country overtaken by foreign forces was as common in the Ancient Near east as it is today - Abu Ghraib in Iraq being a glaring contemporary example. Such behaviour is abominable by any standards, not just those of Almighty God, and it is clear that this is behaviour of a very different order to what we understand of homosexuality today.
John, this is an oft quoted argument on Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. However, it has been discredited repeatedly. E.g., a study by a guy (Bruce Winters) at Tyndale House in the UK on the use of the two terms used in 1 Cor 6:9 (see my above post) has demonstrated that these terms weren’t specifically technical terms for pederasty or homosexual rape of minors. Despite these findings, and repeated corrections of the above position you put forward, the ‘sacral homosexuality’ view still persists unfortunately.
Ok, Jason, let me be more precise. Paul did cite the law, but it was no longer determinative for him. Christians are no longer subject to the law, having the gift of the spirit. They are free, provided their actions are not contrary to the spirit (idolatrous, carnal etc) or contrary to nature. Rom 1 is an argument from nature.
So Paul thinks that gay and lesbian sex is ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1). It is idolatrous and an entrapment in perverted lust. Clearly he has no concept of ‘orientation,’ Jason. But to test whether he is correct, I recommend you meet with gay and lesbian people, invite them into your homes, and see whether they experience their sexuality as God-given. Decide for yourself whether these people are caught in a mad cycle of lust, whether they are perverts, or whether they are simply trying to live life in accordance with their nature.
Secondly, Janice refers me to Gagnon, who says that homosexual orientation is not determined but changeable, even including an element of choice. Well, one might also say that left-handedness is not determined genetically, because it is subject to environmental influences and its incidence varies. Lefties really do “choose” to use their left hands, when they could have struggled (maybe in the face of fearful punishment) to write as God intended! It appears that “choice” is only cooperation with a prior disposition, given before rational deliberation. So it is with homosexuality, and Gagnon cannot prove otherwise.
Gagnon’s main point is that gay unions are formally incorrect and therefore immoral. He likens them to polygamy or incest--two other formally incorrect unions. But he is wrong. Those relationships have no deep-seated basis in anyone’s personality. And we do not object to them chiefly on formal grounds anyway. We say that women should not be objectified, that the relationship of nurture between parent and child should not become eroticised, that the offspring of incestuous relationships are subject to medical complications, and so on.
The bottom line is this. To preclude certain people from loving relationships on the basis of something they can’t change is not fair. Some Christians are saying that this treatment is contrary to Christian freedom, equality and charity. They are saying that Paul did not understand the givenness of homosexuality. That is not “picking and choosing” but just reading the bible critically--now a mainstream practice.
Well the Spirit is prior to scripture. The early Christians were not ‘bible-believers’ in any modern sense. Before the NT was even written, they believed in the Spirit of Christ in the church, especially in the sacramental meal. That is my basic approach.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I do detect a little patronising tone though.
Christopher Tyack - 21 May 2008 05:16 PM
Ok, Jason, let me be more precise. Paul did cite the law, but it was no longer determinative for him.
Determinative for what? Salvation - then, no. But Christian ethics? Yes. Paul did cite the law, but he also did more. There are clear examples of Paul quoting OT law as determinative in shaping Christian ethics - not free from the law’s fulfilment in Christ, but reinterpreted through the ‘lens’ of Christ. Take for example Ephesians 6:1-6 (I think) where Paul quotes the command for children to obey parents, not so that they will live long ‘in the land’ (as per OT law), but so that they may live long on the earth. Further, earlier, in Eph 5:22-31, Paul finishes the section by quoting from Genesis 2 when it comes to defining marriage. Again, he sees the OT as determinative - but interpreted through the lens of Christ. These are just two of many examples (1 Cor 9 - quoting the law in reference to the cattle treading grain, and applying it to Christian ministry).
You are bordering on a Marcion’s view of the OT - eliminating anything OT that doesn’t suit your point.
Christians are no longer subject to the law, having the gift of the spirit. They are free, provided their actions are not contrary to the spirit (idolatrous, carnal etc) or contrary to nature. Rom 1 is an argument from nature.
So Paul thinks that gay and lesbian sex is ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1). It is idolatrous and an entrapment in perverted lust. Clearly he has no concept of ‘orientation,’ Jason.
Again, you abstract ‘nature’ from God - or worse, you conclude that since something is supposedly genetic (that is, ‘natural’), God must have endorsed it. Romans 1 is partly an argument ‘from nature’, but predominantly an argument that is God-centred (Rom 1:16-18, 24, 26, 28 for example). And God is the Creator of, and determiner of what might rightly be called ‘nature’.
But to test whether he is correct, I recommend you meet with gay and lesbian people, invite them into your homes, and see whether they experience their sexuality as God-given. Decide for yourself whether these people are caught in a mad cycle of lust, whether they are perverts, or whether they are simply trying to live life in accordance with their nature.
I’ve done this several times with more than one person. You’re assuming that I haven’t actually thought this through in any great detail from a pastoral and theological perspective.
I’ve written enough for now, so I’ll leave others to engage with your second point.
Well the Spirit is prior to scripture. The early Christians were not ‘bible-believers’ in any modern sense. Before the NT was even written, they believed in the Spirit of Christ in the church, especially in the sacramental meal. That is my basic approach.
Actually, I take back my last comment. I haven’t written enough for tonight. Your comments demonstrate why it’s so important to understand the use of the OT in the NT. The NT church and apostles were ‘bible-believers’. Their thorough-going use of the OT, its themes and motifs shows that they’re about as ‘bible-believing’ as you can get.
Ok, Jason, let me be more precise. Paul did cite the law, but it was no longer determinative for him. Christians are no longer subject to the law, having the gift of the spirit. They are free, provided their actions are not contrary to the spirit (idolatrous, carnal etc) or contrary to nature. Rom 1 is an argument from nature.
So Paul thinks that gay and lesbian sex is ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1). It is idolatrous and an entrapment in perverted lust. Clearly he has no concept of ‘orientation,’ Jason.
In one way you’re correct, for Paul does not condemn an orientation, but a chosen lifestyle (and I think, neither is anyone here.) Sexual orientations are not the issue, but rather with who we choose to have sexual relationships with. Unless you’re suggesting people have no choice in who they have relationships with, orientations aren’t too important.
(And of course when there really is no choice, such as in cases of sexual abuse, there is no condemnation either.)
But in another way you’re wrong. Paul does have a concept of orientation which he calls the flesh, or the flesh nature. I don’t think Paul sees a distinct sexual orientation, which is more to the point: all aspects of our flesh nature have been corrupted. And for some people, this may even include a genetic disposition for homosexuality. To argue that because homosexuality may be largely genetic we must accept it is to deny the effects of the fall.
John, this is an oft quoted argument on Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. However, it has been discredited repeatedly. E.g., a study by a guy (Bruce Winters) at Tyndale House in the UK on the use of the two terms used in 1 Cor 6:9 (see my above post) has demonstrated that these terms weren’t specifically technical terms for pederasty or homosexual rape of minors. Despite these findings, and repeated corrections of the above position you put forward, the ‘sacral homosexuality’ view still persists unfortunately.
Well Jason, you entered this thread on a number of fronts. While I am not familiar with Winter’s particular work that you refer to, it is worth remembering that what may be “discredited repeatedly” to you is simply another side to the interpretive debate. and this is what is being debated here.
How to we work with the scriptures in this matter? Some say the Word is absolute, and that is fine. Some say that we can amend the apparent meaning of texts in the light of new knowledge - eg. the world is not flat.
Anglicans have generally been willing to admit to three formative factors in their understanding of theology - Scripture, Tradition and Experience. Some among us want to go back to Luther’s early phrase - sola scriptura - but the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason has stood the test of time.
The voices of those in this thread wanting us to consider another possible understanding of those Biblical References to homosexuality are simply wanting to say that there is room for our experience to influence what we think the Bible is saying.
Some feel that the Bible simply refers to certain acts in a context in which those acts are both degrading and unnatural, and that these references are not talking about sexual orientation. In a way this view is based in the existence of new Knowledge (Reason) about human sexuality that was not available to the writers of the Bible.
Others look at gay and lesbian people they know who profess faith in Jesus and when confronted with the same kinds of evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives that they see in straight friends, simply ask the question, “Can these texts mean what I thought they did?”
This is allowing our experience (Tradition) and knowledge (Reason) to inform our understanding of Scripture.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
