This is a really interesting post and very relevant. Thank you all for your contribution.
I thought I’d push the discussion down anther track. I’m just wondering how David (and others who are arguing that homosexuality is not immoral ) would define ‘sin’ and work out if something is sinful (or immoral).
1. I’m trying to figure it out from this:
‘There is an objective order, which the law foreshadows.  But this new, higher order is only discoverable in the spirit.  For a Christian, ethics is not about compliance with rule, but spiritual discernment, as I have argued.’
Why is ‘spiritual discernment’ objective and not subjective? What is the process exactly, i.e. how do we work out the will of God? And what is the basis of the process - is it from the Bible or elsewhere?
2. Is the discernment determined by ‘new knowledge’? If it is how reliable is it? Today’s new knowledge could be tomorrow’s superstition. I’m a bit troubled by the idea that our ethics is determined by ‘scientific knowledge’. I wouldn’t have thought that this is what science is seeking to do. Perhaps someone can help me with this.
3. There is a lot of discussion on whether homosexuality is a choice of not or a given. The assumption in part is that if something is a given then it can’t be immoral or sinful. Can someone can explain how they’d come to this? 
I guess wht I’m thinking of is if this were true then does it follow that we must therefore accept all other behaviour that is given, and if not, why not?
My quote [#123] is from Jenny Deaves who was describing her incestuous relationship with her father. What if (and there might be) ‘new knowledge’ to show that incest, pedophilia or serial murder is not a matter of choice. Does it follow that we would embrace these? I’m not sure if this has been dealt with in the thread so far.

Would it be helpful to focus on incest and/or polygamy as particular case studies as they raise similar issues of universal sexual moral standards and cultural relativism?

G’day Christopher,

Thanks for your posts. I agree that the Anglican formula of Scripture, Tradition, Reason is useful. Where I would differ from you is how you define Tradition and Reason. Tradition is tradition of the church across the ages, not experience. Experience is another category altogether, so that we actually have four categories, not three: Scripture, Tradition (of the church), Reason (that is, using our brain), and Experience.

I have no problem with having Tradition, Reason, and Experience inform our understanding of Scripture - however, God is Lord of his Word, his written word as well as his incarnate Word. That means, while *our experience* may be useful to help evaluate our understanding of Scripture, God’s lordship of his word means that our experience must be subject to Scripture (and hence to God) rather than additional, or abstracted from Scripture. We must always hold our experience up to the measure of Scripture and ask, “Does it conform to Scripture, does our experience make sense in light of Scripture etc.” Likewise, we must do the same with Tradition and Reason. For, in the end, our reason is fallible, our experience is distorted by sin, and our tradition is never complete. And experience is terribly ambiguous - whose experience do we choose to believe? My experience is, homosexual relationships are more damaging than good for people - Christian or not. It just so happens that this accords with my theological point of view.

The second point - you say,

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.

But there are assumptions here about what the writers of the Bible understood and explained about sexuality and what our culture knows and understands about sexuality. First, there’s the assumption that the Bible writers had a far inferior understanding of a number of things, including the understanding of sexuality that what we *now* have due to psychology of sexuality etc. That is, they are primitive and unsophisticated, but we’re modern and sophisticated in our knowledge. This assumption does a great injustice to the ancient world.  Second, that what the Bible writers knew about sexuality could, in no way, match up with what we understand about ‘orientation’ today. 

In relation to your other post- sorry I haven’t made myself clearer. When you say ‘orientation’, it appears as if you are using it as somewhat equivalent to ‘nature’ - as in, ‘homosexuality is in that person’s *nature*/orientation’. Paul understands heterosexuality as the true *nature*/orientation - so homosexuality is against *nature*. It then appears as if you say that, because we now understand from science etc (which is questionable, by the way) that homosexuality is within a person’s *nature*/orientation, Paul’s words need to be updated.

My criticism (if I’ve understood you correctly) is this: Paul sees *nature* as defined by God, and in Rom 1 in a context where God is Creator. So nature and God’s revelation of what “natural” means (according to the OT) is definitive for Paul when it comes to sexuality. Sexuality, for Paul, must be in line with God’s creative intent.

Regarding the OT law, you are right that Paul seems to show some ambivalence towards the law - but then he has roaring endorsements of the law as well - the law is holy, righteous, and good, for example. And Paul’s *usage* of the law tells us a lot about what he thinks of it, and how he sees it operative in the Christian life. As a means of salvation it is out altogether. As a means of informing us about God, his standards and plans for the world, then it is highly relevant. Indeed, when the law is seen through Christ - as the ‘end/goal of the law’ - the law is able to be Christianly (if I can make up a word) applied to everyday life.

That’s enough for the moment.

Jeremy Halcrow - 27 May 2008 02:01 PM

Would it be helpful to focus on incest and/or polygamy as particular case studies as they raise similar issues of universal sexual moral standards and cultural relativism?

No, I don’t think so. Homosexuality raises specific ways in which people consider how to read scripture. Lets consider homosexuality on its own. Appeals to other represhenisible acts have no bearing other than to people who cannot read scripture other than in a fundamentalist way...somthing Sydney has long argues it does not do

Okay, I wrote what I did and will not delete what I said in the interests of integrity...but I may have overstated my position

I’m not sure what you mean Adrian. Can you please explain.
I think the issue of homosexuality has a lot of similarity with incest, rape and child abuse. They can be grouped under the category of biblical ethics, whch means it more than just an issue of how to read the Bible. Although hermenutics obvious has a bearing. Ethics is more akin to systematic theology.
Evangelicals (at least this one) isn’t just arguing that homosexuality is immoral ‘because the Bible says so chapter and verse’. We would say that homosexuality is immoral vis-a-vis biblical ethics, which is arrived at by careful exegesis but as others have pointed out withint the matrix of reason, experience and tradition.
I think what you’re confusing is that evangelicals come to the same general conclusions about homosexaulity as fundalemtalists, but via a different route.
With due respect, I actualyl suspect that your approach to the issue of sexual ethics is more akin a fundamentalist view of the Bible, which ignores the whole and lend itself to misreading the parts and eisegesis.

Brian Tung - 31 May 2008 02:49 PM

I think the issue of homosexuality has a lot of similarity with incest, rape and child abuse.

Hi Brian. I suggest that your comment above is highly inflammatory and unhelpful.

You’re incorrectly implying that homosexual acts are ‘similar’ to sexual acts where of one party imposes their sexual desires upon another. This may occasionally be the case (just as it may occasionally happen between husband and wife) but surely (from a theological perspective) it would be much more reasonable to equate homosexual acts with any sexual activity outside marriage.

Hi Angus,
I have no intention to be inflammatory or unhepful. I apologise if I have. Just to clarify things:
1. Are you saying that the nature of homosexuality is different to rape for example because rape involves violence or force? If so then are we saying that morality when it comes to sexual matters is largely determined on the basis of consent? And if so, then it follows that all sexuality activities where consent can and is given must therfore be moral.  Am I understanding your position correctly?
This leads to my first confusion. So far the case put forwrd for homosexuality not being immoral is that it’s ‘natural’ and has nothing to do with choice (in fact, gays can’t choose whether to be gay or to embrace a gay lifestyle). And if I’ve understood you rightly, why then is consent relevant in sexual ethics?
2.  Íf I’ve wrongly understood you then yu’re suggesting that sexual sins or immorality that doesn’t involve violence (such as adultery) is a different order of sin. I’m interested to know, if ths is the case, then what is the basis of its ‘wrongness’, and why.

Brian Tung - 31 May 2008 03:25 PM

1. Are you saying that the nature of homosexuality is different to rape for example because rape involves violence or force?

Yes, they are very different because homosexual sex is generally consensual.

If so then are we saying that morality when it comes to sexual matters is largely determined on the basis of consent?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that there are degrees of unhelpful (naive, selfish, destructive) behaviour - some is much more destructive than others. While any selfish, destructive behaviour is not pleasing to God (ie ‘sinful’ in Christian jargon) what you’ve suggested is misleading and polarising. The implication is we ought to fear (and possibly “lock up") homosexuals just as we do paedophiles and perpetrators of rape and incest. Anyhow, in the Bible there’s nothing to suggest that homosexual sex is any more ‘sinful’ than any sex outside marriage (or even just daydreaming about sex outside marriage for that matter (Matt 5:28)) so I’ll ask you why do you feel the need to compare it with more violent sexual acts?

Hi Angus,

Provocative Yes. Inflammatory????

what you’ve suggested is misleading and polarising. There’s nothing to suggest that homosexual sex is any more ‘sinful’ than any sex outside marriage

As I mentioned, it’s precisely because I think all sexual sins ought to be dealt with together because as I undersand it, the basis for treating them as immoral is the same.

Brian, would you put fornication in the same category of rape and child abuse?

As far as I understand the Bible, Yes.

So how would you describe this category?

And is it a Biblical category? Is everything that you’d include in it put together in the Bible somewhere? Are the punishments for doing things in this category consistent?

As far as I understand the Bible, Yes

Were you so busy reading Leviticus that you missed those bits about protecting those weaker than ourselves, “the widow and the fatherless” and Jesus words about treating others as ourselves?

ANybdy who cannot distinguish the moral difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex can’t understand much of the bible at all and frankly I think their moral compass must be so far off as to make them dangerous to society.

NB These comments are not about the morality of homosexuality, I think people must read the bible and interpret it for themselves on that on matters of personal ethics.

Dannii wrote:

Are the punishments for doing things in this category consistent?

Not to diminish your concerns about differentiating between how various sins should be punished in this world but, in the end, the wages of all sin is death and I wonder if that isn’t what Brian is getting at.