From: RDehaan237@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 08:10:38 EDT
In a message dated 7/3/03 4:27:55 PM, jwburgeson@juno.com writes:
What John Burgeson (Burgy) has written below is to put a face on the problem
of homosexuality. We need that. It is too easy to argue abstractly and
theologically that homosexuality is a sin without consideration of the persons
involved. There is always the danger of placing homosexuals in a conceptual
box, condemning the box, and forgetting that inside the box are real people who
need to be treated as such.
More important, John argues that homosexuality should be discussed in the
context of a permanent, loving, committed relationship. I agree with him.
Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, does not address that condition. John, I,
and perhaps others who know, first hand, gays and Lesbians who are living in a
loving and committed relationship, and we understand that Paul is not dealing
with them. The homosexuals in committed relationships whom I have known
simply do not do the things that Paul condemns as sin. They do not refuse to
honor God as God or to give thanks to him, they do not boast in their own wisdom,
they have not exchanged the glory of God for idols. Moreover, I have no
reason to believe that God has given them up to every kind of wickedness
described in verses 29-32 (NRSV and Oxford Study Bible).
Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, as Burgy points out, is aimed at
brazen, uncommitted homosexuality of the kind we all condemn, as do homosexuals I
have known.
I also think it is a mistake to overemphasize the role of homosexuality in
the lives of gays and Lesbians who live in a committed relationship. Those who
live that way whom I have known lead ordinary lives. They work at jobs,
keep their households, worship and work at church, worry about making both ends
meet just as we all do. Their lives are not centered on the bedroom any more
than heterosexuals are. In so far as we think that homosexual acts are all
that gays and Lesbians live for, we do them a grave injustice.
I recommend that we stop arguing about the pros and cons of homosexuality in
the abstract and outside of a committed relationship. We all agree that the
latter is a sin, just as we all agree that heterosexual behavior outside of
marriage relationship is sinful. The issue, as I see it, is whether homosexual
persons living in a committed loving relationship, especially within a faith
community, are living in sin. I also would argue that we should not
extrapolate Paul's condemnation of blatant, uncommitted homosexuality to a loving
committed homosexual relationship. That relationship, I would argue, takes it
out of the purview of Romans chapter one, and places it closer to Gal. 3:28
where there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for all of
us are one in Christ. I take that to mean that a committed relationship to
Christ and each other are what count, not matters of gender, socio-economic
status, or ethnic origins.
But than, I'm no theologian, as is probably plain to see.
In peace,
Bob
> George wrote: "True. But then one has to ask the same question about
> some of the other things
> that Paul lists in this passage as consequences of the basic sin. Are
> covetousness, envy
> &c sometimes not sins?"
>
> Fair question. Let's see what I can do with it.
>
> The NIV is not the best translation, but I'll use it because most
> evangelicals seem to use it.
>
> "RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
> godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
> wickedness,
>
> OK. Paul is referring specifically to persons who are "wicked" and
> "suppress the truth." Now the friends of mine I referred to in earlier
> posts do not appear to fit this description. In that "all persons sin," a
> good Presbyterian tenet, of course they do. But their lifestyles are,
> except for their domestic living arrangements, indistinguishable from you
> or I or the typical Christian. All are church members, two are studying
> for the ministry, one has completed his education and is an ordained
> minister in a fellowship which has welcomed him and his partner. His
> sermons (I have heard him three times) are faithful to the gospel.
> Knowing such persons -- worshipping with them -- dining and
> fellowshipping in their homes, I am quite unable to identify Romans 1:8
> as a description of them.
>
> RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as
> God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
> foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they
> became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
> made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
>
> These good people know God. They glorify Him, and give thanks to him.
> They do not claim to be wiser than others; they are just people;
> Christians who are trusting in Jesus for salvation as you and I.
>
> RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
> hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one
> another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and
> served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised.
> Amen.
>
> Here, of course, is the tough verse. Is Paul referring to my good friends
> I have described above? If he is, then I must accept that scripture, and
> reject and condemn my friends.
>
> I think Paul has in mind the type of homosexual acts he knew about in his
> day -- ritual temple acts of male & female prostitution. Such are
> properly condemned, and fit the passage. Sex, same or different gender,
> outside a committed relationship is clearly proscribed by many
> scriptures.
>
> RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
> their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the
> same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
> inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
> other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
> perversion.
>
> That verse suggests that persons who do not conform to sex within a
> committed relationship are "given up on," and so continue in their sins,
> perhaps adding to them.
>
> RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain
> the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what
> ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of
> wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
> strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,
> insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
> disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless,
> ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do
> such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things
> but also approve of those who practice them.
>
> You asked about the same question about some of the other things that
> Paul lists in this passage as consequences of the basic sin. Are
> covetousness, envy &c sometimes not sins?
>
> All of the things described above seem to me to always be sin. And my
> friends do not in any way fit the description -- at least not in any way
> different than the typical Christian. Nor do they approve of those who
> practice them.
>
> In summary, my friends who are in same-gender domestic relationships, do
> not fit the pattern of Romans 1. I cannot find a way to apply that
> section of scripture to them. I have met -- perhaps -- 40 or 50 such
> persons in the past three years -- a number of them in a choral group
> called "The Gay Men's Choir." I have been casual friends with about a
> dozen, and close friends with three. We have prayed together; worshipped
> together. They have the Holy Spirit working in and through them as much
> as many "straight" Christians I have met.
>
> In a past life friend wife and I were active in the 60s Civil Rights
> movement. We've gotten the hate mail, threatening our children if we did
> not desist. Partly as a result of that we wound up with a mixed race
> family, and now a mixed culture family as son #4 was married last month
> to a Vietnamese lady. I see the struggle for gay rights as a natural
> continuation of that activity, and that is why I write.
>
> Peace
>
> John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 08:11:20 EDT