From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 11:55:27 EDT
I think we sometimes lose track that the Romans 1 passage starts out with
saying that because the people lost track of God, they had all the following
symptoms and ends up with Romans 2:1 that says that we all do the same
things and are all worthy of condemnation.
JOHN 3
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to CONDEMN the world; but that
the world through him might be saved.
and again,
1 CORINTHIANS 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor IDOLATERS, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And SUCH WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God.
It is not up to us to judge. If it is our decision, about ourselves - then
the subject becomes a different one. I have my opinions on that one, but
they are irrelevant to anyone else.
1 JOHN 4
6 We are of God: he that KNOWETH GOD heareth us; he that is not of God
heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that
loveth is born of God, and KNOWETH GOD.
And that is the true test. It says it right in the verse.
(And yes, I've quoted scripture, again. But, jiminy, isn't that our guide?)
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of RDehaan237@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 7:11 AM
To: jwburgeson@juno.com; gmurphy@raex.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Sin? Further thoughts
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 - 11:52:37 EDT