From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 11:44:32 EDT
I can understand the difficulty people have in appealing to the
Christian doctrine of Creation in the discussion of sexuality. At the
very least, creation bears witness to a creative intention on the part
of God. Why then, is there not more appeal to this basic Christian
belief in discussions of homosexuality? The doctrine of Redemption is
based on a belief that God's intended world bears the abuse of humanity
in the broadest range of relationships. How can you understand Romans
without bringing God's creative intentions into the discussion? Richard
B. Hays in his THE MORAL VISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, citing places
from Genesis on where it is clear that God has made man and woman for
one another goes on the say "This normative canonical picture of
marriage provides the positive backdrop against which the Bible's few
emphatic negations of homosexuality must be read." His elaboration of
this canonical perspective is then considered from the three images of
community, cross, and new creation. [since he appeals so often to
creation to support this threesome, I think he should include creation
as a basic image in his methodology]. Redemption does not trump
creation, only sin!
Graham
George Murphy wrote:
>John W Burgeson wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Burgy -
> I think you are reading Romans too narrowly. 1:18-31 is not about one group of
>manifestly bad people as distinguished from a group of better people who don't do
>obviously bad things. It is about the fundamental sin of idolatry - i.e., violation of
>the 1st Commandment. That is sin of which all people are guilty, sin with a capital S
>if you will, and all other sins are consequences of it. & ll are guilty, so Paul is
>writing here about all of us. This is just the beginning of a section that continues
>through 3:20 & that concludes that all are sinners.
>
> You say, "In that "all persons sin," a good Presbyterian tenet, of course they
>[your friends] do." But you want to distinguish that from Paul's statement about those
>who are "wicked" and "suppress" the truth. But the fact that all persons sin stems from
>a tendency to wickedly suppress the truth - i.e., in one way or another to put something
>other than God ahead of God. That's true of me, you, and your friends, independently of
>our sexual activities.
>
> Now Paul may indeed have had in mind only particular types of what we call today
>homosexual practices and he probably did not have the concept of "homosexual
>orientation" as it's developed in recent years. (& by the same token one can't argue
>that he intended to _omit_ homosexual acts within a committed loving relationship from
>the negative statements he does make about same-sex relationships.) But I think it's
>clear that he lists homosexual activity, to the extent that he was aware of it, as one
>of the sins consequent upon the fundamental Sin.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 11:45:19 EDT