From: RDehaan237@aol.com
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 20:06:45 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/03 8:41:23 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> 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,
I was knocked off the Internet on Sunday night by a thundertorm. It took me
two days and a hundred bucks for technical help to get back on. Now I would
like to address your comments above.
Your post was directed to Burgy, but since he and I are on the same page in
this discussion, I would like to respond with additional comments and
questions, if I may.
Your statement is made from a theological perspective, and as usual, is well
stated. This time, however, I would like your comments from a scientific view
on how scientific findings re homosexual orientation relate to our
interpretation of Paul’s views.
Biological factors are looking more and more important as influences on
homosexual orientation, as David Myers wrote (“Accepting What Cannot Be Changed,”
Perspectives, June/July, 1999). He refers to studies that provide new evidence
that differences exist between homosexual and heterosexual men both in
prenatal hormones and in a region of the brain known to influence sexual behavior.
Myers, who is conservative in these matters, is properly cautious about
accepting these studies of biological influences, but leans toward recognizing their
weight.
He, however, is more persuaded that “[E]fforts to change one’s sexual
orientation usually (some say, virtually always) fail.” After reviewing some
research findings he concluded:
“But this much seems certain. Many gay and lesbian Christians have felt
called to heterosexuality, but after years of effort,
prayer, laying on of hands, Christian counseling, and searing guilt
have found only misery, and in some cases lost faith. This fact of life is
recognized by my denomination, the Reformed Church in America, whose
Theological Commission statements have discerned (in the words of
the church’s 1998 document) that, 'despite the uncertainty over its
cause, the sexual orientation of a person, in most cases, is highly
resistant to change.'”
I take this to mean that one’s sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.
Homosexual people do not choose their sexual orientation any more than
straight people do. Our sexual orientation is thrust upon us, not chosen.
You said that Paul “probably did not have the concept of ‘
homosexualorientation’ as it's developed in recent years.” Neither did he know that our sexual
(hetero- and homo-) orientation is probably influenced by our biology and that
it is “highly resistant to change.” Nor did he have the concept of a loving
committed relationship between two homosexual people.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans he wrote that “women _exchanged_ natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, _giving up_ natural
intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” (Romans
1: 26, 27; NRSV) I think Paul is referring to people with a heterosexual
orientation who deliberately engage in homosexual behavior for the thrill of it or
for whatever other reasons. Such people deliberately choose homosexual
activity. That is one of the sins that grows out of the fundamental Sin of idolatry,
as you point out.
But that is not the picture of persons with a homosexual orientation that
Myers paints, or that I have experienced. Quite the opposite. Many people with a
homosexual orientation have tried to exchange it for a heterosexual one, and
by far the largest number of them have failed.
Strange as it may seem, I think we need to distinguish between what might be
called “natural homosexual orientation,” the picture of which is emerging
from the work of those who are studying sexual orientation scientifically, and on
the other hand, the “sinfully chosen homosexual behavior” that Paul
describes. I find it hard to believe that a “natural homosexual orientation”
described by Myers or that is found in a loving committed homosexual relationship of
people I have known, is a consequence of the Sin of idolatry.
Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for your comments.
Peace,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 20:07:01 EDT