From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 04:46:24 EDT
Here's a thought: Why not approach Christian morality from the words of Paul in I Corinthians 6 & 10, "All things are permissible for me..."? That is, under the NT law of love, no act of any kind is intrinsically sinful if it is done by a sanctified Christian and motivated by agape. This would not be to say there are no intrinsically sinful acts, but that a sanctified Christian motivated by agape would not do such things. Intrinsically sinful acts would be any that could not be done in fellowship with God.
One could make a strong case that the NT supports such a principle. The rules stated in Acts 15 concerning blood and food offered to idols certainly were not intended to be universal. The only fly in this ointment that comes to my mind is Jesus' comment on divorce in Matthew 5: "...Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Why couldn't a sanctified Christian man motivated by agape marry a Christian woman divorced out of a bad marriage and not be committing a sin? If I'm not mistaken, divorced women get married with Christian ceremonies all the time. Are we allowed to say that this comment attributed to Jesus was actually added later by a scribe?
In any case, such a principle of Christian morality would provide a useful basis for drawing conclusions about relations among homosexuals. That is, if the relationship was between sanctified Christians, and their sex acts were motivated in part by agape, they would not be sinning.
I suspect the professional clergy would be uncomfortable with such a liberal principle of morality on grounds that some things may be intrinsically evil but lots of Christians wouldn't be able to recognize them as such. So they'd need some authority figure to point them out.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham E. Morbey
To: John W Burgeson
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Sin?
I am very much in agreement with both Burgy and George where they
demonstrate uncommon love for gays and lesbians over against hardened
prejudices and proof -texting. But Burgy's comments on texts to explain
what Paul did or didn't mean is also a kind of proof-texting, I suggest.
Paul is not so ignorant as Burgy portrays him. It is highly likely that
Paul knew a lot more about human sexuality and homosexuality than Burgy
credits him for. He was a learned man steeped in the things of his
faith, knowledgable about the philosophies/theologies/sciences of the
surrounding cultures of his day and with a deep sense of history. He
was also a travelled man who could wax poetic to grasp truth (eg.
Colossians 1:15-20). A distorted view of Paul could be the occasion for
a distorted view of sexuality.
Graham
John W Burgeson wrote:
>George commented (in part): "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. ... This is just the beginning of a section that
>continues
>through 3:20 & that concludes that all are sinners. "
>
>I disagree that I am reading Romans too narrowly, for I agree with your
>point above. What I am doing is simply using it as a measure, pointing
>out that it cannot be used as a warrant for the position that same-gender
>domestic living arrangements are necessarily sinful. That's all. A very
>narrow argument.
>
> "... 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."
>
>Yes.
>
> "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."
>
>I'd word it a little more strongly than that, (the word "probably" I'd
>not use). Otherwise, agreed.
>
>" (& 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.) "
>
>I did not argue this. Only that we have no warrant for insisting that he
>did intend to include them The subject is simply not addressed. When
>people argue that he DID intend to include them, they are, IMHO, guilty
>of adding to scripture -- of reading into scripture their own
>preconceived ideas.
>
>The defenders of slavery 150 years ago were guilty of this. With much
>"clearer" scriptures to cite.
>
>BTW, I will agree that we are all prone to do this, me as much as
>(perhaps more than) anyone. That is one reason I dislike proof texts as
>reasons for taking a position on moral matters.
>
> "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."
>
>Again, agreed. The operative phrase is "to the extent he was aware of
>it." Most of us (me included) have been fed a distorted view of the
>gay/lesbian community. Gay men in movies are generally "soft," limp
>wristed, pansies. Not the ones I know. Lesbians are "dykes." Not the ones
>I know. When I saw and heard the Denver Gay Men's Choir at a service in
>Montview Presbyterian Church last month, they looked (to me) like a bunch
>of ordinary folks. Of the 50 or so in the choir, I don't think even one
>resembled the Hollywood image. Not one I would have "suspected" of being
>gay. Just normal men, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, short, tall,
>bearded, clean shaven, stocky, skinny, etc. All in love with Jesus Christ
>and His church.
>
>It is highly unlikely that Paul had any concept of homosexual activity
>beyond that which was a daily "feature" of the local pagan temples. Which
>is justly condemned.
>
>Peace
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 04:41:58 EDT