From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 08:32:14 EDT
The divorce issue is an excellent parallel.
My ex-husband wanted his gold-digger and was willing to give me whatever
grounds necessary to get a divorce. (He knew I took that verse quite
seriously.) We'd had a good marriage for 12 years. The last year was violent
and my children blame me for subjecting them to that. (The gold-digger took
everything he had and dumped him. In her divorce it came out that she was
playing at least three men simultaneously.)
God has reassured me often and intensely in my prayer times that this second
marriage is his will. He has blessed it in many ways. My in-laws have
repeatedly thanked me for marrying my hubby.
I responded off-line that I thought that had I been born with a different
sexual inclination that I would have faced a lifetime of guilt. I am not
built to live without intimacy. Intimacy with the other sex would be living
a lie, lacking fulfillment. Living in a relationship that I viewed as sinful
would have kept it from flourishing.
However, I didn't express those view on-line because I feel so strongly that
every time God brought up the subject, it was followed with 'thou shalt not
judge' or 'God forgives'.
The more accurate interpretation might be 'God judges and blesses according
to the heart.'
The individuals know whether they are blessed by God - and that's what
counts.
Certainly, society as a whole has accepted the divorce situation due to the
fact that they empathize so strongly. Empathy is a good thing. It isn't hard
for me to do so in this situation. Perfect love casteth out feat. I still
get the impression that many people view homosexuality as a spreading
disease that heir children will 'catch'.
I personally have believed for years that there should be some sort of
'designated other' allowed for all legal reasons. Currently, if one is
incapacitated without a specific power of attorney, the next of kin makes
the decisions - no matter how ill-suited that is. People live together,
share everything - but can't share insurance. (This isn't necessarily
sexual - sister, brothers, parent and child, buddies)
I think that there should be a broad spectrum 'power of attorney' that any
two people can mutually bestow on each other that gives the other many of
the legal benefits of spouse - and which would have to be dissolved legally.
An unmarried son could keep his mother on his insurance if he wanted her to
be his 'other'. Marriage would require dissolution of the othership.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 3:46 AM
To: John W Burgeson; Graham E. Morbey
Cc: george murphy; asa; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sin?
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 - 08:37:08 EDT