From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 10:22:09 EDT
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.
Perhaps I've misread you. Let's see. I think there are basically 3 ways one
can argue that Paul's statements in Rom.1:26-27 do not condemn as sinful all homosexual
activity.
A) Paul was just wrong & there's nothing at all wrong with such activity. I
don't hear anyone on the list saying this.
B) Paul's statements refer to manifestly wicked people & not to decent ones.
C) Paul is speaking here about various types of promiscuous homosexuality & not
committed, loving, 1-1 homosexual relationships between adults, in part because he (&
people in his culture in general ) were not aware that some people, apart from any
choice they made, had homosexual orientations.
You - & many others - have argued for C. But the way you spoke in your earlier
post about your friends sounded a lot like B. I.e.:
> 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.
If you are going to base your position on such arguments then I think that my
criticism is valid. If you stick with C I think you're on much better - though
certainly not unassailable - grounds.
Let me make the distinction clearer with the following possibility. There are
two adult homosexual males who have been together, faithful to one another, for a long
time. Neither is a Christian & both are pretty nasty people in terms of the way they
treat other people, their business ethics &c. If one takes approach C above then
there's nothing to criticize about their sexual behavior even though a great deal
else in their lives can be condemned. If one takes approach B then their sexual
behavior can be condemned as part of their general rottenness.
Maybe I'm belaboring the obvious but I really do think it's important to have a
sound theological argument. C can be developed in such as way as to do that. But
simply arguing that Paul's words don't apply to nice people (& maybe that's not what you
meant but it sounds like it) can't.
& I realize that this puts me in the position of seeming to be nasty to nice
people. So be it. To quote one of my grad school profs, "I hate to be a bastard but
... ." In discussions about this issue in the church I hear a tremendous amount of bad
theology on both sides. (& what you have said above is by no means the worst!) I think
that there are ways that the church can come to some degree of acceptance of
homosexuality, but it will be disastrous if that happens via either bad theology or no
theology at all. & to the extent that I have any influence, I'm willing to be a bastard
to keep that from happening.
> "... 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.
Is that because we really know this with 100% certainty or because it makes a
more persuasive argument if we don't leave any loophole? That fact that there can be
wide differences among biblical interpreters about many aspects of the NT context ought
to make us wary about claims to total certainty about such matters.
>
> " (& 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.
I realize that you didn't argue this. (Note that my statement was
parenthetical.) But it's an important distinction that is seldom made.
> The defenders of slavery 150 years ago were guilty of this. With much
> "clearer" scriptures to cite.
There is at least one important difference. While there are biblical texts
that view slavery as legitimate in some circumstances, there are also passages that
point in another direction. There is within scripture itself the beginning of a
trajectory toward abolition. But while one can question the relevance of the texts that
speak negatively of homosexual activity, there is nothing at all in scripture that
speaks positively about such activity. Thus it's very hard to argue for a trajectory
toward acceptance of such activity.
> 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.
This probably limits Paul too much. It's quite likely that he knew about the
kind of relations between men & boys in Greek society, Plato's Symposium, &c.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 10:50:16 EDT