From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 10:50:47 EDT
RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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.
Bob -
Some of my comments in my parallel post to Burgy are relevant here so I won't
repeat everything.
I was impressed by Myers' short piece in Perspectives when I saw it a few years
ago. I agree that we have to take seriously the understanding of homosexuality that has
developed in recent years in discussions of whether or not Romans 1:26-27 applies to all
homosexual activity.
But of course care is needed. E.g., you say: "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." This might suggest that Paul knew about the distinction between
this type of behavior & loving, committed homosexual relationships & is only condemning
the former. But the whole point of the argument has been that he (& his culture
generally) _didn't_ know about this distinction. I think if you'd asked Paul "Are
sexual relations between two men or two women always wrong?" he would have simply said
"Yes." Perhaps we shouldn't say that but we shouldn't read all or part of our modern
views back into Paul.
My own view at this point is an intermediate one which, I fear, will satisfy
very few. Homosexuality is not part of God's basic intention for creation but, for
various reasons, it is a reality that some persons do have a fundamental homosexual
orientation that they have not chosen. The best way for both church and state to deal
with this is to recognize (though perhaps in different ways) the legitimacy and legal
status of committed 1-1 homosexual relationships, though they would not be considered
"marriage."
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 - 10:50:53 EDT