The same faith? : comments [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

As Bishop Tom Wright (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece) (who is hostile to GAFCON / FCA) says:

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

It'd be time consuming to go through all the examples in the New Testament where homosexual behaviour is directly referred to as aberrant, but one example that is clear and unambiguous would be in Romans 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=31;):

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

That passage is perhaps not as clear as you think if you want to use it to argue homosexuality is sinful. The chapter in Gareth Moore OP's very readable "a Question of Truth" on Romans 1 is interesting, but I'm not about to try and condense it here.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've read a number of things to try to get alternate views on the various passages which refer to sexual immorality (porneia), or homosexuality specifically. I didn't find any of them very convincing, they seemed to have to either do some rather strange gymnastics to come to a different conclusion than the one the church has always understood, or take away the authority of scripture as God's word to stop it from saying that homosexuality is immoral.

I agree with

robert_jones (below), porneia (which is denounced as immoral) would have been understood to include homosexual sex, and there are many other passages that refer to homosexuality as being immoral (ranging from specific direct passages like the Romans 1 passage, to passages referring to the way God created mankind and how intends for them to relate (i.e. male and female together in marriage)).

I've come to the conclusion that there are no good theological arguments for saying that homosexuality is morally OK. I think that the strong desire by many to claim that it does are not motivated by an understanding of scripture, but by cultural pressures to view homosexuality as non siful.

[link] [parent] [reply]

the conclusion that there are no good theological arguments for saying that homosexuality is morally OK

I think the most convincing theological arguments in favour of homosexual relationships are based upon experience rather than scripture. I think part of what happens is that a person falls in love with another person and feels that this love is holy and good and that the physical expression of that love feels to be clearly an extension and flowing of the grace and love of G@d and then you have a very deep contradiction. Either you have to dismiss these very deep spiritual experiences as some kind of satanic trick as described in Romans, or you are forced to reassess your previous reading and understanding of scripture. I think that makes evangelical churches of a more charismatic continued revelation type more likely to have a more 'liberal' view on homosexuality than dry text based CICCU type evangelical churches.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree with you absolutely that the arguments in favour of homosexual practice are based on experience rather than scripture. Scripture is clear on the subject.

However I don't think that people's experience is a good indicator of what is morally right (or rather, what God considers to be morally right). The Bible is full of people who I'm sure thought they were doing things that were good - I doubt that the followers of Moloch (for instance) thought they were terribly evil people. I don't get the impression from the Bible (NT and OT) that God thinks that things are OK as long as people think what they're doing is OK.

I get the impression that people are sinful and often deeply desire to do evil. The story I read is of a people who constantly turn their back on a holy God and delight in their sinful activities. God's input (through prophets and so on) is constantly required to bring people back to him, to living in a holy way.

"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

Jesus didn't think that people were good either. People like to paint Jesus as this meek and mild character who would let anyone do anything, but Jesus' view of humanity was actually very stark. For example, in Matthew 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=31&context=chapter):

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Paul seems to share the same view of man in Romans 3, when (referring to Psalm 14) he says:

there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.

I've not heard of any mainstream charismatic churches who argue that homosexuality is right on the grounds of personal experience or new divine revelation. There may well be some that do.

I object to referring to the reading and understanding of God's word with the aid of the Holy Spirit as being a 'dry text based' thing. I don't think this is how God refers to his own Word, for example Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any z two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and a discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree that people's experience alone is not a good indicator of what is morally right. It might feel "good" to me to murder somebody or to steal something from a shop, but these are not actions which Christians should condone.

However, I think that people's experience, when lived out through the church (which is prior to scripture), can demand a re-reading of Scripture such that one might accept, for example, that homosexual practice is a part of the fallen order, and yet is capable of redemption (in much the way that some Christians accept remarriage after divorce).

Because the heart is deceitful above all things, such re-readings will not be able to be confirmed or rejected for some time. It took years for many Christians to agree that the Bible did not argue in favour of racial segregation. And because of the times we live in, we will not know whose reading re. certain homosexual practices are faithful or compatible with the teaching of Scripture, as it's lived out within the church. Jeremiah is saying that all hearts are deceitful above all things, and if none of us can understand our own hearts, what confidence does that give us that we are correct in our interpretation of scripture?

Jesus' view of people is rather mixed. I like it when the woman whose daughter is ill considers herself to be a dog (presumably because she is a Gentile) and yet Jesus appears to consider that a "dog" is worthy of having her daughter healed. Luke considers that Jesus consider some to have good hearts; (Luke 8:15) "But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." In Acts 15:9, there is a hint that all of our hearts might have been purified through faith. I don't know whether God has purified the heart of the homosexual, but it does say "all" (perhaps he's just referring to Jews and Gentiles).

I tend to a more conservative reading on homosexuality (as does Oliver O'Donovan), but not everybody does, and the fact that so much has been written on the matter doesn't lead me to believe that what scripture "says" is as clear as either side might be tempted to argue.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I don't think I can agree with your approach to the clarity of scripture, because it's not the view that scripture has of itself - and it's not the view that Jesus had of it or people's ability to understand it.

Scripture imparts understanding to the simple (one need not be learned):

“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130)

It is something that children are meant to be taught and are able to understand:

“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deut 6:6-7).

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings. . . ” (2 Tim 3:14-15a).

Also, it is the scriptures that make us wise for salvation:

“... the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15b).

Most of all though I think I can't agree because Jesus' view was quite different from the one I think you're suggesting. Here is a quote from Wayne Grudem:

In a day when it is common for people to tell us how hard it is to interpret Scripture rightly, we would do well to remember that not once in the Gospels do we ever hear Jesus saying anything like this: “I see how your problem arose — the Scriptures are not very clear on that subject.” Instead, whether he is speaking to scholars or untrained commonpeople, his responses always assume that the blame for misunderstanding any teaching of Scripture is not to be placed on the Scriptures themselves, but on those who misunderstand or fail to accept what is written. Again and again he answers questions with statements like, “Have you not read . . .” (Matt. 12:3, 5; 19:14; 22:31), “Have you never read in the scriptures . . .” (Matt. 21:42), or even, “You are wrong because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29; cf. Matt. 9:13; 12:7; 15:3; 21:13; John 3:10; et al.).

I don't accept that the church is prior to scripture (well, it depends on what you mean by the church - and if you're trying to imply that existing before something means you can decide what the truth is), or that it in any sense has authority over scripture, but having that discussion would take even more time than just this one undoubtedly will!

[link] [parent] [reply]

In which case you should definitely seek out a copy of "A question of truth", and read at least the chapters relating to Scripture [the chapters relating specifically to the Roman Catholic Church are probably less interesting to you].

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's on Google Books (well, the Romans 1 bit you referred to is anyway).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ah, it's a limited preview (which means you can read some pages, but after you've read more than N you have to get the book on dead-tree, or pay for more online pages, I think).

[link] [parent] [reply]

OK. It was enough to read all the Romans 1 bit though.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've now read the appropriate chapter in "a Question of Truth". ISTM that he's just plain ignoring what the passage says. For instance Moore writes: "The sexual practice of the Gentiles are, then, not a sin, a crime against God to be punished; they are themselves the 'recompense' inflicted on the Gentiles for their deliberate turning away from the truth"

Yes, there is a kind of punishment there. Paul says that 'God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity'. In a sense it is a punishment, but Paul is writing about people who want to commit 'the sinful desire of their hearts', and seems to picture God as almost holding them back from 'their perversion' until a point where he lets them do what they want to do.

However, to say that Paul is not saying that it is a sin is to entirely ignore what Paul says. Paul refers to their actions as "shameful lusts" which are "unnatural". In the context of sex between woman and woman Paul goes on to refer to men committing "indecent acts with other men", which he sees as a "perversion". All of this is in the context of God giving them over to "the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another".

Moore repeatedly jumps backwards through hoops to come up with a hermeneutic that doesn't mean what the church has always understood this to mean, and which is at odds with what we know historically about what the 1st century church thought about homosexuality. This is to me a big red warning light that he's basically just trying to come up with a clever method for supporting his prior assumption - that homosexual practice is OK.

Edited Date: 2009-07-15 11:52 pm (UTC)

[link] [parent] [reply]

My Bible (the NRSV) doesn't use the word "sinful" there, which I think makes Moore's reading more natural. Moore is of course dead now, which makes it hard for him to defend himself against charges like the ones you level against him; I'm uncomfortable with "I disagree with your exegetical method => you must be begging the question"

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yeah, the NRSV uses the term 'lust'. Lust of course being a kind of sinful desire.

The term being translated is epithumia, which my lexicon defines as being "desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust".

My comments about him jumping through hoops are my opinion based on his argument. I could explain why I think that in great detail, but obviously that would be very timeconsuming. I think when people have very unusual and or complicated exegetical methods it often (but not always) suggests that they're trying to make the text fit what they want it to say.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The flip side of this is that someone who describes their exegesis as "the plain meaning of Scripture" is often not that interested in hearing the other point of view, perhaps? :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm entirely open to listening to other approaches to scripture.

One of the issues I have with his approach is he seems to say "Well it clearly means [thing it has always been understood to mean]... Or does it, there is a chance that it means Y, and there is a chance this means Z" and so on. I feel like he could be right in the same way that I could roll 6 100 times on a D6.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Without wishing to get into too much of a linguistic argument, epithumia literally just refers to having one's heart (thumia) set upon (epi) something. The forbidden/sinful part is an extrapolation. My lexicon inclues "wish" as a translation of epithumia, which is clearly a neutral term. So to translate the word as "sinful desire" commits a petitio principi, by assuming that Paul thought homosexuality was sinful.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Obviously what is being said by Paul cannot be solely determined by looking up a single word in a lexicon (you really need to be an expert in Biblical Greek to English translation like the Bible translators), and of course a discussion about how to translate something is more complex (http://community.livejournal.com/robhu_bible/669.html?nc=7) than just trying to find one to one matches between English and Koine Greek from a lexicon (err, unless you're a NASB translator maybe...).

The point I want to press home here is that the NRSV's translation does is not significantly different for the purpose of the discussion we're having, and that the NIV / NRSV do not have wacky exceptional renderings of the Greek here.

The NETBible tool is useful (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=1&verse=24).

KJV: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator who is blessed for ever Amen.

NKJV: Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

NET: Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie 2 and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

NIV: Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is for ever praised. Amen.

NASB: Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

NLT: So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.

NRSV: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

ESV: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree with you about the difficulties of translation. But that is precisely why it is helpful to go back the original in seeking to understand the scriptures, because quite often a Greek word simply has an ambiguity (or a precision) which no English word can express. Which is why, after all, we bother to learn Koine (and why I regret having no Hebrew).

In any case, your comparison of translations shows that NIV is unique in giving "sinful desires". I quite like the KJV translation (as I usually do, except where it's clearly wrong) of "lusts of their own hearts". I like e.g. the NRSV translation less, even though it's nearly the same, because "lust" means something slightly different now from what it meant 400 years ago. I also quite like the NET "desires of their hearts".

But surely the main point here is the eis akatharsian which follows? Again, I like "uncleanness" a bit more than "impurity" here, but really one needs to understand that akatharia refers in the Septuagint to a ritual uncleanness which separated one from God.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The section in Michael Doe's "Seeking the Truth in Love" is also interesting. The "it's clear" argument has already been given; he then writes:

"Given Paul's larger picture here of idolatory, is his concern with the kind of homosexual behaviour which went on in pagan temples? Or, when he talks of people 'exchanging' what they do, is he referring to heterosexuals who deliberately choose homosexual behaviour contrary, as it were, to their own nature? Is this, therefore, again a reference to pederasty [...]? Certainly Paul's phrase 'male lying with male' is used by Philo to describe pederasty, and 'that which is against nature' and the Greek word for 'shame' were regularly used in secular critiques of it."

.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's not that time consuming: 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Romans. I'm pretty sure that's it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

October