Thursday 28 November 2013

The design of the body and its appropriate uses

I don't really want to be too graphic with this posting, but I have been asked on a few occassions to explain how it can be appropriate for 2 people of the same gender to have sexual activity when their bodies are clearly not designed for this.

It is an interesting question.  I was specifically asked by someone to address this issue without recourse to Scripture, so I will attempt to do so (my initial response was that we do not judge our morality from our biology or anatomy, but from the Bible).

A good example to explain my views on this is the act of romantic (mouth to mouth) kissing.  Our mouths are clearly designed for eating, speaking and partial breathing.  Kissing mouth to mouth is a very human thing to do (unlike the transfer of partially digested food in birds to their young, for example).  It is not natural in the sense that it is using a body part for a purpose it was not created for.

We know from studies that kissing has a chemical and hormonal effect on our bodies (mostly beneficial, but also the transfer of germs and bacteria).  However, it is clear that the primary function of kissing is not reproductive in nature.  Instead, it is an emotionally intimate interaction between two people.  That interaction serves a purpose.  Most consider it good and enjoyable.  Many cultures believe that owing to the intimate nature of mouth to mouth kissing it should be only between close partners.  There is no clear or unified teaching on the theology of kissing (that I am aware of!).

The key point, however, is that it is the use of a human part of the body to engage in an activity for which that part was not designed.

If you genuinely believe that no part of the human body should be used to do something for which it is not designed, then homosexual activity would be precluded, as would kissing and a host of other unnatural uses of any part of the human body.

My very young daughter finds it hilarious to sit on her mother or father's head when they are lying down.  She is not using her bottom for the purpose it was made, but I would be hard pushed to scold this behaviour in light of her using it as a form of humour and bonding with her parents.  We do, of course, help her understand that there are times, places and people where this would not be appropriate!

Within the intimate relationship of a couple, the use of sexual organs clearly has a reproductive function.  However, for couples unable to have children, we would be hard pressed to find a respected Christian argument that they should not engage in sexual intercourse because their bodies are not being used for the purpose of reproduction.  Instead, there is a clear romantic, intimate, bonding and stress reducing purpose to that behaviour.  My argument would be that this applies equally to a couple of the same sex as they express their sexual orientation this way.

Before anyone jumps on the "but the Bible says it is wrong" argument, I would like to remind that I was asked to discuss this without recourse to scripture.

I must however, return to my Biblical beliefs.  I believe that this level of sexual intimacy should be (for Christians) within the loving relationship of a marriage covenant (although there is interestingly no passage that says sex before marriage is wrong).  This is why I believe we need to extend marriage to include homosexual Christians who wish to honour God with their most intimate relationship and commit to lifelong fidelity and love.


Wednesday 27 November 2013

What can we learn from Paul?

Do you remember the days when we hand wrote letters?  Scarily, some readers might soon say "no"...

When we hand wrote, we took a lot more care.  By today's standards, it was painfully slow.  Knowing it would take time, we often would spend considerable time thinking about what we would want to say.  With no delete key and no copy and paste, every word and phrase had meaning.

Today we have Bibles that we can search at will, using keywords.  A sad effect of this very useful function is that we now easily lose the context of Bible passages.  We also will usually skip the intro and the endings of Paul's pastoral letters and focus on the meat of the sandwich.  But Paul spent time baking that bread and put it there for a purpose.  Let's have a look at the way Paul greets other Christians in some of his letters...

"1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia: 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,  To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen"

"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
2 To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father."


"1 Paul, Silas and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.
2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."


I am sure you are spotting the pattern by now. These letters were hotly anticipated. Travel was limited and some of these people might have only seen Paul once in their lifetime, if they were lucky. Letters were read publicly to an attentive audience. There was only one copy, so no forwarding to friends or saving it in your inbox to read later. Every word was important and Paul weighed it up carefully. He knew his audience well and the cultural context they were in. He adapted his teaching as any good teacher does, to connect with the audience. But consistently, he starts with these powerful words of affirmation.

What, by contrast, do we read in the opening words of so many blogs today (and I too am guilty)? How often do we read harsh, condemning words directed at other believers? How often are comments and replies equally vociferous?

In a day when many use the teachings of Paul against one another, perhaps we could all learn much, much more from this master baker of relationship building and affirmation.

Tuesday 26 November 2013

engagement with conservative evangelicals

I am finding engaging conservative evangelicals in conversation to be exhausting.

I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality.  However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue.  We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held.  And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one –  I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"

Paul also highlights the fruit of the Spirit as being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. However, the acts of the sinful nature are shown to include hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.

My problem is with the more conservative wing of the Church.  Discussions with them (never truly discussions, they always seem to turn into heated debates and arguments) always seem to follow a particular pattern.  The order might change and there might be subtle shades, but broadly, the pattern is as follows:

1. They put forward a view that the Bible is unambiguously clear that God opposes homosexuality.  So, if you take one of the handful of passages and show an alternative view that leads to some ambiguity, rather than acknowledge this, they jump onto another passage.  If you then take this next passage and do likewise, the anger mounts against you and they start to talk of the overwhelming message of Scripture and the internal consistency of God's message.  Now, at this point, if they were to pause and acknowledge that yes, there is a different reading but that they don't agree on your interpretation, that would be fine.  It doesn't breach our relationship and we can agree to disagree and acknowledge that our actions have to have integrity with our reading of Scripture.

However, usually they believe your new interpretations are not consistent with their understanding of God and therefore are not likely.  But interestingly, here the argument has changed.  It is now no longer saying that things are unambiguously clear, but that there is a broad, overarching theme.  However, if this theme is built on the pillars of interpretation of a few verses, then it makes sense that a challenge to these verses can result in a challenge to the overarching (perceived) theme.  Conversations rarely get beyond shouting matches and the throwing of Bible verses at you, however.  I have also noticed that when you present an important Biblical principle, rather than addressing this, they will throw an apparently contradictory principle at you.  For example, if you quote a verse about loving your enemies or refer to passages where the Church was encouraged by Paul to work together despite differences, they will quote another passage about dealing with heretics, as if this in some way negated Paul's other teaching.

2. When a shift does occur from claiming individual verses back up the anti-homosexual position, a broader view is put forward that the Genesis template clearly shows marriage is to be between one man and one woman.  This is actually a good point.  However, where things unravel is when you say that this is the ONLY acceptable model for covenant marriage.  2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists.  God here is actively participating in polygamy.  Every time I have mentioned this passage to a traditionalist, I have only been met by silence and a jump to another argument.  Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift).  These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman.  It shows that while it is A template, it is not necessarily the only acceptable model for human relationships.  When discussing God's participation in polygamy, I would much rather hear someone honestly say "I don't know why God did this".  This would be honest and shows us that we don't always know or understand the Bible at face value and we need to wrestle with these issues in prayer.

3.  Then some will angrily talk about the inability of 2 men to reproduce.  This is not a theological or Biblical argument, but is often used.  It is true.  But some married heterosexual couples are likewise unable to reproduce and some choose not to.  Are they in some way sinning by living together as a married couple?  Adoption is also an option to all these couples, and there are many moving testimonies from adopted children of the love they felt for having been "chosen" to be loved, in a way that is reminiscent of the Christian story.

4. Some talk of different gender roles and a hierarchy of male over female.  This does not sit comfortably with me at all, particularly in light of Galatians 3 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus").  It is also not an argument about sexuality, but of power and dominance in a 2 person relationship.  There is also such diversity within gender groupings, that any argument that each gender contributes something unique to a relationship has little evidence to back this up.

5. Some worry about the harm caused to children if raised by gay parents.  Studies do not appear to back up these concerns.  In fact, there is more harm caused by divorce or being raised by a single parent according to studies.

6. Homosexuality is seen by some conservatives as a choice.  They believe that the issue we are discussing is purely one of sex.  Therefore, the act of sex is a choice and you can choose whether to have it with a man or a woman.  Presumably they would argue that if you want to have sex with someone (of the opposite gender), you would need to marry them first and then be allowed sex.    However, our studies of sexuality clearly show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Ask people if they believe homosexual orientation is a choice and surprisingly, many will say "yes".  However, ask those same people when they chose their sexual orientation and you will likely be met with confusion, as they would think they always were and didn't ever make a conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender.  As a heterosexual man, I never once made a choice to be sexually attracted to women.  It just happened naturally.  

The metaphor people use is also very interesting.  Conservatives like to talk of homosexuality as being like an addiction (e.g. an alcoholic).  The logic follows that you help an alcoholic to recover and not drink alcohol.  However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous.  You do not force an orientation change.  Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.

7.  Finally, a bemusing argument, often from a place of desperation to attempt to silence you, is that the Church has believed the traditionalist view for centuries and therefore why should we change it now?  The first clear answer is that we understand the issue of sexuality better now.  It is clearly not just a lustful orgy-like behaviour that society needs to condemn.  It is genuine same sex attraction that has the same perils, hopes, dreams, opportunities as heterosexual attraction.  A second answer is to point out that the Church has been spectacularly wrong in the past.  Take for example the flat earth or scientific discovery.  Just because people have a view for a long time doesn't make that view more valid than a new, enlightened view.  That is really no argument whatsoever.   We might as well say we have sinned for centuries, why should we stop now?

Where I would be in total agreement with a traditionalist, would be if they said that their conscience would not allow them to express their own homosexuality.  The Bible actually tells me what to do in that situation (see Romans 14).  I must not put a stumbling block in the way of my brother or sister.  Nor should any minister be forced to conduct a wedding against their conscience.  I would stand up and strongly defend the right of a traditionalist to act with integrity according to their conscience.  The question is, would a traditionalist stand up for me in similar situations?

What exhausts me is the constant arguments that go in circles, never listening to other views, not willing to even contemplate that there might be truth in another's position, and calling you a heretic or unsaved believer if you dare to disagree with their conservative view.  I have been accused of sneaky tricks, of heresy, of probably not being truly saved, of being confused.  Thankfully, praise God, I have also met some wonderful, peace-loving and gracious traditionalists, that I am proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on homosexuality and if we might vote differently on issues (e.g. marriage). 

I genuinely am at a loss to know what to do with the other people though...

The words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3) ring in my ears and I keep asking God if there is another way: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.  You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."  I fear I have gone beyond the second warning in many conversations from people who wish to eject any believers from the Church on account of a different interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality, or who call for division and disunity, all in the name of God.

I would appreciate any wisdom from readers to know how we progress in this situation, where one party refuses to even listen and have fellowship with one who disagrees on a single issue of doctrine, in this case, the place of homosexuality in God's kingdom.

God bless

Sunday 24 November 2013

Same Sex Marriage, an overview

The Scottish government had a vote on the issue of legislation for same sex marriage.  There was a vote in favour by 98 to 15 and 5 abstentions.

As expected, there was jubilation from some quarters and dismay in others.  I would, as an Evangelical Christian, class myself in the former category.  I will explain more at the end, why this is so.  However, it is interesting to explore some of the reasons why there are groups who object.  In no particular order, a quick summary follows:

1.  Some religious groups feel marriage is commanded by God to be between only one man and one woman.  Some Christians believe that there are clear Bible passages that plainly oppose homosexuality, and therefore it would be clearly wrong, as God clearly is in opposition to homosexual practice (most in this camp believe God accepts homosexuals but only if they repent of their homosexuality and do not engage in any same sex activity).  While I understand and respect this position, I do not think the small handful of verses stand up to scrutiny.  I have outlined this in several places, e.g. http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html

2.  Again, from religious groups, there is a belief that a creation ordinance has a clear gender complementary role divide, which means marriage should be between one male and one female, as they are designed to complement each other.  Some go as far as to state there is a clear male "headship" and that to go against this would be to go against our design.  My problem with this argument is twofold.  Firstly, science has shown us that gender is a poor differentiator when we take into account personality difference.  Take for example the Myers Briggs personality test.  It categorises personality into one of 16 groups and has a serious body of scientific and statistical validation.  There are 4 scales in this measure.  In only one of these is there a significant gender difference.  Approximately 35-40% of men are "feelers" whereas 60-70% of women are "feelers" (this is a scale looking at how we make decisions).  While this sounds significant, it means that in a room of 10 men and 10 women, 4 men and 6 women would be in the feelers group, whereas 6 men and 4 women would be "thinkers".  Gender differences are likely to be much more a result of our social conditioning than any innate difference, certainly in terms of personality and temperament.  There is also an argument that the New Covenant in the New Testament has done away with the previous idea of men having a superior role to women as is backed up by Paul's words in Galatians 3: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".  Also, the previous covenant between God and man was marked by male only circumcision.  The new way of Christianity was baptism, and open to all.  This is a complex debate and there are passages in Paul's pastoral letters that require in depth understanding, where he appears to go against his views of equality in certain Church contexts.  Nonetheless, there are arguments that these were situation specific recommendations in the context of matriarchal pagan church influences and to do with order and peace in the churches of that day.

However, this is a slight digression, as my second point is that while there arguably might be a creation based template, it is naive to assume that any deviation from that template must inherently be sinful.  God nowhere says "this is the only acceptable form of marriage".  I write more about this here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/bible-is-not-anti-homosexual.html

3.  There is a rather strange argument occasionally put forward that if we allow gay people to marry, then it won't be long before we allow polygamy or incest to be legally recognised.  However, the incest argument falls down because for centuries, we have celebrated unions between one man and one woman.  At no point have we had a public outcry from brothers wishing to marry sisters, despite the fact they fit the one man one woman rule.  The reason is that society understands the health and genetic implications of inbreeding and we do not allow this union for health reasons and to protect unborn children.  There are complex rules about relatedness and these are not being renegotiated in any way.  Again, the case is not one about redefining marriage between two parties (to include multiple partners) but is instead looking at cases of sexual identity being homo rather than heterosexual.

4.  Some argue that men and women have sex to procreate and therefore marriage of same sex makes no sense, for biological reasons.  This argument makes far more sense than the incest argument, yet relies on the assumption that marriage is only for procreation.  However, procreation happens throughout the world without marriage being a prerequisite.  In fact, marriage in that sense is very UNbiological.  Marriage is about far more than just sex to have children.  That argument also devalues marriages where there are no children, either for fertility reasons or through choice.  Nowhere in the Bible do we read that not having children is sinful.  Also, many couples choose to adopt and there is evidence that there is no harm caused by same sex couples rearing children.  In fact, there is more harm caused by single parents or divorce (but again, this is not to say all children will suffer if raised without 2 parents).

In truth, I believe that those who oppose same sex marriage do so because deep down, they have a revulsion towards a man having sex with another man and this concept makes them feel deeply uncomfortable.  For the older generation, I think we have to give them some grace as the speed of change is society is phenomenal.  Not long ago women did not go out to parties without chaperons.  Now we see women outdrinking men on street corners.  The idea of decorum and previously understood gender roles is difficult for some to adapt to in a way that many younger audiences would find strange.  Attitudes towards gender will be very different in another 2 generations.

Those who object because of religious reasons might well also be using the Bible to back up their private revulsion.  However, many genuinely do believe God opposes homosexuality. I believe this is because of a misunderstood set of Bible passages, a naive understanding of the work of Bible translators and teaching from conservative groups that discourage critical thought and revisiting previously held assumptions.

There are some who are genuinely not homophobic and who have considered different viewpoints and still come to the conclusion that homosexual unions are not morally acceptable.  These people are few and far between in my experience, but those that are there are usually more willing to enter dialogue and discussion about ways to agree to disagree while focusing on more pressing spiritual matters.  I find myself having a deep respect for these people, and in fact, you the reader might be one of them :-)

To conclude, however, I believe that promoting same sex marriage is a golden opportunity for supporters of marriage (I am one) to emphasise the importance of love, faithfulness, commitment, lifelong support and caring.  It promotes a covenant relationship, which echoes the covenant relationship between Christ and his Church.  To extend this to those of same sex relationships is, I believe, an opportunity to promote and nurture an institution that helps bind the fabric of society.  There is nothing to fear and much to celebrate and anticipate with joy.

I write more about same sex marriage and the Bible here:  http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html

Tuesday 19 November 2013

Repentance

What comes to mind when you hear the word "repentance"?

The word originates from Latin and has a meaning of being sorry.  In a Christian context, this means being sorry for our sin and turning back to God.

But in a practical sense, what does this actually mean?  Paul says we all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).  As Christians, we continue to sin (usually unintentionally, but sometimes knowingly).  And yet, the Christian message is that if we have faith in Jesus, we will be saved.  There is no weighing of scales to compare our hearts to the weight of a feather.  There is no pass mark for our actions that allow a certain percentage of sins to get through.

When we give our lives to Jesus as his followers, we are told that God comes and makes his home in us (John 14).  The Holy Spirit comes into us and we become temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6).  A process of renewal begins and our lives start to transform.

Yet we continue to sin.  

The hypocrisy of many Christians is to present ourselves as sin-free.  Only when our sin is revealed publicly does our witness come crashing down about us as we are exposed as liars and hypocrites.  Nor does God want us to constantly look down in shame, unable to get out of bed in the morning because of our awareness of our fallen nature.

So what analogy would be useful to help understand what repentance truly means?  There is no perfect image, but the one I find helpful is as follows:

Our lives are like sailing a small boat on the sea.  When we go with the current, we find ourselves drifting away from God.  When we repent, we set our course back to God and we seek God's strength to help on that journey.  There is a lovely proverb that says "in his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps." (Proverbs 16:9)

This proverb could be used to suggest that what we try to achieve is meaningless, as ultimately God decides what happens.  I prefer to read this as an affirmation of our relationship with God.  When we set our course to follow God (repenting of our previous course that is away from God) then God looks after the details and provides for our needs on the journey. 

As believers, we also travel in community, so other boats come alongside us and we share this journey together, helping one another.

The danger with some concepts of repentance is that they give an image of an angry God, waiting to punish us for every mistake we make along the way.  That is not the self sacrificing God who allowed his own son to die on a cross that we might be reunited with him for eternity. 

I hope this new metaphor helps some of you as you read this.  May the wind blow in your sails as we journey on a new course together. 

Sunday 17 November 2013

1 Corinthians 6, some musings

In the often heated debates on homosexuality, the passage in 1 Corinthians 6 is frequently quoted.  The passage is here:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."  1 Cor 6: 9-10

I have mentioned this passage in previous posts about the Bible and homosexuality (see here for example: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html).  However, I would like to recap on this passage.

On the surface, it seems crystal clear, and those who like to refer to the "plain reading" of Scripture will no doubt think any attempt to consider this passage differently will be just doing theological gymnastics in order to satisfy a worldly viewpoint.

The problem is that if we don't apply any study and discernment to this passage, we have some other uncomfortable logic to apply.  The logic is as follows: anyone who slanders others will not be saved.  Also, anyone with an addiction to alcohol or food will not be saved.

Now immediately, most sane people will say "ah, but if these people repent of their ways then God will forgive".  But what if the person does not deal with their addiction in their lifetime?  What if the alcoholic is in denial as so many are?  What theological gymnastics must we make here to reconcile these words with those of the same author in Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law".

There are some who genuinely believe that unrepentant homosexuals will not achieve salvation, and they often use this passage to justify this view.  However, by unrepentant, they do not mean a repentant sinner who has put his or her faith in Jesus Christ, but they mean someone who is unrepentant about their sexuality.

When asked what of a man or woman who professes Jesus as Lord and Saviour who is also at peace with their (non-repressed) homosexuality, the reply is often that they cannot truly be in relationship with Jesus if they persevere in their so-called sin. This is in part because of a logic loop that says if you do X you are not saved, if you are saved you do not do X, therefore if you claim to be saved and do X you must not truly be saved.

Presumably, to have integrity of logic, this argument would also apply to an alcoholic or a greedy man or woman.

So where does this leave us now?  Well, it means that if this passage is to be read out of context at face value, then no greedy person or drunkard can be a saved Christian.  The only way for salvation is if the person stops being an alcoholic or greedy.

And that to me sounds scarily like salvation by works.

So is there another possible meaning of this passage?

Yes.

Paul is writing to a city known for its sexual promiscuity.  With over 12 pagan temples, including the infamous temple of Aphrodite, known for temple prostitution and having hundreds of sacred prostitutes, the Church was against a backdrop of licentious living.  Paul wants the church to stand out as a beacon of purity.  The chapter before he condemns the man who was having sex with his father's wife (a breach of the ten commandments and even considered shocking by the standards of the day).  He then addresses an issue of lawsuits among believers, and curiously, it is here that Paul mentions the passage I quoted above.   So why does Paul jump from telling people to not take other believers to court to condemning (apparently) homosexuality?

Well, Paul is contrasting the Church with the world outside, which in this context includes temple prostitution, orgies and the like.  Now, in that context, let's re-read the opening quote.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Paul is quite clearly referring to the pagan temple prostitution and licentious ways of the people of Corinth.  He then goes on to say "And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God".

When a person commits their life to Jesus, they are washed, sanctified and justified.  This includes homosexuals (and alcoholics and greedy folk and greengrocers and tax collectors and prime ministers... Who we were is irrelevant).

This to me is quite clearly (and plainly) not a list of unforgivable sins.  It is a comparison between the Church and the pagan idolatry outwith.  The offence is not being a practicing homosexual, it is worshipping false gods, rejecting Jesus and abusing sexuality in acts of worship (prostitution, both givers and receivers).  We must remember also that the word "homosexual" is an invention of the 19th century, and therefore is a choice of 20th century translators to best encapsulate the meaning of Paul in this passage.  Paul was describing the sexual acts within the temple orgies/prostitution (some translations called it sodomites).  In much of the 20th century, homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon by society as a whole.  It therefore is a good translation attempt.  In centuries to come as we appreciate homosexuality in a new light, Bible translators of the 21st and 22nd centuries will undoubtedly begin to rephrase this concept to help the modern reader understand Paul's usage - the primary job of a good translator.

Paul goes on to emphasise this point - "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?  Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute?  Never!"

It is understandable how at first glance, these verses appear to be denouncing all homosexuality, particularly when read out of context.  But with a little discernment we can see that the clearer reading of this passage is that Paul is telling the readers that as holy people, set apart for God (not like the temple prostitution rings around) then these people should have the maturity to resolve their own disputes internally without taking brothers and sisters to court.  Why else would Paul suddenly mention homosexuality in a response to legal disputes?  He also wants them to act honourably in all things, especially their relationships with one another.

The teachings of 1 Corinthians 7 can then be understood to include, rather than exclude homosexual Christians (Paul is not likely to have been thinking of homosexual Christians when writing that teaching, but we as Christians today need to consider how we apply his teachings to a wider range of issues in order to bring glory to God in all our relationships).

(To view my thoughts on the application of 1 Cor 7 in the same sex marriage debate, view this post:  http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html)

Our brothers and sisters in Christ who are homosexual are equally seeking to honour God in their relationships and as a Church we need to help them do so, without misapplying scriptures that back up our own prejudices (I include myself and my own prejudices).

This is not to say that all relationships (whatever our sexualities) are godly or God-honouring.  We each need case by case discernment with the help of the Holy Spirit.

It is time, however (in my personal opinion), to stop using verses like these out of context to cause immeasurable suffering to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Sunday 10 November 2013

If you could know the future, would you choose to?

I am reading through the Game of Thrones series, and watching the DVD at the same time.

Then one day, I succumbed to temptation.

I looked up the internet to see what would happen in the future.  And I was paralysed.

I saw some things I liked, but also read about the suffering and even death of people I cared about.  Now I find my motivation to read on has been frozen.  I'm scared to progress to that future I know is inevitable.

And this got me musing...  Would I want God to tell me about the future?  My head says no!  But if I was sitting there with the forbidden fruit on offer, could I resist?  Of course, I don't think God would tempt me that way.  However, it helps me understand why God might not show us the future or answer all our questions when we demand to know.  How many of us long to know which job God wants us in, or where we are called to be.  Is this not some form of yearning to glimpse into the future?  The Old Testament spoke out strongly against fortune tellers and divination.  Perhaps this is in part to do with the power a prophetic word can have over someone's life.

But prophecy is not just about foretelling.  It is often about forth-telling.  It is hearing God's will for us today, in the here and now.

Perhaps, rather than longing for a glimpse into the future, I should direct more energy into seeking God in my today.  When has worrying about the future added even an hour to our lives?