The Village Library

A local village was home to famous person who was known for lots of good works. 

Over time, the villagers decided to create a library of works to celebrate this person and their relationship with the village. They asked respected artists, poets, story tellers, historians etc. to put together works that would tell the story of this person and their relationship with the village. 

All works were carefully scrutinised by a committee, who ensured that the works all accurately reflected this person and/or their relationship with the village, while respecting the creative freedoms to explore the relationship in different ways. 

People in the village insisted that they felt the spirit of that person, even though they weren't physically there anymore. Those who participated in the project were all inspired by this spirit and felt a deep connection. 

For example, one artist chose to write a love story, where they depicted this person as a handsome young man, singing praise and adoration over his fiancée. 

Another story teller chose to depict a battle, where the person protected the village from harm, and repelled the invaders. 

A local historian decided to tell a story about this person's birth, where they were born, who attended, what it was like to be the parents, and so on. 

These collected works were put together in the middle of the village in a magnificent library, for all the world to see and enjoy.

They tell a story of one person and their relationship with the village, but invite us all to consider our own relationship with this person, including the challenge of thinking our village might be bigger than we think.

That's how I see the Bible. Who wrote the Bible? The story tellers, the historians, the poets. 

Who inspired the Bible? The Spirit of God. 

What does the Bible tell us? A million stories that point to Jesus Christ and his love for all creation.

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

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.

Is the Bible simple and straightforward to understand?

I was reading a debate recently where some people were describing the Bible as being clear.

Over the months, many have also used the expressions "the plain reading of Scripture" or "the Bible is unambiguously clear".  These are usually in the context of sin and homosexuality.

We do need to acknowledge the incredible hard work that Bible translators over the centuries have put into translating the original texts.  Anyone with a knowledge of translation will know that this is no easy task.   There is no such thing as a literal translation, as words and language have meaning that is bound up with their context and culture.  To give a simple example, take the French expression "je t'aime".  What does this mean?

In one context, it means "I love you".  In another context it means "I like you".  These different understandings could have profound implications in certain situations!  Some words do not translate at all into other languages.  Some have many words for snow or types of cloud or weather.

And then, there is historical context.  A word can change its meaning over time.  Take for example the word "gay".  Decades ago, this meant happy or bright.  Now it means homosexual.  In some contexts it is a fashion statement.

Bible translators have a very tricky job of not only finding the original meaning of a word in its original context, but they must then choose a word that conveys a similar meaning in the new context.  This is why we have countless Bible translations on our shelves and why there is no single "best translation".  You might be interested to know that the word "homosexual" does not feature in the Bible for example, but translators used that word to convey different meanings into a context where they felt it was the best word (do a word search online in the old King James Bible if you don't believe me!).

But another thing we must remember about the Bible is that it is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books, which include poetry, song, stories, historical documentation, biography, prophetic vision, pastoral letters and more.

When someone says "the Bible says..." they usually mean "my understanding of what God teaches us through the Bible is..."  At least, I hope they do.  Sometimes it feels like the Bible is a glove puppet that pops up and starts speaking to people from behind a pulpit.

We must also remember that the early Church did not have the Bible we know today.  They created much of the New Testament themselves, yet God clearly spoke to them in different ways.

In light of all these facts, we should be cautious when we hear the words "the Bible clearly says..."  Really, we are trying to discern the will of God through the Bible.  I personally believe that God inspired the writers and that God speaks to us today through the Bible and that the Bible translators take great care in their work.    However, it is clear that throughout the centuries, different understandings of what God says through the Bible have resulted in countless denominations, religious orders, divisions and even war.

This is not to say we should discard the Bible.  I have had profoundly moving spiritual experiences through devotional Bible studies.  The Bible is the first place I turn to after prayer when looking for guidance in life.  We can learn so much about God, Jesus, the Church and how to live lives as Christians through the amazing words of these sacred texts.

However, we worship a living God, not a book about a living God.  God speaks to us through the Bible, yes.  He also speaks to us in different ways and through different people.  The key is that each time we think we know what God would say, to return to God in prayer and ask him directly!  We need to check our initial interpretations for the consistency with the message, example and life of Jesus.  We need to discern through the Holy Spirit residing in us if we are on the right track.  We need to check things out with the community of believers.  These are all important safeguards in our walk as Christians.

The Bible is the most amazing book in the world.  Through it, God transformed my life and I love it dearly and I would fight for it to be freely available to all.   It is most certainly not simple and straightforward (and at times can be very unclear), but then neither is God and neither are we.  If the Bible were a simple textbook with all the answers, then we wouldn't need the gifts of teaching or preaching.  We would just need to hand everyone a copy and say "just do what it says".

our sense of identity

Some recent discussions among some Christian friends of mine were on the subject of being Counter-cultural.    One said that he believes maintaining integrity with the Bible means always being counter-cultural.

This stirred another musing and reminded me of my undergraduate psychology studies of Social Identity Theory.

As human beings, a large part of our sense of identity comes from comparison with our in-group (where we belong) and our out-group (the others!).

As a travelling Scot, I know only too well that this identity is fluid.  In the city where I live, there are divides depending on where we live.  Jokes are made about the other end of town.  This can be a strong identity, especially during sporting events.  Warmth towards our in-group (as long as they don't violate our core values, but we'll be much more forgiving) and hostility (at times) towards the other group.

Until we have an inter-city rivalry.  Then, we shift our focus and our local differences diminish (along with some hostility) and we face a new "common enemy".

Until we look south (or north or whatever direction your nearest rival nation is).  Then we have a sense of national pride.  This can continue, and no doubt would do so in the event of extra-terrestrial contact...

But how does this relate to Christians?  Well, in our national Church, we've been debating the issue of homosexuality.  This has caused division, pretty much into 2 camps, with some brave exceptions of those resisting the divisive nature of this debate.  As long as the focus remains on a single issue, where people are predominantly in one camp or another, then an in-group and out-group can start to emerge.  I've noticed this first hand.  I've started to feel more than usual warmth towards other Christians who I might not normally spend much time with, because on this issue, we are on the same side of the fence and I feel a need for emotional support and a sense of community.  However, I've equally felt an increase in hostility and irritation towards other Christians on the other side of the fence, and I have begun to associate many traits I disapprove of with membership of this group.

The rational, educated part of me knows what is going on, but the emotional part of me still feels it.

I believe this is in part because I am getting my sense of Christian identity from community membership that is fluid and easily divided.  Bring up another debate (like switching sporting events) and I would no doubt find my sense of identity shifting slightly once more as the defining lines are readjusted.

Christians can run the risk of having 2 groups... The us and them, the saved and the non-believers.  On the one hand, this can help remind us of our mission of reaching the world with the message of God's love.  However, it can easily shift to a condemnation of non-Christian behaviour and a reluctance to associate with the out-group.  Just look through the book of Acts and you will see that this is not a new phenomenon as the Jewish believers were struggling to know how to worship alongside the previously unacceptable gentiles (probably one of the best examples of an in-group and out-group bias).

But is this an unavoidable issue, or can we do something about it?

There are some lovely verses in Hebrews 12 that go:

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

As we run the race, we must avoid the temptation of comparison with others.  This can lead to pride, arrogance and group blindness (if others we love do something, it must be okay!).  Instead, we need to focus with effort on Jesus and our relationship with him.  Of course, we need fellowship with others and we have a great commission and warnings about being corrupted by the world.  However, it is not here that we should get our identity.  This can lead to the elder brother syndrome of believing certain standards must be met in order to belong or be accepted.  It can also lead to internal division (one of the acts of the sinful nature mentioned by Paul in Galatians).

Instead, we should assess ourselves individually by looking into the eyes of Jesus each and every day.  Instead of looking for approval to our left or right, we need to look up for guidance, while reaching downwards and outwards with love.

Romans 1

There is an excellent article exploring Romans 1 and who exactly Paul was talking about in this passage often quoted to condemn all homosexual activity.

http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/2011/10/bible-focus-part-4-romans-1/

God bless,

MM

Jesus and the Law

The Old Testament has some challenging passages, there's no denying it.  My own minister has admitted he won't even preach on passages such as the warfare of Joshua, because they're too difficult to understand (and he is a traditionalist minister who believes in the "plain reading of scripture").

One challenge is knowing which Bible passages from the OT should we, as Christians, still follow?  How does a traditionalist wrestle with the Leviticus passages outlawing homosexual practice while equally outlawing tattoos, eating certain foods and wearing clothing of mixed fibres.

An article published by the Christian Institute explains one perspective: "It teaches that the moral element in the law, focused in the ten commandments, is of permanent application, while the ceremonial and civil elements were for the duration of the Old Testament economy only. The ceremonial was a shadow of Christ which became obsolete with his coming, and the civil a model of legal arrangements for any society, though not of such a status as to demand exact replication."

So, in a nutshell - passages relating to tattoos and foods etc. could be ceremonial, in that they distinguished God's people from the surrounding pagan worship practices.  Sexual relation restrictions, they would argue, are permanent moral law.

My problem with this, is that when we read about homosexual practices, they are almost entirely in the context of pagan temple worship and such activities, which could arguably put them into the category of ceremonial laws designed to distinguish God's people from the pagans around.

However, I have a greater problem with the division of laws into 3 categories.  It comes from these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

It concerns me when I read these words but hear Christians happily ignore certain OT requirements, such as these: “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God." (Lev 19:9-10).  And yet, many who ignore these will jump on other passages such as the famous Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".

The division of Law into 3 types is, I believe, a valiant attempt to wrestle with Scripture.  However, when asked what the Greatest Commandment is, Jesus gave an answer that helps us better wrestle with the Old Testament.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:37-40).

I have always considered this passage to be a foundation of my faith.  I believe I am saved by faith in Jesus.  In my striving to live a holy life that is pleasing to God, I do not believe I have to follow every law of the Old Testament, but rather the principles outlined here by Jesus.  In so doing, I believe Christians keep right by the Law.  Of course, we slip, fall down and stumble, but not because of a failure to obey every letter of the Law, but rather our failure to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Paul explains this concept in Romans 2:14-15

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

I don't believe Paul is saying that Gentiles accidentally follow all Old Testament laws by following their moral compass, but rather that when they follow the principles of Jesus of loving God with everything and loving our neighbour as our-self then in so  doing, we demonstrate that obedience to the law is in our hearts.

Part of my belief on this issue is shaped by my understanding of the story of the Old Testament.  I see it predominantly as a detailed account (in different form - history, poetry etc.) of the relationship between God and his people.  The laws of the OT were to help the people of the time keep their part of the covenant with God.  We now have a new covenant in Christ, and in keeping the Greatest Commandments through our faith in Christ, we keep the law of the old covenant.

So what do I do with the difficult passages on the OT?  I prayerfully try to discern how these laws were about investing in the covenant with God and look to the new covenant I have in Christ and seek to obey the Greatest Commandments in each and every situation.  I fail regularly, but the grace of God is sufficient for me and I have the Holy Spirit as guide and counsellor in my heart,  bearing witness, sometimes accusing and sometimes defending me.

So, did Jesus do away with the Law?  By no means.  He fulfilled the Law - but not just the ceremonial aspects.  He fulfilled it in its entirety, and in following the Greatest Commandments, we can meet all the requirements of the Law, in Christ.

False teachers

I've noticed that a few opponents of same sex marriage or gay ministers often refer to passages of scripture referring to false teachers or heretics. Take for example the following passage from 2 Peter 2:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping".

If you sincerely believe that God is against all forms of homosexuality, then these kinds of passage are very appealing. However, if we don't understand the context, we can essentially hear "any teaching we don't like must be a heresy, and we must be prepared for one to materialise". Some passages refer to sexual immorality, which is we think refers to homosexuality, again backs up our view.

Unfortunately, this approach to the Bible is really one that is about finding what we want to hear and it's incredibly easy to do.

Take for example my finding of this verse which I read to oppose opponents of same sex marriage (1 Timothy 4):

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

I actually don't believe that most opponents of same sex marriage are false teachers. I think most are sincere, genuine believers who have a different understanding of the Scriptures from me. I love them as brothers and sisters, and I am convinced that Paul teaches me, inspired by the Holy Spirit, how to deal with these situations in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

What it teaches me is that I need to resist the temptation of throwing Bible verses at people I disagree with, but instead find a way of loving them and worshipping alongside them...

A biblical rationale for same sex marriage?

I wonder how you responded to reading that title?

Were you enraged? Curious? Excited? Nonplussed?

Before going near addressing this issue, it is important to address the genuine concern that the Bible appears at first glance to have a negative message towards homosexuality.

If you read some of my previous posts, you'll see that I don't believe these verses hold up to much scrutiny if you view homosexuality as a natural orientation, in the same way that left handedness is a natural deviation from the norm of right handedness. The Bible passages then can be seen clearly not as a condemnation of all expressions of homosexuality, but rather all abusive expressions of homosexuality (prostitution, temple worship, orgies, child molestation, rape and the like). In Romans 1 we read that the temple context of same sex abuses is from people who do not acknowledge God (see Romans 1:21 and 28).

When a committed Christian prayerfully discerns how they are to live their life by guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can start to discern fruit in their lives (my belief is that at the point of committing in faith to Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes into our lives and God makes his home within us, as we read in John 14). It is through faith they are justified and they have to remain true to their own conscience as we read in Romans 14. It is worth mentioning that a believer's conscience is not entirely their own thinking, but they have an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit, the great advocate and counsellor.

From this point (if you disagree with the view that homosexuality is like left handedness, but prefer instead to believe that it is like an addiction or is about a lustful lifestyle choice, then the conclusion I come to will make no sense to you, and in fact, you would be wrong to accept it if it takes you against your own conscience) the homosexual believer has some decisions to make. Sexual attraction of any kind is not right or wrong. In that way, it is like anger. It is a response to a stimulus. Paul says that in our anger we should not sin. Anger increases our likelihood of sinning because we think less rationally and more emotionally. However, if channelled correctly, anger can lead to great works (e.g. anger at injustice, poverty, abuse etc.). Likewise, sexual attraction or arousal is not in itself a sin, but it is what we do with that attraction that is important. We need some safeguards to ensure we do not follow every human instinct to its natural conclusion, which is usually the shortest route to gratification. This takes us to advice from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

To me, this is a passage about safeguarding. A quick aside here - some will be perplexed that Paul is referring only to heterosexuality in this context. That is of course true. However, we must remember that sexual orientation was not a concept understood for centuries to come. Sexual activity, yes, but orientation no. Studies of human sexuality have only recently helped us understand that orientation is not a choice (when did I choose to become heterosexual?) but something we are in all likelihood born with or at the very least develop through puberty (but we cannot and should not ever try to change someone's sexual orientation). So of course Paul is only talking within a frame of reference they will understand and no-one was asking about same sex marriage, so why would he address it?

So Paul teaches that like Jesus and his own life, singleness is a blessed gift. He explains later why he has this pastoral concern in verses 26-28.

"Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

Now, this is where our conclusion will depend significantly upon our starting point. Of course, a view that all sexuality that is not heterosexual must be sinful will have reached a dead end in terms of conversation a long time ago. However, if we are talking left handedness and something natural that is not a lifestyle choice, and if a believer is guided by the Holy Spirit and is justified through faith in Jesus and they feel a true and genuine love for someone (regardless of orientation) then if they feel led towards a lifelong commitment of faithfulness and love and they do not have Paul's gift (of an ability to live a full life of celibacy), then we need to ask ourselves what response can our Christian community offer to this couple?

My conclusion, that I understand not all will agree with, is that the Church should seriously consider offering Christian marriage. Currently, what most offer at the moment is quiet tolerance of cohabitation or passive acceptance of civil partnership or zero tolerance and demands that they repress their sexuality and discontinue any same sex relationship. What is missing is the support of a Christian community to help sustain a relationship and possible family, nurturing a couple in Christian love.

Certainly no minister who opposes homosexuality should ever be forced to conduct such a ceremony (there is already space for conscience in cases of divorce for example). However, I have moved from a view of thinking same sex relationship might not be all bad, but I wouldn't go as far as marriage, to embracing the concept of marriage where appropriate. The consequences of driving a natural sexual orientation underground is psychologically unhealthy and serves not to advance Christ's message of transformation and love but rather runs the risk of driving honest seekers away from the Bible, from Church and ultimately from Christ himself. I thank God that no lost sheep is ever disregarded, but do worry at times that it is Christians around the world who actively scatter the flock, usually with good intention.

The power of relationship (actually, it's love)

Yesterday we came home to find that our front grass had been cut by our neighbours. We smiled and thought "how kind of them".

A few days ago, I was sitting in the garden drinking a glass of wine when I heard the neighbour come into his garden with his son to play cricket. The ball frequently smashed against his fence and twice rolled under into my garden. Once it nearly knocked my glass of wine over. I smiled each time and rolled the ball back over to a chorus of "sorry! Thank you!"

Occasionally we hear loud music through our wall, and while it is mildly irritating, it is nice to hear a family laughing and enjoying themselves next door.
Yet, we've also lived in places where when we've heard a loud TV through the wall, our response was one of anger and irritation, which usually let to a loud thump on the wall to ask them to turn it down!

The question is why does one situation result in tolerance and good relations, whereas the other is anger and stress?

The key is that in our current home, we invested in the relationship with our neighbours. On arrival into the neighbourhood we took time to introduce ourselves. At Christmas we send a card. When we had builders on site, we sent neighbours a bottle of wine to apologise for the inconvenience. We communicated with them all about our building plans, not to ask their permission but out of courtesy.

At no point do we do these things in order to manipulate others. We do these things out of love. These actions build relationships which help build tolerance when things happen that could result in tension had the relationship not been there. It's almost like having a bank account with reserves. Investing in relationship is like making lots of small deposits into the account, so that when crisis arrives, we have funds to see us through.

Jesus once told his disciples: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.". (John 13:35)

When people truly love one another, they invest in relationship. From a position of good relations, we have the reserves of tolerance to listen to each other when we see things differently and we have a sincere desire to understand the motivations of each other, even if we profoundly disagree. 

 
The New Testament is full of examples of conflict in the Church. The pastoral letters emphasise the importance of loving each other and promoting unity and harmony. This is not just a lovey dovey hope, it is about our witness to the world.

Again, we return to the words of Jesus in John 17:

“My prayer is not for them alone. 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."

Do you see the last sentence there?  The way we relate to one another in the church sends a message of witness to the world.

This begs the question, what do we do if some in the church oppose same sex marriage and others support it? Or our brothers and sisters in the Anglican community where some support women bishops and others oppose it?

Perhaps now is the time to return to the core message that we need to invest more in our relationships within the Church. Few people change their views by hearing a Bible verse thrown at them to argue that they are wrong. When people feel loved and respected, then we might be open to listening in a far deeper way, rather than to entrench ourselves in a position that leaves the secular press rubbing their hands in glee...

Are we pushed into counter-extremism?

Over the years, I've noted that when a group of people start to become extreme in their views, they begin to alienate more and more people, but not only this, they seem to provoke stronger than normal reactions in the other extreme.

Perhaps it's to do with the old theory that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

The first time I appreciated this in a religious context was when sitting in a car with a minister who started talking about Literalists.  It took me a while to work out what she was meaning.  As an evangelical Christian, I was puzzled, until I realised she was referring to a group I'd call Conservative Evangelical (further along the spectrum than where I sit).  And it's true, when you listen to some conservative views, they do seem to take the Bible incredibly literally.  By this I mean they take some words off the page, ignore any context whatsoever and say "see, it says it in the Bible".

You'll read on another post that I think if you take the Genesis template of one man and one woman being the only acceptable template for relationships, because it's written there, then you have some challenges ahead.  The first challenge comes only 1 verse later.  In Genesis 2:24 it says that a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife and they become one flesh.  So a literal application of this is that we must all practice heterosexual monogamy.  Speaking as a monogamous heterosexual male, that suits me fine.

But what's this? The next verse says "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.". Uh oh.  Now I know that my agnostic naturist friend might have a stronger Biblical case than me on this one.  Let's just gloss over that one shall we?

And while we're glossing over things, I'd also like to gloss over 2 Samuel 12:8 where God speaks to David through the prophet Nathan and says "I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives... [cut] . And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more'"

Now hold on a second.  Did God just tell David he would have given David more wives if he'd wanted?  And let's fast forward to the teachings of celibacy of Paul.  He says it's better to be single.  Oh if only Paul knew his scriptures eh?  (In case you didn't know, Paul knew his scriptures better than most!)

But what's the point I'm making?  As an evangelical Christian who takes his Bible seriously and turns to that sacred book in all my devotional times and for support in difficult days to hear God speak to me through the Holy Spirit, it pains me to see people being pushed away from the Bible because of extremist views on it.

When someone you don't agree with stands up and waves a Bible around to justify horrendous hatred, or waves placards at FUNERALS of all places quoting scripture instead of mourning with those who mourn (another scripture), then it makes you ashamed.  When people who don't know the difference start to think "that book must be awful if it inspires that kind of behaviour" then it drives loving Christians away from the Bible as they don't want anything to do with extremism and what it represents.

That is why I think as Christians we need to stand up strongly and say how much we LOVE the Bible, but also acknowledge how much we have to wrestle with it, pray through it, discuss and debate in loving ways not only what it says, but what God might be saying to us through it and how we apply it in our world and lives today.

Here endeth this morning's rant!  Thank you for listening :-) 

dividing the spectrum

I have a friend, who believes passionately that the Bible supports the ordination of women.  If the Church were to hold a debate and vote on a position, he would stand up and take a pro-women in ordination position.

This same friend believes passionately that the Bible is against all expressions of homosexuality.  When the Church debates on this issue, he would take a strong anti-homosexual practice position.

In one debate, we would stand shoulder to shoulder in what we believe the Bible says.  In another debate, a sharp dividing line separates us.

It seems that where there is a spectrum of opinion, a single issue can divide or unite the best of friends.  What, I wonder, would Christ's response be to this?  I suspect we have answers in the letters of Paul with regards to contentious issues that promote quarreling and division, but would be interested to hear any views others might have.

The power of an analogy

The debate that is raging at the moment about gay marriage across the world has thrown up an interesting issue.  In our attempt to understand complex issues, we often draw on analogies to help us get our heads round things.  Jesus himself often used parables.

In this debate, I have heard two different analogies, which lead to powerfully different outcomes.

The first, used by many conservative evangelicals and traditionalists, is that homosexuality is a departure from the "norm" in the same way that something like alcoholism is.  The argument follows that a loving approach to an alcoholic is to "love the sinner, hate the sin."  Ignoring for a moment the vocal minority of placard waving haters (you know the type... God hates faggots types, that have no knowledge of the message of Christ), we have many who would try sincerely to welcome and show love to a homosexual, while imploring them to turn away from a homosexual lifestyle in the same way we try to help an alcoholic find freedom from addiction.

Another analogy that is used by more progressive types (in the theological sense) is that sexuality is like handedness.  The majority of us are right handed.  A minority is left handed, a few are ambidextrous.

Go back in history and you will see that being left handed was sometimes a curse.  Teachers would strike a child using the wrong hand.  Even the Latin word shares the root of the word sinister.  There was something unnatural and wrong about left handed people, who were clearly not following the template of normality.

And here's where it becomes interesting.  When a sincerely loving alcoholic-analogy Christian meets a like minded handedness Christian, it's as if they are on different planets.

One hears the other saying "I don't care about alcohol abuse.  It's a live and let live society.  What harm is it really doing?  Aren't there more important things to worry about than if someone is drunk and addicted to a drunken lifestyle?"

The other hears a different message.  "I love you, but to belong to our family and have an active role in it, you have to renounce your left-handedness.  If you can't use your right hand (you know, the proper one that we're designed to use), then don't use any hand at all... That's a perfectly acceptable alternative.  We'll stand alongside you in your struggle."

Interestingly, these two Christians might stand shoulder to shoulder on so many debates and issues, yet the power of this one issue is so divisive as to make them feel poles apart.  One hears total disregard for sin and holiness, the other hears a complete lack of compassion and love.

Any read of previous posts will lead you to not be surprised to hear I prefer the handedness analogy.  No doubt if you prefer the alcohol analogy you will want to scream "but the plain reading of scripture says it's a sin!"  I understand and respect your view but on other posts we address the issue of what the Bible says, appears to say and how there are different interpretations that mean we need to take great care before condemning left handed people who use their preferred hand because they were born that way...

An Open Letter of Apology

To my dear brothers and sisters, who are conservative evangelical in faith, 

I am sorry for the pain you are going through when you see so-called liberal Christians appear to abandon the teachings of the scriptures you hold to so dearly.  I understand the sense of anguish as people turn their back on the Word you love so dearly.  I am sorry that I have not stood up and publicly affirmed my commitment to the teachings of God’s Holy Word and I can see the hurt you feel as you watch the world around turn its back on the life-giving streams of God’s holiness and love.

To my dear brothers and sisters, who call themselves progressive in faith,

I am sorry for the pain you are going through as you find your views shunned and treated with contempt by other Christians, who sometimes go as far as to describe you as heretics or of another religion.  I understand the sense of anguish as you see the debate and arguments take the place of love and social justice.  I am sorry that I have not stood up and publicly affirmed my commitment to showing God’s love and compassion to the poor, abused and marginalised of this world, and I can see the hurt you feel as you watch the world around you judge your faith by the words of others you disagree with.

To my dear friends of this world, who look on at our Church,

I am sorry for the hypocrisy you see and the love that is preached, but rarely shown.  I understand how you wonder why we would want you to come and worship a God that seems full of judgement and rules.  I am sorry that you feel at times ignored as we busy ourselves with our cliques, and at other times bashed by our Bibles or better-than-thou attitudes.  I am ashamed that you see how we judge you for having less compassion, less love, less integrity and less honour than the so called Holy few.

To my best friend in the world,

I can barely look you in the eye when I think of the apologies I must give.  You walked this earth 2000 years ago and showed us a better way to live.  So we tried to stone you.  You sat among us and shared food with us, and we tried to trap you with words.  You healed us and loved us and provided for our needs… so we crucified you.  You gave us new life and called us to follow you and share this love with others.  You give your Spirit to live in us as counsellor and guide.  And still we fight.

I am sorry.

Want to discuss the Bible and Homosexuality? This is the place!

As long as people are respectful of one another, I'm happy to have discussion about the "big debate" regarding the Bible and homosexuality (from a Christian perspective). If you want to know my thoughts on it, read previous posts. Please just be aware that for anyone wrestling with their sexuality, it can be a very difficult time, so bear this in mind in how you express yourself. God bless.

why people thought the Bible was against homosexuality

I've been wondering a lot about the issue of homosexuality and why readers of the Bible see it as being against homosexuality. You'll see from my earlier posts that I think this is a mistake, but below is a more general view of how I think this has happened.

The first clue is that the concept of homosexuality (and consequently heterosexuality) allegedly only emerged in the late 19th Century (according to the philosopher Foucault). Before then, if you had talked about homosexuality, it would have been a meaningless concept.

Of course, homosexual practice did happen much, much earlier than this. Yet nobody would have thought of this as being a result of sexual orientation. Rather, it would have been seen as sexual practice - often linked to pagan temple rites, hedonism or pederasty (a man having sexual relations with a boy).

To the religious mind, this kind of behaviour would have been considered disgusting and sinful, for fairly obvious reasons.

When we read about homosexuality in the Bible, it's really important to understand that the early Bible writers did not use the term "homosexual". Instead, they would have said things like "lying down with a man as with a woman". When Bible translators started to translate the scriptures into modern English, they had to work out how best to translate these things. The Bible would invariably talk of these things in a negative light - and right up until the mid 20th Century, homosexuality was illegal. This combination would mean that just translating the concept into "homosexual" would have made perfect translation sense.

A good example of this kind of translation issue is found in the King James Version of the Bible (a relatively old translation). One passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

There are 2 things to note in this passage. Firstly, they did not use the term "homosexual". Instead, they said "abusers of themselves with mankind", reflecting the lack of use of this term when the King James was written (originating in the 17th Century). The second thing is that there is a curious expression of "effeminate" here. A more modern translation, such as the New International Version, translates this as "male prostitutes".

Why is this interesting? Because it shows us that modern translators appreciated that the Bible could not really have been talking about effeminate people - after all, why would an effeminate man not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven? Yet male prostitutes (often associated with pagan temple worship) would clearly be going against the will of God.

Yet the King James tells us that those who abuse themselves with mankind won't enter the kingdom of heaven. This is fascinating, because the word "abuser" suggests a crime and a victim. In the early 20th Century we can forgive translators for assuming this meant homosexuals, because it was widely accepted that this was wrong (and illegal). However, we now have a much more enlightened understanding of sexuality and therefore it would seem logical that a new translation is required that more accurately translates the original scriptures, in a way that is not influenced by our cultural understanding of right and wrong.

homosexuality... and the Bible

There have always been debates in the church about homosexuality. However, in the church of Scotland, things are reaching fever pitch, as a minister has been accepted as a minister in a church in Aberdeen. This minister is homosexual.

My issue is not with this man, as I know nothing about him. My issue is with the arguments that are put forward against homosexuality that claim to be biblical.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in its authority in my life.

What bothers me, is that I've only ever heard arguments that don't really stand up to scrutiny. Here are the 3 key passages I've heard used from the Bible to argue against homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Matthew 19: 3-9
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him [Jesus]. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1 Corinthians 6: 9(b)-10
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters 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."

Now, I should state that I am neither pro-homosexuality nor anti-homosexuality. It shouldn't be relevant, but I am writing this as a heterosexual, married man. Here are my problems with using the above quotes to put forward an argument that says homosexuality is unbiblical.

Leviticus is a passage that shows how God has given the Israelites various laws as they settled as a community and began to establish themselves. This quote comes in a long list of unlawful sexual relations. It includes not sleeping with relatives, women during their periods and animals. Interestingly, that chapter starts off with the following statement (verses 3-5):

"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them."

Part of what follows appears to be a list of prohibited activites that does two things. Firstly, it makes a distinction between God's people and the other people around (who worshipped other gods). Sexual promiscuity was probably rife, and God didn't want this to be the case for His people. Secondly, a lot of these commands are to do with hygiene and health. We know now of the dangers of in-breeding and sleeping with close relatives. We know about sexually transmitted diseases too. Remembering that we are talking about about a time that is around 3-4000 years ago, it's pretty impressive to be reading about early sex education. Sleeping with a man as one sleeps with a woman probably refers to anal sex.

Now, it wasn't a pleasant experience, but I just did an internet search on the health risks of anal sex and found enough information about disease, illness and damage to put me off tomorrow's breakfast.

Yes, it's true that one possible interpretation of this passage is that God hates homosexual practice. However, it's not convincing me, because it could equally be a passage that is talking about sexual health and well being. What makes me even more uncomfortable about the use of this passage is that just a chapter before, we read that it was totally forbidden for an Israelite to eat any blood. To apply that directly to today (as people do with the homosexual passage) would mean that it is a sin for people to eat black pudding (or as they say in the US, blood pudding) or meat that is rare (as many chefs love to prepare!).

So why do we hear preaching about homosexuality being a sin, but we don't hear about black pudding or (as Leviticus 18:19 says) the sin of approaching a woman for sexual relations when she is in her monthly period?

Furthermore, there are verses scattered throughout Leviticus that are completely ignored by the church today. For example, it is wrong to hold back the wages of a hired man overnight (Leviticus 19:13). What about the 30 day invoices we use regularly or sending a cheque in the post?

Or what about Leviticus 19:19... where I read that I am not to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? My jumper is 65% polyester, 35% cotton. Am I subject to God's wrath on account of this?

I'm not saying that God is pro-homosexual in the 21st Century. I am saying that we cannot use Leviticus 18:22 as a sound argument to say that God "hates" homosexual practice.

Matthew 19 is also often referred to. Now, here we move away from Leviticus into New Testament times and in fact, the actual words of Jesus Christ. What has always intrigued me is that Jesus never actually spoke about homosexuality. If he knew it was going to be such a big issue, why didn't he address it? Of course, just because Jesus says nothing doesn't mean he said it's okay either - after all, Jesus didn't mention suicide bombing a primary school but it's fairly safe to assume that he probably wouldn't have approved. But what does Jesus actually say here? Well, it's really important, before we look at Jesus' answer, to look at the question. Jesus refers to Genesis, to man and woman uniting to become one flesh. Sounds like we might be getting close now... but no, we aren't. The reason is that this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with divorce. The teachers of the law are trying to trick him and ask a question about divorce. "Is it always okay?" they ask. Some commentators argue that he was being asked to side in a debate between two prominent Jewish teachers who argued about when divorce was acceptable. Jesus basically says [and I paraphrase] "look, Moses said you could divorce, not because it was the right thing to do, but because your hearts are hard. It's not the way it should be. Faithfulness is what's important. The only legitimate reason is if one party isn't faithful."

What fascinates me here is that Moses seems to have given them permission to do something that Jesus says stems from something that isn't the way it should be. So wait... it's not black and white? Life's not that straightforward? Surely not (!).

Another interesting point about this passage is that Jesus' disciples then pick up the discussion and say "if this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry". This sounds very similar to teaching by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. In this letter to the church in Corinth, Paul essentially says it's better to be single than married. Why? Because when you're single you can devote yourself entirely to God, whereas when you are married, you have other concerns.

Why do we not hear this preached in churches? Why do we hear arguments about homosexuality being "un-natural" and how the natural order is for one man to be married to one woman (when interestingly, so many people in the Bible had many wives). Why are we not hearing that being single is a great thing to be?

While we are on this passage in Corinthians, I think it helps us wrestle with another argument often put forward. We're told that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I have no problem with that. But then we're told by some that God loves homosexuals, but hates homosexual practice. Well, he certainly hated it in Leviticus, but perhaps for different reasons.

It is often suggested that a homosexual person should force themselves to live a celibate life. True, it's acknowledged that this might be difficult for some, but it's assumed that it's the way it just has to be. At first I was taken along by this argument. But when you look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, it throws a whole new perspective on things. Paul says "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

So here, the apostle Paul essentially says to people that if they have passions and can't control themselves, then the best thing for them is to commit to another person in marriage. So I would ask the question - why are we happy to let heterosexual people listen to this teaching, but we tell homosexual people they have to be single or be excluded from the church or positions of leadership? Would it not be better for a homosexual man or woman to be committed to another in a loving relationship where they have made vows in front of witnesses in the eyes of God than for them to suffer and feel excluded and abused by the church? Then we could apply the same principles we hear Jesus talking about - divorce is not an acceptable way forward unless there is marital unfaithfulness. So, it's a serious, lifelong commitment, not just a romantic gesture.

On another argument, that of "the way things were created in Genesis", I think that Paul's teaching above gives us problems. If God created man to be with a woman and Paul says "actually, it's better to be single", then how can we argue that Genesis gives us the blueprint for all Christian life decisions? The apostle Paul himself seems to put forward a compromise to the "way of Genesis".

Some people compare homosexuality to having an illness, perhaps as a result of the original sin or fall. This is a tempting analagy to draw on, yet is a very harsh way to describe someone. I do actually believe that homosexuality is a result of the fall, but in the same way that old age was the result of the fall. I would never consider calling someone who is elderly "being un-natural as a result of a sinful world". I would love them, encourage them to live godly lives and the age issue would be a non-issue for me.

Finally, if you do a search for the word "homosexual" in the NIV Bible, you only find it once. It's in the same letter from Paul. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul talks about homosexual offenders not inheriting the kingdom of God. Now, what is really interesting here, is to consider the context. Just as we got a lot from understanding the context of Leviticus, we learn a lot here when we understand how Corinth was full of sexual activity. The temple to Aphrodite at one time had 1,000 prostitute priestesses. The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by a culture that involved sexual activity. What intrigues me about this passage is that Paul doesn't say "homosexuals will not inherit God's kingdom" No, he says "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". Seen in the context of religious activity that involved all these things in the list, it makes sense that Paul is essentially saying "come on guys, don't be like these people!" If we use that passage to say that Paul is anti-homosexual (and that therefore God is anti-homosexual) then this means Paul (and God) is anti-drunkards. Now, it's probably true that God doesn't want us to get drunk, but why don't we hear drunkards and slanderers mentioned in the same sentence as homosexual offenders... oh, and how strange, the word "offender" is attached. Yes, Paul could be saying that all homosexuals are offenders. But he could equally be saying that there are people out there who are homosexual offenders (emphasis mine) - perhaps something to do with the temple prostitution? It is also interesting that today we use the expression "sexual offender" but I hear no-one saying that God hates the sexual. A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature, not who is an offender because they are sexual. Perhaps the same applies to the homosexual offender?

On a side note, I read recently that the concept of homosexual identity only really emerged in the 19th Century, with the first use of the phrase "homosexual" being used in 1869. The Bible does, however, talk about homosexual activity, but people were probably not thought of as being homosexual in nature, rather people who practiced homosexual behaviour. It might seem a trivial point, but it does show us that in various translations of the Bible, the way of expressing homosexual activity probably is heavily influenced by the culture of the time.

I think I'll have lost most of my readers by now... either to sleep or starvation, so I'll stop soon. The point I'm trying to make is that I've yet to find a convincing argument that says the Bible is anti-homosexual. Perhaps homosexuality is a product of a fallen world in the same way that heart disease and old age are also. I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by that comparison. I also have a genetic disorder and I believe this is a product of me living in a sinful world that is not (yet) as God intends. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus died on a cross for me, that I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My prayer is that fear and prejudice will be assuaged by the love of the Holy Spirit to allow us to wrestle with the issues relevant in our society today. Instead of condemnation based on mis-interpretation of sacred texts, let's try and grow closer to God and learn how to fulful the great commission on our earth - Love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

God bless you all <><