Coping with disagreement

I was visiting a blog from a more conservative Christian recently.  People who know the writer personally, who are friends of mine, tell me he is a lovely, kind and nice person.  Yes, he cares passionately about his faith as many conservatives do, but he also cares about people.

Yet mysteriously, on his blog, I have only encountered hostility, rudeness and illogical hatred of the views I share.  And this is usually in response to comments I make about loving one another, accepting difference and tolerating different views.  His prefered criticism of me seems to be that I spread poison.  When challenged on this, he says he will always fight for the truth.

So what happened to the kind, loving and nice person my friends describe?

I don't want this blog to be about a person, but rather about a strange occurence that can happen when people interact in different ways.

When Jesus gathered his followers about him, they began to learn more about each other.  They spent time together and talked, listened and shared life experiences.  From this position of relationship, Jesus built the most influential organisation the world has known - the Christian Church.

The people around him asked questions, even challenged Jesus and his ways.  But from the love they shared, they grew together in faith.  The people who exhibited the most hostility (and ultimately killed him, but thankfully that was not the end!) were the religious people of the day who didn't know him personally (with the notable exception of Judas).  These people heard about him and his influence and occasionally dropped in the crowds to hear him speak and they hated the message he shared because it challenged their own positions.  But crucially, they did not have deep relationship with him.

And there's the rub.  Disagreements between friends can actually be very healthy and can lead to growth on both sides.  Disagreements between strangers rarely do.  When we encounter people we don't know personally, we see them less as individual people, and more as positions.  This depersonalisation of the person behind the position gives us psychological permission to attack the position and view, and consequently the person.

What I noticed in my interactions with many more conservative Christians is that it puts them in such an uncomfortable position to hear me describe myself as an evangelical Christian who disagrees with certain views (e.g. homosexuality).  Were we gathered as friends around a campfire eating fish caught that day or in the home of Mary and Martha, we might have had some very interesting conversations.  Who knows, perhaps my views might have been modified after hearing different views.  Yet this does not happen.  Instead, I am forcibly relabelled as some kind of liberal, heretic or poisoner.  At times I've even had my own relationship with Jesus questioned.  After all, how can I be a Christian if I disagree with them?

To be fair, I've noticed this effect with others too (including liberals, atheists and agnostics).  It causes more pain when it comes from fellow evangelicals, but the primary cause is the same.

Jesus once said "Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples".  I have heard attempts to get round this powerful teaching by people saying true love speaks truth.  I have even heard the argument that if someone is walking off a cliff, the loving thing is to shout at him, rather than politely smile!  Yet we know that Jesus was not meaning this.  He was asking us to model the relationships he taught his disciples.  A self sacrificing, loving relationship.  Yes, there was space for disagreement and difference and sometimes some people were right and some were wrong, but never at the expense of that relationship between brother and sister.

What is interesting is that when conservatives view disagreement they like to compare themselves with the old testament prophets or they use the words of Paul about heretics.  Yet we cannot truly understand these other human examples without the lens of Christ.

Jesus had his most critical words reserved for the religious establishment who were making a relationship with God rule-bound and difficult.  James in the council of Jerusalem summarised it wonderfully - "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God".

So, as Paul writes to the Church, let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

God bless you.

A study on the book of Romans (part 2)

Following on from our last study (http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-study-on-book-of-romans-part-1.html), we now will look at one of the most controversial passages in Romans.

Before we do, however, I would suggest revisiting our first study (see link above) to understand the context in which Paul was writing.

There is conflict, division, a real tension between more conservative Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (who would have been considered much more liberal by the Jews).  Paul's purpose in writing is to promote unity in this divided community.  This is a crucially important background to our next section.

Paul starts this next section by affirming the Jewish position (remember, they were the minority group and were looked down upon by many gentile Christians).  A Jew would be acutely aware of how they must differentiate themselves from non-Jew.  Their strict laws and observances were drummed into them from a young age.  Paul writes in a way to get them on board by highlighting the pagan world round about as we shall see in verses 17-32.

Romans 1:17-32

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[Here, Paul addresses the issue of non-Jews being aware of God, despite their lack of education and training in Jewish ways.  Essentially, he is saying we can know the Creator by his Creation.  We cannot make the excuse of not having been educated as a Jew.]

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

[Here, there is a clear reference to pagan activities.  Paul is not talking about Christians, but about pagans who have rejected God and instead chosen to worship false gods.]

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

[Many of the pagan temples were known for their hedonism and sexual activities, including temple prostitutes and orgies.]

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

[The only reference in the Bible to female sexuality of this kind - it is not known if Paul here means lesbian activities, or women adopting a sexually aggressive and traditionally male role in sexual activities with men.  Rather than the natural sexual intimacy of a loving relationship with a woman, we hear of a licentious and lustful behaviour.  We do not know the exact nature of the men's shameful acts with other men, but can safely assume they were sexual and "un-natural"] - see however, my other postings on how this relates to homosexuality today.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them."

[Again, Paul clarifies that he is not talking about non-Jewish Christians, but those who choose not to  acknowledge God.  The fruit of this life is wickedness, evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, arrogance, boasting, doing evil, disobeying parents, having no understanding or fidelity or love or mercy.]

At this point, bearing in mind that this letter is likely to be read aloud in public to a diverse audience, you can imagine how the Jewish Christians will be buoyed and will anticipate that Paul is on their side (after all, he was himself a strict Jew).  By highlighting the sins of pagan worshipers of false gods (remember how Paul introduces this - with images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles), Paul is raising the Jewish awareness of how they have been set apart as God's people.  This was an important affirmation that the Jews needed to hear, particularly proclaimed aloud in front of their gentile brothers and sisters.

Before they can get overly arrogant about their position however, Paul quickly turns the tables on them.  We will explore this in the next chapter.

------------------------------------------

A quick point needs to be made about homosexuality here.  Many Christians use the above passage as "clear evidence" that God condemns all homosexual activities.  However, there are 2 points to be made here.  Firstly, if this is a true reading of this passage, then equal strength of opposition needs to be made for all the other groups of sin mentioned in this passage - including gossiping, boasting, arrogance and dishonouring of parents.  To have integrity in applying God's word fairly, we cannot take one sin and put it on a pedestal of unrighteousness, while turning a blind eye to others.

Secondly, and of paramount importance, is that the people Paul is describing here are clearly pagans engaging in promiscuous and licentious living.  The fact that everyone knows about these behaviours means that it is not the private intimacy of a loving couple, but instead public sexual promiscuity and in all likelihood associated with temple worship.  The people being described "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him".

Our debates today on homosexuality in the Church are about a much different people - brothers and sisters in Christ who do seek with all their hearts to glorify God and give thanks to him.  The fruit of the Spirit is at odds with the acts of the sinful nature and we must be careful not to compare a homosexual Christian with this group of sexually promiscuous and licentious pagan worshipers Paul is referring to in this passage.  This is particularly important in light of the next part of his letter and the whole purpose of what he is writing in this letter, right through to the end of Romans.

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.

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

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

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...

Blog reviews on the Church of Scotland's shift to allowing gay ministers...

Here are some useful blog summaries I recommend:

http://www.standrewsblantyre.com/index.php/about-us/our-minister/peters-blog/1181-something-for-everyone

http://oldhighststephens.com/2013/05/21/general-assembly-how-did-the-vote-for-gay-clergy-happen/

Here is a moving sermon following the GA discussion: http://www.standonline.org.uk/church/view_video_290412

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.

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.

a link to a talk on the General Assembly (homosexuality debate)

I heard a talk from a minister in the church of Scotland who describes himself as having more "conservative" views. However, I feel that his summary is excellent and also his position and respect for others is likewise.

If the world had more people like him, it would be a much better place.

Here is the link to the MP3 download:

http://genesis.machost.co.uk/podcasting/stand/Sunday%2024th%20AM%202_56K.mp3

the Bible... is not anti-homosexual

I have recently posted about my feelings against Bible passages being inappropriately used to discuss homosexuality (particularly taking an anti-homosexual position). However, in my recent quiet times and devotionals, I have felt led to more Bible passages that I think actually take an opposing view.

Firstly, a recap of the problems with traditional objections....

1. "It's not natural". This argument falls down very quickly. Firstly, who is to say that all things natural are good? Put a pack of hungry wolves in a room with a defenseless child and that child will be mauled. Good? No. Natural? Yes. Secondly, there are allegedly cases in the natural world of homosexual behaviour. I can't refer to these directly, but it is a good point to make - if an anti-homosexual argument rests on the case that it is not natural, then a finding that it is natural would completely wipe out that argument.

2. "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". A catchy slogan, even if rather simplistic! A verse often referred to in Genesis (Gen 2: 24)is "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". A problem with this is that we would be selectively choosing one verse at the expense of others. For example, the very next verse (Gen 2: 25) says "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame". If we take verse 24 to state that God designed one man for one woman, then we have to take the verse 25 to state that God designed men and women to be naked. In fact, they only wore clothes as a result of sin. Therefore clothes are a product of a fallen world. Are we to say therefore that practising clothes-wearers are sinning? Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a product of a fallen world, but I also believe that old age is a product of a fallen world. We accept old age and do not exclude people from positions of leadership in the church on account of it, but some feel we should excluse homosexual people from such.

3. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Two verses about homosexual practice. However, they are in a long list of other "forbidden practices" such as wearing clothes with mixed fibres, witholding a man's wages overnight, planting a field with two different kinds of seeds and cross-breeding animals. It sounds much more like an instruction to help a wandering people seeking to learn life in a community, very practical and also relating to sexual health. Some argue that Leviticus has "moral laws" alongside other laws that are more civil or practical. This is a rather desperate attempt to reconcile a text that does not sit comfortably with us if you ask me. Who are we to decide which laws are moral and which are practical? In Leviticus 17 it is clear that eating blood is forbidden. Is this practical or moral? Does this mean we can't eat black pudding (blood pudding) today? Surely this depends on our interpretation of what kind of law it is... and this is the problem with Leviticus as an argument against a same sex relationship.

4. Romans 1:18-32. This is a fascinating passage that mentions "un-natural relations". However, it is also in the context of worshipping man made idols and this hints strongly that we are talking about pagan temple worship, that included prostitution and same sex promiscuity. To pick verses from this passage runs the same risk as picking verses from Leviticus. In verse 29 we read "They are gossips" and in 30 "they disobey their parents". Does this mean that people who gossip (including sites like Facebook and Twitter) deserve death? What about rebellious teenage children? It says in verse 32 that "those who do such things deserve death". No, to me this sounds like a much more serious situation than a loving same sex relationship. This is about degrading of our bodies, sexual promiscuity and openly worshipping false gods.

5. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do not be deceived: 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." This is a fascinating passage, particularly as we know that Christ came to save sinners, proclaiming almost the reverse message. To understand this passage, you have to understand the whole context of the letter. Paul was writing to a church surrounded by pagan temples with sexual activity relating to worship. The church Paul was writing to was slipping into "worldly ways" with people suing each other and acting in dishonorable ways (one man sleeping with his step-mother for example). Paul is exhorting them to not live in this way but to remember that they have been washed and sanctified and justified by Christ Jesus. However, many people look at this list, and selectively ignore the words "drunkards", "slanderers" and "greedy" and instead look at "homosexual offenders" and jump on this to claim that homosexuals are offenders and therefore God is anti-homosexual. However, this is a very dangerous game to play. We don't use the term "homosexual offender" nowadays. The closest term we have is "sexual offender". A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature. It is not a crime to be sexual. I would therefore argue that a homosexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is homosexual in nature. It is not a crime to be homosexual.

This type of debate can go on, but I hope to have shown that the most common arguments to state that the Bible or God is anti-homosexual are very weak indeed. True, if you start from a position of believing that homosexuality is wrong, you will find verses to back up your world view. The same happened with slavery, the same happens with people who don't want women in positions of leadership in the church and no doubt many atrocities throughout history.

However, if you approach the Bible with a different mind-set (I would like to say "open mind" but we are all subject to our own prejudice) then you can see a totally different message.

The Apostle Paul goes against the "Genesis principle" when he says in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better not to marry. A single person is able to devote themselves fully to God, but a married person is concerned with "worldly affairs". However, he makes a concession - he states in verse 9 that "if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion". I wonder if Paul would have said the same of Civil Partnerships between same sex couples. It is better for them to 'marry' and be commited to one another in a loving, monogamous relationship than to burn with passion and sleep around.

Paul also says in verse 17 that "each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is a rule I lay down in all the churches." If a man or woman is gay and becomes a Christian, is it not anti-Biblical to try and "convert" them to heterosexuality?

The most compelling book in the Bible on the topic is actually Galatians. This was used by Luther as a foundation for reform. In it, Paul comments on Christians who tried to force other believers to abide by Old Testament Laws (in this case, circumcision). Paul makes a very eloquent argument that if you try to receive righteousness by observing the Law, you become subject to the whole Law and are under a curse. Furthermore, Christ then died for nothing. Paul says we receive righteousness by faith in Christ Jesus, not by our own strength in following Old Testament Law. How dare we try and force a section of our church to follow a few random laws from Leviticus when we ourselves continue to sin in many ways yet are saved by grace.

Perhaps the most compelling argument that Christians who believe God and the Bible to be anti-homosexual (or anti homosexual practice) is found in this same letter. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We are all one in Christ Jesus, and this includes homosexual Christians. To artificially raise divisions, separating "good Christians" from "Christians who are active homosexuals" is totally against the spirit of Christianity and the Word of God.

A good measure of our actions and attitudes is to look at Galatians 5:16-26. Here Paul talks of the fruit of spirit and the acts of the sinful nature. If your life is full of sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like... then you are not living a spirit filled life as a Christian. If, however, you are full of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, then you can be assured that you are living by the Spirit.

In the current debate in the church of Scotland, a minister has responded to a call to be a minister in a church in Aberdeen. He informed them about his sexual orientation, that he would move in to the manse with his Christian (male) partner. He was voted in by a majority and this was agreed by a majority vote by the Presbytery of Aberdeen. Those who testify to the character of this man say that he is a kind, loving man and a wonderful preacher.

A few objected to his appointment, resigned from the church, wrote letters of complaint to the General Assembly. Others took up this movement and started a petition against his appointment, claiming that the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual practice (oh, if only they would read this blog!). They are trying to raise enough objection to stand against this minister's appointment and are encouraging others to join this group.

I can totally understand where they are coming from. A few years ago I would have signed this petition. But today, when I look at the fruit of the Spirit and compare this with "dissensions and factions" I think I know where I stand on this matter. I will not be signing this petition.

Only when we can accept homosexual couples can we start to minister to these people, helping them in their relationships, drawing them to the love of Christ, encouraging them towards lives of purity and love and then in turn drawing others.

I pray a blessing on the Church of Scotland, on the worldwide church and on you, the reader. May God have mercy on us, may Christ surround us with his love, may the Spirit guide us and draw us together in peace, love and unity.

God bless <><

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 <><