Hi Bowman -  it is also great to have your positive attitude to questions re scripture  (and the fact that you don't resort to emotional/negative arguments etc when challenged).  I am happy to agree with you if you show that the bans we see in the OT and the NT on the sexual activity in question is ever accepted in any circumstances in scripture.

Bowman, many thanks for your list of scriptures seen at various stages as relevant to the debate on homosexuality.  If you have the time or energy it might be worth trawling through another thread on a related theme for other related scriptures: 'Presuppositions and Homosexuality', which amounted to close on 500 posts running from 1st February 2011 to 23rd October 2011.

Thanks Bowman,

I undestand you have included all passages that are mentioned, but there are none in support of same sex practice. One can assume that the centurion wasnt in a same sex relationship with his servant. One can know that even if he were it doesnt condone acts that are sinful or it would even more obviously condone the killing soldiers do.

The point is there is no debate, same-sex sexual relations are only excluded and condemned. As I demonstrated in a post one could use the same arguments to claim 'love your neighbour' doesnt necessary mean love your neighbour.

Hi DavidW. Thanks for looking over the list.

It was culled all posts on the "Evangelical and Gay" thread.

My guess is that you were already familiar with these texts.

If there are more texts for the list, please do post them.

I think it is important that we avoid selective reading, and made the list to make it easier to find the whole.

My only criterion was plausibility as a reference to homosexuality.

I listed the Centurion's servant pericopes because some believe that it was understood in the 1st C to be a reference to Roman homosexuality. That met the criterion.

Yes, texts should be considered in context. (Does anyone doubt that?)

"Pauline" means "from, of, or pertaining to, letters attributed to St Paul."

Personally, in an ethical discussion among Christians, my criterion for acceptance of claims made is strong connexion from the claim to the work and person of Jesus Christ, the God I worship. There is no shortcut around Christology for those who truly believe, and indeed those who do take shortcuts might not actually believe.

When arguments fail on that criterion, there is no Christian argument being made, nothing is being illumined from him, and I treat it as a merely secular claim to be evaluated as such. In that case, pages upon pages of biblical citations make no difference.

Some prayerful study of the primary sources of patristic and reformation theology showed me how to distinguish a door from a window and a window from a picture. It's helpful.

Those who know God talk about God. This simple test clarifies a great deal rather quickly.

David, I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA  where civil unions are legal, gay bishops are not rare, the diocesan bishop marries gay women, and the two divinity schools in town both have gay professors of moral theology. Most churches here have little rainbow flags that signify that they are gay-friendly. Also, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston is still recovering-- spiritually, morally, financially-- from a horrific scandal in which many priests sexually abused many children, mostly boys, and the former archbishop covered it up. One of our two political parties has used the fear of gay marriage to win elections with evangelical votes, which entangles homosexuality with many other issues. The Bible is God's Word all over the world, but we do ask different questions depending on where we live and that is God's will for us. So Christians do debate homosexuality here, but it is an entirely different debate from the ones here. Much that makes sense in Fulcrum would sound odd in Boston. And the reverse is surely true.

It is wonderful that a website for English evangelicals is examining all of the issues before the Church of England. I have seen faithful posts on all sides of all issues current in that realm, to the credit of Fulcrum and the glory of God. Whilst there have been some regrettable posts here and there, all the villagers occasionally post something brilliant. And it is very wise of the Leadership Team to keep the Forum open to diverse viewpoints, so long as that does not level discussion down to that of a newspaper comment page.

I try to stay out of the way, though I do sometimes ask questions or summarise what I see when things get stuck. However, my own questions are naturally not the same as the ones of current interest in the Forum. What I post, I post to be helpful to all.

But that isnt really a fair representation Bowman. You have included the references to the wider context and said ‘Pauline ethics’. Very little of the epistles Paul wrote is his own ethics, he announces when that occurs. Paul received what he preached from the risen Lord. (Galatians 1)

You have taken wider contexts from those who can provide no direct pronouncement equal with direct pronouncement. So assumptions of wider contexts are based on ignoring the direct specific prohibitions. That isn’t understanding the context.

For example, the case of the centurion’s servant being in a sexual relationship is not only assumption, its pathetic. Did Jesus not heal all who had faith in him, and do not all fall short in sin? So He healed all sinners who had faith in Him. Right? How do we know the centurion didn’t lie, didn’t steal, didn’t commit adultery as well?

The question to the liberals is, if they are prepared to assume any same sex relationship the centurion might have had justifies same sex relations, then are they prepared to justify killing, which we know for sure Centurion’s were employed to do?

There cannot be a wider context by ignoring and excluding specifics so as to take an opposite view.

Are there texts in the scriptures that we have missed? Below, villagers and visitors will find the scriptural passages known or alleged, in the first three centuries of this thread, to directly concern homosexual acts. All comments have been in the context of wider understandings of the Word, of course, and nobody would base conclusions only on these. Still, to keep ourselves honest, it seems useful to have a list of the unavoidable texts.

Deo volente, those curious about the discussion can click either the page or the name of the villager who first mentioned it in that part of the thread. Links mentioned are collected at the end of this post.

Is there any other passage in the canonical scriptures that should considered to be about homosexuality per se?

Texts Mentioned

On the first page of this thread at Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:38pm, Phil Townsend posted an essay mentioning Genesis i-iii, Romans i 21-32, 1 Corinthians vi 9, 1Timothy i 8 (and other passages)in the wider context of Pauline ethics. 

On the fourth page, at Tuesday 6 December 2011 - 05:12pm,  Roger Hurding mentions 2 Samuel i 26.

On the fourth page, at  Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 07:23pm, Mark Bennet mentions Ruth iii 9.

On the seventh page at Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 11:38 pm, Vicki discussed crime of Gibeah in Judges xviii and xx 3-5.

On the eighth page at  Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 08:11pm, George Day discussed Genesis i,ii, xix; Leviticus xviii 22, xx 13, xix19; Romans i; 1 Corinthians vi; 1 Timothy i 10.

On the ninth page at Friday 16 December 2011 - 11:10pm, Vicki  commented on Romans i.

On the sixteenth page at Friday 3 February 2012 - 09:23pm, Phil Almond replied to Vicki's post on Romans i, and refers the interested villager to Robert Gagnon's posts on the Fulcrum forum thread ‘Homosexuality, Scripture and Church’ in the summer of 2008.

On the eighteenth page at Saturday 25 February 2012 - 10:17pm Bowman links and discusses Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth XIII in 1998.

On the twenty-first page at Sunday 11 March 2012 - 05:25am, Bowman briefly discussed the three gospel accounts of the healing of the Centurion's "boy" or "servant"-- St Matthew viii 5-13, St Luke vii1-10, St John iv 46-53.

On the twenty-third page at Friday 23 March 2012 - 09:42pm, DavidW mentions  Revelations xxii, Leviticus xviii, 1 Corinthians vi.

On the twenty-sixth page at Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:10am, Dave links the Church of England website here.

And here, for completeness, I note that passages in the apocryphal or deuterocanonical book of Wisdom xiii-xiv (especially xiv 11), and xv 1-19 are often seen as the OT precursor to Romans 1:18-32, extensively discussed on the ninth and sixteenth pages.

Robert Gagnon mentions some subapostolic writers in his posts to the thread linked below.

Links Mentioned

Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth XIII in 1998.

Robert Gagnon left many posts on the Fulcrum forum thread ‘Homosexuality, Scripture and Church’ in the summer of 2008.

The Church of England website on Homosexuality.

An anonymous visitor left a link to resources on the scriptures at the Human Rights Campaign.

Thanks, David, for the link to the book edited by Phil Groves. Andrew Goddard is now tutor in ethics at Trinity College, Bristol.

SPCK has recently published "The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality A resource to enable listening and dialogue", edited by Phil Groves. http://www.spck.org.uk/cat/show.php?9780281059638  

Andrew Goddard has written the introductions to the papers in the book. What is Andrew doing now? Both Fulcrum has his two websites indicate he is tutor of Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, although I thought he had not been teaching there for at least a year and all reference to him has been removed from the Wycliffe site? David

Oops, of course Tom Wright doesn't work for a secular university, he is the Bishop of Durham! Sorry!

Dear Pluralist, I think I disagree with the presupposition behind your comment, which I think is that if you believe in or respect biblical scholarship then you can't be an evangelical or believe in the authority of the bible. There are literally hundreds of biblical scholars throughout the world who are also evangelicals. If I limit myself only to British ones working in secular universities alone I can name (just off the top of my head) Howard Marshall, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn, N.T Wright, Simon Gathercole and Crispin Fletcher-Louis.

I'm generally a bit wary of theological liberals when they call on biblical scholarship in support of their causes. They are quite happy to do this when they think it backs them up, but when it doesn't they move the goalposts. (I'm not accusing you personally of this, of course).  

I am delighted to have my suspicons allayed. Thank you.

dear Matt, don't worry L Roberts is fine - I can't risk my full name in a public forum (alas). (I am sometimes known as "Iwan y Coed" (pr "Yoo-an")beyond cyber-space and you may wish to adopt Iwan or even Coed ("pr. "Koid"), if you'd rather. T'is shorter).)

I have tried a brief response -- basically I don't think the good bishop has abandoned the Bible's manifesto or its party.