There is also on the website his address to the Oxford Union which summarises much more specifically and very succinctly what Andrew sees as the main areas of Biblical evidence; they are three:-

1. That all references to homosexual conduct in the scriptures are negative.

2. That the texts are part of this bigger picture of what it means to be human, as opposed to just being a few isolated texts.

3. That the majority scholarly reading in the past and at present is on the side of the traditional interpretation.

Responding in detail to these important points would take both far more knowledge of the intricacies of biblical interpretation and of the meaning of certain Greek words than I possess, and far more space than a posting on the Fulcrum site is likely to allow. But in the interests of continuing to stir the debating pot perhaps I can just make the following comments on each of these points:-

1. This is undoubtedly true, at least at first sight. But Andrews article on Calvins treatment of usury has the following quote: First, Calvin's bold assertion that 'no scriptural passage...totally bans all usury' is not obvious and so requires detailed explanation in both his letter and commentaries. Surely the same can be argued as true of the biblical texts on homosexuality. For example, they do not mention lesbianism, and secondly they can be argued as referring to the debased relationships associated with paganism, not the loving, committed, faithful relationships that are at the heart of the current debate. Again to quote from Andrews article on Calvin and usury, Part of the explanation for this tension (even apparent contradiction) in Calvin's analysis is to be found in the careful exegetical study of terms which narrows their apparent scope and shows them to be less universal than they may initially appear to the na￯ve reader.

2. Again this point is undoubtedly true, but in a sense the very issue under debate is what exactly does it mean to be human, specifically in the area of sexual relationships. This point therefore seems to be circular, and in fact to advance the argument very little.

3. Definitely true, but Calvins willingness to debate with what in his day was the clearly accepted scholarly view of the relevant biblical texts should encourage us as evangelicals to go on with open debate about this vital issue.

A final comment - from this posting it will probably be clear where my sympathies are beginning to lie, and yet I want to fully embrace the call in Andrews article on Calvin for careful scholarly debate that does not make the mistake of just accepting current opinions without rigorous study. So may the debate continue with love, mutual respect and above all a desire to know more of Gods truth.

George Day

Hi

It is helpful to know that there were the same kind of homosexual relationships in the first century that we are debating about now.  Other people are probably better read than me, but I had always been told that the NT evidence was really written regarding abusive relationships such as pederasty (did I spell that correctly??)

I agree that we need to be persauded on Scripture as to how we understand homosexual behaviour and orientation.  Nevertheless, I wonder if the biblical evidence is quite as conclusive as we evangelicals would like it to be?  This is not a rhetorical question, I don't know, it might be.

But, I get the impression from my limited knowledge of the debate on either side that the evidence is not as conclusive as evangelicals would like, but not as inconclusive as more liberal Christians would like either.  Would this be fair, or can anyone state a conclusive case on either side?

I grew up in a very PC household.  For which I am very thankful on issues of equality of all humanity regardless of race or sexual orientation.  Then I became a Christian.  Equality of race was a given, but the discussion of those of homosexual orientation was not raised, ever.

I towed the party line because I wanted to belong, so by the time I was a youth leader I was unable to give a conclusive answer to anyone who would have asked, but, of course, no-one did because they were in the same vein as I was when I first became a Christian and were in the 'towing the party line' phase of physical and spiritual development.

The trouble is, by the time (me and the) young people grow up enough to want to ask the questions, they cannot ask them in evangelical circles for fear of being 'branded' a liberal.  And now we have this issue of grown up evangelicals who want to debate this within their churches and are looked at in an horrified way for even bringing it up because the atmosphere is now so volatile that any dissension in the ranks is to be feared.

So, thank goodness for places like this, eh? :-)

Having said this, what does George do with his wonderful lesbian couple mentioned a few posts ago?  The pastoral outworking of our Biblical studies is where the rubber will really hit the road, as I'm sure we know.  Whilst it is good to spend the time debating this, it is good to remember that there are real live vicars dealing with real live couples in their churches.  What would I do? WWJD?

Love Jody

I think Romans 1:26 is a definite reference to lesbianism. Whilst accepting that there may have been pagan cultic homosexual activity, on the grounds that we humans can be capable of anything, I am not sure that I ever heard of examples of it's practice. Did the tribes surrounding Israel practice homosexuality in their religions? My understanding of pagan religions is that many have a strong link to fertility of human beings and the earth. Leading on from that it would seem that pagan cultic sexual activity would be more likely to be heterosexual/

I think that in ancient Rome there may have been some homosexuality which was linked to the reinforcing of social status between men but I have heard of Nero's marriage too. Also, what about the poet Sappho of the island of Lesbos? I think her sexuality is the subject of some debate amongst scholars; can anyone comment?

Perhaps because lesbianism is a female activity it did not get noticed; much as many things about women in history are not directly recorded.

Just to add to what Bishop Wright has said, he spoke to this same point in a too little noticed interview with the National Catholic Reporter in 2004:

Can you draw a straight line between what Paul understood by "homosexuality" and how we understand it?
Not a straight line, because there is no one understanding today of what constitutes homosexuality. There are many different analyses. As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato's Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it's already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul's today it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever & of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there. Indeed, in the modern world that isn't an invention of the 20th century either. If you read the recent literature, for example Graham Robb's book Strangers, which is an account of homosexual love in the 19th century, it offers an interesting account of all kinds of different expressions and awarenesses and phenomena. I think we have been conned by Michel Foucault into thinking that this is all a new phenomena.

So the attempt to get around Paul's language on homosexuality by suggesting that its cultural referent was different than ours doesn't work?
At any point in Paul, whether it's justification by faith or Christology or anything else, you have to say, of course this is culturally conditioned. He's speaking first century Greek, for goodness' sake. Of course you have to understand it in its context. But when you do that, it turns out to be a rich and many-sided thing. You cannot simply say, as some people have done, that in the first century homosexuality had to do with cult prostitution, and we're not talking about that, therefore it's something different. This simply won't work. So yes, it is impossible to say, we're reading this in context and that makes it different. What can you still say, of course, and many people do, is that, "Paul says x and I say y." That's an option that many in the church take on many issues. When we actually find out what Paul said, some say, "Fine, and I disagree with him." That raises all kinds of other issues about how the authority of scripture actually works in the church, and at what point the authority structure of scripture-tradition-reason actually kicks in.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wright.htm

On 09/02/06 I wrote that we had reached apoint in human history where cultural and scientific developments demanded a christian response. I'm now not so sure of that observation. Certainly an historian ( of christainity, church or the secular world) might question my supposition. If we take Genesis Chapter 3 as a starting point, would this be a valid question :- Over time christians and others have focussed on particular sins whilst other sins seem to fade in the (collective) conscience. Why?

As an aside I noticed that today's News Of The World is advertising an expose of some gay premiership footballers. Putting to one side the fact that salaciousness sells newspapers; is there a question here that some of readers of the News of the World have not accepted homosexuality as an expression of "normal" sexuality?

Dear Karen and George: First, the News of the World and gay footbalers -- I don't think anyone ever imagined that all readers of the News of the World had 'accepted homosexuality as "normal"', but they might equally want the death penalty restored or think that black people are inferior. I don't see what difference their views make to a Christian's judgement.

On your points George, I absolutely agree. As I tried to say in my last overlong post, the discussion of Calvin in the recently posted article, like most of the rest of the 'debate' is forensic: it is explicitly designed to underwrite the conservative, non-reforming view of gay Christians. Every opening to a change in attitudes is close off -- like someone plugging leaks in a dyke! The point you make about 'what it means to be human' is devastating if it implies that gay men and lesbians are in some way less than fully human... the alternatives are those offered by the (in my view discredited ex-gay movement) or by the imposition of total celibacy on gay people. I've heard of no others.

Good to hear your voice! -- in via

Tony

Some one once told me that when we point an accusing finger there are three pointing back. As christians we seem to spend a great deal of time tripping over our planks whilst picking at other people's splinters.

Tony, back to the News of the World, I perhaps should have said more. I was thinking along the lines that those christians who are pushing homosexuality as a Primary Issue are playing into the hands of the homophobes in society. Whether NotW readers homophobes or just plain salacious/prurient may be question that only they and editorial staff can answer. Whether the behaviour of our brothers in Christ is a deliberate ploy to try to appeal the swathes of homophobes in our society, is of course for them to to answer. I think that when I consider some of the other ideas about say , the role of women, certain Anglicans are promulgating, I am forced to conclude that their pronouncements aren't really about the Gospel that Jesus preached and perhaps more about what some people "think" what the scriptures, especially the epistles of Paul mean......sorry I'm going off track.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that, to me some christians don't appear to be preaching the Gospel, so much persecuting an old style "Tory" agenda? I was Trade Union activist in the 1980s. At this time when the labour movement was tentatively beginning to address equality in the workplace for homosexuals, the Conservative government was enacting Clauses 28 and 29. I think that there is a secular political aspect to this argument about homosexuality now taking place in the CofE than is perhaps immediately obvious. That may upset some people who would like to say that this is purely a matter of scriptural authority and interpretation but as I learnt all too well in my "political" years, these kinds of arguments always conceal something else.

Dear Karen,

Thanks for pointing this thread back to its origin - whether or not Same Sex 'Marriage' is a Pimary Issue. Yes indeed, we need to look at our own cultural and political context as much if not more than Paul's. Much of the heat of this debate comes from over the Atlantic and it seems clear that the issue there has been used and abused by Republicans. I'm not sure how much the same is true here outside the Church, but it has become a rallying point to Conservatives inside the Church. This has driven them to call it a Primary Issue, on, I believe, little Biblical grounds.

This has direct impications for pastoral practice. If it is a Primary Issue then, in traditional terms, practising homosexuals are indeed 'going to hell' and we need to make sure they know. If it is not Primary, then their salvation depends on other things and we can say something like 'No, you're not going to hell just because of that. Can we put it to one side for a moment and talk about heaven and hell?'

The other issue is 'Do we think that homosexual 'marriage' could be allowed by Christians?' This is the question I understand George to be wanting to open up. I'm not sure that is helpful as lines have been drawn. But I would like to hear Roy Clements' view... I am open to the argument that there are different levels of authority in Scripture. With women, the need to express that we are one in Christ, has precedence over the verses about women keeping to a particular place in the church or home. Could there be something similar with homosexuality? The need for faithful and committed love superceding people keeping to a particular type of partner? Does anyone argue along these lines?

Personally I believe with Alan Storkey that 'homosexuality' is not as fixed as some people claim it to be, and that therefore we should not be making a fixed category for same sex 'marriage.' I think the weight of Scripture and the voice of the Spirit is against same sex 'marriage,' but I can't be 100% sure, because people whom I recognise as genuine brothers and sisters in Christ disagree with me.

How I recognise these people as brothers and sisters, while at the same time disagreeing with them is the difficulty, not only for me but for all of us. So when will Fulcrum debate this crucial question in a proper conference?

And there are interesting moves in Parliament over women bishops. MPs may want to insist that we open episcopacy to women without providing any place for those who do not accept this development. What if they then go on to insist that we open our marriage to gay couples as they have done with Civil Partnerships? What if our loving our brothers and sisters and making every effort to maintain the unity of the Church puts us in conflict with the State? An interesting scenario I hope we do not see for a while.

And apologies for a month's absence, mostly due to my mother in hospital and then convalescing in my study.

With love in Jesus

Roger

Hi Roger

Sorry to hear about your mother, hope she is fully 'convalesced' now :-)

I don't know much about Roy Clements' idea of different priorities of Scripture.  I'm not sure that I am persuaded from what you said, but maybe you could elaborate.

I guess I feel that to put different passages of Scripture 'above' others is not reading Scripture as it should be read.  Obviously we don't read all Scripture and then, in our minds, tag on the end a postscript of 'go thou and do likewise', this is not how we read Scripture.  This postscript might be appropriate to some of Scripture, but not others, but all Scripture tells us something of God's story with his people in history, thus is important for its own reason.

Also, with the issues surrounding Scripture on women I don't think that it is helpful to assign some Scripture to the bin as being less true/priority than others (although I believe that Gordon Fee has come to that conclusion about 1Cor14v34-35 and that man knows his Paul! - understatement).  I think there has been some very good study on the 'difficult' passages which allow a consistency of Paul's theology between his own epistles and Jesus' teaching.  Perhaps 1 Tim is an exception to this. 

Could you give more information about Roy Clements' argument on this way of viewing Scripture?  I would be interested to know more.

It is interesting what you have said about parliament forcing our hand on this.  Hopefully they are more politically aware than that?!

Let the church be church and the state be state - or something like that (oooh do I want disestablishment????)

love Jody

Hello, I tried to post the following message on Sunday, but I edited it as I realised one sentence didn't make sense!  I think I might have deleted it instead, anyway hope I do it right this time.

:-) Jody

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Roger

Sorry to hear about your mother, hope she is fully 'convalesced' now :-)

I don't know much about Roy Clements' idea of different priorities of Scripture.  I'm not sure that I am persuaded from what you said, but maybe you could elaborate.

I guess I feel that to put different passages of Scripture 'above' others is not reading Scripture as it should be read.  Obviously we don't read all Scripture and then, in our minds, tag on the end a postscript of 'go thou and do likewise', this is not how we read Scripture.  This postscript might be appropriate to some of Scripture, but not others, but all Scripture tells us something of God's story with his people in history, thus is important for its own reason.

Also, with the issues surrounding Scripture on women I don't think that it is helpful to assign some Scripture to the bin as being less true/priority than others (although I believe that Gordon Fee has come to that conclusion about 1Cor14v34-35 and that man knows his Paul! - understatement).  I think there has been some very good study on the 'difficult' passages which allow a consistency of Paul's theology between his own epistles and Jesus' teaching.  Perhaps 1 Tim is an exception to this. 

Could you give more information about Roy Clements' argument on this way of viewing Scripture?  I would be interested to know more.

It is interesting what you have said about parliament forcing our hand on this.  Hopefully they are more politically aware than that?!

Let the church be church and the state be state - or something like that (oooh do I want disestablishment????)

love Jody