Forum Thread
Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality law

Cyprian K Lwanga, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kampala, criticised the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his sermon at Rubaga Cathedral, 23rd December 2009 (Box Turtle Bulletin site, 24 December 2009).

Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, has not criticised the Bill in his article 'Ugandan Church faces totalitarian liberal activism', Evangelicals Now January 2010 (Anglican Mainstream site, 17 December 2009).

Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, criticised the Bill, in his video statement to Ugandan Church Leaders, see also 'Rick Warren Condemns Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill', by Howard Chua-Eoan, Time magazine, 10 December 2009.

The Fulcrum critique of the Bill is entitled, 'Fulcrum Briefing on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda', (Fulcrum, 3 November 2009).

I would like to thank wggrace for his last post which I think is excellent and I fully agree with.  I believe it explains that there is such a difference of opinion and how wide and deep it is. What I would point out is most Christians see the promotion and defence of same sex relationships as a major departure from the faith once delivered, not just because of the disbelief of the passages about God's purposes and the condemnations, but the reasoning exposes further disbelief of other passages. And in addition, we have many who hold those views professing other established heresies such as pluralism when all the Biblical testimony claims there is no other God and no other salvation. 

For me and for many, two different faiths.

To Roger Hurding,

Sorry but I see your argument merely as massive disbelief and denial.

Again you propose I have an interpretation of the scriptures, but I haven’t given an interpretation, all I have done is cite and quote them.

I see the condemnations as not cultural, they are spoken to the people of God so as not to do these things, at Sodom, at the time of the exodus, and during the cultures where else it existed, Greek and Roman at the time of Jesus; it is obvious this is not cultural but what the people of God do not do.   

I could interpret the passages like others so that it doesn’t mean what it says, but I believe the word of God.

I would like to address again what you offered.

As to gang rape, the text doesn’t say this and says the men wanted to know (‘yada’) the men carnally. Lot pronounces this wicked and offers his virgin daughters instead. Your interpretation would imply gang rape of men is wicked but gang rape of women isn’t, but your view is based on faulty translation as well. You refer to 1 Cor 7 as Paul’s teaching, Galatians 1 tells us this isnt so much Paul’s teaching as he did not receive his revelation from man but from the risen Lord, don’t you believe that either? 1 Cor 7 mirrors the rest of the NT such as Matthew 19 where it is faithful marriage or celibacy. So what is your point exactly?

You said I cited Genesis 2 in defence of my view on marriage, no I did not, I cited it as God’s view on marriage because I believe it is the inspired word of God directly from God. The only way you could claim what you have said logically would be to assume when Jesus NT teaching repeats it in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc that Jesus was lying when He claimed he spoke what He heard the Father say. John 14:10.

I am afraid even some of my gay and lesbian friends who do not agree with or believe the Bible at least recognise what it says.

I am reluctant to push my head above the parapet but I will give it a go. Homosexuality and views for and against it, seems to be the only game in town now.
I am very ‘conservative’ on this issue. When I read the scriptures I am genuinely bewildered that anyone can read them as commending or permitting homosexual acts or even claiming that there is any ambiguity in them. This I suspect is the failing of many conservatives. We simply cannot see what those of a more liberal persuasion claim to see. So appeals to change our views on this seem to be not only an appeal to change our views about homosexual activity but also an appeal to jettison any way of reading the scriptures that we can do with integrity. This is not to claim that others are reading the scriptures without integrity but it is to say that we do not how to do it that way ourselves. So the path to agreement between those of liberal (or less conservative) persuasion  and conservatives like me is a difficult and thorny one, likely to scratch people on both sides of the question.
To give an example of how those of a more liberal persuasion have been known to read scripture that seems to me to be radically unconvincing, the declarations of affection David made concerning Jonathan was recently cited in this forum as an example of homosexual affection. Now we know that both David and Jonathan enjoyed full heterosexual activity. There is no explicit suggestion of any homosexual actrivity. So the only way that it seems that we can assume that there was is to assume that their friendship is homosexual is to assume that any close same sex relationship is sexual. This seems to be a huge leap quite at odds with my experience, quite at odds with the experience of many others. It is also a most distubing leap. If same sex relationships must be sexual, what other relationships must be sexual? Adult/children, parent/child, teacher/pupil, brother/sister? The assumption potentially sexualises all our relationships in what I deem to be a most destructive and corrupting way. Presumably most homosexuals do not extend the assumption in this way but if they do not neither should they make it in this case.
I suspect that few homosexuals would want to use this passage to support homosexual behaviour but I think they should acknowledge that when it is used in this way the effect is to antagonise the conservatives radically.
This leads me to highlight one area of disagreement between me and the ‘liberals’. If you were to ask me whether homosexuals would ‘go to heaven’, I would answer ‘no’. There are two reasons for this. First and in this context mundanely, I am suspicious of the language of ‘going to heaven’ as it seems to undermine the doctrine of the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. Second, and more pertinent to this debate, I do not believe that heterosexuals will ‘go to heaven’ either. If we find our identity in being homosexual or heterosexual, I think we are way off beam. The drive to finding our identity in our ‘sexuality’ is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Previously we established our identity through family, occupation, land, tribe/nation. These criteria to identity are opposed to the individualism that permeates modernity. But all these criteria are losing their power as we become more individualistic. In this individualistic age, we find our identity in what is true of us as individuals and the most obvious criterion is our sexuality (I am told Foucault is very good on this). But we are Christians. As Christians, we did not find our identity in family or tribe. We are creatures of Galatians 3:28. We find our identity in Christ and thus not in our sexuality any more than in our tribe.
This in turn leads me to question the overwhelming focus in this forum on sexual issues. We really do seem to have lost our poise. Those of a liberal tendency sometimes cite the paucity of biblical texts that relate to homosexuality. This is something that cuts both ways. Clearly sex played a smaller part in the lives of those in biblical times than now. Sex used to be for fun and procreation. Now it has to function as the main carrier of identity and so we cannot but talk endlessly about it.

To Hugh of Lincoln,

Not all all, I would say promoting and defending something which scripture condemns as disbelief and denial.

I don’t think you do the debate justice here.  You say, ‘Throughout the Bible same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. There is no countenance for same sex relations.’  It would be fairer to say, I suggest, that your interpretation of those texts is that, unequivocally, they say 'same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error'.  Others of us, equally respecting of Scripture, see these texts as ambiguous in that each of them either has a specific culturally linked context or is not offering a general view of same-sex relating, eg gang rape in Genesis 19 and the outworkings of idolatry in Romans 1.  To be true to the Bible the full context must be read.

Those of us with a high view of Scripture agree that its texts demonstrate the importance of marriage but not, I suggest, to the exclusion of all other human relationships.  See, for example, Paul’s teaching on celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 and the Book of Proverbs’ great emphasis on friendship.  You cite Genesis 2, for example, in defence of your view on the primacy of marriage.  Ontologically, such an emphasis does not inevitably exclude all other forms of human relating, eg. the call to celibacy is not included here.  The silence of Genesis 2 and in Jesus’s teaching on matters relating to homosexuality should also be noted.  If same-sex relationships are always sinful, as you argue, isn’t it strange that Jesus never seems to have mentioned the matter?

So let’s be fair, both sides of this debate, at least in the context of Fulcrum and other comparable groups, do their best to be faithful to Scripture.

Hugh,

what prompted your post of 8.24? There is a point to be made about different strands within Christianity which are often hard to define and merge or combine in complex ways. Other faiths are theologically and organizationally distinct. On some things they say the same thing which C S Lewis takes as evidence for natural law. On others they differ. On homosexuality, opposition is the traditional position of the monotheistic faiths. Both the Greek and Eastern viewpoint is generally more accepting. In drawing on these traditions we are inevitably acting as an editor or more likely responding to the editorship of others.

David

Tony says "Presumably fulcrum's evangelical centre doesn't include accepting evangelicals either." Will the leadership please clarify this.

David

"Throughout the Bible..." - BMS

Isn't this overstating things a little...?

Fancy labels - liberal, conservative, evangelical, catholic, charasmatic, atheist, secularist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu - are just that, fancy labels.

No, we need to draw on the rich traditions of all the aforementioned to truly understand the mind of God.

The whole of the Letter of James, for instance, cannot be added to, or taken away from - as relevant to these times as it was in those.

Hugh

x

To Hugh of Lincoln,

You wrote “Such is the ambiguity of the Bible, it has to be accepted that neither side has made a convincing case based on Scripture alone”

Sorry but this simply isn’t the case, and such a statement simply leads to a total breakdown in communication. The scripture is totally convincing that same sex relations are error. Let me just reaffirm. Passages such as in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Ephesians 5 etc. describe how in the beginning God made male and female and it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife and the two become one flesh. Throughout the Bible man and woman are countenanced. Throughout the Bible same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. There is no countenance for same sex relations.

One side of the argument quotes the word of God and the other has nothing to quote but merely states its systematic disbelief of what the relevant scriptures say and then claims both sides have an equal case. The church is splitting because it probably doesn’t have such a level of disbelief and denial as on this issue.