That these two statements come on the heels of one another highlights the need to understand the other side a bit better:
“The issue of civil unions is an entirely different matter and does not raise the same concerns as does gay marriage.
Marriage is by definition and always has been a theological construct, not a civil or secular one”
In the US, marriage is both a theological and a civil institution. In truth, I’ve been married twice, though I’m not a polygamist and I’ve never been divorced. First, I was married on a Saturday morning in the Cook County, IL courthouse basement after I stood in line, signed some paperwork with my beatiful wife (now of 7 years as of this most recent Monday, woo hoo!) and paying a nominal fee. Then I was married before God and with the witness of men in a small church in Barrington, IL.
The first one has profound secular implications. Should I have died or become incapacitated without a living will, there would be no question about who was in charge of my health decisions and estate. We had greater access to speak for one another with companies we do business with. We immediately recieved married tax benefits.
The second has theological implications. That day we became one flesh, joined together by God, and inseperable by men.
When my gay uncle’s partner of 17 years killed himself in a fit of alcohol induced dispair, he got to watch his partner’s mother, also an alcoholic and his partner’s enabler, walk in and take everything that was his partners. Every picture. Every painting. Every snap shot. His shoes, vacation momentos, house decorations. Everything. No matter what you feel about the “gay lifestyle”, I hope you can recognize the very human and tragic situation, that my uncle got to watch the primary living source of his partner and best friend of 17 years death walk in on the heels of his loss and rip a hole in their home. Spaces on walls, mantle, shelf, closet, floor.
Now what we call Civil Union, would take care of that. And I agree that it’s a different animal than marriage, believe me, I do. But when we say that marriage has no civil component, I think it obscures things a bit. Right now what we call marriage, in the frame of this discussion, could best be called Civil Union + Marriage. There absolutely is a civil component, and that is primarily what the gay community wants.
(Yes, there are some agitators that want to find a way to shut down churches via lawsuit for being “gay haters” if they won’t perform gay marriages, but that is a small amount. Most, who mistakenly think the church wants nothing to do with them, want nothing to do with the church in return.)
On the flip side, I think it’s still worth asking the question on whether or not there is any real benefit to society by providing homosexual civil union. I suspect that there is, but I think it would be prudent for all involved to establish that by rigorous, peer reviewed study.

Hi Ben,
This (homosexuality) is an issue I’m struggling to understand. Which side you’re “on” seems to boil down to how we use the Bible.
Do we mainly use the Bible to: Obtain doctrine and moral law (thereby looking for verses that deal with a specific issue and apply it)? Or do we mainly use the Bible as a sacrament to the Holy and to find out the characteristics of God (thereby looking for major themes as opposed to specific verses)? My guess is we should have healthy elements of both, thus the friction.
I realize I’m oversimplifying it. FWIW, I’m in favor of govt. same sex unions (so legal protection/rights are available) but allowing church denominations to decide whether they will allow gay marriage or not. I guess that’s the standard democrat stance! Sorry

Dr. Witherington,
I wholeheartedly agree with the stance taken by Wright. If the Bible is God’s communication to us, then we must read it from His perspective, which is to tell us about himself.
If a denomination acts contrarily to God’s revelation of himself, then they are acting contrary to God. Therefore they may be a denomination, but hardly a church. For what part of Christ’s body could purposefully cut itself off and still say, “I am Christ’s body!”. No, these clergymen and laity that accept homosexuality are far from Christ.
Marriage is a theological issue. It was never a legal one to begin with. We made it one.
Dr. Witherington, I am currently reading your books “New Testament History” and “The Living Word of God.” I thank you for your work and for sharing the gifts our Lord has given you.

Wow you’re hopeless. And the fact that most animal species engage in this “unnatural” homosexual behavior must be because of their fallen state too huh? Are you aware “Dr.” Witherington that there was no fall? No calamitous act of disobedience which led to an imperfect world? Therefore if a person was “born this way”, then God himself is the author of this “sinful” inclination. Are you not aware that we are making ancient cultural mores which feature in the Bible a standard for today when nothing warrants it? You have no problem with women preaching in your mainline denomination inspite of what the Bible teaches so why are you such a hypocrite?

Nice and succinct. Thanks for the heads up.

I am startled by the contention that it’s a “small minority” who favor gay marriage. In a May Gallup poll, forty percent of respondents said they thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid. Further, 59% of respondents age 18-29 favored same-sex marriage. It’s apparent that this is an issue, unlike abortion, that evangelicals have lost. When Andrew Sullivan first made the case for gay marriage in 1989, his was a lonely voice, and he faced fierce opposition within the gay community and derision from the straight community. But in twenty years, a generation, gay marriage is legal even in Spain and, in the most religious country among advanced industrial states, not only in the Northwest but also New England. It is accepted now by a large minority, and a majority of those under thirty. This is a remarkably swift and transformative social change, and can hardly be dismissed as the work of a nefariously and inordinately funded* and influential minority.
I take your point on the abhorrence of same-sex conduct in traditional Judaism and Christianity. Still, homosexual conduct precisely defined is condemned only in a couple of places in Leviticus, and twice by Paul. It was apparently not as high on the agenda of those who wrote the scriptures as of those who heed their advice today (and who would care to bet that the incidence of homosexual conduct was lower then than now?).
I am startled too by a bald assertion that marriage is a theological construct, not a civil or secular one. Indeed, I must confess I can’t make sense of it. Churches remain at liberty to define marriage as they wish, and it’s scarcely surprising that some liberal Protestants (or for that matter Catholics) would–on the basis of a take on scripture that after all regularly adds references to females where the Hebrew and Greek have none–extend the institution of marriage to homosexuals. And that extension is what aroused Bishop Wright’s ire. Still, marriage is of course a civil and and secular construct. And it is the issue how marriage is to be defined in law that Sullivan inscribed on the agenda in 1989 and that divides American society today.
I am pleased but also nonplussed by the remark that the issue of civil unions is an entirely different matter than that of civil marriage. Civil unions resemble civil marriage in that they give legal recognition to a relationship. If that relationship is sinful, why should any legal recognition be afforded it? And the converse–if one form of legal recognition, why not another?
I quite agree that under the First Amendment, everyone has a right to criticize gay marriage, and gay conduct, as they please. I’m glad that this right is not in jeopardy.
Most fundamentally, is it true that no one has a right to ordination or marriage? Certainly dishonest and incompetent applicants shouldn’t be allowed to pastor or minister. Certainly those who aren’t prepared to assume the burdens of marriage should be turned away by responsible members of the clergy. But is it true that women are, all of them, by nature, disqualified to be pastors? Is it true that two men or two women cannot be prepared to assume the burdens of marriage–to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do them part? What is it about lesbian and gay persons that disqualifies them from having, holding, loving and cherishing one another, and from the rest of us giving them and their relationship due recognition?
*When it comes to funding, who can surpass the Mormons in a California referendum?

With regards to Andrew Sullivan, I certainly hope that doesn’t mean we can expect 40% of respondants to think that Trig is not Sarah’s son…
The Word of God is not up for majority vote. Or rather, the only three votes that count, have already been tallied… If you don’t believe it’s a revelation from God, then surely it’s your loss, and who would expect you to live by it? But if it is (it is), then what God has to say about homosexual acts is both important and clear.

But why would any reasonable person believe the actual text is a revelation from God? The actual text? Have we not learned our various Biblical criticisms? Historical-critical, form, redaction etc.? There’s a reason why in the 20th century the emphasis was placed by many theologians upon the events behind the text and not the text itself. The text itself is not proof of anything.

The text must surely be proof of something or else the events behind the text are meaningless. All text criticism assumes an original text, or else text critics are wasting their time. Have you not learned the worldviews behind the various forms of criticism? This line of reasoning that the text is nothing is self-defeating for text critics.
Either the text is something or it is nothing. If it is something, then it is proof of something be it historical fiction, a mixture of truth and clerical or political error for power, or truth. You can not simply put on your ruby red slippers and wish it away.

What we’ve learned from those things is twofold:
First, that the text is amazingly reliable, and that no problem in transmission creates any problems of theological import. With over 24,000 partial and complete NT manuscript copies, in addition to the numerous church and extra church quotations and references to the bible, which started off being transmitted on what amounts to little more than grass pounded flat by wooden mallets… why, it seems like nothing less than divine providence.
Second, we learn that a lot of people will apply skepticism to anything but their own skepticism. Coming up with some crazy scheme or another doesn’t means it’s true, or even likely.

I’m not sure this is fair to Thomas Aquinas, but Jerry Coyne quotes him as saying “right is not right because God wills it, but God wills it because it is right.”

“I won’t do it because the Bible forbids it.”
But the Bible (Leviticus 11), using the same term applied to homosexual conduct, condemns eating eagles, vultures, ospreys, buzzards, kites, hawks, seagulls, owls, comorants, storks, herons, hoopoes, bats, and perhaps winged insects that walk on all fours.
The Bible (Leviticus 20) requires the imposition of the penalty of death for giving one’s offspring to Molech, cursing one’s father or mother, committing adultery, having sexual relations it an animal, and being a medium or wizard (stoning specified).
How can I distinguish the authority of these strictures (this revelation from God) from the authority of those (the revelation) found in Exodus 20?
“If God permits it, it’s permissible.”
If we look into the scriptural citations of the defenders of slavery before the Civil War, can we be confident they won’t find God authorizing the practice of slavery? In any society before the 17th century mightn’t we expect to find religious sanction for slavery?

First of all, textual criticism hasn’t proven the unreliability of Scripture. In some cases, it has done the opposite. But it is important to recognize that the process of canonization never assumed a perfect text in the way that many evangelicals understand it today. Instead, they saw it as a consistent witness of the truth of God and as such represents a rule, or a standard, by which we base our Christian faith. If the Bible stops being our standard, than it stops being the Bible.

Not a “perfect” text…yet we are supposed to apply it in all areas? What does “consistent witness to the truth of God” even mean? I’ve rarely seen such an ambiguous phrase. There seems to be a very slippery double standard being applied here where the Bible is acknowledged as not being “inerrant” in a fundamentalist sense yet we are to still shape our beliefs and postions according to it as if it were. You can argue for a “nuanced” interpretation all you want but that merely avoids the issue of whether God actually had anything to do with each and every jot and tittle of scripture or not. If you say he didn’t, it seems impossible for you to use scripture to uphold your stance on gays, especially if you support female ordination. If you say he did…then you’re a fundamentalist. Take your pick.
Also I don’t care about how many surviving ancient copies there are…a million copies of something uninspired doesn’t make it
inspired.

Christians & “Hate” Bills
If “hate bill”-obsessed Congress [and Obama] can’t protect Christians from “gays” as much as it wants to protect “gays” from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can’t protect itself from most everyone? If “hate bills” are forced on captive Americans, they’ll still find ways to sneakily continue to “plant” Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they’ll hasten God’s judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See related web items including “David Letterman’s Hate, Etc.,” “Separation of Raunch and State,” “Michael the Narc-Angel,” “Obama Avoids Bible Verses,” and “Tribulation Index becomes Rapture Index.”) Since Congress can’t seem to legislate “morality,” it’s making up for it by legislating “immorality”!
[We are a longtime "underground" ministry specializing in fearlessly airing unique articles such as the above listed ones - and we will give $100.00 to anyone who isn't "moved" by them! The prayers and help from true Christian patriots have kept us going.]

BW3: “… the Bible says plenty about sexual behavior”
Okay, sort of along the lines of Chalmers (above), doesn’t that mean that there should be a push to criminalize (w/ related punishment) along the lines of what the Bible says?
Who is up for that? BW3? Commentators here? Anybody?

I am certainly troubled about the divisiveness in Christian “communions” brought about by polarizing stances on same-sex marriage issues. But I am also troubled – as well as extremely puzzled – by the all-too-common inclination by educated men such as Dr. Wright to wear socks with open-toed sandals. What is the attraction for this ancient and enduring fashion faux pas? (Does his wife not inspect him before he heads out of the house each day?) Wearing socks with sandals is like wearing long underwear under a bikini or wearing a gas mask while attempting to smell a rose. It’s the fashion equivalent of an oxymoron. Sandals are for letting your dogs breathe; socks are for keeping your dogs warm. If you need socks, you don’t warrant sandals.
Jesus never wore socks with his sandals because he was a manly man.

@Bart: Well, at least they aren’t white socks.
Re Jesus never wore socks w/sandals: That’s because he couldn’t find any made out of Egyptian cotton – at least not in Capernaum.

James Chalmers,
I recommend reading Acts chapter 10, and see if that doesn’t help inform your question a bit. You may also want to pick up a good study bible and give it a read yourself some time. I have a sneaky suspicion that you’re only being exposed to the bible from anti-christian sourcing. It is intellectually honest to examine people who actually represent both sides of a question, if in fact you are looking to uncover the truth about it.
As far as people using the bible to condone slavery, or any other manner of ill, so what? I can claim my cat told me to have slaves. Doesn’t mean I’m sane or right. The better question would be, does the bible condone slavery, then or today? There are plenty of good resources on that, both those that claim it does and those that clearly show it does not. You should do some research. See which side pulls texts out of context. See which is careful to provide robust historical context as well as textual context to present a clear picture.
A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

I love socks with sandals!
Nice comfort of soft clean cotton, and the breathability of an open sandal… fantastic.

But, isn’t there a variant reading (supported by Didymus the Blind) that Jesus did, in fact, wear socks with sandals? Right Bart? Or am I merely misquoting Jesus at this point?

The Old Testament is acceptant of slavery.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm
True, the people of Israel were grateful that that they had been released from bondage to the pharaoh. But unsurprisingly, they fully accepted the institution of slavery. Like any other ancient people except the Athenians, they were no sort of egalitarian.
In the New Testament, Paul and Jesus are also acceptant of slavery. As one source sums up, “Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htmc As James Dunn puts it, “slavery had not yet come to be thought of as immoral or necessarily degrading,” and “was an established fact of life in the ancient world.” Paul is concerned with a brother’s relation to Jesus Christ, which matters much more than his relation to his slave or master.
It’s of course true, as I should have allowed, that Paul is at pains to abrogate–if that’s the word–some the Hebrew Bible’s strictures concerning eating with gentiles, eating sacrificial meat, sabbath observance, and circumcision. And it’s also true that he embraces the strictures against homosexual conduct.
How should we regard the moral rules we accept–say, most of those in the Hebrew Bible, all of those in the New Testament. For instance, “Premarital sexual intercourse is prohibited.” One compelling reason for this rule is that intercourse may result in pregnancy, and those who engage in bringing a baby into the world should be prepared to give it proper care. Before 1960 no reliable means of contraception was available. After 1960, a reliable method was available.
Does a prohibition when conception can’t be guarded against apply equally when it can be (with a reasonably high degree of assurance)?
Maybe, then, circumstances can change, and with them, the applicability of moral rules.
Further, in the case of the moral instruction provided by Jesus and Paul, it should be recalled that it was given on the assumption that we who are alive will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will be with the Lord forever. Moral strictures that apply in the circumstances of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God may not apply in the circumstances of the United States in 2009.
Accepting that all Jesus’ and Paul’s moral rules do apply to us in 2009, should we
let the dead bury their dead
sell what we possess (say, if our income exceeds $200,000 a year)
divorce in no circumstances whatever
go nowhere among the gentiles
turn the other cheek
forgive seventy times seven
Turn against our father or mother?
When we are in a moral quandary, isn’t it often true we really aren’t–we know just what’s required us of, but would rather not meet the requirement? And when we really don’t know what to do, can we find a spot-on verse that read literally straightforwardly tells us what is required of us?
And was Thomas Aquinas correct that God requires of us what is right because it’s right, not because of His saying so? That what’s right has some basis other than His saying so?



How long is the “FRAUD” of Vicki Gene Robinson going to continue? It doesn’t matter that Episcopalians “welcome” and even ordain homosexuals – in the fine print “HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG.”
So, this is just a “marketing ploy” or “con-job” to trick homosexuals into believing everything is okay if you’re gay.
Maybe Religion will grow up and change the “official” hatred of gays. They did so for blacks/slaves and now it’s time for gays.
Somebody in Religion needs to “make it real” someday. Homosexuality is NOT WQRONG. Grow up Religion.

Bravo James Chalmers!
Another example of shifting cultural standards when it comes to marriage: polygamy was fine in Ancient Israel and much of the ancient world, provided you could afford to have more than one wife…yet no one mentions this when they talk about defending “traditional marriage”. Marriage clearly is merely a social construction like any other, and it should be modified if there is reason to do so, for example if current definitions of marriage are exculsionary and deny people the same rights as others.
I remember Mike Huckabee in an interview saying that we shouldn’t change definitions because definitions are important.
Why? he was asked.
Because definitions are important he lamely reitterated.
The funny thing is that we all know a century from now that people will be looking at people who used the Bible to defend prohibiting gay marriage the same way we look at people who used the Bible to defend slavery. We know this! And so I’m glad that due to this precedent people like Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright have some idea of how they will be remembered.

A couple thoughts:
1) Regarding the authority of scripture. I highly recommend Phyllis Tickle’s “The Great Emergence.” It is not about the nature of scripture per se, but includes a discussion of the rise AND FALL of the idea of sola scriptura. The problems mentioned here are symptomatic of the big problems with sola scriptura. Scripture is only as helpful as its interpretation. Interpretation is an issue of reason, tradition and one’s personal experience. That means scripture has different meaning to different people/groups. Even here in the US, we are hard pressed to say that the Constitution is the supreme authority, after all, doesn’t someone have to interpret the Constitution, so really it is the Supreme Court who is the ultimate authority as they discern what the Constitution means. The problem is that Christianity has no Supreme Court. Protestants gave up the idea of a Magisterium long ago. Who then, what then, is our authority in such matters?
2) It has been suggested that when dealing with these tough moral issues such as slavery, homosexuality, divorce, feminism, etc., we must not look only at the specific prohibitions and commands, but rather we must look at those against the backdrop of common civil practice and ask the question, “on what trajectory does this directive put the church?” I am not sure — I haven’t done the study — I think we might find some guidance here. For example, biblical directives don’t abolish slavery, but they are a step in that direction from where society was. Could the same be said of homosexuality? It seems from my study that 1st c. culture was growing much more open to homosexual practice and scriptural directives seem to be moving in a opposite direction.
Just a couple comments for thought.
Peace

Thanks for all your sharing. I am away in New Zealand, visiting Middle Earth. Stay tunes for a series of posts entitled—-The Chronicles of Middle Earth.
BW3

“It seems from my study that 1st c. culture was growing much more open to homosexual practice and scriptural directives seem to be moving in a opposite direction.”
The greco-roman world was always rather open to it…in the hebraic-semitic world they were not…there was no 1st century “sea-change” anywhere. There were simply two different cultures with two different sets of cultural norms. Unfortunately for gays today some evidence of those ancient cultural norms found its way into the Bible.

Looking forward to your next series. Give a shout-out to Shire folk for me. Would love to visit Rivendell myself …

This entire bizarre justification of having sex with someone of one’s own sex is simply ludicrous. It’s not just Christianity but, with few exceptions, every great civilization and all the greatest sages of the world, east and west, have found it to be absurd and unnatural as the sexual organs are clearly not being used as they were designed to be used.
We have degenerated into being a culture of irrational extremists. The person who pierces his whole face and other body parts uses the excuse that some lady pierced her earlobes for earrings and therefore he can do preposterous things.
Two men are simply not to have anal intercourse with each other and anyone can understand that. Sex is to be a complementary relationship by which the opposites are united and through which procreation is possible.
Not only have people fallen into a justification of perverse sexual relationships, including homosexual ones, they are even imagining that people of the same sex can form a marriage. Not even in ancient Greece where homosexual relationships were rampant and where people were immersed in all sorts of perverse relationships, did they ever imagine that people of the same sex could form a marriage. Whenever a marriage was recognized it was only between people of the opposite sex and homosexuals who wanted to marry did so with someone of the opposite sex. They understood the meaning of marriage and Huckabee was completely correct even if he could not articulate it well on the spur of the moment. Definitions are important because you confound language and communication when you decide to call a horse a cow or a cat, a snake a piece of bread.
But language is manipulated by propagandists to do just that, confound the masses into accepting absurd propositions. That’s Orwell’s fundamental thesis. The homosexualist’s propaganda ploy is to say that the sexual relationship of two men is essentially the same as that of a man and a woman. And we respond how dare you insult us? How dare you denigrate marriage with this foul comparison? My relationship with my wife is of a totally different order both physiologically and morally.
That churches are dignifying this bizarre notion of “equality” by even discussing it only shows the depths of depravity, confusion and heretical practices they have sunken to. But God is not asleep. The churches have been filled with tares for some time now and they have been choking the wheat. God has allowed this abomination to be take root and grow in the churches so that the overly tolerant may reach the point of saying “enough! We cannot have fellowship with those condoning and even blessing abominable acts.”
And so the Episcopalians have begun to split and in many denominations the wheat from the chaff, the goats from the sheep are being separated. Let us understand this as a wholesome cleansing, a purging process that the Holy Spirit is putting us through. The Church of Christ will only be made a brighter beacon for those whom God calls and those who wish to follow.

Hi Ben,
These decisions by churches are a very slippery slope. The denomination that I serve (as a Scholar-appreciating, wide-reading, evangelical) – the United Church of Canada – has a proposal coming to its General Council Meeting this summer that would make it MANDATORY for every pastoral charge to allow homosexual weddings to take place in their sanctuaries. (It is only a few years ago that we were told that individual pastoral charges would be allowed to make their own decisions around this.) This is, in a sense, even more manipulative than what the Episcopalians are doing, since the United Church of Canada is supposedly a church that runs on a Presbytery system – not a Bishop’s system.
P.S. I had a very, very dear friend for 25 years who was a person of homosexual orientation. We never agreed on the theological interpretation of him consumating his desires, yet we were the closest of friends. I lost him to AIDS in 2004 and have grieved his loss in my life ever since. In fact, the note that I gave him on his death bed (thanking him for the blessings that God poured into my life and into Carrie’s life through him) facilitated a reconciliation between him and his parents who had disowned him for many years. … The claim that disagreement around theological interpretation of this issue dooms people to despair is a very, very “black and white” way of seeing this issue. The love of Christ has allowed Christians to disagree and yet love one another for many centuries. … However, what is happening of late in some denominations is a reckless destruction of church unity and Christian faith.

Good James, that you started digging.
Here’s a direction you may find helpful. What is the difference between slavery in Israel, Israel’s neighbors, and what various forms did it take in the Greco-Roman culture in 1st century AD, and then how does that compare with our view of slavery today (most commonly colonial slavery). That would be an important part of the robust historical context.
As far as your list of things to do as it relates to moral obligation… I go back to recommending you get a study bible. You may also benefit from a book like How to Read the Bible For All It’s Worth by Gordon Fee. I’m sure others could be forthcoming with suggestions as well. You’ll want to understand the distinction between literally as it relates to literature, and woodenly literally, which ultimately comes down to strawman argumentation as you present it here. There’s also flat error in that list (reasons for divorce are given, and the gentiles thing… go right back to that Acts 10 suggested reading).
Keep on doing the hard work. If you’re on the mark, I promise I’ll go your way. IF you’re not, then hopefully you’ll have the intellectual honesty and life of conviction to follow truth where ever it leads.
Best of luck,

“Two men are simply not to have anal intercourse with each other and anyone can understand that. Sex is to be a complementary relationship by which the opposites are united and through which procreation is possible.”
How do we know what form of sexual conduct married homosexual men engage in? What is the incidence of anal intercourse among them? The evidence suggests that in relations between unmarried homosexual men, anal intercourse is far from universal.
What about a man and a woman? Whatever anyone can understand, the evidence suggests that in America today about one of five heterosexual men and women have engaged in anal intercourse. Was their act complementary?
On the assumption that the suppression of anal intercourse is a desirable goal, what measures should we as a society undertake to attain that goal? Should we or should we not undertake to suppress anal intercourse between men before between men and women?

Slavery in ancient societies was a degraded condition, embedded in notions of hierarchy and natural inequality we find repugnant, and quite rightly so. Very few members of ancient society rejected the institution of slavery in any principled way. We do, and I’d say our doing so is evidence of moral progress. It’s also evidence that we would do well to draw on understandings of the requirements of morality other than those extant two thousand years ago.
I believe, as do scholars certainly more accomplished than I, perhaps even than Your Name, that Jesus himself flatly prohibited divorce, and it was later reporters of his sayings who softened the prohibition. I also believe that Jesus’ attitude toward gentiles was what one would expect of a Galilean Jew, an attitude less than fully consistent with Paul’s. I may be in error, but not flat error.
I think there’s hovering here a point of agreement: Those sayings of Jesus that provide moral instruction should be read in their historical context and cannot be lifted from his time and place to ours to be applied in an unimaginative, insensitive, literalistic way.

^Or Your Name from when I have to refresh the text code and forget to update that…
You’ll actually need to go to a library and crack a few books. You’ve got a very common assumption about slavery in the ancient world, but there’s a reason I asked like I did. It’s wrong.
Likewise, on Jesus’ teachings. If you care to copy and paste what you think is the appropriate text here, I’m sure that I, or anyone else here can help you plainly see that. As for what scholars conjecture about how the Evangelist must have distorted Jesus position, I think you’ll agree that conjecture brings in an assumption that is unprovable, and then ultimately makes it a moot point (moot either because of it’s unprovableness, or that anyone holding that position wouldn’t argue from the bible, just against it in its totality). If you think it would be helpful, please provide citation for said scholars. I’m sure that there is logical assumptive error, but that’s just conjecture.
Please do the same for your support of Jesus’ teachings on gentiles. The ones that come to mind for me actually don’t make your point (if my guess is right, you’re really down playing the importance of the word “first”, but we’ll know when you post).
This would certainly be helpful for your overall understanding of the bible, what it says, and how to read it. Ultimately it gets rather far afield from your initial objection. Some of what you say addresses what is not uncommonly called the tough sayings of the Bible. Peter himself points out that some parts of the Bible are inherently tougher than others. But what the bible has to say about homosexual acts, is that unclear? Because even if you were on the mark to say that we can’t get to any reasonable conclusion about the tough sayings, it wouldn’t touch the clear things.
Finally, ff you’ll permit me, I just noticed something that deserves calling out. In your post with the time/date stamp of July 29, 2009 5:23 PM, you begin with a line in quotation marks. Who are you qouting there? Because I can’t find any such words in the posts previous to what you put up… If you’ll permit me a leap here, it seems that you’re quoting what you think Christians must be saying or meaning, but that would be an error either on your part (if untrue) or the part of the Christian (if true). I’ll point you to 1 John chapter one. Towards the end… see if you can find the relevant bits. In any case, it comes off a bit disengenuous to quote what isn’t a quote. I’ve rather enjoyed the conversation, and I think you’re well meaning, but it’s just not helpful to venture off that way.

I take issue with the assertion that “Marriage is by definition and always has been a theological construct, not a civil or secular one.”
In Massachusetts, where I live, marriage was originally very much a “civil and secular” concern, and emphatically not a concern of the church proper.
It wasn’t until the 18th and 19th centuries that marriage became an ecclesiatical concern.

Just because “homosexuality” wasn’t a formal concept in the NT period, does that mean it’s a priori false or irrelevant for understanding the Bible’s applicability to moral cases today?
“Nature” (Gr. “phusis”), for example, was a concept unknown to the Hebrews who wrote the OT. (Gerhard Von Rad writes well about this in his Hexateuch book.) Does that mean we should dispense with the concept of “Nature” as well?
What if the NT writers said, ‘”Nature” didn’t have a linguistic-conceptual equivalent in Hebrew, therefore it shouldn’t have a bearing on our interpretation of God’s revelation in Christ.’
Witherington’s assertion strikes me as the worst kind of reverse historicism, taking refuge in the conceptual limitations of the past.
Does W. hold the same line about divorced people in the church? Why are women allowed to SPEAK in churches (forget preach) against the plain word of the NT?
I recommend the late Lewis Smedes’ essay, Like the Wideness of the Sea? at http://www.soulforce.org/article/638

“I am just thankful that the U.M. Church is still holding its clergy to the standard of fidelity in heterosexual marriage or celibacy in singleness, and if we have any sense, we will see what is happening in the larger Anglican Church on this issue as a cautionary tale that we should not want repeated in our own communion.”
What is it that you see happening? People being honest about what does on beyond the conventions, synods, and confessional statements?
Is your “standard of fidelity” worth the price of mendacity?
Keep walking! Nothing to see here folks! No gay people in the UMC! If there are, then they just keep it inside! Nothing to see here!

James Chalmers asks, “How do we know what form of sexual conduct married homosexual men engage in?” My simple response is firstly, they cannot possibly form a marriage and secondly who cares what kind of sex they engage in? The entire relationship is an abomination.
Complementarity means that a man and a woman match each other, their anatomy and physiology clearly fit each other and the fruit of that complementarity is the child that may be born out of their relationship. There can be no marriage without complimentarity of the sexes. It is the sine qua non of marriage.
Two men or two women can only have a mock marriage. They fool themselves as they try to fool society. When society hands them a marriage license it makes a mockery of marriage and reinforces the same-sex couple’s marriage fantasy. It is a duplicitous means of seeking societal affirmation of a relationship that has been almost universally recognized as an abomination.
And forget the very silly analogy with slavery. The fact that the teaching of Jesus makes us servants of each other thoroughly cancels out the possibility of justifying slavery.

Jesus and gentiles.
What is striking is that the evangelists had so few passages that pointed towards success in winning Gentiles to faith. They could cite only a few stories about Jesus’ contacts with Gentiles, and even those do not depict him as being especially warm towards them. [Earlier on, Mark 7:24-30 is quoted.] … Jesus’ own mission was to Israel… He made no effort to seek and win Gentiles. …On general grounds, I am inclined to think that he expected at least some Gentiles to turn to the God of Israel and to participate in the coming kingdom. The general grounds are these: a good number of Jews expected this to happen; Jesus was a kind and generous man. That is, the alternative to thinking that Jesus looked forward to the conversion of Gentiles would be that he expected them all to be destroyed. This is unlikely.”
EP Sanders, HIstorical Figure of Jesus, p. 192.
Slavery.
I didn’t intend what I said about slavery to be controversial and am surprised to find it is. I thought it was common ground that ancient societies were hierarchical, that slaves (though of course not all of them) were at the bottom of the hierarchy, and that that was not a pleasant place to be.
I readily grant that there are sources more authoritative than Wikipedia. But I have found usually to be a good place to start, and will do so now. I assume it might be agreed that it is slavery in the Roman Empire that’s most pertinent to our concerns. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about that:
Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks and the Phoenicians [11]. As the Roman Republic expanded outward, entire populations were enslaved, thus creating an ample supply. The people subjected to Roman slavery came from all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Such oppression by an elite minority eventually led to slave revolts (see Roman Servile Wars); the Third Servile War led by Spartacus was the most famous and severe. Greeks, Berbers, Germans, Britons, Thracians, Gauls (or Celts), Jews, Arabs, and many more were slaves used not only for labor, but also for amusement (e.g. gladiators and sex slaves). If a slave ran away, he was liable to be crucified. By the late Republican era, slavery had become a vital economic pillar in the wealth of Rome. Slavery was so common, and citizenship restricted so firmly (only to native-born adult males and people granted citizenship under special circumstances), that the slaves in Rome far outnumbered the citizens.[12]
I see nothing here inconsistent with what I’ve said about slavery. But a much better authority would be Raymond Brown in his Introduction to the New Testament, p. 503. “Society in the provinces of the Roman Empire where Paul conducted missionary work was highly stratified. … [T]hen at the bottom would have been the immense number of slaves with whose existence the economic welfare of the Empire was intimately involved, (The dire results of the revolt of the slaves in Italy led by Spartacus in 73-71 BC show that any proposal of the abolition of slavery would have had Empire-shaking potentialities).”
It’s true also, as Brown goes on to say (p. 504), that “Within the general category of the most burdensome form of slave life was endured by who did heavy manual labor … By contrast many who worked in households for understanding masters would not have been much worse off than servants in wealthy British homes at the end of the last century. … On a particularly high level were the very well-educated slaves who administered their master’s estates or businesses, instructed the children, and even earned their own money. [Many of these were] given freedom.”
Onesimus ran away. That suggests at least one man’s evaluation of slavery in the early Roman Empire. But that fortunate slaves looked forward to freedom suggests other men held a similar view.
The call out.
It’s quite true the quotation was made up by me. If I attributed to many readers of the Christian part of Beliefnet a view few hold, I apologize. And I will in future take the trouble to precede such quotations with a “Some might say” or some similar phrase. I did not practice to deceive, but to anyone who was deceived, I apologize.
Clear sayings, and tough ones.
If even one clear saying is also a tough one, and therefore can’t be straightforwardly applied in our time and place, the question arises: is this clear saying possibly also a tough one?

James Chalmers asks, “How do we know what form of sexual conduct married homosexual men engage in?” My simple response is firstly, they cannot possibly form a marriage and secondly who cares what kind of sex they engage in? The entire relationship is an abomination.
Complementarity means that a man and a woman match each other, their anatomy and physiology clearly fit each other and the fruit of that complementarity is the child that may be born out of their relationship. There can be no marriage without complimentarity of the sexes. It is the sine qua non of marriage.
Two men or two women can only have a mock marriage. They fool themselves as they try to fool society. When society hands them a marriage license it makes a mockery of marriage and reinforces the same-sex couple’s marriage fantasy. It is a duplicitous means of seeking societal affirmation of a relationship that has been almost universally recognized as an abomination.
And forget the very silly analogy with slavery. The fact that the teaching of Jesus makes us servants of each other thoroughly cancels out the possibility of justifying slavery.

JOSE SOLANO WRITES “[The same-sex couple’s marriage] is a duplicitous means of seeking societal affirmation of a relationship that has been almost universally recognized as an abomination.”
What’s duplicitous about it? It’s public like any other marriage–and marriage is a societal affirmation, which is precisely why it’s sought. And it has been affirmed by several societies.
Homosexual conduct was regarded by Jews, including Paul, as an abomination. But the Greeks and Romans, till about the time of Paul, tolerated or even praised certain forms of what we call homosexual relations. The barbarian kingdoms, except for the Visigoths in Spain, tolerated homosexuality. Laws against homosexual conduct were enforced only episodically in Europe from the 15th through the 18th centuries. The Napoleonic Code decriminalized sodomy. This is less than universal condemnation.
And today majorities or large minorities in the countries of western Europe and in the United States do not regard homosexuality or homosexual conduct as an abomination.
Nor does the Holy See entirely condemn all aspects of the relationship. “Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful.”
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Divorce.
“The immediacy of the Kingdom of God made for Jesus and his followers the restoration of the Kingdom of God made for Jesus and his followers the restoration of of matrimonial morality (indissoluble marriage of one man and one woman) an absolute imperative. The novelty of this outlook is shown by the debate which continued in the brotherhood of the disciples of Jesus, who considered the indissolubility of marriage ‘inexpedient’ [Matt. 19:10] and thought divorce licit at least in some circumstances.”
Geza Vermes, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 56

The actions of the homosexualists are duplicitous because they are not telling society that they seek marriage licenses because they want societal affirmation of their behaviors but rather because their relationship is equal to that of heterosexuals and so they should have the same marriage license. It is the affirmation of their perverse lifestyle that they seek and what better way to obtain that than to have society, through the state, provide them a badge of honor, the marriage license. But they are as unqualified for that license as is a blind man for a driver’s license because same sex couples cannot possibly form a marriage. It’s a great hoax. They should try to obtain societal affirmation by seeking a license that properly defines their relationship and I propose that it be called simply: “The Homosexual Relationship License.” No euphemisms of domestic partnerships or civil unions that could just as well refer to two sisters living together, etc. Just say what it is and then try and gain societal affirmations rather than usurping a marriage license through stealth and deception.
James you confuse disapprobation with intolerance. I believe that willing people can in their privacy do all sorts or things. But I do not approve of those actions and neither do the Scriptures. As we come from a Christian perspective I’m not particularly interested in what the barbarians and pagans were practicing. We know whom we need to follow. We know the fundamentals of God’s teaching and homosexual relationships have not place in it. We also know that from nature human beings can divine a great deal of what may or not be done and that is why humanity, with very few exceptions, has found homosexual practices to be an abomination. And never, neither among the ancient Greeks nor among the barbarians, was it imagined that people of the same sex could possibly form a marriage. That preposterous notion stems only from the incredibly confused fantasies of very recent degenerate thinking. It is part and parcel of our culture of death and depravity.
For some excellent readings and discussions on this subject go to http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com
Peace

Suppose Jesus did not, for eschatological reasons, absolutely prohibit divorce. Suppose that, in Mark 9:10-12, he only prohibited remarriage. That seems to be a clear saying, and also, no less clearly, to be a hard one–one that puts some Bible-believing Christians in a bind, caught between what seems to have been declared wrong by Jesus on the one hand and what seems the right thing to do from the standpoint of a loving relationship on the other hand.
There seems to be, then, for some, at least one clear, hard saying in the New Testament.
If a saying disallowed divorce in cases of incorrigible abuse (Mark 10:9; I Corinthians 7:10b), for some there would be another.
If Mark 9:10-12 or I Corinthians 7:10 is clear but hard, what about I Corinthians 6:9?

The leading advocate of gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan, does avowedly seek societal affirmation of his and other gays’ marriages. Recently, the National Review came out in opposition to gay marriage. The editors wrote:
“Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “
‘conservative’ case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.”
Sullivan responded:
“Ponder those sentences for a moment. The fact that gay Americans may feel equal because of inclusion within their own families and societies is now a cost to society, not a benefit. Encouraging commitment, fewer partners, and greater responsibility are important governmental goals with respect to heterosexuals but not with respect to homosexuals. As far as National Review is concerned, homosexuals can go to hell. Their interests and views cannot even be accorded respect. They are non-persons to National Review: means, not ends.
“Flip this around and you see what the theocon right actually believes: that society has no interest in the welfare of its gay citizens, and an abiding interest in ensuring that they remain unequal, feel unequal and suffer the consequences of a culture where family and commitment and fidelity are non-existent.”
As to what attitude is appropriate in regard to the sexual relation of homosexuals, the Supreme Court is closer to Sullivan than to Solano. “To say that the issue in [the case of Bowers’ conviction for sodomy] was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
“James you confuse disapprobation with intolerance.”
I don’t recall making any reference to intolerance. But “we can’t have fellowship with those condoning … abominable acts,” “absurd and unnatural,” “degenerated to irrational extremes,” “how dare you denigrate this foul comparison,” “chaff,” “goats,” “purging,” “death and depravity”–well, as I say, I don’t recall making any reference to intolerance. But possibly I just have.

James Chalmers, your allusion to intolerance is found in your statements related to the “suppression of anal intercourse” and your question, “Should we or should we not undertake to suppress anal intercourse between men before between men and women?”
As if anyone here were talking about being so intolerant as to want to suppress what consenting adults do in their privacy. Nevertheless, we can strongly disapprove of those and many other sexual practices that men and women engage in.
And that’s exactly what I’m doing when I use terms such as “abomination,” “perverse practices,” “absurd and unnatural, “death and depravity,” etc. Don’t confuse disapprobation with intolerance.
Homosexualists propaganda works to desensitize society to abominable practices as they are justified as wholesome and natural, “my genes made me do it.” Along those lines is the effort to silence the truth through “hate speech” legislation and to brainwash children in the schools.
But the Lord is using all this to separate the wheat from the tares that are choking our society as they spread the culture of death and depravity. Thank God for the many Christian churches that are not capitulating to contemporary moral turpitude. Families may still find sanctuaries where children may be brought up understanding the meaning of marriage and the sanctity of life.
For some excellent readings and discussions on this subject go to http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com
Peace.

What happened to all of yesterday’s comments?

I see now that Mr. Solano is indeed tolerant in that he opposes sodomy laws, and would not apply legal sanctions to them, but limit himself to moral condemnation.
I hope that this is a principled distinction, that the strong moral condemnation does not logically entail that criminal sanctions would be appropriate.
It appears that Mr. Solano is more tolerant than are many Americans, forty percent of whom think that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/americans-evenly-divided-morality-homosexuality.aspx

Now, here is another “principled distinction” Mr. Chalmers: Though I am liberal enough not to want to criminalize perverse sexual practices committed by consenting adults in their privacy, I do not say that a society does not have the right to make such practices—incest, homosexuality, polyamory, etc.—illegal. In this regard I agree with Justice Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

If a practice is illegal, aren’t those who engage in it subject to criminal penalties (imprisonment) or fines)? Well, maybe not. Maybe the practice could be made illegal but not subject to any penalties. But then why bother?
Roughly, in practice, often, “tolerate” means “not punish,” or maybe, “not permit the state to punish.” If the state can fine or imprison people for engaging in homosexual conduct, then why doesn’t it make sense to say that the conduct has been criminalized?
Is it that the state has a right to punish/make illegal homosexual conduct, but for some reason should not exercise that right? (It could rightly adopt sodomy laws, but for prudential reasons should not do so?)

Those are thought provoking questions Mr. Chalmers. I would say that a society wishing to make sodomy or incest between consenting adults illegal is criminalizing those behaviors but may not wish to prosecute if it is done in private. The law would nevertheless serve as a deterrent and the government would have the option to prosecute those that may be flaunting their activities and thereby corrupting the morals of minors and others.
The law would also help counteract the intense homosexualist propaganda campaign that seeks to affirm homosexual practices by providing people special privileges and benefits because they engage in homosexual conduct.
I would not think of undermining the laws of Belize, for instance, because they forbid homosexual practices. If the laws are draconian I would try to have them reduced as the penalty could be worse than the crime.

This continues to be a lively debate, and helpful. Just a few points: 1) Mr. Zwingli you need to know your history of Massachusetts better. Go back to the colony at Plymouth Bay and the Pilgrims. You will discover that even in Massachsetts matters such as marriage and adultery were matters o0f the church, even when reinforced by the civil authorities, but then the civil authorities were intwined with the church. Perhaps you have not read The Scarlet Letter; 2) Confident predictions that “we all know that our country will keep going in a more sexually loose direction, are completely forgetting the lessons of history. Thinik for example of what the Islamic revolution did in Iran; 3) beware of arguments that say “we all know the Fall didn’t happen”. Really? How precisely do we ‘know’ that? 4) as for scholarly criticism of the Biblpe it certainly has not shown that it is merely what is behind the text that matters in these discussions.
BW3

Whether and why homosexual conduct is permissible or not are vexed and controversial questions.
They still deeply divide our society, even though it appears to be settled law that sodomy is not a punishable offense. It’s settled only because of the intervention of the Supreme Court–left to their own devices a dozen or more state legislatures would continue to criminalize homosexual conduct, and perhaps heterosexual anal or oral sex as well.
As Professor and Pastor Witherington implies, nor is it certain–though it may seem likely–that the current trend of increased acceptance of homosexual conduct will continue. The controversy might intensify: it might do so just because the numbers of those prepared to accept homosexual conduct grow. Triumphalism is often proven unfounded, and anyway, it isn’t very nice.
In dealing with these issues, I cannot see that Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9 and whatever such verses are all that helpful. Four reasons shape my doubt.
First, the biblical passages just state conclusions, they don’t provide a reason why–except for the reason of sorts,” because I said so.” Of course I realize that God’s saying fundamentally differs from any human being’s saying so. But a it was a human being who said that God said so, and he might have gotten it wrong. And it appears the same human being who said God said homosexual conduct is wrong also said two other troubling things. One is that witches should be put to death. Another is that those who engage in homosexual conduct should be put to death. Still another, third should not presumably from God, reported in Deuteronomy, is that linen and wool shouldn’t be worn together.
So my second reason for rejecting “God is reported to have said you mustn’t” as a reason for not engaging in homosexual conduct is that exactly the same reason applies to burning those who engage in witchcraft, killing those who engage in homosexual conduct, and wearing linen and wool together. Since (I hope and believe) almost all of us don’t conform to–don’t even take seriously–the injunctions to burn witches, kill gays, and not wear linen with wool, no more must we accept the force of the prohibition on homosexual conduct on a because-the-Bible-says-so basis.
My third reason is that I think circumstances might alter cases. I think sexual intercourse engaged in by a woman who is taking the pill and a man wearing a condom is not so morally freighted an act as is engaging in intercourse without contraception two weeks after ovulation. I can’t see the difference so clearly, but I also think that maybe the moral import of homosexual conduct in an agricultural village in Palestine circa 1000 BC differs from its import in America in 2009. And that the moral import of divorce as Kingdom’s breaking in is proclaimed in Galilee might differ from its import in America today, where very few would say the Kingdom is breaking in. So my third reason is that I am guilty of situational ethics. (Maybe I should add that I can think of no circumstances where killing other human beings for the fun of it is morally permissible.)
Fourth, it’s not just the conclusory and barebones nature of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and the other verses. It’s that there exists such a plenitude of rich and deep sources of guidance and instruction other than half a dozen Bible verses. From this vast array, the first the comes to my mind, oddly, is George Eliot’s Middlemarch–which, among many other things, is a novel about marriage. Then I think of War and Peace and Natasha’s exuberance of the prospect of marriage and the humdrum but not unfulfilling existence into which she settles. These of course are accounts of heterosexual relationships, and they are works of the imagination, buttressed by no divine or ecclesiastical authority. But they do have the authority of whatever truth about human love and separation there is to be discerned.
Nobody, or hardly anybody, denies that often it’s troublesome for some men and women to cease being attracted exclusively to members of their own sex–they just have a hard time of it, even members of the clergy who’ve done the gospel a lot of good. The issue is whether they can and should either marry someone of the opposite sex or remain celibate. The issue is also, equally, maybe more, whether they can be in love with a member of the same sex, whether they can be as Natasha was to Pierre or Mary to Fred.
If we go so far as to ask this question, we might remember who wrote
“He was my North, my South, my East and West
My workling week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought my love would last forever; I was wrong.”
We might ask whether the second-best of definition of love, having and holding from this day forward, cherishing, defines capacities that when one man meets another are disabled–we might ask whether a man cannot be loyal and caring even to death, even to another man.
When we open our minds and hearts to all this plenitude of morally rich considerations, high among them will be, has to be, those found in the Judeo-Christian tradition–at its center the Bible. The Bible has much to say about love and marriage and what they require of us. We need to plant our thinking about marriage in the Garden of Eden, where shame and temptation and beguilement were so much at work. It’s not by accident those embarking on marriage still choose to have retold the story of Ruth or to have read over them the words of Paul, love suffereth long, and is kind; envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. But the words may prompt the question, when a man meets a man, does he cease to be kind?

I’m often rather blunt in my comments so I must say Mr. Chalmers that you’ve fallen into a bit of schmultzy rambling in your last email. Too many loosely connected or just disconnected, non sequitur comments.
I’ll just respond to your question, “when a man meets a man, does he cease to be kind?”
One must never cease to be kind, but kind does not mean engaging in perverse activities.
Peace.

Can sexual relations that are part of a kind, caring, committed–loving–relationship–possibly be perverse?
Is there something about homosexual persons (are they persons as well as perverts?) that prevents their loving one another?

Ben,
I agree that “theology” informed the Puritans’ views on all kinds of relationships, including marriage. However, I wouldn’t appeal to Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter (1850), written as it was in an anti-Puritan Unitarian milieu, for an understanding of early Massachusetts marriage practices. Nor would I appeal to the Plymouth colonists, who — great as they were — did not establish Massachusetts.
The Puritan colonists who founded Massachusetts Bay would not have welcomed same-sex households, but for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacrament or a sacred rite.
In early Massachusetts, weddings as a rule were presided over by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in meeting houses. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy’s authority was granted by the state, not the church. Even today, any Massachusetts citizen may petition the governor’s office for one-day authority to preside over a wedding.
None of this has any bearing on the exegesis or interpretation of scripture, but I still think it’s worth Americans knowing that Massachusetts’ founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs.

Jose, in your interchange with James it seems to me that you’re following principles to their logical conclusions.
In this your arguments remind me of the Catholic Church’s with their notion of “intrinsic disorder”, which effectively asserts that heterosexual rape or incest, insofar as it’s heterosexual (i.e., natural), is infinitely less “disordered” than a loving homosexual partnership.
The Catholic position is brutally consistent, but many people still don’t find the logic compelling.

You are not quite getting the rational picture Mr. Chalmers. You should have “a kind, caring, committed–loving—relationship” with your mother or sister, but you must not have sex with her. Isn’t that clear?

Absolutely right–sexual relations between blood relatives, and by extension non-blood siblings and such can be “perverse.” No doubt there are other telling examples as well. Love does not conquer all.
Thank you, I won’t make that mistake again, I hope.
Why are sexual relations between parent and sibling wrong? They’re dysgenic, exploitative and pervert the purpose of parental care.
Can anything similar be said about relations between two consenting adults of the same sex? Are these relations similarly harmful in any way that sets them apart from relations between members of the opposite sex?
And can physical relations between members of the same sex be embedded in a relation of love not morally distinguishable from that between members of the opposite sex?

“Why are sexual relations between parent and sibling wrong?” Well, it will surprise you to know that it is not because “They’re dysgenic, exploitative and pervert the purpose of parental care.”
1. They may not be dysgenic at all and if you know something about animal breeding programs you know that through proper inbreeding you may transmit the best qualities to progeny and produce no genetic problems. Inbreeding tends to be bad if it extensive as within small Amish and Hasidic communities. (Incidentally, with increasing IVF, broken homes, adopted children prevented from knowing their real parents, etc., incestuous relationships will become more common.)
2. It is not at all exploitative if it is engaged in by consenting adults.
3. That it perverts the purpose of parental care is a highly dubious argument when they are adults and it of course has nothing to do with sibling sexual relationships.
The main reason it is bad is because “the Bible tells us so.” It is also bad because most, but not all societies, have told us it is. It is a nearly universal social construct. There may be a natural sexual aversion that develops when people grow up together but young sibling sexual encounters are far more common than the general public imagines and the existence of early sexual desires for one’s mother or father has been noted by Freud (Oedipus complex) and Jung (Electra complex). So, according to those and other psychologists it is natural. Nevertheless, they both stressed that one needs to grow out of it as to merely follow desires that come naturally to us stunts our psychological/personality development.
Now, Mr. Chalmers you ask, “Can anything similar be said about relations between two consenting adults of the same sex?” Well, as you see it doesn’t even apply to incest. But the obvious problem with same sex relationships is that they are using their sexual organs in ways that they were clearly not designed to function. The anus’ function is to excrete not to “ingest.” It is a filthy and unwholesome practice that is the cause of all sorts of illnesses, and I’m not even thinking of AIDS. As I mentioned earlier it corrupts the obvious natural sexual relationship that by our clear anatomical, physiological and psychological structures should be complementary, heterosexual. It is only man and woman that should be sexually joined together. Anything else is simply an abomination.
And when it comes to same sex “marriage,” well, the notion is just preposterous. When people talk about “committed” same sex relationship they don’t realize that that only makes the matter worse as they should under no circumstances commit themselves to having such relationships. They are trying to mimic marriage through an abominable practice. They need to stop this immediately, not campaign to have society reinforce it.
Peter Forrester, I don’t know where you get the notion that Catholics think rape “is infinitely less ‘disordered’ than a loving homosexual partnership.” I would say that sexually it is less disordered but rape brings with it a problem of an entirely different magnitude as it is an enormously violent assault on an individual. Whereas, I would not propose a prison sentence for private homosexual practices, a rape must always be prosecuted by the state and punished severely. I think Catholics would agree with me.
Later I’ll try to address this so-called “loving homosesexual partnership.” Much as I love the word love, it may well be the most misused word on earth.
Peace.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com

Sorry, getting back in rather late! Lively indeed!
Call out: No problem, and I wish it weren’t too easy for me to imagine that you’ve got good evidence to think that way. I appreciate your candor.
Slavery: Was not a monolithic thing in the ancient world, and the distinction becomes especially important and clear when you compare Israel to its neighbors. You’re right that wikipedia isn’t a particularly good source.
Jesus and Gentiles, et al: Here’s the point really: If you really want to get to the bottom of the truth, you’ve got to examine something from all sides. Yes, there are scholars that say things that sound very believable on why you shouldn’t believe this or that about the bible. That doesn’t mean it’s true, reasonable, good scholarship, or even believable if you do just a little scratching.
Sanders identifies himself as a “liberal, modern, secularized Protestant” in his book “Jesus and Judaism;” (from Wiki ) So clue #1 that you’re not dealing with a biblical scholar, but an anti-biblical scholar. That doesn’t make him wrong in and of itself, from a scholarship standpoint, but it let’s you know he’s on a side. Good scholarship on your part would force you to look at a source from the side of biblical defense.
Now let’s look at the quote you gave: “…On general grounds, I am inclined to think that he expected at least some Gentiles to turn to the God of Israel and to participate in the coming kingdom”
Note the lack of support? What evidence does he have from biblical or extrabiblical sources that Jesus intended to convert Gentiles? I can tell you that Matthew attests he did not intend to do so. Matthew 15:21-28
So again, here’s the real point: If you’re actually interested in truth, then YOU will need to broaden your own reading to include those who defend the bible. All you’ve indicated is that you’ve read people to support your presupposition. But does your presupposition hold up? You’ll only know if you attack it viciously, and see if it holds up.

I always forget to update my name after refreshing for the code. :/

I. My gut reaction to anal intercourse is quite like yours. But as I think it over, I realize that the abhorrent features you point towards need not necessarily exhibit themselves–measures can be taken to minimize or even eliminate them.
And cross-sex anal intercourse is much more common than same-sex. Is it more or less abhorrent? If it comes even close to being as abhorrent (abominable), because it’s so much more common, shouldn’t it arouse greater concern that does the same-sex variety?
And anal intercourse is not a feature of all same-sex relationships. Fellatio (nice to have a distancing Latin term available) may fairly often be the chief form of sexual expression in a homosexual relationship. Is the physical act fellatio significantly less abominable than is anal intercourse? If so, could it raise the moral standing of some homosexual relations over others? Which is morally worse, a heterosexual relationship where anal intercourse is found, or a homosexual relationship where it’s not?
It would seem that the physical difference between cross-sex and same-sex fellatio is minimal. If so, then which is of greater concern–homosexuals who confine their sexual activities to fellatio, or the epidemic of fellatio (some of it motivated by a desire to abstain from intercourse) among young heterosexuals?
II. I imagine you have a ready answer to this one, but it’s important to get it laid out. I’m wearing glasses. I’m using my ears and nose not to hear and smell but for something other than what appears to be their natural purpose. Am I sinning?
Why is it that using an organ for some purpose other than which it evolved to serve is morally wrong?
III. It seems to me that you are focusing sharply on the physicality of sex and ascribing to it great moral power. Certain physical acts are morally decisive, regardless of the nature of the larger relationship. Recurrently, it seems to me, you seek to define a relationship entirely by reference to its physical manifestations and them only. It seems, for instance, you’d like to say that a gay man is necessarily committed to nothing more or less than getting his next lay.
I don’t think Justice Kennedy put the point with any particular eloquence when he said to define the issue as “the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” But the point is clear enough–human relationships are seldom if ever “purely physical.” Surely few Christians would regard them so. We all the time evaluate how two people get on with each other. It seems to me that two gay people get on in ways that from a moral standpoint don’t set them apart from two straight people. But that’s because I think the physical aspect of their relationship is far from being its most important aspect, and certainly isn’t a morally decisive one.

Your Name–
There’s much to agree with in what you say, and little to quarrel with.
But is it anti-Biblical to know the New Testament inside out, to know the Old Testament as well as do many Old Testament scholars, and know the history and culture of first-century Palestine better than –I won’t say anyone else, I’ll be cautious and say as well or better than all but two dozen other scholars? Is it anti-Biblical to have wrought a revolution in the understanding of first-century Judaism, members of whom included the two chief figures of the New Testament?
More generally, do you have to believe it to understand it? Or could it be that belief obstructs understanding?

It’s now how many scholars you line up that are anti-biblical, it’s are you reading any that aren’t…. That’s the last I’ll say on it, but either I’ve repeatedly made that point unclearly, or your evasiveness is, or at least should be, instructive.
As for the belief and understanding… I’m a former atheist. I understood, then believed, then understood more. But first I had to have the intellectual honesty to examine what defenders of the bible had to say, rather than just read more and more of the same. For that matter, reading this blog is part of my rigorous discipline to examine those who hold beliefs different from mine from their own perspective (though only *slightly* different in this case).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/fashion/02love.html?em

Mr. Chalmers, what makes the same sex relationship an abomination IS their having sex with each other. If they did not engage in sexual activities with each they could be just like any other friends. What makes incest an abomination IS the sexual aspect. What makes prostitution a terrible sin IS the sexual component. What makes polygamy a sin IS the sexual aspect. What makes pedophilia an abomination IS the sexual component.
Any sexual relationship between people of the same sex is an abomination for the reasons I have already stated.
I do not define a relationship entirely by its physical manifestation. Of course, people engaging in homosexual acts or sado-masochistic activities can do charitable things, help little old ladies across the street, etc. Abominable mobsters or terrorists often do the same. Mafioso gangsters often carry out wonderful acts of charity. In Colombia they build hospitals and schools. But I’m focusing here on the moral corruption of homosexual activities per se. And to stay on the thread more specifically, we are focusing on the absurdity of same sex “marriage.”
When we start endless “why” questionings we’ve essentially stopped examining the problem and stopped the effort of coming to our own reasonable conclusions. When we start comparing the use of glasses with the abomination of same sex intercourse we have reached the desperation stage in our argument. It’s unreal.
Man and woman are created to complement each other. They are both physically and psychologically made to match each other, to reconcile opposites. Their anatomy interlocks as it obviously is meant to happen. And the blessed fruit of that complementarity is the child that may come from it. That relationship provides the child both a mother and a father that will help the child properly adjust herself to the world, to life and to family. We must always advise people to live in accordance with that obvious and natural unity. To advise that aberrant sexual behaviors be pursued, under some notion of the “love” the two or three or four have for each other, is to warp the meaning and value of marriage and family and to open wide the door to rationalize all sorts of morally depraved activities.
If you can justify homosexual behavior you really cannot rationally shut the door on all the other sexually perverse activities. I understand that the political strategy of homosexualists is to keep out from special benefits and privileges the other philias as they pursue gaining them only for homosexuals, but their arguments always fall apart as they cannot say why theirs should be the only aberrant sexual activity to be granted special privileges. Sexual morality inevitably collapses into “anything goes.” After all, how can you stop polygamy, which does form a true, albeit inferior marriage, while providing marriage licenses to those that are inherently unmarriageable?
Have you not noticed the elements that join together in a “gay pride” parade? It’s a veritable bacchanalian orgy, only much worse, very much what Moses must have witnessed when he came down from Mt. Sinai or what transpired in Sodom. And these parades are open to children!
We really do need a reality check when we start justifying homosexual acts.

Jose, if people who share your opinions about gay men and lesbians supported regularizing homosexual relationships then the “bacchanalian” element you find objectionable would most likely dissipate. This is essentially Andrew Sullivan’s argument. Anti-gay forces do everything to marginalize gays and lesbians and then object to their marginal lifestyles. Anti-gay forces create prophecies which they then fulfill. Thank God anti-gay forces are losing and as a result gays and lesbians are leading more regular lives.

Sorry, Peter but you are just fantasizing. The fact is that this is happening most in those places where they have the most liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, e.g., San Francisco, London, etc. We’ve got to face the facts. The more we condone the culture of death and depravity the more it spreads.

The news from Mr. Solano is what’s been called the PIB argument–the contention that if one sanctions homosexual conduct, then one must also sanction also polygamy, incest, and bestiality. The argument has been thoroughly investigated by John Corvino. See 
“Homosexuality and the PIB Argument,” Ethics, April 2005, volume 205, pages 501-534.
Corvino lays out his argument more briefly at
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26728.html
He begins with what he regard as a good argument for homosexual relations, an argument from analogy.
Homosexual relationships offer virtually all of the benefits of sterile heterosexual relationships; thus, if we approve of the latter, we should approve of the former as well. For example, both heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships can unite people in a way that ordinary friendship simply cannot. Both can have substantial practical benefits in terms of the health, economic security, and social productivity of the partners. Both can be important constituents of a flourishing life. Yes, they feel good and we want them, but there’s a lot more to it than that. These similarities create a strong prima facie case for treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same — morally, socially, and politically.
Then Corvino states a possible objection–the PIB argument.
“But wait,” say the opponents. “Can’t you make the same argument for PIB relationships?”
And responds.
Not quite. It is true that you can use the same form of argument for PIB relationships: PIB relationships have benefits X, Y, and Z and no relevant drawbacks. But whether PIB relationships do in fact have such benefits and lack such drawbacks is an empirical matter, one that will not be settled by looking to homosexual relationships.
To put my (his, Corvino’s) point more concretely: to observe that Tom and Dick (and many others like them) flourish in homosexual relationships is not to prove that Greg and Marcia would flourish in an incestuous relationship, or that Mike, Carol, and Alice would flourish in a polygamous relationship, or that Bobby and Tiger would flourish in a bestial relationship. Whether they would or not is a separate question — one that requires a whole new set of data.
And there is another way, Corvino contends, to see how wide is the gap between homosexual relationships and PIB relationships.
PIB relationships can be either homosexual or heterosexual. Proponents of the PIB challenge must therefore explain why they group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. There’s only one plausible reason: PIB and homosexuality have traditionally been condemned. But (whoops!) that’s also true of interracial relationships, which traditionalists (typically) no longer condemn. And (whoops again!) they’ve just argued in a circle: the question at hand is why we should group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. Saying that “we’ve always grouped them together” doesn’t answer the question, it begs it.
For Corvino’s reasons, I find the PIB argument unpersuasive. He who says H need not say P or I or B, and H and P and I and B must stand alone to be evaluated.

Jose, do you think you’re more preoccupied by gay sex than the average guy?

In my often blunt style let me say that if you like specious, contradictory gobbledygook arguments then John Corvino’s story is for you. It in no way addresses what I have been saying here about complementarity. He starts by making a couple of arguments that “traditionalist’ make, shows how homosexualists try to refute them and then acknowledges that they can’t. Among the homosexualists (Sullivan & Rauch) arguments he cites the myth of “constitutional” homosexuality.
I do not have the time now to thoroughly deconstruct point by point the nonsense that Corvino comes up with, but I will quote a fascinating statement that places him exactly in that “anything goes” set I’ve been talking about. He says
“To be honest, I feel about bestiality much as I feel about sex with inflatable dolls: I don’t recommend making a habit out of it, and it’s not something I’d care to do myself, but it’s hardly worthy of serious moral attention.”
That’s the direction in which he leads society. What more does one need say?

Hi Tim Poltrino. I am more preoccupied with opera or ethnomusicology than the average person or with abortion issues, or with biblical studies, or with psychology and anthropology, or with educating people, etc. than the average person. So what? This thread happens to be on this issue. Do you have anything significant to state or are you here on this Christian blog to harass?
I’m certainly not more preoccupied with homosexual practices than the homosexualist organizations that are relentlessly infiltrating schools to brainwash children into accepting and affirming perverse sexual behaviors. They put a great deal of money into their “gay sex” affirmation campaigns.
Surely this is one of the most divisive issues of contemporary society as it tears up churches, political parties, etc., and brings out millions of people to repeatedly approve constitutional amendments protecting marriage. And still the highly preoccupied “gay sex” affirmers pour additional millions of dollars to deconstruct marriage.
I’m perhaps more informed and can articulate the problems related to homosexual conduct better than the average person. I’m also happy to work with a diverse, highly knowledgeable team that systematically exposes and deconstructs fallacious arguments justifying homosexual conduct and devious attempts to obtain marriage licenses. Do check out our marriage defense think tank where every homosexualist argument has been thoroughly analyzed and debunked: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/
I suspect Tim, based on your research, that you too are more preoccupied with “gay sex” than the average person.
Adiós.

Keep up the good fight. I used to believe this pro-gay theology stuff, but changed my mind after reading “Welcoming but not affirming” by the late Baptis S. Grantz.
I now see that the gay issue is the thin edge of a wedge to remove the Church from the Public Square and thereby attack its ability to share its worldview.
Keep telling the truth, all they can really do to us in the end is wail and gnash their teeth.

I am a tad disappointed in your blog post here. You seem to have let down your usual rigor in favor of coming out where you want to be.
I will leave alone issues that others have commented upon quite well (marriage is both civil and religious- come out for civil recognition and you will make more sense here). I want to address something you said in closing about the UM church being wise to see how this issue is tearing at the Episcopalians. As a middle aged white guy descended from a long line of ME South leaders and preachers I live every day in full view of the damage that their “Better not go there- it’ll tear society to shreds” argument did to real people struggling to live in God’s world. They preserved the status quo to God’s sorrow and their argument for the more widely accepted path was heeded by way too many for way too long.
In his farewell to the Senate the Vice President told the story of Sen. Russell in the waning days of the massive resistance to integration telling him “The civil rights movement did more for the white man than it ever did for the black man- it changed my soul, Joe. It changed my soul.”
The fact that change rends the hearts of a group of people, even people we think of as well intentioned and sincere, is no more evidence than are the numbers involved on either side that it is change for good or ill.
So pointing at the strife in the Episcopal church as a warning that we might be headed in the wrong direction if we engage in such a controversy here is an unsound and perhaps even dangerous argument. The Anglican movement might well need a good heart rending to see that they may be mistaken about what God wants for God’s children.

The Anglican Church was born in sexual idolatry and confusion. It’s entire rationale and ethos was elitist,aristocratic and autocratic from the beginning. Tom Wright, with all his learning, has not made it clear whether he believes the gospel, and he can go on about Covenant Community all he wants; the Episcopal thing in the US is not about sexuality per se, it is the lethal inbred arrogance of the Anglican tradition making it’s impression on the unregenerate human heart.