´óÏó´«Ã½

This piece takes the cake surely and is a step backward.

Homosexuals are born that way. It is not unusual and is common in other species. Suggesting that people continue to call up over used rhetoric from Bronze Age cultures is just plain wrong.

I am reminded of the joke about the JW Bush Presidential Library, you know the one about the collection of one book.

Wallowing in any more desert tribe science fiction is an insult. People are free to believe that something supernatural whispers in their ears but neuroscience is showing that the chatter is just brain wiring malfunctioning.

I will again recommend the brilliant TED lecture by Sam Harris:


"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life"

Good idea Will. I'm not sure that I've much more to say on that issue - but I think the Ekklesia document will start a good discusson among some bloggers.
I'm concerned with how individuals and communities with competing moral frameworks should interact. So it's a good idea to keep the two threads separate.

GV

I read the first 8 pages then skimmed the rest and was quite disappointed with the article. It reads very much like an apologetic for the relational position. The figure at the bottom of page 5 and the description of the models it shows makes that abundantly clear, with views about homosexuality presented as a progression from the ignorant traditionalists to the enlightened relationists. It looks as if the authors cannot imagine anyone going in the opposite direction, against the flow of progress. Indeed the last page urges the reader to consider that 'there are hermeneutic approaches and skills that the church still has to develop which will show the ‘Traditional’ and ‘Conditional’ views to be mistaken; there have been so many advances in this area in recent decades that this is very likely to be the case'


Neither do the authors do the traditional or even conditional positions justice. Significantly more space is given to relational interpretations of scripture than anything else and there is no mention of crucial factors in the traditional/conditional views that homosexual activity is an deviation from God's created design. Any paper which claims to be exploring the debate and taking concerns seriously, yet leaves out a key argument is clearly deficient. To claim that 'Scripture actually says very little on the subject of same-sex relationships, there are in fact fourteen possible references with any possible connection to the subject in the whole Bible' shows a disappointing failure to engage with views that are at variance with the authors.

Will, this isn't an a paper exploring the use of language so much as a case for the relational view.

William
thanks for recommending this and for the call to being gracious. i think this offers an opportunity to reframe the very heated discussions that are underway on these pages at the moment.

i've had a first read through the document. i may be misrepresenting it but, as a provisional statement, what i'm not seeing is much attention to gendered aspect of sexuality issues.

for example, there is little comment made on the significance of historical lack of attention to lesbianism, other than that they note it as curious.
and, as a feminist reader, my eye is instantly drawn in the passages cited from Lev, 18 and 20 in which the phrase, 'as a man lies with a woman' appears. i think it's entirely feasible to question what exactly was meant by that. because the text comes out of cultural setting that did not recognise gender equity as we understand it today. i have to question whether 'a woman' is itself a negatively loaded term in that context and wonder if any injunction against a man's behaviour reflects that.

if you know of any theological/ biblical scholars who have explored that kind of intersection between gender constructs of the time and the laws governing same-sex relationhips, i'd be really interested in following up on your recommendations.
(because i'm coincidentally spending the afternoon trying to craft a thesis statement for an MA essay on the very same topic as ekklesia are exploring. i think this'll be useful document to spend time with as will the discussion that might follow here.)

whilst the gender dimension is of particular interest to me, it does speak to this wider issue you've raised about language and how we communicate. as example, i find this debate often centres around 'homosexuality'. i can't remember the last time i heard a lesbian describe herself as a homosexual. not only does this create a particularly gendered kind of conversation that focuses attention on (often stereotyped or caricatured) gay men, it keeps us from discussing sexuality in its broader context of lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer-identifed (or indeed straight) experiences.
it's all too easy to choose simplicity over complexity in our language choices on this issue. if ekklesia are attempting to wrestle with the multiplicities of all this, then i for one am certainly willing give it a good close reading before coming to any definitive conclusions on the document.

Have had a skim through it Will.

I think there is a strong argument for guidelines in how to have open discussions on this subject, but this document is openly apologetic for a clear position and actually has the effect of closing down open communication.

It is an argument for a particular position in the guise of guidlines for debate. That is not an opinion, it actually directs the reader to specific conclusions on the outcome of the debate.


It openly advances the position of Ekklesia and does not represent the scholarship and compassion of say John Stott or Billy Graham on this subject.

In other words, Stott/Graham type scholarship, which is really what ekklesia want to challenge, is mispresented and dismissed as a straw man and then Ekklesia's favoured view is promoted as the conclusion.

This actually breaks down trust and closes down communication Will, obviously.

Not very honest or helpful, imo.

OT

I agree with Cary (#4) that the paper reflects the general debate on "human sexuality", which tends to concentrate on male homosexuality and leaves little space for other non-normal sexual orientations such as lesbianism, bisexuality transsexuality, asexuality and polyamoury.

On the paper, some welcome points were made:
a) The emphasis on the fact - the reality - that some people are gay, whether one believes it's by choice or by default.
b) Newer interpretations of scriptures concerning sexuality exist and deserve scrutiny in relation to more traditional ones. It will be new to some people to learn that those scriptures referring to homosexual behaviour may be more concerned with speaking against sexual violence and exploitation. The paper has laid out the contrasting traditional and "relational" interpretations clearly.
c) The need to debate the issue with compassion, thoughtfully and prayerfully.

Reflecting the aim of giving information, the paper is broadly descriptive in nature, but the document allows the "relational" interpretations of popular scriptures concerning sexuality to form the basis for its conclusions. The document is very detailed, yet it's a long paper written in a rather academic register and in its breadth it lacks focus. As a result, I sense that many of those who willingly express opinions on the subject - particularly among the laity - will be unlikely to engage with the paper.

Here are a couple of the issues that arise for me in the paper:

P3: "We are called to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance..."
The guidance of the Holy Spirit, and a person's perceived sensitivity to it, carries a power structure of its own. How do we know when one is being guided by the Holy Spirit? How more or less valid is a person or group's interpretation, depending on how the Holy Spirit is believed to have guided it? I would prefer to use the term "conscience" rather than "Holy Spirit" as it attaches more value to each individual's opinion, which is essential for dialogue.

P23: "[The Bible] does not have the cultural and social perspective to speak, understand or engage with the experience of homosexual orientation."
This is in line with my own personal beliefs and perfectly acceptable to me, but implying that the Bible is culturally limited is anathema to many conservative believers, making it much less likely that they will take the paper seriously. I'm inclined to agree with Orthodox-Tradition (#5) that the paper could break down, rather than encourage the communication that is desperately needed in an increasingly polarised debate.

I am not sure why there is so much antagonism towards this document, It seems to me that there are several elements within it which a worthy of debate. We may not agree with some of the starting points, or the assumptions, or the conclusions drawn, but it is at least trying to discuss a very difficult problem, with serious repercussions for real people.

I Think there are several chunks in here,
1. An acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and not a disorder in line with psychological and medical evidence
2. An acceptance that the stance, language and vociferousness of the church have and are causing significant psychological damage to other wise quite normal people
3. An acceptance that interpretation of biblical texts may be in error due to issues of understanding and culture
4. A broad brush segregation of Christianity into 3 different silos of approach to this subject and a possible journey between them.
5. A total sexuality view, and resolution stage if christianity moved to silo 3 Relational.

What I would like to ask is first do you accept the evidence on what homosexuality is and do you accept the damage that is being inflicted on people (believers and non-believers) by the stance, language and vociferousness of the church, or large sections of it or is that part of the document baseless?

Golfie, the problem with the paper is that it's fairly dismissive of non-relational positions and portrays them as less advanced. It also suffers a grossly inadequate treatment of the evidence for the non-relational positions. I'm not even happy with the nomenclature it uses, which could give the impression that those who se homosexual behaviour as sinful do not desire relationship with homosexuals. It's a very one-sided pice that seems to be encouraging the relational view rather than encouraging dialogue.

When a theologian, biblical scholar or amateur student attempts to systematically examine and produce a theology on an issue, the whole debate centres upon whether the biblical texts are inspired and inerrant. For those who class themselves as theological conservatives, the issue on sex and orientation is closed for they believe the biblical texts are absolute truth.
While I personally believe from a literary sense that the paper was weak, (most likely because it was attempting to be balanced), there were however, some welcoming observations.
1) The observations surrounding the entire sin and degradation in Sodom. We who are conservatives must always remember to preach/ teach a passage within its context. However, when one looks at the NT teaching in Romans 1, it is clear that this passage is essentially articulating the philosophy behind the practice which in itself highlights the downward spiral of behaviour in Sodom. Therefore, these two passages clearly support each other.
2) Particularly welcoming were the comments on page 23 which warned against speculative exegesis which of course we conservatives would call plain eisegesis. For too long, these examples from the bible have held up serious discussion on the issue.
In regards to the following observation on page 19.
"The Relational response (which opposes Hayes approach) would be that just because the ancient biblical world had no concept of ‘homosexual orientation’ and were socially and culturally unable to identify it, does not mean that it is not valid and stands separate from the discussion rooted in rebellion against God."
... Every person knows from the OT texts that homosexual orientation and practice was prevalent in the ancient biblical world. Furthermore, in the Greco - Roman world without even looking at the NT texts, it is known from other classic writings that this society knew what was and practiced homosexuality.
When one looks at the points to consider on the final page of the paper, it is extremely obvious these questions rest upon one's opinion on the role of the bible in today's society. Many of the biblical arguments as pointed out in the paper obviously provide the basis for the conservative argument within this debate.

I took the debate to be less about the origin or inerrant nature of the text, but about the inerrant nature and contextualisation (or lack of it) of the translation and interpretation. I can accept an argument that states you believe a text was the inspired word of god, I cannot accept an argument that states you believe in man's unerring ability to translate and interpret a work of this magnitude - that is a leap of faith too far. The very many interpretations, and indeed religious denominations around the world would tend to indicate multiple interpretations of the same text.

We do not even have enough solid historical evidence to create a absolutely certain cultural model of the time in which it was written within which to contextualise it.

But moving away from that, I am interested in whether people of a religious persuasion recognise the science in the paper, and the damage which their stance, language and vociferousness cause to real people in the community.


This is not a scriptural point, this is about science and, as I would see it, psychological abuse.

I know you're new here Golfie, so I hope the moderation process doesn't chase you (or LucyQ and other new comers away).
It does kill conversation sometimes, but be assured I'm waiting for and reading your posts.

I think Will and his team have done a great job of reviving the blog, and attracting new bloggers. There have been some great topics, and conversations recently (and great conversation starters for RE classes). The coverage of the Crisis in Catholicism has been terrific.

It is a shame that the Beeb's moderation process is so poor in comparison.

GV

How (not) to talk to each other ???

I know the answer to this one teach! It is to find a web forum that is not moderated. Is it any wonder that there is only a handful of people posting here? Who has the patience to put up the excessive, paternal moderation of the blog? Some may get bored and move on.

Hear, hear GV @ 3:28 GMT, this is a pain.

This a.m. (Eastern TZ) I made a post that didn't appear for eons. I was able to go to an appointment with my GP, wash the car and do some grocery shopping before my comments appeared.

William Crawley - you seem to want an audience to discuss ideas yet the platform isn't conducive to that. I guess your employment contract doesn't allow for a private blog unless of course you quit as Jonathon Ross did.

Golfie, you said, "This is not a scriptural point, this is about science and, as I would see it, psychological abuse."

The issue concerned is a scriptural point, because either side of the debate base their premise whether or not they believe that the biblical text is ultimately God's view on the subject. If one doesn't accept the foundation of the bible as the foundation for their belief structure, then it's possible that they accept that science as their foundation.

That said, I agree with your opening paragraph on post 7.

Yes, the conservative church has been guilty of handling the debate in an insensitive fashion as it has with other issues. It is essential for the evangelical church to learn to address the issue with a compassionate nature that is able to articulate the premise of their belief structure. Culture and communication evolve therefore; the church must learn to deliver its message in a relevant way that is both understanding to the hearer's needs as well as understandable.

In my opinion from looking at the paper, I conclude there is a twofold nature for Christians to look at within the debate.

1) The central issue of the debate for the Christian is "what does the Bible say?"
2) How best can conservative Christian engage in the debate realizing that we are discussing individual human beings emotional needs. Therefore, that's the psychological side of the debate.

Ps. Golfie, I believe only the original manuscripts are inspired and inerrant.

Hi Golfie

I am not condemning this paper. There is some very interesting stuff in it and I have saved a copy for reference.

The problem is that it is being presented here by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as an aid to an open debate.

Will said:

"...how we talk to one another (and how we hear one another talk) about profoundly controversial questions can determine whether or not we hear one another, do justice to one another, and actually make progress towards a just outcome for everyone. Those language issues are just as important in a debate about sexuality as they are in a debate about evolution and creationism or a conversation about overcoming sectarianism in a place like Northern Ireland."

This paper, imo, just does not make a vigorous effort to hear scholarship that I would respect on this issue eg from John Stott ie very mainstream concervative Christian view.

Instead it caricatures such views and then dismisses them. Straw man argument.

If it had simply been presented as Ekklesia's position on the homosexuality debate I could have had no criticism of it at all.

best regards
OT

There is another perspective, not yet represented on the blog which thinks this paper is an insipid little effort, verging on the offensive at times, and one which is not even nearly radical enough. The Relational position, for example is far, far to the right of my own.

If you believe the Bible contains man's words about God, the account of our search for Him and for meaning in existence, not that it constitutes God's definitive word to man, then these proof-texts become irrelevant. They are part of the hugely instructive corpus which shows how the quest for salvation can lead us horribly astray - that is the context, and the only context, in which I believe they have to be understood. No further exegesis needed.

Then take the following: "However, even for those who have been persuaded by the exegesis, there remains a strong emotional barrier to be crossed connected to the ethical question as to whether same-sex unions can ever in fact truly be moral". There is no emotional or other barrier here whatsoever, I would consider it self-evident, an absolute given, to anyone in my tradition that there is complete moral equivalence between like-for-like heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I find the this very suggestion crass and obnoxious.

The evangelical commentators are correct when they see the paper suggesting a progression from Traditional through Conditional to Relational with the sense of moving forward. Diagram 1 makes this clear. The authors just didn't progress far enough!

Cary

You asked Will for "any theological/ biblical scholars who have explored that kind of intersection between gender constructs of the time and the laws governing same-sex relationhips".

I know you werent asking me, but I found this quite interesting.

Prof Webb comes from a fairly conservative angle on slavery and homosexuality but his take on women is perhaps more liberal.




Best regards
OT

thanks OT. will follow it up.

am replying to you on the other thread right now.

cheers,
cary.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.