One of the commitments of this website is to telling both sides of a story.  A piece of wisdom that was often employed in peace making in Northern Ireland was this: "to disagree with someone you first must be able to express their opinion in words that they would be happy with."  In that spirit, here is a map of the current crisis.

1. The Bible vs Experience

A huge part of this contest pits Biblical passages about homoeroticism against the testimonies of countless gay and lesbian Christians.  The most important Biblical passage is Romans 1:267-27 which diagnoses same-sex practice ("homosex" for those who want the most commonly accepted term) as a symptom of human rebellion.  Against this are gay and lesbian Christians who testify to a peace they have found in relationship which was absent when celibate. 

How you weigh these two seemingly contradictory pieces of data will determine where you stand on the debate. So Scott Rennie's interview in the One Kirk newsletter is primarily about his experience of being a gay man.  From the opposing perspective, most of Robert Gagnon's arguments (Gagnon is probably the internet's most thorough and prolific advocate of the conservative position) centre around the meaning of Biblical texts.  Here he takes on some Biblical scholarship which had argued that the Biblical texts were only about abusive same-sex relationships; some of these readings are represented in William's piece below, and (amongst many other places) on Roy Clements' site.

In his One Kirk interview, Scott Rennie also takes this approach. He says

"I remain committed to seeing Scripture as authoritative. In terms
of sexuality, Biblical authors did not have the modern knowledge
and understanding of sexuality that we have today. Nor should we
expect them to. Committed gay relationships are not addressed in
Scripture, because culturally speaking, they didn’t exist."

It's my own view that any attempt to speak on the Bible's pertinence to committed gay relationships, has to take account of Robert Gagnon's arguments.  I have yet to find a response from the affirmationist viewpoint within the Church.

Another approach to bridging the apparent gap between text and experience is to dispute the underlying happiness of same-sex relationships (for example Nolland and Sugden quote Scandinavian research that suggests gay and lesbian men and women have a lower life expectancy by 20 years).

2. The Whole Bible vs. Key passages

This is not just about weighing the Bible against experience, but also weighing the Bible against itself.  If you regard the statement "God is love" (1 John 4) as a kind of biblical trump card ("hermeneutical key" if you're being slightly more upmarket), then you can make the following argument: God is love (1 John 4); gay and lesbian men and women love each other; therefore God cannot be absent from those relationships.

Others see this as the path of moral anarchy, a moral relativism that lets you do anything provided you can claim you were acting in love (famously, in Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher found examples of infanticide and adultery which were motivated by love).  For them, "all scripture" (2 Timothy 3:16) is inspired by God, you can't live by vague notions of love, you have to let the scriptures fill in the gaps.  Any understanding of love must include the Bible's vision of sexuality, a vision which is marked by permanence and difference (as an example, check out Jesus in Matthew 19:4-5).

3. Cultural disctinctiveness vs Cultural identification

This is the argument that shows up in these remarks from Scottish MSPs: that in a 21st Century Scotland you can't have a Church that is at odds with a society where it would be illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian doctors, lawyers or any other kind of worker.  For others, the outside culture is almost irrelevant in determining truth.  We are to be in the world but not of it, salt in society, light shining in the darkness.

4. A Plural Church vs An Orthodox Church

Scott Rennie says in his One Kirk interview that as a Church we have to learn to live with our diversity.  In contrast, the (ever lengthening) Confessing Church petition suggests that all those who "by word or deed" allow same-sex practice are living contrary to the teaching of God and to allow difference of opinion would cause a "crisis of communion."  This is not something where there is sufficient grey to allow each other freedom of conscience.

5. Congregational Right To Call vs Wider Veto

This is an argument with a 200 year history in the Church of Scotland - when a congregation calls a minister, how much say does the rest of the Church have in this appointment?  At present, the power is balanced - only a congregation can call, but the presbytery and Assemblly have the right of veto.  Some would argue that this is what this debate is about - and that a congregation's call should be absolute.  Others suggest that for presbyterian unity to mean anything, we must each have an interest in each other's congregations.

6. Personal Identity vs External Standards

Do we live in truth to our own nature, (as we understand ourselves to have been created) or do we conform to an external standard, a creation norm against which we naturally rebel and must be given grace to conform to.   Check out Jeremy Marks who used to run a ministry for ex-gay men, but has changed his mind - that you are born gay, and have to live in accordance with that.  Against that, check out Mike Davidson who is married and "struggles against his homosexual identity".  The two of them recently had a discussion on BBC Northern Ireland's "Sunday Sequence" which was notable for its generosity of tone.

People supporting the affirmation of same-sex relationships tend to speak more about being true to the way we are created, that our sexual identity is immutable.  Those opposing them will tend more often to speak about repentance.  Both sides believe in creation and repentance, but there is difference in which will be mentioned the most often.  This plays into a very old debate about the nature of being - original blessing (and Pelagius) or original sin (and Augustine).  Do we self-actualise or do we repent?

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

http://tellingthetruthisalways...press.com/
written by Colin, May 19, 2009

Thank you for an interesting analysis of the debate and biblical perspective.
However this debate prompts several questions in my mind as an evangelical. Firstly when will the church stop giving fuel to the firey furnace that is the press, who are having a field day over such subjects, which it could be argues the great majority of the population couldn't care less about.
Secondly why is it the only thing that seems to rattle the Evangelical's cage is homosexuality. I have no idea how many references there is to it in the bible, and I believe Jesus says nothing directly about it in the gospels. Consider this to the thousands of references to poverty, injustice, the opression of the weak and the poor? Yet Christian leaders in the Church of Scotland often only pay lip service to them if we are honest. Does not the greater mention of these evils give us an indication of what is really closer to the heart of God?
Good peice Neil, but I cant help wondering if we are in this whole debate watering the roses in the Garden whilst the house burns down?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Thanks
written by Carolyn, May 25, 2009

Hi Neil,

We haven't met, but I'm Peter Johnston's wife, and I know you've met with him to discuss this issue. I know he appreciates your openness, willingness to dialogue, and your commitment to presenting both sides of this discussion fairly and without distortion. I think that is a rarity in this debate, and it is much appreciated!

I wanted to make a comment, however. You say that the 'affirmationist' side has not engaged with Gagnon's arguments. I haven't done the research, so perhaps that is true.

However, I think it is also fair to say that the conservative evangelical side has failed to engage with the argument about love and the law.

We know that Jesus tells us that all of the law & prophets can be summed up in two commands: Love God and love others.

Paul repeats this in Romans 13 (interestingly, in the same letter that the contains the main 'evidence' against homoeroticism), telling us that ALL commandments can be summed up in 'Love one another', that love is the fulfilment of the law, and - crucially - that Love does not harm another.

That is the key, I think. How do we know love when we see it? Well - if we see actions, attitudes, beliefs that harm other people, then those actions, attitudes and beliefs are not loving and are not of God.

And if we listen to the testimony of gay and lesbian Christians - even those who believe they are called to celibacy - we can see the profoundly UNloving effects of the conservative evangelical's blanket condemnation of homosexuality in all forms - including condemnation of committed, loving, supportive, affirming homosexual relationships.

So - how do we reconcile this with Romans 1? I think it is difficult to do so in any way that gives primacy to Romans 1. To do that, one has to argue (against all evidence) that remaining celibate and without companionship, believing that God and the Church condemn homosexuality is actually doing good for those individuals caught in this situation.

AND - you have to argue that homosexuals in committed, loving relationships - where you can see the fruits of happiness, contentment and love - are actually being harmed.

Conversely, If one prioritising Romans 13 (which makes sense, because this is clearly a fundamental Christian principle - a principle Jesus talks directly about, unlike homosexuality), it is much easier (and more logical) to reconcile the two passages.

What is the context in which Paul knew about homosexuality? Is it one in which he saw people being helped? Or was it one in which he saw people being harmed?

When you know about 1st century homosexuality, that's an easy question to answer. Paul knew of homosexuality in terms of pederasty, in terms of slave owners sleeping with slaves, in terms of abusive/power relationships.

And while homosexual acts were generally acceptable in the 1st century Roman world, it was generally NOT acceptable to have sex ONLY with men. Which meant that homosexual sex was taking place in a context in which there was almost always a wronged wife in the background - a context of unfaithfulness.

The homosexuality Paul knew about was characterised by a LACK of love - it was characterised by selfishness, the abuse of power and disregard for the feelings of others. Is it any wonder he condemned what he saw?

But of course - this says nothing about homosexuality as we know it today. And nothing at all about committed, loving, affirming homosexual relationships.

Why would we take a passage addressing homosexuality in a very specific context (one that has HUGE differences to our current context) and use it to over-ride one of the most fundamental principles of Jesus' teaching - Love as the fulfilment of the law?

I've never seen this question answered by conservative evangelicals, in any serious way.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment