Who reads all this?

According to my Site Meter, the most common searches that casue people to find my blog are (most common first):

1. Brits asking about Ford KA power steering fluid leaks (mine is on the steering rack, so I can either keep topping it up or get a new rack)
2. People in India asking questions like "How is life adventurous?" (India must be a dreadfully dull and predictable place)
3. Americans looking for an Arsenokoitai definition (It's a word invented by Paul, made by merging two words lifted direct from the septuagint translation of Leviticus, I don't think anyone REALLY knows what it means but it usually gets translated differently in Corinthians (homophobically) from Timothy (unspecified perversion). Personally, having delved into Leviticus and the parallel passage Deuteronomy, I think it refers to pagan temple prostitution - a view I used to reject vehemently but now think is right)

But it's supposed to be a general blog about normal life as a Christian. Are these people missing the point, or proving it?

2009 Position Statement

So where do I stand on homosexuality? Confused as ever!

On one level, I have moved away from my conservative interpretation of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians 6 – having looked into it I now believe these refer to temple prostitution. I previously rejected this as liberal excuses, but it does actually work.

On another level, the doctrine of ‘one flesh’, which underpins the doctrine of marriage, does not seem to transfer well into a homosexual context. In response to this problem, one could say that ‘one flesh’ is not relevant to homosexual relationships, but the corollary of this is that the principles of fidelity, abstinence etc do not apply either, and you then have an unequal situation where gays have a free-for-all while heterosexuals are subject to the constraints and limitations that arise from ‘one flesh’.

Therefore, if one is to accept the validity of homosexual relationships, then one has to have some kind of theological framework in which those relationships would work. I would like ‘one flesh’ to be transferable, but if it is not, I would look for something of equal weight, depth and importance. And I can’t find it yet. I get the feeling that this is something where there is diversity of opinion in the homosexual Christian community, with no consensus as to the place of ‘one flesh’ or civil unions.

This makes me turn again towards conservatism. But I don’t like the things I left there. No matter how much one talks of loving the sinner but hating the sin, the fact is: they don’t feel loved. And if they don’t feel loved, it’s because they are not loved.

So my present position is this:

I would rather sin by tolerating something that might be sexually immoral than sin by perpetuating something that is definitely unjust.

But I am still looking for that framework to explain how homosexual relationships should work in a Christian context. Please point me in the right direction!

Rules are made to be broken

My 16 year old son, in a philosophical moment says: “You know Dad, as soon as you understand a rule, it doesn’t apply any more.”

He started with these ideas in an English lesson, where having been taught the rules of writing poetry, he observed that the best poets ignore the rules. As soon as you understand what the rules are for, you know when it OK to break them.

But he extended this to life in general, and we had a deep chat, in which I forget what was him and what was me. But think about it.

As soon as you understand the 30mph speed limit in British urban areas - the risk of an accident and the immeasurable consequences of killing a child – as soon as you understand this you don’t dare drive faster than 25mph. The rule doesn’t apply anymore.

Applying this now to spiritual things; in the Bible we read: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” John 15:15. (I’m sure there’s a better one of these that talks about servants and sons, but I can’t find it.). The point is, the servant has to obey rules. He doesn’t know what is going on, he just follows the rules and it all works out OK, or disobeys and gets punished. But the friends do know what is going on, and having a common cause, work towards its fulfilment. They have no need of rules, because they are doing what the rules would have made them do anyway. In fact, the rules would just cramp their style, and as friends they are free to work towards the common purpose, in consultation but not really under authority.

So in the old testament the house of faith was characterised as a servant, following all the OT rules and regulations.

But in the new testament, we are no longer under the OT law. We have been made sons of God. His interest is our interest. Our will is aligned with his. He communes with us in Spirit. So while the NT is full of commands, they are commands which are in line with our new nature and we are doing it anyway.

All things are permissible. We want to build with Christ according to his pattern. So of course, there is a blanket permission for us to do so.

Great principle.

• See also David eating the Shewbread.
• See also eating meat sacrificed to idols.
• See also meat containing blood
• See also eating with gentiles
• See also Peter’s vision of the unclean animals.
• See also circumcision
• See also tithing
  
  

But lets look at some rules, that might not apply as “rules” when we understand what they are getting at:

Eg:

• conservative approaches to women in the church:
  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” 1 Tim 2:12
  “If a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered ….1 Cor 11:5.”
  “a woman must remain silent” 1 Tim 2:12
• Relationships
  “…homosexual offenders….will not inherit the kingdom of God” [though I dispute that translation of arsenokoitai] 1 Cor 6
  No sex before marriage ( a principle derived from several scriptures)
• Church traditions
  Only ordained priests can preside at the eucharist (No scriptures for this man-made tradition!)
  Holy days (Rom 14:5)

Any more suggestions?

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart, but changing 2

I have not posted to my blog for ages – a kind of fast I suppose. I have been holding back because I was asked to run a seminar on the topic of homosexuality for my church, which took place last week, and while I was preparing I needed to focus and not get distracted. Plus my view was changing from day to day, plus my brief for the evening was changing from day to day.

In the final plan, I had to present the ‘Conservative’ view, while a Vicar from another church presented the ‘Liberal’ view, followed by a discussion session.

The turnout of 19 people was disappointing, given the size of the church. Attendees included the Area Dean, one celibate gay, one ultra-conservative retired clergyman, and one extremely liberal member of the congregation, and one non-Christian husband of a conservative member of the church, who says that homophobia in the church is the main reason why he does not sign up..

My talk was, needless to say, brilliant. On the other hand, the other Vicar’s response didn’t really respond to my points. He was coming up with stuff like “All scripture is God-breathed but some parts are more God-breathed than others”, and the usual mushy nonsense about seeing it through the culture of the day. Yes there is a valid case for this if done properly, but not if it’s just to dismiss the inconvenient truths.

During the discussion I was able to put across my mew-found ‘conservatively-liberal’ or ‘liberal for conservative reasons’ ideas described in a previous post. I have actually written a 5500 word document to explain this, since you can’t really get it across in a debate. (I may prepare an anonymous version to pass to anyone interested) People seemed very interested that having been a strong conservative, I have changed. But the retired Vicar said “You do know that is not a standard evangelical position, don’t you?” Well, how thick does he think I am? But I don’t decide on doctrine based on whether it is Evangelical or not – I work out what I think the Bible is telling me and then find that this usually falls in the evangelical camp – only not this time.

One guy complained that there were 4 clergymen in the room presenting 4 conflicting views, and what he really wanted was clear guidance form the church.

Overall the evening was a success. No blood on the carpet, and everyone a little more open minded to the opposite perspective than they had been.

I had been terrified that by opening up about my new views I would be out of favour and lose my status in the church, though I felt I still had to proceed. In fact, although it has created some tension domestically, I seem to have survived in church.

So, if any of you out there prayed for me particularly or this issue in general, thank you!

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart, but changing

Ahh at last. For some time Blogger has not accepted my password and I couldn’t write, but now its all sorted. I blame Google.

What has happened since I last blogged?

Well, the main theme is my ongoing internal debate on homosexuality.

My theology has moved.

Mainly because I have been having to do some research for the event at church. (by the way, they keep messing me about on this. The latest plan is to bring in liberal and conservative clergy to express the relative cases, and for me to present a more vacillating middle ground. How can I prepare for the vent when they keep changing what I am expected to do?) Yes... the research.

I read “Reluctant Journey” by George Hopper.

I have to say that the vast majority of this book was very weak, confused and self-contradictory.

Eg –

• While proclaiming to be Evangelical, George dismisses swathes of the OT as just a product of ancient Israelite culture and basically, well, wrong. If he was truly ‘Evangelical’, he would recognise the OT as ‘God Breathed’ so even allowing for culture it would still be right.
  
• While proclaiming that the crucial verses in Leviticus apply to temple prostitution and homosexuality as we know it was unknown, the people wrote the book against homosexuals for fertility reasons. This can’t be, if as he says a) the verses are not about that and b) they don’t know of it.
  
• While insisting that homosexuality is a biological given, he says it was unknown in OT times.

Etc

BUT, in the midst of all this nonsense, there was actually a bit of good Bible study regarding those crucial verses.

He agrees with me that it all hangs on the definition of ‘arsenokoitai’ in Corinthians. He demonstrates that this word stems almost letter for letter from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Again, I had already worked something like this out. But where I had focused on that word, in Leviticus he looks also at the word translated as ‘abomination’. The Hebrew word translated thus here is different from where ‘abomination’ appears in the English elsewhere. It is a Hebrew word that is linked directly to idolatry.

Moving on to the NT, he compares the lists of sins in various books. He finds that references to homosexual acts are only found in letters to cities which had particular issues with temple prostitution. The more general letters don’t have it. Now I have a feeling that I spotted an inconsistency in his argument here, which I need to go back and check because I was tired when I read it. But if correct, it is significant, and it is the kind of exegetical technique that works for me.

So what is my response to all this?

Well, as an evangelical, and a fairly intellectual one who likes to have all t’s crossed and i’s dotted, this is the kind of approach that I like. I can dismiss the more wishy washy parts of Hopper's book as trash, but here is something that might stand up to the scrutiny.

And if it is the sensible, logical, etymological approach that I think it is, and if it is right, then it does definitely take out the fundamental central plank from my historical opposition to homosexuality. I have defined it as a sin based on what I thought was a clear wording in the scripture. But now, if true, it turns out that I have got it wrong, and what I thought defined all homosexual acts as sin cannot necessarily be extended to all such acts, just as heterosexual temple prostitution being forbidden does not outlaw other heterosexual acts.

This is a fundamental shift in my position.

Now there are still many questions unresolved. Hopper argues that the Bible is silent on modern civil unions, therefore they are OK. I would say that silence does not mean it is OK. Besides, for heterosexual marriage there is a whole weight of scriptures affirming the rightness of it but nothing equivalent for civil union, and there is a lot of theology around ‘One flesh’ – Eve comes out of Adam but in sex they are re-united into one flesh. Also man:woman = Christ:church etc.

So I remain confused as ever.

But I find that I have definitely changed. No longer am I nauseated by even thinking of gay acts – I can now see them in a positive light. I now have a method of accepting civil union that is potentially consistent with my evangelical approach to theology and God's word.

Yet there is still a deep fundamental terror that I am letting the devil deceive me into going against God’s will, and that as a preacher I will lead others into sins as well.

I don't want to bless what God has cursed.

I don't want to curse what God has blessed.

We can but continue to study and ask for Him to have mercy on us when we get it wrong.

True Freedom Trust - I'm in!

I spent yesterday evening with Martin Hallett, director of the True Freedom Trust.

I found Martin to be easy to get on with, without a bad word for anyone on any side of the debate, keen to find good in his fellow man. We never got round to discussing the extent to which it is congenital (where we probably diverge), but we did have a long conversation about the nature of Christian sexuality as an expression of the profound mystery of God, and about how Evangelicals have probably thrown out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to some Roman Catholic theology of sacramentalism in the context of sex and the body.

We spent about 1 hour on this general theology, then about half an hour on my background including my strengths and shameful weaknesses, and then about half an hour on what my involvement with TFT may be.

It looks as though my role could fall into three areas:
· Acting as an ‘Accountability Partner’
· Occasional speaking for TFT
· Influence in my Local Church (that’s the hard and fruitless one!)

I will probably have to ease off posting on the topic of my involvement with TFT, for the sake of my confidentiality and that of TFT’s ‘clients’.

Suffice it to say that I do feel that God has brought me to this place, and I feel satisfied. Praise Him!

True Freedom Trust

So...

I am now a member of True Freedom Trust - an organisation that provides suport to gay Christians who choose to aim for celibacy. (see previous post here)

I am still inactive, though, through pressure of time. I need to meet up with them face to face soon, but can’t seem to find a slot.

I find TFT’s theology is very close to mine. Not absolutely spot on, but close. The main difference lies in the balance of environmental v congenital factors. I see the way we are born (as part of a fallen race) to be more significant than TFT suggest. They place more emphasis on homosexuality primarily as one of several possible outcomes of low self esteem issues arising from early childhood. Thus although they see attempting to 'cure' homosexuals as harmful, ie they are not an 'ex-gay' organisation, they do more in that direction than I would.

Also, I have several relatively minor points of divergence with their biblical exegesis.

They are also a bit more directive than I would wish.

However, since no two people will ever think exactly the same on these issues, TFT seems to be a the best place for me to sit and minister.

I feel confidant that this is the place to which God has brought me – to hold to the truth of scripture and yet provide realistic support for gay people in the church who choose celibacy. (I don’t feel I have a mandate to counsel those that do not choose celibacy. I don’t think I would be much help to them. All I could do is put them in contact with a liberal ‘Christian’ LGBT group and suggest they may feel more comfortable in a church with teaching closer to their own.)

Note that I have not joined up as a know-it-all God-squad heterosexual trying to boss people around or tell gay people how they should live their lives. TFT is set up by gays for gays: I can only provide assistance within their own programme, and help what they are already independantly doing. They will always have ownership and leadership, and I will only ever be a camp follower. [Did I really just say 'camp'?]

Please pray that my role will become clearer. Possibilities are:

• Act as a voluntary worker for TFT
• Act as a contact point for TFT in my church
• Arrange for TFT to speak at my church and/or promote a generally more open atmosphere there
• Promote “get-to-understand-each-other-and-develop-mutual-respect” contacts between my church and gay organisations in the town (fraught with pitfalls!)
• Something else that I have not seen yet

I now feel that I have rebuilt my lego model. Similar to before, but more robust and practical.

God sorts me out (Another Important post)

I have come across the True Freedom Trust. A friend in my workplace fellowship recommended them to me when I expressed my angst as regards homosexuality and the church.

This is just what I have been looking for: an organisation set up by gay Christians for gay Christians, which takes a conservative interpretation of the scripture yet also recognises that homosexuality is something you are born with, which cannot be ‘cured’ or ‘delivered’ (except in rare miraculous cases). TFT provides counselling, support, training, etc both for christian gays and for their families and churches.

I feel that at last I can tithe the mint and dill and also act mercifully and justly and help to lift the burden.

I feel that I am called to work in this field in some way in my role as a Reader, and am beginning to work up a project to make my church more gay-friendly (while remaining theologically sound of course), both in terms of its own members and in terms of evangelism. This would involve publicity and leaflets and possibly a support group within the church. Itwould also possibly involve building bridges with gay organisations outside the church using inter-faith events as a pattern. I would hope to be able to set aside for a while the things that divide us and concentrate on developing riendships and mutual respect and understanding, so that much later on when it comes to explaining our theology it isn't judged according to their pre-conceived ideas. But then again they might just lynch me as a homophobe….

I expect I will use TFT in some way.



The greatest obstacle is probably my own stubborn Vicar. My wife has approved my plan but only because she thinks it won't get past him and will therefore come to nothing.

Please pray that God will guide me and help me distinguish between a genuine calling and a flash in the pan idea, and that I will proceed with wisdom and that God will give me the diplomatic and political skills necessary...'coz I ain't got them yet..

Shattered Faith?

I have not blogged for a while, and probably wont blog again for a while. I had to stop because it was becoming intrusive into my life and distracting me from work, etc. For this reason I regret that I have also not kept up to date with Vindicated or Elizaphanian.

Imagine a child with a complex model made of lego. He is about to show you how clever it is, all the refinements and the innovative use of specialist bricks, but he trips and drops it and it smashes into a million pieces. In a high state of stress he picks up the pieces and rebuilds the model - its basically the same but there are some bits that have changed and he can't quite work out which bits have changed and whether the model has been improved or made worse, and whether the first model was actually correct and that he sould try to get back to it, or if the new one is in fact better.

As part of my 'continuing ministerial education' required by the Chruch of England I had to attend a day-long workshop on the topic of homosexuality

I have to say that it was very well done. The leader was a remarkable lady vicar who has been involved face to face with many of the key players - she has been the guest of one of the AKURE bishops (declining an invitation to his son's second polygamous marriage while there!!), and has also met Gene Robinson. She started by giving the story of her first involvement with this topic, when while working as a nurse she had to care for a young man who had been seriously beaten up for being gay.

Ground rules for the day [try and behave towards your fellow christians as if you are a christian yourself], followed by an icebreaker. Then the first main session, breaking into groups to examine the main scriptures. Each group had one passage - perhaps not a good idea since you really need to see the whole sweep of scipture on this topic. My group got the Sodom and Gomorrah story, which we concluded had too much other stuff going on to use it as a basis for a theology of homosexuality specifically. The group that was disussing Corinthians - without any intervention from me - came to the conclusion that it's pretty clear that the passage is indeed talking about 'committed' or 'long term' relations as well as other forms of homosexuality. This despite the most pro-liberalisation person (who was a very outspoken woman) being in that group. The other person who I had down as being pro-liberalsiation based on his early contributions to the day was in the Leviticus group, and I was surprised that he too as spokesman for the group reported back a remarkably conservative view.

So far so conservative.

At lunch I found myself sitting next to the day leader, and it was here that she spoke positively about Gene Robinson, his humility and lack of self-promotion, and his overall popularity in his diocese. It was here too she told me about the African's tolerance of polygamy, and that part of their objection was that they hadn't realised homosexuality had been decriminalised and they had thought something ILLEGAL was being promoted.

In the afternoon we were aagin divided into groups and ased to look as case studies of pastoral issues - you know the kind of thing - Deaconess Sarah has been dumped by her husband but finds that Jane befriends her and the relationship becomes sexual - can she continue as deaconess? (can she lead the people of God into righteousness?) At first reading they all seems obvious, but the more you thing about thenm the harder they become. Its all very well theorising, but its hard to apply simple theory to the complexity of peoples lives. Of course in my housechurch days it would have been simple - "excommunicate the lot".

So the day seems to conclude that homosexual relationships are indeed sinful, but should still be allowed to proceed with barely a whisper against. I am very puzzled by this!

I went home feeling glad that overall the tone of the session was one that I was comfortable with, and that overall the supremacy of scripture had been upheld, and that overall the ridiculous notion - "Paul didn't know about loving committed homosexual partnerships" - was not supported.

But I found that something deep had been disturbed in me by the day - a deep sense of injustice and persecution against people born a certain way. If I wrote the Bible I would certainly have written it differently! I was standing next to my bookshelf and put my hand on the Bible. I prayed "Lord, speak to me now as I open your word". It fell open at Acts 9 - "Saul, Saul, why do you perscute me?" "Who are you Lord?" "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting"

So was God telling me that I had been persecuting him in my application of Corinthians? I have always warned people against random verse readings of this kind - "Judas went and hanged himself" .... "Go and do thou likewise"..... so that experienc on its own is not enough to change my position, but it has made me think.

I really want to be part of a church that does permit and even bless homosexual realtionships. It feels right and just. But I cannot match that with what I read in Corinthians - "Do not be decieved....arsenokoitai....will not inherit the kingdom of God." Arsenokoitai literally means man-bed [bed as in marriage bed - it's almost exactly the same language as Leviticus]. I want everyone to inherit the kingdom, so I can't encourage people into relationships that would keep them out of it. But if the meaning of the word had in fact drifted away from its original meaning - as the words gay and queer have changed meaning - then I don't want to stop people legitimately enjoying the freedom of our essentially non-legalistic faith.

I couldn't sleep that night. Normally as I am falling asleep I have what i call pre-dreams. I'm not yet asleep and not day-dreaming, it a more uncontrolled dreamlike state as I drop off. Normally I get good pre-dreams.. a colourful peakock, say, or something really whacky and strange. But that night all my pre-dreams were faces passing in front of me, all saying opposing things about homosexuality in theology and the church - never a whole sentance for me to pick up their logic, just the middle bits, random words, all kinds of voices, faces spinning ... and I would wake up again. I gave up and went dowsntairs with a cup of tea and a marmalde sandwich, and watched TV (Good interesting programmes for once) ... and as my tired head lolled around I still kept getting the same nightmarish pre-dreams and I would jerk awake again.

Please pray for me to be able to rebuild my theology of homosexuality, like that lego model i described. Shold I go for the same model again, or something similar but different, or something else altogether? What buiding blocks should I use?

I've said it before:

I don't want to condemn what is good.
I don't want to endsorse what is sin.

And, if I have been wrong all this time on Corinthians, what else am i wrong on? Resurrection? Forgiveness? The whole faith? My whole faith is very wobbly at present.

If i am to become more theologically tolerant of homosexual acts, pray for me to receive a TRUE alternative understanding of arsenokoitai that satisifies my intellectual difficulties with it, for something received by divine revelation rather than by the pursuasion of someone who is simply better at arguing than I am but not necessarily wiser or more informed, and that it will come together with reassurance about my faith, that i have not been getting not wrong all this time.

Thank you.

What we learn from Sapho, the Greek Poet.

I was listening to Melvyn Bragg’s “in Our Time” on Radio 4 this morning. Yes, this means I am officially middle aged! (For readers not familiar with the programme, Melvyn gathers a group, usually university professors, and they discuss something highly intellectual and academic like the Cynics movement in ancient Greece, the development of Anarchist philosophy, etc)

This time the erudite discussion was about Roman and Greek poetry and how it addresses the subject of love.

A key figure in moving poetry away from epics like the Iliad to this more day to day topic was the Greek poet Sapho. It is from Sapho, the first famous female poet, that we get our language of love today.

They were saying that many of her poems were love triangles; she is watching the person she loves being chatted up by a rival, and describes her turmoil as this happens.

I found out this morning from the programme that Sapho was a lesbian, and in fact the object of her love in the love triangle was often a woman, being chatted up by a hunky man.

The discussion moved on to Roman poetry, and apparently one of the Roman poets whose name escapes me (it had a C in it, and he was related to Julius Ceaser and to Lesbia), more or less copied some of Sapho’s work but as well as translating it to Latin he swapped the gender’s of the parties, so now he was watching a woman getting frisky with his boyfriend. The poet’s relative Lesbia was attached to the Greek island Lesbos and the lesbian group there, from which Lesbianism gets its name.

So why am I writing all this stuff here? Because you will be aware that I have already written some posts on the topic of homosexuality and how to interpret the Apostle Paul’s writings on the topic. I have been genuinely seaching for the truth, trying to do so with an open mind and to lay down my prejudices.

According to the Church of England newspaper, Bishop Ingham has stated that ‘arsenokoitai’ refers not to adult consenting homosexual relationships, but to pederasty, and that the modern concept of homosexual love was virtually unknown at the time.

It is clear from the scholar’s discussion of Sappho, the Roman Poet, etc, that in fact the concept of homosexual love was not only known but was socially acceptable. Not as a marriage, because marriage was for raising babies not for sexual pleasure. You wouldn’t subject your wife to your lust, you would satisfy that elsewhere.

So that is the context into which Paul was writing.

And having wondered about this topic for some time in a genuine search for the truth, I now consider that Bishop Ingham’s bluff has been called. I am now convinced that Paul, in writing ‘arsenokoitai’ was writing about men who sleep with men (in the sexual sense).

And in as much as homosexual love was known and accepted by the Greek society but Paul called the church OUT of that society, so in today’s society when homosexual love is known and accepted the call to us all including homosexual people today is the same. Come out of that society, and into the Kingdom of God. “For such some of you were”. If we continue to act that way, we will not inherit the kingdom. I want to share the Kingdom with homosexual people. This is the path given by God through Paul.

Arsenokoitai

[See Edit 26 August 2008 below]

Well, i have found out more about this subject. (see previous post.) Firstly, that I was misspelling it, hence no luck on google. Clealy I am not the first person to ask this question, see here, and following the threads I concluded as follows:

Etymologically it links "arsenos" = male and "koitai" = bed/marital relations.

This seems like a fairly clear definition and seems to include homosexual acts within 'loving' relationships sanctioned by law. It also seems to follow on from the Septuagint wording of Leviticus.

Some of the threads seem to talk about it as male aggresive sexuality in bed regardless of who the partner is, in contrast to "malakai" which would be the receptive partner. I need to look this up again at home tonight.

Other threads warn that the meaning of a word cannot always be detremined by its etymology, and say thta the word in day-to-day use meant using children for your sexual satisfaction. OK - I'm sure that aspect is included!!! but even if that meaning is there for me it doesn't exclude the 'male bed/marital' meaning.

So, i'm still learning, but so far this has had the effect of consolidating my views rather than changing them.

I'd like to be changed becasue it might be more socially convenient. But we have to find out what God intends, and not be like Eve who made moral judgements based on the limits of her knowledge rather than trusting God's word.

[Edit 26 August 2008 - since writing the above, my biews have substantially changed - see later posts with the 'homosexuality' tag, in particular this one . Arsenokoitai is a word coined by Paul, quoting from the septuagint version of Leviticus. I'm no Greek expert, but taking off the glasses of preconceived ideas and looking at it afresh; from the order of the words in that context it looks to me more as though 'arsenokoitai' means 'men who sleep with gunaikos ie female temple prostitutes'. I am not writing this as a woolly liberal, but as a conservative evangelical who cares about the letter of the law. We have to ensure that our application of the law is correct, not a serious misunderstanding. I can no longer condemn homosexuals on the basis (which I initially mistyped as 'bias') of 'arsenokoitai'. However, the doctrine of 'one flesh' still seems to be heterosexual].

[Edit 07 June 2012 - 'One flesh' requires 'complementarity'.  All people, both male and female, exhibit some traits that would normally be associated with the opposite gender, and in fact I think nobody is 100% male or female.  God created us in his image, male and female.  I suggest we are in his image both collectively and individually.  So if in the collective it requires both genders to be the image of God, then individually we must also have aspects of both genders to be in his image.   A same-sex relationship will therefore still reflect both genders and satisfy complementarity, although both the male and female characteristics would be distributed more or less evenly across the two individuals rather than being collected primarly in one or the other.  It's not the most reliable line of argument, but it's something!]

Sexual Orientation Regulations

The legislation was passed hurriedly through the house of commons last night. A group opf tories tried to demand a proper debate, but this was voted down. There is a chance that the House of Lords will reject it, and say you can't alter the fundamental balance of rights without a proper debate, but I can't see that happening.

And so, with out ceremony, the fundamental core of democratic values (religious tolerance) has been swept away. Despite all this, and even though I am losing sleep worrying about it every night, I still feel a strange sense of God-given peace about it all. It is not the first time the church has been persecuted, and a little opposition might cause us to get our act together a bit better.

And also, I can see the point of the regulations.

The church has always been a product of its society, and so in past generations where there was intolerance of gays, the church has reflected this and done so without showing the love of God. We have therefore brought this on ourselves. If we had expressed Christ's love for homosexuals properly before, rather than imprisoning them, and trying to enforce our own beliefs onto secular society, then there might not be this backlash.

So what can the church do?

Well, as I said, in every generation the church is a product of society. And so, as we see in the Episcopal church in America, some churches will adopt the modern values.

And yet, sin is an offense against an unchanging God. If it was a sin in the time of the New Testament, then it is still sin now. Sin is not negotiable or determined by a vote.

If we go back to the Garden of Eden, we see how Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was pleasing to the eye and good for food. Her logic told her that the instrcutions from God must be wrong. She couldn't understand why God should forbid such an obviously good thing. And I think homosexual acts are much the same. They are pleasing to the eye and good for relationships. Why should God forbid such a good thing? And so, just as Eve decided to make up her own mind about it rather han relying on God, so we too, take exactly the same steps and decide that we know better.

In the same way, the church has warned against extra marital sex. Society has ignored it - and know we have massive rates of teenage pregnancy, massive rates of sexual desease, massive abortyion rates, and a culture that no longer knows how to sustain the bonds of relationship. And while the gays are demanding the right to marry, heterosexuals are runing in the opposite direction and demanding equal rights for unmarried couples. And as families break down, we now have a housing shortage because we now live as individuals instead of couples, doublig our housing needs.

The church has also preached agianst abortion. Society has ignored this. We now have very low birth rates, and a workforce that is too small to sustain the social security system we thought we could rely on.

Now the church [most of it] preaches against homosexual acts. Society ignores it. If it follows the above pattern, I fear for what the consequences will be!

But the whole issue is makeing me reconsider my own position on homosexuality. I have come a long way since the times when I was subjected to sexual abuse by other boys at school. Where some of the church insists that homosexuality is NOT inherited, I believe that it is. Most gay people know that they are gay while still at primary school. If you do an autopsy on a transgender person who felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, you do find that the brain was a female brain. Some behaviours are learned, but many are congenital.

So if gays are born that way, why should the church condemn? Jesus said of the man born blind "Who sinned, his man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and the answer was neither. It is not a sin to be born in a particular way, and we must not condemn. But Jesus went on to change the blind man, and make him see. And that is where I am at present - I do not condemn, but I do seek to bring people to Jesus so that he can heal anything that needs healing.

So what about Leviticus? Jesus has fulfilled the Old Testament law on our behalf. It remains as light on God's character, but is not there for us to follow each letter. However, we need to distinguish between laws associated with ceremonial cleanliness (eg not having sex during a woman's period) and moral laws about who we can and can't have sex with - the former have spiritual meanings that we learn from, while the moral laws are nearly all repeated in some form explicitly or implicitly in the New Testament.

So what about Corinthians? " Let no one be decieved ...[list of sinner types]...will not inherit the kingdom of God, and some of you were such". The word generally translated as 'homosexual offender' is arsenokoitoi. I don't know what an arsenokoitoi is. Bishop Ingham, quoted in the Church of England newspaper thinks that St Pauls would never have encountered romantic homosexual love, only pederasty. What nonsense! Gay relationships are not a new phenomenon and to suggest they were not in existance in Corinth beggars belief. But the Corinthians passage makes it clear you can stop being an arsenokoitoi, and I don't think you can stop being a homosexual. So I don't think an arsenokoitoi is a homosexual. But you can stop doing homosexual acts, and so it could refer to that. Yet that is a big thing to ask of anybody, to cease their sex life. And yet that is what we expect and demand of pedophiles and people into animal sex. We also say it to sexually promiscuous heterosexuals, and standing as a virgin the day before I met my wife I had accepted that I might never marry and have sex. So we are asking something big, but not impossible, not different to other people, not different to the standards that I had expected to live by myself.

What I have writen here tries to be open and honest about how I see things today. Tomorrow I may have thought more and moved.

I don't want to condemn what God has blessed.
I don't want to bless what God has condemned.

I welcome your comments, particularly from gay christians. Give me Biblical Theology, medical science, a correct definition of arsenokoitoi, and your experinces of good and bad practice in the church.

I seek the truth!