tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post1193914085275388241..comments2023-10-25T09:45:40.318-04:00Comments on The Politics of the Cross Resurrected: Homosexuality, Evangelicalism and the GospelCraig Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-11484122156910666382010-04-26T04:11:02.618-04:002010-04-26T04:11:02.618-04:00(continued)
You said: "When it comes down to ...(continued)<br />You said: "When it comes down to it I'm not sure the scriptures have much to say about monogamous, sexually moral, homosexual relationships."<br /><br />You're right, they don't have anything to say about it. But that's because Scripture condemns that form of sexual intercourse outright. There is no distinction made because no such distinction can make that form of sexual relation permissible. And again, if you're consistent then why don't you apply the monogamy principle to incestuous relations? That form of sexual intercourse is also forbidden without any distinction.<br /><br />You said: "I think our challenge is not to simply write off homosexual activity as immoral (we don't do that with heterosexuals) but to ask ourselves *when* is homosexual activity immoral (like we do with heterosexuals)."<br /><br />No, homosexual intercourse is forbidden by Scripture outright, so there is no "when." Whereas, only certain specific forms of heterosexual intercourse are forbidden. Why is it that Scripture makes distinctions for different forms of heterosexual relations and makes none for homosexual relations? If monogamy where the issue, then Scripture would have made such a distinction, since it does make that distinction about adultery for heterosexual relations.<br /><br />You said: "I'm troubled by a Christianity that isn't willing to think any deeper than "all homosexual activity is immoral, all the time.""<br /><br />As Carter has pointed out in his article, it ultimately comes down to the authority of Scripture. If you reject the authority of Scripture, then you're not a Christian. That is the first form of temptation that Carter speak of when he refers to "former brothers and sisters." If you do affirm it, then approach it honestly otherwise there is a real danger that is faced by trying to make sense of personal experiences or to justify convictions that contradict clear biblical teaching.<br /><br />That being said, I'm also troubled by Christians who don't understand how complex sexuality is and who reduce it to simply a choice or an innate disposition. Moreover, the depth that our sexuality affects us profound. Nevertheless, the apparent inability to overcome such profound inner turmoil must never define our hermeneutic.Gregarioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214700705973793927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-60300962137145434032010-04-26T04:10:11.339-04:002010-04-26T04:10:11.339-04:00Jonathan,
I don't think I've ever had the...Jonathan,<br /><br />I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to speak with you at Tyndale, but I thought I should say something here because what you've written was quite shocking to me.<br /><br />When you said that you were not "the one singling out homosexuality here," you have equivocated on Dr. Carter's phrase "singling out." You point out the fact that he's written about the topic of homosexuality, which we all know is obvious. But your point is not helpful because his question to you, "Why do you single out homosexuality as if to promote it from sin to non-sin?", is a question about your consistency since homosexual intercourse (to be less ambiguous than "activity") is clearly condemned in Scripture along with other sinful acts such as theft, murder, adultery, and idolatry. His question is, How can you justify selecting one sin to rationalize and not another? To respond to this point by appealing to the fact that he wrote about the subject of homosexuality is misleading and evasive.<br /><br />I also agree with Dr. Carter that a homosexual orientation is a disorder. You implicitly accuse him of arrogance and dishonesty by claiming that he "suggest[s to]...have a corner on "the Bible and Tradition."" What corner? The history of biblical interpretation unflinchingly upholds the fact that Scripture condemns homosexual intercourse. This is not something ambiguous or difficult to ascertain. Even a cursory study of church history on this issue will demonstrate that this has always been the historic teaching of the Church. Tellingly, dissent over traditional biblical interpretation about homosexuality has only arisen as a result of the sexual revolution, which is Carter's point. So if anyone thinks they have a "corner," it's the person who thinks they can interpret Scripture contrary to the witness of the Fathers, Medievals, Reformers, and Post-Reformers. The burden of proof is on you, unless you're suggesting you think you "have a corner" on these things.<br /><br />And it is quite understandable why he would identify a homosexual orientation as a "disorder," since he recognizes the primary created purpose for sexuality: procreation. However, as a result of the sexual revolution, marriage and parenthood, and sex and procreation have been torn apart. This I believe is one of the root issues for you since homosexual intercourse (monogamous or otherwise) cannot ever lead to children and parenthood. God did not design human beings that way and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate to the contrary. So when someone's sexual desires are oriented contrary to the good order of God's creation, then it is plain that such desires are disordered. And again, a homosexual orientation is only one kind of sinful disorder.<br /><br />I also found it very strange that you think that somehow scriptural condemnation of homosexual intercourse only applies to non-monogamous relations. Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such a distinction is consistent with Scripture. I'm also curious to know how consistent you are with this. Do you think pre-"marital" intercourse between same-sex partners is permitted by Scripture? What about pre-marital intercourse for a heterosexual couple? I ask this because if you say that such practices are prohibited by Scripture, then I'm wondering how you could think that. If you think they are permissible, then what do you think the biblical purposes for marriage are?Gregarioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214700705973793927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-48108774349390994122010-04-23T13:46:18.452-04:002010-04-23T13:46:18.452-04:00Jonathan,
Thanks for the link to Reclaiming the M...Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks for the link to Reclaiming the Mission. Looks like good stuff. Certainly a question that has been on my mind. <br /><br />- LeoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17585739149170089037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-66884284146338521132010-04-23T12:05:41.593-04:002010-04-23T12:05:41.593-04:00"Why do you single out homosexuality as if to..."Why do you single out homosexuality as if to promote it from sin to non-sin?"<br /><br />First of all, I don't think I'm the one singling out homosexuality here. I simply responded to an article that you wrote, in which you singled out homosexuality. But I digress. Secondly, I never attempted to promote homosexuality from sin to non-sin. I just asked how you can be so sure that it is a "deep seated disorder."<br /><br />You say that you're "just speaking up for the Bible and Tradition" which I think is misleading. To suggest that you have a corner on "the Bible and Tradition" is misleading. I wonder if perhaps it would be more honest to say that you're "just speaking up for a particular interpretation of the Bible and Tradition." Also, out of curiosity what does your interpretation of the Bible and Tradition have to say about monogamous same-sex relationships (marriages?!). I know the B&T have much to say about sexual immorality, and while much of homosexual practice would fall under that category I'm not sure that *all* homosexual practice falls under "sexual immorality." <br /><br />"There are a number of lifestyle options open to homosexuals; to narrow it to just one - namely giving in to sinful temptation - is not necessary or good."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. Yet I find it interesting that you have only suggested one possible option, namely chastity.<br /><br />I guess the question I have is are these the only two options? Are homosexuals to be reduced to choosing either chastity *or* "giving in to sinful temptation"? Surely there is another option?<br /><br />When it comes down to it I'm not sure the scriptures have much to say about monogamous, sexually moral, homosexual relationships. I think our challenge is not to simply write off homosexual activity as immoral (we don't do that with heterosexuals) but to ask ourselves *when* is homosexual activity immoral (like we do with heterosexuals).<br /><br />To be sure, I don't buy what society tells us about sexuality - that desire is good and natural and that we should always say 'yes' to our desire. Yet, at the same time I'm troubled by a Christianity that isn't willing to think any deeper than "all homosexual activity is immoral, all the time."<br /><br />As a side note, it looks like there is going to be an interesting and important discussion on David Fitch's blog about this very issue. I'm sure your voice there would be constructive.<br /><br />http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/on-being-missional-and-the-gaylesbian-peoples/<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />p.s. - @Andy, the tricky thing with throwing out words like "objective truth" is that there is no such thing as an objective person!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-53810831578213687632010-04-22T09:20:53.480-04:002010-04-22T09:20:53.480-04:00Very well said Craig. Objective truth is objective...Very well said Craig. Objective truth is objective truth...sin is sin. There's no way to get around it unless you jump on the slippery slope of watering it down.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08689344390014443879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-2615117007177218512010-04-22T08:50:47.054-04:002010-04-22T08:50:47.054-04:00Jonathan,
Why do you single out homosexuality as i...Jonathan,<br />Why do you single out homosexuality as if to promote it from sin to non-sin? Why not adultery, fornication, or stealing or lying? What is so special about homosexual sin that we should have to be puzzled about whether or not it is sin just because we live in a pagan society that tolerates it along with a dozen other sins condemned by Scripture? Should we view cohabitation as not a sin anymore? Far more people do that than commit homosexual acts. I don't get it. <br /><br />You call me divisive, but it seems to me that I'm just speaking up for the Bible and Tradition and the mainstream of Christianity against those who are trying to divide the Church by imitating the world. Pastors are supposed to guard the flock against the wolves who will come in with revisionist doctrine and loose morals.<br /><br />Yes, of course I have friends who struggle with homosexual temptation. Not all homosexuals think that homosexuality is a good thing to be flaunted and not all homosexuals demand that society approve of homosexual behavior. Those who do may even be the minority of homosexuals. There are a number of lifestyle options open to homosexuals; to narrow it to just one - namely giving in to sinful temptation - is not necessary or good.Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-73762766169410322592010-04-22T01:27:25.520-04:002010-04-22T01:27:25.520-04:00"Homosexuality is a deep seated disorder that..."Homosexuality is a deep seated disorder that is not always in every situation freely chosen by the person involved."<br /><br />Really? How do you know this? A deep seated disorder? How would you defend a statement such as this?<br /><br />"For some this may involve a life of celibacy..."<br /><br />Is this the ONLY fruitful way of life that is open to a homosexual? Are there perhaps other options? What are your thoughts on a monogamous homosexual relationship?<br /><br />"First, it will be painful to watch former brothers and sisters in the Faith drift away into liberalism..."<br /><br />To be honest, I find it sad that those whom you would call "brothers and sisters" are limited to those who supposedly agree with you on the issue of homosexuality. Really? Anyone who disagrees with you is no longer your brother or sister?<br /><br />Personally, I find you far too divisive on this issue. I'm not saying that we have to all agree and support one another's opinions but can't we disagree well with each other? Wouldn't that be a witness? I'm sure you mean well, at least I hope you would, but I find your rhetoric extremely alienating and void of compassion.<br /><br />Out of curiosity, are there any homosexuals in your life that you would count amongst your friends?<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />JT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-44787517134379952732010-04-21T20:18:24.538-04:002010-04-21T20:18:24.538-04:00Leo,
I'm not connecting Open Theism directly w...Leo,<br />I'm not connecting Open Theism directly with openness to homosexuality. Any given individual could hold one without holding the other. I'm glad you don't agree with normalizing homosexuality.<br /><br />It was just a list of areas in which Evangelicals are leaning leftward. Each is an example of moving away from the orthodox consensus. Open Theism is a drift away from classical orthodoxy, in my opinion.Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-84819562375714684072010-04-21T10:50:47.399-04:002010-04-21T10:50:47.399-04:00Just for the record. Although I understand your ne...Just for the record. Although I understand your need to defend your belief with every means possible - fair or unfair - it is incorrect to link Open Theism with the acceptance of homosexual sin. Frankly, it's way over the top. I say that as an Open Theist that believes homosexual acts are as sinful as pride, lust, stealing or anything else clearly defined as sin in the bible. You'll be taken a lot more serious if you tone down the rhetoric a bit. Now, if you have actual proof of any leading OT scholar that promotes this idea please post it.<br /><br />- LeoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17585739149170089037noreply@blogger.com