Hi Fthr. Phil,

1.  Please see my comments above regarding the context of Genesis 2 in terms of gender complementarity.
2.  The Near Eastern people of Christ’s time would not have been celebrating a marriage between two people of the same gender, so this is a moot point.
3.  St. Paul is speaking metaphorically about the intimate connection between Christ and the Church…not sexually.  To suggest that the metaphor is speaking about sex is to strain it way beyond its bounds.  For example, are Christ and the Church going to be having mini-Churches?  mini-Christs?  Of course not.  The metaphor is speaking to the very intimate connection that occurs in a committed relationship.
4.  Holy Scripture also speaks of polygamy if you want to proof-text.  I’m all for marriage, don’t get me wrong.  I’m so much for it that I want it for me and my partner.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,

First, it is Deacon Phil (or, preferrably just “Phil”).  I am not in presbyterial orders.

1.  Genesis 2 is the model for sexual relationships.  Along with Genesis 2, you need to read all of scripture.  God ordained the man and the woman should be one flesh.  He did not ordain two women or two men to be one flesh.

2.  Are you so sure that we have it right and the rest of history has it wrong?  Doesn’t that seem like chronological snobbery to you?  Homosexual relationships were known to antiquity - particularly in the Greek and Roman world.  Now, homosexual relationships were considered very sinful in 2nd Temple Judaism.  If Jesus, being God incarnate, wanted us to know that the Jewish law on this point needed to be reinterpreted, don’t you think he would have said so?

3.  Yes, Paul’s passage in Ephesians is metaphore.  But the Church has been called the Bride of Christ in Scripture - indicating a masculine-feminine relationship.  I don’t mean to indicate sexual relationships here, but remember that God considered illicit sexual relationships to be a great metaphor for idolatry.

It seems that there is no biblical support for blessing same sex unions.  Likewise, there is not support for SSBs in Tradition.  SSUs seem, instead, to be considered sinful in all their permutations.  As the Church, we cannot bless what God calls “sin.”  So, if we are to proceed with blessing SSUs, we must first show them to be not sinful.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

You are using the same technique I run into at University used by skeptics: be a literalist. “God got it wrong” is a facile argument. The narrative works pretty well for showing that man needed a fit companion. I believe the technical literary term for the animals is “foil” (I’ve told you before not to confuse me with a fundamentalist).

Again, we have already gone over the argument about can’t have children, remarried, etc. I affirm the fact that marriage is more than procreation. But it is not less. When procreation is not possible, the other factors dominate.

Holy Scripture also speaks of polygamy if you want to proof-text.

Scripture describes polygamy, and puts limits on it. Does that imply Scripture condones it?

It is also worth noting that it is a patriarchal, heterosexual form of marriage. For me, this tends to strengthen the heterosexual argument, not undermine it. It would seem that the only reason to condemn polygamy is based on a modern egalitarianism.

Concerning polygamy.  There is not one case of polygamy that did not turn to the detriment of God’s people in general and of the husband in particular.  It is obvious from Holy Scripture that polygamy was not blessed but was tolerated.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

Having just looked at the life of Jacob, this point is well taken!

Hi Phil,

I’m not sure if you are interested in a dialogue or a diatribe.  Your tone seems to indicate the latter.

Phil Snyder - 09 July 2009 08:04 PM

Shawn,

First, it is Deacon Phil (or, preferrably just “Phil”).  I am not in presbyterial orders.

1.  Genesis 2 is the model for sexual relationships.  Along with Genesis 2, you need to read all of scripture.  God ordained the man and the woman should be one flesh.  He did not ordain two women or two men to be one flesh.

I have read all of Scripture a few times.  I have also read the six passages that are most often proof-texted to support a conservative position on these arguments and their contexts.  They are speaking of same-sex relationship in relation to pagan idol worship, not monogamous, committed relationships.  However, I suspect you have heard this before and are just here to argue.  So, I’ll pass.

2.  Are you so sure that we have it right and the rest of history has it wrong?  Doesn’t that seem like chronological snobbery to you?  Homosexual relationships were known to antiquity - particularly in the Greek and Roman world.  Now, homosexual relationships were considered very sinful in 2nd Temple Judaism.  If Jesus, being God incarnate, wanted us to know that the Jewish law on this point needed to be reinterpreted, don’t you think he would have said so?

Because Christ came to usher in the Kingdom of God, not give us every specific moral answer that we needed.  The same could be said of many ethical questions that we face today that were not even questions when during that time.

3.  Yes, Paul’s passage in Ephesians is metaphore.  But the Church has been called the Bride of Christ in Scripture - indicating a masculine-feminine relationship.  I don’t mean to indicate sexual relationships here, but remember that God considered illicit sexual relationships to be a great metaphor for idolatry.

You strain the metaphor.  Even if same-gendered relationships were to be fully blessed that doesn’t mean that the metaphor would change.  You are using it for something that it was not intended.  And that’s an irresponsible use of Scripture.  It is intended to speak to the intimate relationship between Christ and the Church…not a proof-text for gender complementarity.

It seems that there is no biblical support for blessing same sex unions.  Likewise, there is not support for SSBs in Tradition.  SSUs seem, instead, to be considered sinful in all their permutations.  As the Church, we cannot bless what God calls “sin.”  So, if we are to proceed with blessing SSUs, we must first show them to be not sinful.

Of course not.  It was not a question that they faced.  It is the question that we face.  Christ did not expect us to freeze frame ourselves at the point in history when He ascended.  That’s why He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

I am leaving for Honduras tomorrow and will not be able to continue this.  If you are truly interested in my perspectives, there’s a large number of my posts available for you to read.  If you’re only interested in lecturing me and arguing, then you can ignore them.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Charlie,

Charlie Clauss - 09 July 2009 08:22 PM

You are using the same technique I run into at University used by skeptics: be a literalist. “God got it wrong” is a facile argument. The narrative works pretty well for showing that man needed a fit companion. I believe the technical literary term for the animals is “foil” (I’ve told you before not to confuse me with a fundamentalist).

Precisely my point.  The point of the passage, when NOT taken literally, is one of companionship…of a helper.  It is not meant to be a sexual ethic.  And I don’t confuse you with a fundamentalist, Charlie.  Please don’t confuse me with a skeptic.

Again, we have already gone over the argument about can’t have children, remarried, etc. I affirm the fact that marriage is more than procreation. But it is not less. When procreation is not possible, the other factors dominate.

How is this different in a same-gendered relationship then?  There is a reason why elderly widows were in need of special attention in the early Church.  They were complete outcasts in society as they were unable to produce any more children.  That is not a Christian ethic.

Heading to Honduras tomorrow.  I don’t know when I’ll be able to check email or for how long.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn Strout - 09 July 2009 09:13 AM

Hi Karen,

So, we’re back to prooftexting?  Okay. 

I don’t see how it would be possible to get much clearer than “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman”. Are you really going to try to convince me you are unable to understand a sentence of twelve words, only one of which has more than a single syllable?

Of course I can understand this passage.  There’s no need to be condescending.

I didn’t know it was condescending to point out that you are obviously too intelligent to make such a claim on your part a credible one.

  However, I am asking you if you can understand the context in which it was written and is meant to be interpreted?  Can you also read Leviticus 19, not as a separate chapter but as part of the whole?  When Leviticus was written there were no chapter divisions.  It was taken as its whole.  And its purpose is meant to show the people of Israel how they are to stand apart from their pagan neighbors.  By proof-texting, you are tearing verses out of context Karen.  It is an irresponsible use of Scripture. (snip)

OK, Leviticus is a whole book, and it came in a cultural context. The Israelites were called, as God’s chosen people, to differentiate themselves from the pagan culture that surrounded them by, among other things, different sexual behavior, within parameters that were given to them by God. Why, in your view, is it no longer necessary for the Church (also called to be God’s people) to differentiate itself by remaining within those boundaries as originally given to Israel, and later given again to the Church by the Jerusalem Council? What, specifically, is different about our cultural context that justifies such a change?

(snip)Do we see the fruits of the Spirit evident in the relationship?  (snip)...many, many people within the Church have testified to the fruit of the Spirit being evident in the families of same-gendered people.  How could that be possible if the relationships are sinful? (snip)

I can think of two ways just off the top of my head, and I doubt you will like either of them.

Possibility #1: the benefits you see could arise from those aspects of the relationship other than its sexual component. It is entirely possible that the same or greater fruit would result from a committed, mutually self-sacrificing, exclusive, celibate relationship between the two persons. What has not been demonstrated is that the relationship must include a sexual component in order to show the fruit you describe.

So you are ready to support same-sex marriage as long as the two persons promise to be celibate?  As you say below, Karen, puh-lease!  As I have said ad nauseum, it is about the relationship not the sex.  Sex may or may not be a part of the relationship.  Is the only reason to get married so that one can have sex?  Is that really what heterosexuals have reduced marriage to?  Just sex?  Of course not.  Marriage is about an intimate commitment between two people who wish to build a life together.  Whether or not it includes sex is secondary.

Somehow I have gotten the impression it is not celibate relationships the Church is being asked to bless, but rather partnerships which are parallel to marriage in all respects except that they are between two persons of the same sex. That is what proponents of SSB’s/SSM want, isn’t it? So tell me, if it is “about the relationship, not the sex” why do you want the church’s blessing on a relationship that specifically includes sex, or at least the possibility of and permission for sex? If the sex is secondary, why do you object so strenuously to the idea that you ought to be celibate?

Possibility #2: The fruit could be counterfeit. It must be pretty plain by this time that I believe the entire argument in favor of SSB’s to be a deception and a snare. IMO it’s nothing but another way the Enemy tricks people into disobeying God. The Devil and his fallen angels can disguise themselves as angels of light, and I’m sure it would not be beyond their capabilities to create phony spiritual fruit.

That’s the same argument that the Pharisees made to Christ when He was casting out demons.  They suggested He was doing so by the power of Beelzebul.  If indeed Satan is producing some kind of “counterfeit fruits of the Spirit”, then he is dividing his house against itself and it will not stand.

In Christ,
Shawn

You are correct and I admitted as much on the “How can two walk together?” thread. If proponents of SSB’s are correct and this really is a move of the Holy Spirit, I’m doing exactly what the Pharisees did, may I be forgiven for it. And if the Holy Spirit isn’t behind advocacy for SSB’s, then you are in the same boat. The possibility of counterfeit fruit remains. Anyway, Satan’s house will fall whether he divides it against himself or not. He’s already defeated, he just won’t admit it to himself or anyone else who listens to his temptations.

Karen
(replaced a few quote tags I accidentally left out yesterday)—KEY

Shawn Strout - 08 July 2009 07:57 AM

Hi Karen,
(snip)

Then there’s the “yuck” factor.  We’ve seen it in this very forum when people will post posts that really do go over the line, IMO, in describing what they view to be particular sexual activities.  Sociologically, many people have difficulty imagining a same-gendered couple without imagining what they think we do in bed.  That’s the “yuck”.  And it’s very, very powerful, but short-lived.  Once people begin to meet us in everyday life and see that we really aren’t “yucky” but pretty normal folk, they begin to change their minds.  That’s why there has been so much change since gays and lesbians have been coming out and have become more public.  People see that we are really just as boring as they are. 

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,
As it happens, I have a particularly strong “yuck” reaction to people with multiple piercings—especially tongue studs! Do you eat with that thing in there? Eeeeewwwww! (I never had any sympathy for people of my parents’ generation who can’t stand long hair on men until the current fashion of body-piercing came along.) But I don’t conclude that someone with enough metal to stock a small hardware store stuck in his or her face is immoral, just because I’m repelled by the way they look, and don’t know anyone who does. If you really think theological conservatives are so simplistic in our thinking that we can’t tell the difference between “yuck” factor and morality, you’re being insulting again. That’s way more condescending than anything I said!

Karen

Shawn Strout - 09 July 2009 10:24 PM

(snip)

I am leaving for Honduras tomorrow and will not be able to continue this. (snip)

In Christ,
Shawn

Bon voyage! Unfortunately I do not know how to say that in Spanish..hablo Espanol solamente un pocito (and that little bit does not include knowing how to type an n with a tilde so as to spell “Espanol” correctly).

How long are you going to be in Honduras? I expect you to come back dripping with Spanish after your “baptism by immersion”. 

Karen

Precisely my point.  The point of the passage, when NOT taken literally, is one of companionship…of a helper.  It is not meant to be a sexual ethic.  And I don’t confuse you with a fundamentalist, Charlie.  Please don’t confuse me with a skeptic.

That seems to be your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the passage. You still have to deal with the fact that it is a woman that is brought to the man. That is the direction the whole narrative takes. To say it is just about relationship is to intentional ignore the obvious.

I have never acted like a fundamentalist.

How is this different in a same-gendered relationship then?  There is a reason why elderly widows were in need of special attention in the early Church.  They were complete outcasts in society as they were unable to produce any more children.  That is not a Christian ethic.

It might not be different. If you can show that SSU are not in fact contrary to scripture and tradition, AND that it is a matter of basic justice like the question of caring for widows and orphans, then SSU/SSB would be fine.

Dear friends,
There’s been a lot of discussion on this thread about children and the role of family in marriage, and also there has been a presumption that the purpose of marriage includes and indeed is principally about access to pleasure (and therefore it’s a matter of justice when one denies pleasure to another on the basis of sexual preference).

I have tried to address these issues methodically here in a detailed response to the claims on this thread.