Following my last post there has been a degree of discussion and debate about issues of human sexuality which I welcome because of the gracious and civilised nature of that discussion. Anyone is welcome to comment here providing they are committed to respectful and real listening-dialogue. Don't bother to leave a comment if you are not, because I will delete all offensive rants.
This is not a one topic blog and after this post I intend to move on but I felt my response deserved a new post rather than a comment at the end of a string.
That I am theologically liberal will come as little surprise to anyone who has read this blog, but I wanted to explain how I have arrived at this position. As a straight man, fifteen years ago, I held the "orthodox" view on human sexuality. Then I found myself in the position of hearing the voices of gay and lesbian Christians and I felt I needed to find out for myself both what scripture said and what it meant.
That personal exercise changed my view and may have contributed in its way to the road I am now on.
I do not ask people to agree with my theology, but I do expect people to recognise that I am both theological and Biblical and that it is possible to use scripture properly and draw a different conclusion to received wisdom. Here are my conclusions, already posted in odds and ends elsewhere on this and other blogs.
- First of all there are the stories of Sodom and Gibeah in Genesis 19:1-25 and Judges 19:13-28. The actions described here so graphically are homosexual and heterosexual rape. Both stories are more about violent attempts to undermine ancient traditions of hospitality through guest rape than they are about same-sex relations. Except for the lone voice of Jude 7, the rest of the Bible comments on the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as the sin of greed. Ezekiel 16:49 says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
- Secondly, there are the references in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, regarded as key texts in this matter by conservative evangelicals. Leviticus is a book about what constitutes holiness. In Leviticus, holiness is not a private thing; the text makes clear that we can only be holy in a community that intends hospitality to God. The challenge in reading Leviticus (or any biblical book) is in its application to our own lives in a different context. For the writers of Leviticus, the issue was about boundary crossing. The sexual prohibitions, like those against cross-breeding cattle, sowing hybrids or sowing different crops in the same field, eating amphibians or wearing clothes made out of wool blended with other materials, are meant to observe the distinctions that God was believed to have established at creation. Holiness is then defined as staying in one’s class, and not mixing or confusing classes of things. One of the major difficulties of applying a text like Leviticus is that although our goals are the same—holiness, offering hospitality to God, living in such a way that God would feel comfortable in our midst— our categories are not the same as those of the biblical authors. For example, unlike Leviticus, we do not see mildew as a problem for a priest to treat with a ritual.
But even if the text itself makes no distinction, no interpretive community—including orthodox Jews—treat all the commandments with the same weight. The interpretive tradition is a living and growing conversation with the text about where “the density of holiness” lies. Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity have agreed about this: the commandments that help us sift out and interpret the others are those to love God above all else (Deuteronomy 6:4ff) and to love the neighbour as oneself (Leviticus 19:18). As the scribe says to Jesus in Mark 12, these are far more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.These Leviticus passages relate primarily to idolatry, as 18:21 suggests. The Hebrew here rendered in English as ‘commit an abomination’, an offence which carries the death penalty, is a term often employed in the Old Testament of idolatrous practices. We must consider that in order for the law to be carried out there must be: a) at least two eyewitnesses to the crime; b) testimony of somebody knowing of the planned crime, who warned the defendant in advance not to commit the crime and informed him of the possible death sentence; c) a witness to confirm the warning and finally d) a non-unanimous vote by the court to execute, because a unanimous vote suggested a mob mentality and was not accepted. Most people have sex in private, so this is a condemnation of some kind of public (i.e., cult prostitute) sexual act. - Thirdly, there are the accounts in 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12, and 22:46 of male prostitution at idolatrous shrines.
- Fourthly, there are quite explicit references in Romans 1: 18 - 27 to homosexuality. (Many significant Biblical scholars see v 26-27 as a later, non-Pauline gloss.) These verses, too, are central to the conservative evangelical case. Again the context is pagan idolatry. Paul argues that male and female homosexual orgies are the consequence of idolatry, the nature of which he describes in some detail. Men and women, having known God’s clear revelation, ‘have refused to honour him as God, or to render thanks’. Therefore, Paul says. God has ‘given them up to their own vile desires, and the consequent degradation of their bodies’. To be abandoned to orgiastic homosexual passion is, Paul argues, God’s punishment for rejecting him for man-made idols. We find the same ideas in Wisdom 14 and 15 on which Romans l:18ff is virtually a commentary. In either case the chapter break - not Paul’s construct - does not help. 1.27 should be read immediately followed by 2.1: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on others you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." Paul goes on to insist that we are not "saved" by our actions, etc.
When we read in Leviticus or Romans that a specific behaviour is proscribed, we need to decide straight away whether or not the biblical writer’s words are clear or relevant. St. Paul, as a first century Jewish male was steeped in the tradition that encompassed Leviticus and was, therefore, strongly opposed to same-sex relations even though he had reversed his position with respect to the issue of Gentile holiness. If we had Paul here, we might legitimately press him about the logic that crosses one boundary but not another. Since Paul wrote his letters expecting to have to defend his arguments, that approach is neither far-fetched nor unfaithful.Paul himself invites his readers to “discern for yourselves” (1 Corinthians 11) what is natural or unnatural, the very issue which is at stake in Romans 1. Paul also seems to have thought that long hair for men is “unnatural” while it is “natural” for women. While Paul’s letters had the status of advice from a trusted apostle, the members of his churches who received them probably felt free to argue with him about what was natural and what was unnatural. But now, as a result of the canonization of his letters, they have become Scripture for us and we honour them appropriately.
In doing so, however, we are in danger of closing the discussion. Does this mean we can no longer engage Paul as if he were a living conversation partner? I don’t think so. As Jesus himself argued against the Sadducees in Mark 12, God is the God of the living. Like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Paul is alive in the Lord and very present in the current debates of the Church. It is useful to speculate about where Paul might be on these issues today, given his unusual and brave commitments to Gentiles, women, and slaves in his own day. The logic of Paul’s letters as a whole stands in some tension with the specific words he is credited – very possibly wrongly - as writing in Romans 1. I don’t think it is fair to blame Paul for what his ghost-writers have made him say.
To use any of the above to justify homophobic polemic is outrageous.
Just as a footnote in the discussion about doctrine and orthodoxy I leave you with a quote from a 1979 Methodist report:
"For homosexual men and women, permanent relationships characterised by love can be appropriate and the Christian way of expressing their sexuality."
Are we going as far as to say that a significant Christian denomination has committed blasphemy?
I have been in theological training now for half a term of the two years. I have enjoyed the company of my fellow trainees immensely and am sure I have made long term friendships; I have enjoyed our teaching sessions and residentials; I have valued the worship sessions; I have read some challenging and interesting theology and I have written two essays. 
