Right and wrong within the Bible

[Bob Hunter]

I hope you noticed the terminology of "may" before most of the terms you quoted. Also the key terminology seems to be "unprotected." Therefore you could conclude with the logic you are proposing that it is unnatural to be African American or Hispanic since African Americans have a higher risk of high blood pressure and Hispanics have a higher risk of diabetes. The site you gave did not in anyway offer and conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuals have a higher risk than heterosexuals who engage in unprotected sexual activity with multiple partners just check with the CDC. The only issue with any merit is the issue of depression and higher suicide rates which has nothing to do with the lifestyle as much as the way people are treated in society. People who are bullied have higher rates of such issues as well.

Steve,

I think you are parsing verbs to the nth degree and missing the overall point. I would suggest taking time to find out why anal sex among men produces higher cases of hepatitis. Find out why these men are at a higher risk for prostate issues, rectal fissures, etc. They suffer greatly from chronic pelvic pain, impotence, and testicular pain. I may have mentioned that I run a closed FB group for men suffering from chronic pelvic pain. I have gay men in the group, they suffer in spades. Even so called "safe sex" is not very safe when body parts are being penetrated that were not designed for such activity. In fact, some gay males use nitrates or 'poppers' to relax the anal sphincter to make penetration easier. My wife worked at a major hospital and remembers the 'poppers' controversy a few years ago. It was a gay guy who published the study (she can't locate it at the moment) and he got ripped by the gay community for revealing the cold hard facts. Here is a study put out by the San Francisco City Clinic. http://www.sfcityclinic.org/morereso...UPPRESSION.pdf

It's an ugly picture of what goes on with gay men. I won't get many "likes" because it is not what folks want to hear. Especially, in this forum where it seems folks are intent on undoing the position of the Church of the Nazarene. That's fine, If we are going to have this discussion then we have to go into it with our "eyes wide open." So at least acknowledge the good, bad and ugly.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Ben,
Thanks for your thoughtful and relatively clear journey. There will be many of us for whom some of your examples are not how we have viewed, understood, or used scripture. Others of us will just not be able to accept change. Some will say this kind of thinking will allow us to "explain away" any part of scripture we want. These are the kinds of things we say when we haven't studied as much as someone else. We also tend to place our faith in scripture instead of the One about Whom scripture tells us.
Acknowledging that you have admitted you could have said differently the part about "wrong", it also seems that saying that every passage regarding homosexuality portrays it negatively only undermines your suggestion that scripture encourages continuing modification of positions on sexual relationships, i.e., marriage. If scripture encourages such continuation, it seems like those passages wouldn't be as "wrong" as helpful in establishing a pattern of "review with the intent of adjusting", thereby part of the process, and "right".

Sorry for being not clear. I've just gotten home from teaching Intro to Philosophy, and some of my students have confused me.

[Ryan Scott]

- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.

This is where we'd find some disagreement. I don't disagree with these statements, necessarily, but I do think you're making a logical leap here that may be unwarranted. I'm not sure we can say that natural design and God's intention is the same thing. Sin does have an effect on creation (the more I study evolutionary theory the more I'm wondering if a natural bent towards selfishness wasn't around long before human beings) and God allows those effects and works with/through/around them.

I read Genesis as saying God's intentions for humanity was to be paired as male and female - there is an intentional splitting of humanity into two distinct groups. Try as I might to see how those could be arbitrary, I just don't see the biblical evidence.

At the same time, there is a lot in our world that doesn't come out as God intended. Genetic mutations and failures of all kinds permeate creation - many in ways that are obviously outside the kind of world God makes (at least in our historical and biblical understanding of God).

For me (and I don't have the time or desire to go through all the steps to get here, but I imagine you can follow well enough) the question of homosexual marriage comes down to whether or not a loving, monogamous, committed relationship between people of the same gender can represent the relationships between God and God's people in the same way a heterosexual marriage can.

There's plenty of good rationale to answer yes and no; I can respect those communities who truly wrestle with the issue and come down on either side. I don't think either is wrong - at least from an interpretive standpoint.

That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

Personally, and I'm not sure how this would work out in a denominational setting (there would be some terrible awkward logistics), but it seems like every potential marriage should be examined, tested, and either approved or disapproved by the local congregation based on their best and most faithful understanding of scripture - no matter which two people come to seek such approval (heterosexual or otherwise). Likewise a couple should be respectful of the loving and caring decisions of the faith community to which they belong.

[Steven Martinez]

Steve,

I think you are parsing verbs to the nth degree and missing the overall point. I would suggest taking time to find out why anal sex among men produces higher cases of hepatitis. Find out why these men are at a higher risk for prostate issues, rectal fissures, etc. They suffer greatly from chronic pelvic pain, impotence, and testicular pain. I may have mentioned that I run a closed FB group for men suffering from chronic pelvic pain. I have gay men in the group, they suffer in spades. Even so called "safe sex" is not very safe when body parts are being penetrated that were not designed for such activity. In fact, some gay males use nitrates or 'poppers' to relax the anal sphincter to make penetration easier. My wife worked at a major hospital and remembers the 'poppers' controversy a few years ago. It was a gay guy who published the study (she can't locate it at the moment) and he got ripped by the gay community for revealing the cold hard facts. Here is a study put out by the San Francisco City Clinic. http://www.sfcityclinic.org/morereso...UPPRESSION.pdf

It's an ugly picture of what goes on with gay men. I won't get many "likes" because it is not what folks want to hear. Especially, in this forum where it seems folks are intent on undoing the position of the Church of the Nazarene. That's fine, If we are going to have this discussion then we have to go into it with our "eyes wide open." So at least acknowledge the good, bad and ugly.

First, I ran my thoughts through my wife who is a doctor who has medical experience in the area herself. Her research in the area has not found conclusive evidence that suggests that homosexual behavior has an increase in risk over heterosexuals. In fact the evidence provided has actually come to the conclusion that heterosexuals are contacting hepatitis and HIV/AIDS at much faster rates. My wife has shared various accounts with me about similar issues with chronic pain in females due to "normal" sexual intercourse. In other words, the issue at hand is that "may" and "can" does not imply "always." I think we can all agree that there is not much data out there that shows what the long term effects of anal sex (lets just call it what it is) amongst homosexual males who are in monogamous relationships. Which is at the core of Ben's argument. Ben has been quite consistent in this and other threads about his opinion that the Bible is more condemning of promiscuous sexual behavior rather than monogamous homosexual relationships. Biblically it is interesting to me that as specific as Scripture is about sexual acts, there is no condemnation of anal sex which would seem to make the whole issue very clear. I agree with your basic premise that a Christian should in no way engage in sexual behavior with the intention of harming or degrading his or her spouse but the question then becomes who defines that? Is it something that the couple decides or do we create a committee for such things? Do you get to set the standard for me? Do I get to set the standard for you?

Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God. However, this is a theology forum and Ben has produced a thoughtful argument on the theological issue. I am not saying that I agree with his position but I will listen to it because it goes well beyond homosexuality in scope. To be honest I am not interested in homosexuality as a topic which is why I have not participated in the other forum. I realize that homosexuality is the example being used so it is valid to discuss it here but I desire a true discussion that is based on as much data and facts as possible and not personal agendas or feelings that may be based on fear, hate, or prejudice.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I thank you for your research and conclusions reached. It really does keep coming back to interpreting through Jesus and His great commandments: Love. Thank you. I will have to print your 3 posts out for friends, if that is alright with you.

Of course it is. My task for myself between degrees is to produce this in paper form.

[Hans Deventer]

Of course it is. My task for myself between degrees is to produce this in paper form.

The subject would warrant a book rather than a paper, I would say.

[Benjamin Burch]

The subject would warrant a book rather than a paper, I would say.

50-100 page paper.

[Bob Hunter]

First, I ran my thoughts through my wife who is a doctor who has medical experience in the area herself. Her research in the area has not found conclusive evidence that suggests that homosexual behavior has an increase in risk over heterosexuals. In fact the evidence provided has actually come to the conclusion that heterosexuals are contacting hepatitis and HIV/AIDS at much faster rates. My wife has shared various accounts with me about similar issues with chronic pain in females due to "normal" sexual intercourse. In other words, the issue at hand is that "may" and "can" does not imply "always." I think we can all agree that there is not much data out there that shows what the long term effects of anal sex (lets just call it what it is) amongst homosexual males who are in monogamous relationships. Which is at the core of Ben's argument. Ben has been quite consistent in this and other threads about his opinion that the Bible is more condemning of promiscuous sexual behavior rather than monogamous homosexual relationships. Biblically it is interesting to me that as specific as Scripture is about sexual acts, there is no condemnation of anal sex which would seem to make the whole issue very clear. I agree with your basic premise that a Christian should in no way engage in sexual behavior with the intention of harming or degrading his or her spouse but the question then becomes who defines that? Is it something that the couple decides or do we create a committee for such things? Do you get to set the standard for me? Do I get to set the standard for you?

Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God. However, this is a theology forum and Ben has produced a thoughtful argument on the theological issue. I am not saying that I agree with his position but I will listen to it because it goes well beyond homosexuality in scope. To be honest I am not interested in homosexuality as a topic which is why I have not participated in the other forum. I realize that homosexuality is the example being used so it is valid to discuss it here but I desire a true discussion that is based on as much data and facts as possible and not personal agendas or feelings that may be based on fear, hate, or prejudice.

Steve,

I respect Ben, I have personally spent time with Ben, I like him a whole lot and that won't change. He makes some legit claims (our method on interpretation is biased and flawed at points). But the flawed nature of it does not change our conclusion about the sinful nature of homosexual behavior. As you know, Ben espouses a hermeneutic that is pro-gay and will not be accepted in the CotN. It is fine for us to discuss it and disagree. I accept that, it's fair game. But this is the same logic used by Todd Clayton and the young man in the video posted by Dana Grant.

The Natural design argument has been used by Christians for....well....a long time (Catholics use it constantly). It is simple in nature, general in its scope and it seems to rely on what Christians have believed about the Bible for centuries. More importantly, it coincides with a collective social conscience that Christians have. Additionally, Christians continue to exercise corporate spiritual discernment on the matter and come to a conclusion that leads away from embracing same sex relations.

So on that basis, I think there is a place for it. Granted I am not arguing it very eloquently. And perhaps I come off as generalizing (which I admitted earlier). I wish I had the time Ben did, I could devote more to this discussion, I simply do not.

As to your point on heterosexual and the health risks they face. Of course they have health risks! That's life. But homosexual men have it in spades, the issues they face as a result of their sexual behavior shorten their life span and reduce their mental health. Heterosexual couples live longer and healthier lives, they just do. There are so many studies, discussions and debates on this, I think there is a place for it in a theological discussion.

[Hans Deventer]

Thus, I would say again....

I think that where the Bible explicitly addresses homosexuality, it condemns it. Not only does it condemn it, but I believe that these condemnations extend to cover even that which we would understand today as monogamous, homosexual marriages. However, I believe that these explicit voices are wrong. I believe this because I believe that we have been given not only explicit voices, but also implicit voices if we listen hard enough to hear them. I believe the Bible has consistently carried on the task of re-thinking and re-interpreting marriage, re-imagining it in new contexts and I believe in its doing so it has already asked us to reject other voices in the text of Scripture, even explicit voices.

I believe this to be a position that is both faithful to Scripture while at the same time stating unequivocally that some of the voices contained therein are - and can be - wrong.

It seems to me this approach leads to a larger role for the Church to define truth (read: interpret the Scriptures) than we are generally used to. In the Quadrilateral, we usually put Scripture first. Your hermeneutic seems to create more of a balance between the various elements, where Scripture both influences the others, especially tradition, but its also influenced by the Church. Influenced in the sense of being the lens through which the Scriptures are read. As you called it, "re-imagining it in new contexts".

Now that this process is already at work in the Scriptures themselves, seems obvious. The question then becomes, to what extent can we carry it on?

It's almost as if we, like Job or Moses, are pleading with God against God. I agree even this has Biblical precedent. Perhaps, sticking too woodenly to the text is being unfaithful to it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

50-100 page paper.

Let me know when it's complete, I really want to read it.

[Kyle Borger]

Ben.
Thank you for explaining in depth how you reached your conclusion.

What has Jesus been revealing to you regarding this subject? I know you are laying out the argument and some elements impact me more than others. Perhaps you have said all there is to say, but if Jesus is the final authority what is he telling you?

I hear you saying that we must move beyond loving gay people and accepting them into our churches while working to point them towards Jesus. I hear you saying that the behavior which has been considered sinful in our culture and in our churches for thousands of years should no longer be considered sinful if the act is performed within a marriage.

What do you think Jesus would have us do? How do you think the church should proceed? Keep in mind that cultures do not change overnight.

[Jon Bemis]

That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

I too am happy to be part of a denomination that has taken the stand it has taken. That is one of many reasons I am part of the COTN and in the case of homosexuality I think they are more right than those who have determined it either isn't scripturally forbidden or that scripture got it wrong.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben.
Thank you for explaining in depth how you reached your conclusion.

What has Jesus been revealing to you regarding this subject? I know you are laying out the argument and some elements impact me more than others. Perhaps you have said all there is to say, but if Jesus is the final authority what is he telling you?

Jesus has told me to be faithful to His Church. Currently, my branch of His Church is affirming of homosexual marriage. For those who know me, this is a subject which:

(1) I disagree with most of my church's exegesis/argument for it, illustrated by Matthew in the other thread
(2) I came to my opinion on my own, apart from the church I attend, and attending/joining that church had nothing to do with this topic

Therefore, my job is to be faithful to the branch of His Body which I am currently a part of. In my personal context, that is easy with my opinion, luckily, and hopefully I can help steer them towards a better hermeneutic, which I believe I have demonstrated here.

I hear you saying that we must move beyond loving gay people and accepting them into our churches while working to point them towards Jesus. I hear you saying that the behavior which has been considered sinful in our culture and in our churches for thousands of years should no longer be considered sinful if the act is performed within a marriage.

I am saying that I believe the Scriptures provide for us a hermeneutic whereby they call us into faithful re-interpretation as we continue the journey of faithfulness to Christ. I am saying that the marital and sexual ethic is already a primary topic on which this reinterpretation has taken place in Scripture itself. I am saying that the Scripture's own re-interpretation does two things:

(1) Challenges the ground on which we had once claimed homosexuality was sinful
(2) Opens up space to have the discussion of affirmation

Therefore, as I have said before on NazNet, I think that one can read the Scriptures and come away with either opinion on the issue - sinful or not sinful - and both be correct.

What do you think Jesus would have us do? How do you think the church should proceed? Keep in mind that cultures do not change overnight.

I think Jesus would have us be faithful in our own churches. That is, for Nazarenes:

Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God.

I too am happy to be part of a denomination that has taken the stand it has taken. That is one of many reasons I am part of the COTN and in the case of homosexuality I think they are more right than those who have determined it either isn't scripturally forbidden or that scripture got it wrong.

That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

I think these are wonderful examples of what faithfulness to the Body means for those who find themselves in the Church of the Nazarene.

I also believe there is always room for dissent within the Church. The question is, how do we dissent respectfully and submissively in view of the authority of the Church? How do we dissent without undermining that authority?

That's a difficult question to which I do not know the answer. There are those who are doing it in the RCC. You might be able to find someone in the RCC who can give you a very good answer.

I hope I've answered you in a way that actually answers your questions and is helpful, Kyle.

[Doug Ward]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point. It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism. Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

[Kyle Borger]

I appreciate the answer. It helps me know where your heart is and where you are coming from.

[Ben Young]

Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

Trajectory Hermeneutics is not a novel (original) concept.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point. It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism. Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

I'm not sure I can really disagree with you here. I'm not sure the original audiences would've heard what Ben is putting forth. But if we couple it with the subversive text in Galatians 3:28, and I know it is a stretch, then maybe we can reinterpret like Ben is doing. IF there is no longer male and female then husband and wife are free to take on different genders. I do agree with Ben that the Ephesians passage redefines marriage and marital, and by extension sex, roles within from understandings prior to Paul's (pseudo or post or authentic) interpretation through the lens of Christ.

[Doug Ward]

But if we couple it with the subversive text in Galatians 3:28, and I know it is a stretch, then maybe we can reinterpret like Ben is doing. IF there is no longer male and female then husband and wife are free to take on different genders.

It seems the Corinthians may have heard the Galatians 3 formula in this manner. Which gave rise to Paul's response, which we all know so well. It seems there is nothing new under the sun.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It seems the Corinthians may have heard the Galatians 3 formula in this manner. Which gave rise to Paul's response, which we all know so well. It seems there is nothing new under the sun.

I just don't see how they could get from Galatians that incest is okay. Or that licentiousness has been Ok'd. That's a stretch that even I can't make.

[Bob Hunter]

Ben,

You said, "Therefore, as I have said before on NazNet, I think that one can read the Scriptures and come away with either opinion on the issue - sinful or not sinful - and both be correct."

I am not getting that from your posts, I am getting a very strong argument FOR and a very clear message of repudiation for those who espouse a more traditional hermeneutic on this subject. Nonetheless, I am glad to hear you say it and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Your friend,

Bob

[Doug Ward]

Paul, there seems to be a gender identity issue behind at least part of 1 Corinthians. I would point out chapter 11, and perhaps chapters 6 and 7 - at least in part. If the traditional roles are no longer valid, then the laws around those roles are gone as well, including the ones governing sexual morality.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, there seems to be a gender identity issue behind at least part of 1 Corinthians. I would point out chapter 11, and perhaps chapters 6 and 7 - at least in part. If the traditional roles are no longer valid, then the laws around those roles are gone as well, including the ones governing sexual morality.

I just don't see how we can go from redefining roles to licentiousness, think that is a slippery slope argument. It just reminds me of the old argument, If any thing in the bible is wrong then it's all wrong. An argument I cannot buy or even really understand (not insinuating that you would make such an argument.)

I personally think that Paul is addressing the Delphic and Dionysian influences that seem to have entered the church at Corinth. Many of the practices, with the incest exception, were practices of these two cults. It's like the congregation, instead of leaving behind pagan practices they brought them with them into the church. However, I am no expert on the church at Corinth. I have has classes in Classics which dealt with the pagan practices and I am kind of fusing what I read, and have heard, with what I learned in those classes so long ago.

[Doug Ward]

Tangent Alert!! Paul, there are more issues in Corinth than mere licentiousness. Many have noticed that there is a blurring of gender roles at play, especially in chapter 11, perhaps imported from the Temple of Demeter. With the blurring of distinctions can come a host of problems. While I do not want to discount the possibility of immorality being one of them, we have community issues, worship issues, and how a culture perhaps looks at marriage. This seems all over 1 Corinthians.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Tangent Alert!! Paul, there are more issues in Corinth than mere licentiousness. Many have noticed that there is a blurring of gender roles at play, especially in chapter 11, perhaps imported from the Temple of Demeter. With the blurring of distinctions can come a host of problems. While I do not want to discount the possibility of immorality being one of them, we have community issues, worship issues, and how a culture perhaps looks at marriage. This seems all over 1 Corinthians.

I almost see how that could be seen in the text. It still falls within the idea that Dionysian cultic practices are what are being addressed. As a female cult men (the seer Tieresias became a woman for 7 years to be involved) may have pretended to be women. So, even is gender sliding was there we cannot separate it from pagan ritual.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

Thank you.

My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

Thank you for offering me the possibility to explain what I mean. I, too, agree, that the author of Ephesians might be a little shocked at this read. I certainly agree he wouldn't intend this. However, if you've followed me enough at this point, and throughout my time on NazNet, you'd know by now that the intent of the author, while meaning much to me, is not in any way necessarily authoritative. Instead, the authority of the text is derived from the canonization of that text and the reception of that text as Scripture by the Church, and the subsequent interpretation of that text by the Church.

Paul, on his own right, has zero authority. His letters are invested with authority by the Church canonizing and receiving his letters as Scripture.

Thus, again, I agree. The author of Ephesians - whoever that is - would be a little surprised at my reading. HOwever, I think the author's own choice of imagery and metaphor subvert his own intention. This is a thoroughly postmodern hermeneutic. I am reading his text for what the words actually say, not for what he meant to say. After all, it is the words, as they are, that are Scripture, not the words as the author intended them.

I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point.

While I appreciate your input, I thoroughly disagree.

It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism.

We are neither the author, nor Jewish.

Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Jesus and Paul both were humans, thoroughly imbeded in culture. I would not expect them to disagree, nor should we. They were people of their time. We should expect as much. For Paul and Jesus to radically disagree with the contemporary culture would raise red flags for me, and I would consider it immediately suspect.

As I've said before, the Bible does not transcend time and culture. If it were to appear to do so, I would be immensely concerned.

Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

I have attempted to use this caution by acknowledging that the decision is only possible because the text opens up the ground for us to make that move. Without which, we could not do so.

From there, 2,000 years is an infinity in scientific understanding. If it seems arrogant, so be it. I don't see it as such, I see it as natural. We know things they couldn't have known in their wildest dreams. Some day, 10,000 years from now, when jesus has still not returned, someone wil once again carry on the tradition of re-interpreting the law like Moses, in a new time, new place, new context, and what we knew today will look outmoded. This is the nature of knowledge. 2,000 years of learning is a looooooooong time. I expect 10,000 years to be even longer. I should expect we will ahve been wrong, and that those who come after us will know a little better.....

And so on, and so on, and so on.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

In the end, my hope is that the sloppy hermeneutics and interpretation utilized by my Church, the ECUSA, will be done away with, and a better, more thorough, honest, thoughtful, and contemporary hermeneutic can be used to discuss this issue seriously, which also is able to say what I've said here.

Those of us who affirm monogamous, homosexual marriage should be supportive of those Christians who see submission the Church's interperpretation as the right interpretation. We should be supportive of them, not dismissive. We should also ahve a serious hermeneutical alternaive, not the nonsense we've offered so far.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thank you.




Thank you for offering me the possibility to explain what I mean. I, too, agree, that the author of Ephesians might be a little shocked at this read. I certainly agree he wouldn't intend this. However, if you've followed me enough at this point, and throughout my time on NazNet, you'd know by now that the intent of the author, while meaning much to me, is not in any way necessarily authoritative. Instead, the authority of the text is derived from the canonization of that text and the reception of that text as Scripture by the Church, and the subsequent interpretation of that text by the Church.

Paul, on his own right, has zero authority. His letters are invested with authority by the Church canonizing and receiving his letters as Scripture.

Thus, again, I agree. The author of Ephesians - whoever that is - would be a little surprised at my reading. HOwever, I think the author's own choice of imagery and metaphor subvert his own intention. This is a thoroughly postmodern hermeneutic. I am reading his text for what the words actually say, not for what he meant to say. After all, it is the words, as they are, that are Scripture, not the words as the author intended them.



While I appreciate your input, I thoroughly disagree.



We are neither the author, nor Jewish.



Jesus and Paul both were humans, thoroughly imbeded in culture. I would not expect them to disagree, nor should we. They were people of their time. We should expect as much. For Paul and Jesus to radically disagree with the contemporary culture would raise red flags for me, and I would consider it immediately suspect.

As I've said before, the Bible does not transcend time and culture. If it were to appear to do so, I would be immensely concerned.



I have attempted to use this caution by acknowledging that the decision is only possible because the text opens up the ground for us to make that move. Without which, we could not do so.

From there, 2,000 years is an infinity in scientific understanding. If it seems arrogant, so be it. I don't see it as such, I see it as natural. We know things they couldn't have known in their wildest dreams. Some day, 10,000 years from now, when jesus has still not returned, someone wil once again carry on the tradition of re-interpreting the law like Moses, in a new time, new place, new context, and what we knew today will look outmoded. This is the nature of knowledge. 2,000 years of learning is a looooooooong time. I expect 10,000 years to be even longer. I should expect we will ahve been wrong, and that those who come after us will know a little better.....

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I should elaborate:

The idea that the "authorial intent" is what we need to "get back to" and is that which is "authoritative" is a complete fabrication by modernity which does not have a comfortable home in Christian theology. Michael C. Legaspi's doctoral disseration has been very important to me in this realization. The modern mindset held that the "original" was the best, the "pure", and "unadulterated", and this was what was "authoritative." The beginning of this task lies in Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, whereby he used the Greek, instead of the Vulgate, rejecting the vulgate's place as Scripture, in exchange for a "textual" concept of the New Testament and, thus, its authority.

I thoroughly disagree.

[Benjamin Burch]

I am not getting that from your posts, I am getting a very strong argument FOR and a very clear message of repudiation for those who espouse a more traditional hermeneutic on this subject.

I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.

[Bob Hunter]

I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.

Now I think you have done a bit more than you care to admit. You have articulated 3 very thorough responses to our current mode of understanding. Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe. You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well. Your position is that of an open an affirming Church which we are not. Just as I have confessed my particular biases, so must you. I would just encourage you to be totally forthcoming to NN readers.

I freely confess that I am not pro-gay LGBT! I embrace the historical Nazarene position. But I love gay people. Remember, my step-sister is gay, been loving her in spite of it for decades. I'm still not convinced it is God's best for us. Just don't see it.

[Doug Ward]

The idea that the "authorial intent" is what we need to "get back to" and is that which is "authoritative" is a complete fabrication by modernity which does not have a comfortable home in Christian theology. Michael C. Legaspi's doctoral disseration has been very important to me in this realization. The modern mindset held that the "original" was the best, the "pure", and "unadulterated", and this was what was "authoritative." The beginning of this task lies in Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, whereby he used the Greek, instead of the Vulgate, rejecting the vulgate's place as Scripture, in exchange for a "textual" concept of the New Testament and, thus, its authority.

I thoroughly disagree.

Ben, I know you will understand my response, and know that it is not offered as a means to argue with you. Rather, it is offered for those following the conversation. You have identified the main point of contention between you and I. I understand what you are doing with the text - it is thoughtful. I also think it is an unpaved road that leads to nowhere. You think there is rich veins of meaning completely disconnected from authorial intent, I think that approach is folly. While I do not believe that we must remain in the first century, I do believe quite strongly that we must go back and spend considerable time there. The message we take to our world today must not run counter to the original message. The original intent must act as an anchor.

Without that anchor that keeps us rooted in the historical world of the text, Scripture becomes little more than whatever the majority world of a current time and place makes it out to be. The text is adrift on the sea of this, or any culture. So even while every child sings "Zaccheus was a wee, little man, and a wee little man was he," that text is NOT about Jesus ministry to all short people. The first readers would not have fixated on height, but on the role of a chief tax collector in a town where Herod Antipas was residing in his huge palace. The first readers would have understood the anger and the deprivation of the people at the hands of Herod. They would have understood his outsider status, and the radical nature of a Jesus who invited this collector. Instead, we have a song about short people.

I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim? Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

[Benjamin Burch]

Now I think you have done a bit more than you care to admit. You have articulated 3 very thorough responses to our current mode of understanding. Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe. You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well. Your position is that of an open an affirming Church which we are not. Just as I have confessed my particular biases, so must you. I would just encourage you to be totally forthcoming to NN readers.

I will say again....

I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.

Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe.

Thank you, and yes, I agree.

You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well.

I would want to say that this is not a pro-gay hermeneutic in the sense that I arrived at this hermeneutic from an attempt at a pro-gay hermeneutic. Instead, I want to say that this is something the text does for us, and that this does open up the space to propose a pro-LGT theology.

[Benjamin Burch]

First of all, thank you, Doug, for your response. I think we can do well in articulating what we think and where we disagree without arguing, and I hope you'll read my next response as an attempt to follow your lead here.

Ben, I know you will understand my response, and know that it is not offered as a means to argue with you. Rather, it is offered for those following the conversation. You have identified the main point of contention between you and I. I understand what you are doing with the text - it is thoughtful. I also think it is an unpaved road that leads to nowhere. You think there is rich veins of meaning completely disconnected from authorial intent, I think that approach is folly. While I do not believe that we must remain in the first century, I do believe quite strongly that we must go back and spend considerable time there. The message we take to our world today must not run counter to the original message. The original intent must act as an anchor.

I agree to a degree, as I tend to want to get towards Paul's "authorial intent."

However, most of our theology is based upon Scriptural interpretation which is disconnected from the authors' original intent.

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.

(By the way, check out this article sometime. I don't know if you've seen it, and if you haven't I think you'd find it interesting. If you have, ignore me! )

I would contend that the very nature of the idea of Scripture is that the reception of the text as Scripture by the community which receives it as such is the means by which that text receives meaning and authority which the text does not have in its own right. We believe that it is not the author behind the text, nor that author's intent which makes the text Scripture, but the divine agent who lives and speaks within and through those texts, giving them meaning.

The Church of the Nazarene even moved towards recognizing this in 1928 when it stopped suggesting that Scripture "contained" the will of God, but that it, instead, reveals the will of God. This is the fundamental difference between a "text" and "Scripture." When we make the claim that our Bibles are "Scripture", we make a theological claim about them which goes beyond textuality.

I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim?

Well, hopefully my approach has shown that the text itself would keep us from this. After all, I'm trying to work with what the text actually says, the words it actually uses, and the images it actually uses. Thus, I would like to say the actual text itself keeps us from doing this.

Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

I'd agree. I don't think that I've suggested it means "the opposite of what the original intent desired", but that it includes more beyond just what the author desired.

[Hans Deventer]

I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim? Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

Now I am pushing this a little, but it would lead me to the following:

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." and original intent was to speak about a young women who would give birth to a son, and the promise that the countries feared at that moment, will be empty by the time the boy reached his teens. Has nothing to do with a Messiah, a virgin birth, whatever. That's nowhere in the text. And Matthew, being part of the Church, was dead wrong reading anything else in it. The Church has no right to interpret this text significantly different from how it was intended.

Could of course also have chosed "Out of Egypt I called my son".

I will have to disagree here. I very much believe in seeking the original intent of a verse of Scripture. But even the Bible itself doesn't leave it there. And the Church has sanctioned these different readings and has considered them Scripture.

[Benjamin Burch]

I would like to thank everyone, again, for being gracious listeners and dialogue partners, and for offering me the opportunity to articulate and explain myself without having to be defensive. It has been very helpful for me to communicate these things in this forum (literally and figuratively - the dialogue "forum" as well as the PT Forum).

[Benjamin Burch]

Now I am pushing this a little, but it would lead me to the following:

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." and original intent was to speak about a young women who would give birth to a son, and the promise that the countries feared at that moment, will be empty by the time the boy reached his teens. Has nothing to do with a Messiah, a virgin birth, whatever. That's nowhere in the text. And Matthew, being part of the Church, was dead wrong reading anything else in it. The Church has no right to interpret this text significantly different from how it was intended.

Could of course also have chosed "Out of Egypt I called my son".

I will have to disagree here. I very much believe in seeking the original intent of a verse of Scripture. But even the Bible itself doesn't leave it there. And the Church has sanctioned these different readings and has considered them Scripture.

I beat you to it.

[Hans Deventer]

I beat you to it.

Oh dear, did I overlook something?

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh dear, did I overlook something?

??? I didn't suggest you did, did I?

[Hans Deventer]

??? I didn't suggest you did, did I?

I thought you meant to say you already covered my example in a post. But I can't find it.

[Benjamin Burch]

I thought you meant to say you already covered my example in a post. But I can't find it.

Ah, then yes, maybe you did overlook something.

This post.

However, most of our theology is based upon Scriptural interpretation which is disconnected from the authors' original intent.

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.

You were, of course, a little more thorough!

[Bob Hunter]

I would want to say that this is not a pro-gay hermeneutic in the sense that I arrived at this hermeneutic from an attempt at a pro-gay hermeneutic. Instead, I want to say that this is something the text does for us, and that this does open up the space to propose a pro-LGT theology.

No, my friend. What you have articulated could have come right from the mouth of someone who advocates a pro-LGT hermeneutic. You are parroting many of things, using the same logic, pressing the same contextual issues, etc.. Your approach to scripture is strangely similar. Let's just call it what it is. I'll be glad to admit that my position is more in line with the natural order/design (God created male and female one for another). Heck, let's just be honest. "Something the text does for us?" Now, that is a matter of opinion and hermeneutics. What the text allows and doesn't allow is based on our heremeneutic and how far we let it take us. It also depends upon our social and cultural values, the assumptions we bring to the text, etc. There is a lot that goes into that statement. If anyone should be pro-gay, it's me. But I'm not.

I do appreciate the discussion though. It's a tough one.