Gay Africa

For those of us who label homosexual practice as a sin it can be easy to get muddled up about government attempts to legislate and prosecute sexual behavior. There is a difference between legislation designed to protect the vulnerable from victimization and that which tries to monitor and control consensual relationships. We must stand up for children and women at risk. Society must create a safe environment for its citizens, free from rape, chronic abuse and exploitation. But while the church can condemn adultery, fornication, pornography, prostitution and homosexuality as corrosive behavior we shouldn’t try to police them. The church exists as a society within a society. We have an obligation to God’s Word and his flock to strive toward purity. But outside the walls of the church our role is different. We can be prophets of truth but never legislators of behavior. That’s why a theocracy like ancient Israel failed from the beginning. A quick survey of the crude and androcentric laws found in the Book of Numbers show just how wrong we can get it.

I like to quote Jesus’ words to the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” This is a good model for our own approach to sinners. But I think I have underestimated the importance of Jesus’ earlier statement, “Let the one without sin throw the first stone.” In other words, Jesus knew she was guilty but he defended her from an unjust political system just the same. That makes me slightly uncomfortable. To be honest, my first impulse is to cheer when I hear that two Malawian gays have been arrested for “gross indecency.” But I think Jesus would have us defend these two men. I read that in Kenya it is estimated that 15% of HIV infections are caused by homosexual behavior. This is meant to be, in the very conservative African culture, a shocking number. But we should be more concerned by the 85% percent of infections that are caused by heterosexual contact. Heterosexuals in Malawi are throwing stones at a tiny homosexual minority. We should be outraged that a Somali woman was stoned to death in November for committing adultery. But we should be just as concerned by the recent move by the Ugandan parliament to expand laws on punishing homosexual behavior.

Desmond Dube as BK in the No. 1 Ladies' Detective AgencyIn the recent BBC/HBO TV series The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, Desmond Dube plays BK, a lampoonish gay character who acts as a foil to Mma Romotswe’s strong feminine character. He’s meant to bring comic relief to a mostly serious cast. Unfortunately, BK is an invention of the show’s producers who never appears in the original books by Alexander McCall Smith. It’s a shame that they chose to invent this gay character since so much of the TV series is excellent. I would give my unqualified recommendation to this series for its depiction of the complex beauty and difficulty of life in Africa except for the unrealistic character of BK. Why not give an honest depiction of the marginalization and persecution of homosexuals in Africa? The TV series tackles serious topics such as human trafficking, corruption and HIV. But on this topic they went for slapstick.

American Evangelical Christians are being blamed in Africa for the recent events in Uganda. That’s a pity. There’s far more culture than religion motivating the events there. As Christians we need to speak clearly about our position on the sanctity of marriage and the dignity of procreation and human sexuality. But we must steer clear of aligning ourselves with human institutions and laws that seek to legislate morality. Jesus was able to promote marriage, condemn divorce and defend an adulteress without any sense of contradiction. We need to master that subtle balancing act before our religion can properly impact our culture.

(Here are some links if you're looking more information on the situation of homosexuality in Malawi, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda.)

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (57)

What is 'honest'? I trust that your opinion is honest. But one of these things is not like the others: marginalization, persecution, human trafficking, corruption, HIV, and same-sex tenderness. A sinner might choose sexual dominance of any type to make a point - such as me-first and I'm stronger than you, but no one would chose to be homosexual.
"American Evangelical Christians are being blamed in Africa for the recent events in Uganda. That’s a pity. There’s far more culture than religion motivating the events there."

David, Are you talking about the NYT piece yesterday by Jeffrey Gettleman? The reporter quotes (and links online to) an expose by "the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals": “What these people [American evangelical Christians] have done is set the fire they can’t quench.” (In his essay, Kaoma gives a "History of U.S. Conservatives [even Christian conversatives] in Africa" and points to what he says African leaders are touting as the "Neocolonial relationship" between Western imperialism and homosexuality.) Gettleman in the NYT concludes that "Uganda is an exceptionally lush, mostly rural country where conservative Christian groups wield enormous influence." It's tough to sift out what's African cultureS and what's religious motivationS. Is it Ugandan politics versus the masses? Is it certain Christian groups but not others? Kaoma is an Anglican priest from Zambia, whose carefully-researched perspectives seem reliable and valid, and as sympathetic to gays as you say Jesus is. Any help here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01...

Bob, at its core sexuality is for procreation. I can use my toes for typing or my head for a sledgehammer but that's not what they were made for. In the case of homosexuality it's specifically condemned by Scripture which is a second strike against it. I participate in same-sex tenderness all the time with my sons, my male friends, etc. But when someone crosses over to same-sex sexual stimulation that is a different scenario.

JK, thanks for the link to the article. I'll check it out.
Does that mean that only non-christians can legislate behavior? Every legal system legislates behavior. We regulate at what age adults can have consensual sex, we regulate non-consensual sex like rape. We legislate against unwanted sexual overtures in the workplace. We regulate against lying in financial matters, fighting in public, indecent exposure, and on and on. Why is indecent exposure OK in African tribes but not OK in New York City? Do our laws have a religious and moral basis or are they just simply majority rule. And even if that is your opinion, do Christians not have a right to weigh in on the issues? Should Christians abstain from voting on these issues?

Our legal system is based on a Judeo/Christian moral code. One can say there might be love and tenderness in a sexual tryst between a 30 year old man and a 16 year old girl, but love or tenderness does not make it right. The Bible is very clear about the wrongness of homosexual behavior in Old testament laws, Old testament examples, New Testament prohibitions and extensive citations by Paul. No one is saying it is worse than sex between a minor and an adult or theft or lying. But that does not mean that homosexuality is OK or neutral. Jesus never said that the woman caught in adultery was innocent or right or was simply born genetically predisposed to sexual promiscuity or had a reasonable excuse. He percieved the woman caught in adultery was experiencing a major heart change which is why he said “go and sin no more”.
Rick, thanks for commenting. There's a lot of truth in what you say. In terms of local or national governments, it is culture that determines right and wrong and those rules can in fact be quite arbitrary. South Africa has written into its constitution laws to protect and bless same-sex unions while most neighboring countries haven't.
Does that mean that right and wrong are cultural and quite arbitrary? Is South Africa’s law blessing same-sex marriages neither right nor wrong but simply arbitrary? I would guess there was some fiery debate on that issue and unfortunately a libertine point of view prevailed. Are Christian morals only true for Christians or are there things that are true for the entire human race no matter their cultural differences? The whole point of Romans chapter 1 is that many of those cultural differences, (choosing our gods, choosing our morals, our sexual behavior) are evidence of a refusal to recognize our creator. Why even use the word truth or right or wrong if all laws are arbitrary and cultural. Am I just a cultural conservative Christian and Bob a cultural liberal Chrisitian? Sould I discount Bob’s opinion and he mine or can we agree on and argue from a universal, objective standard.
That's why I called the church a society within a society. Our absolutes are not theirs and while we can be a voice of truth we can't be the ones writing the laws. So yes I am saying that on a pluralistic and complex planet that right and wrong are arbitrary. (The same could be said to an extent about the various manifestations of Christ's church but that's a topic for another time)
Wow. If our absolutes aren’t true for everyone, then they aren’t true for us either. Why even call them absolutes? Christianity is a sham. A cultural artifact believed only by people accidentally brought up within a Christian culture.

If Christians can't exercise their legal rights to express their moral values at the ballot box, then who do we leave the writing of our laws to? I know muslims are eager to jump into the gap with shariah law. Right and wrong are arbitrary? Arbitrary? God's moral laws are absolute, given by revelation, built into our consciences and every person on the planet will be held accountable to them. That is the message of Romans 1.
Rick, you forgot to read Romans 2 to put the rhetoric of Romans 1 in its context. Absolute is like objective, non-existent. Inferences from other people's statements also need more time to process. Your list of texts above are all out of their context and do not apply in the way you want to apply them.
Please provide a specific citation of Jesus saying that the reason he said "go and sin no more" is that the woman caught in adultery was experiencing a major heart change. It is to be hoped that, as a result of the way Jesus handled the situation, she did experience a major heart change. But I can find nothing in the passage of the Gospels describing this incident which shows either that she was experiencing such a change, before Jesus spoke, or that this was the reason Jesus spoke as he did. From my earliest Sunday school years, I have always learned that Jesus was telling a crowd of hypocrites, you can't stone this woman to death, you are not free of sin either. I still can't find any other way to read the passage, no matter how much you would like to distinguish why Jesus said what he said.

I am reminded of a presentation at a retreat some years ago, which pointed out that, while homosexuality is not part of God's plan, booty call every day isn't part of God's plan either, so why do heterosexual men who indulge in adultery think they are any better than a man who follows homosexual inclinations?
Speaking of absolutes at all is extremely dangerous, unless the speaker is God Almighty in person. We have had experience in human history with religious bureaucracies dictating to secular authorities, secular authorities maneuvering to gain influence with religious bureaucracies, etc. To administer absolutes properly requires an absolutely perfect judge, as noted in the original post. Last I knew, there is only one. Also be careful about citing a "Judeo-Christian" moral code. Consider, for example, that nothing in the Old Testament prohibits polygamy, and Jewish marriages were not limited to the monogamous until the middle ages, when rabbis adopted the rule of monogamy to reduce friction with already hostile Christian neighbors. In the 20th century, Jews in Arabic-speaking countries were still conducting polygamous marriages, and some are still alive in Israel today, although no polygamous marriages are being conducted in Israel under Israeli law.

In Muslim nations, consumption of alcohol is formally prohibited. We tried that here, at the urging of evangelical Protestants, and decided to repeal it. Where is the absolute moral position here? A simple way to sort is, if a church teaches that alcohol is a sin, or that homosexuality is a sin, then don't do it if you wish to be a communicant member of the church. Exercise of secular police power should focus on, is another person injured, and, will criminal law, penalties, and enforcement have more beneficial than harmful impact on the entire community?
JK, I forgot to mention that the harshest Ugandan legislation is directed at those who exploit children or paralytics. I would be happy to let that legislation stand (imprisonment not death penalty) if it also included heterosexual abuse.
David, we will have to continue to disagree. Our words are not sufficiently nuanced for this subject. I don't disagree with many of your points. But morality and utility are not necessarily related. Why does food taste so good? Is it only for the stomach? What is the Anointed One doing today? God is telling us to reread these instructions and understand them differently. Any other option removes Christ from those who are different from us. Our theological thinking systems are not sufficient to this subject which is like the wobble in the orbit of Mercury to Newtonian mechanics. I stress in my thinking system that there is no possibility of moral behaviour without consecrating obedience to the death of Jesus - so all our behaviours related to food and sexuality must be consecrated through living out our baptism into him by the Spirit (Romans 6) - but when the Spirit conforms a homosexual to this death, the resurrected one is not necessarily changed into a heterosexual but into a redeemed homosexual. Do we not trust the Spirit to lead such a person? Must we hedge him or her about with laws? Is it to the law that we owe our own salvation?
Yes we must hedge him or her with laws. Let’s use another example then. How about a sexual relationship between a loving 25 year old and faithful 15 year old? Should we repeal the law if they become Christians? Does Jesus example with the woman at the well mean that as loving Christian we should repeal laws relating to moral behavior? Also, are you seem to be relegating salvation to a gnostic fire insurance experience. Salvation is not by works, but is an admission that my behavior is offensive to God, I agree with God, and by faith in Christ I receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and the power to change. Now that I have experienced regeneration, I steal no longer, I lie no longer, I refrain from same sex relationships. Stealing now should make me ill, or I would question the person’s salvation. God makes provision for falling but I don’t think he makes provision for entering into a covenant disagreeing with Him about sin and with no intention to ever change.

The first century gospel message was:
Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God.

In cases where Christians cannot or will not change their behavior, susch as the corinthian that was sleeping with his mother-in-law, Paul put him outside the church (but not outside the redemptive grace of God).
While I believe that the law (human law, backed up by police powers) should protect vulnerable 15 year olds from sexual exploitation by 25 year olds, I am still troubled by the case of the 19 year old who had slept with a 12 year old, who genuinely wanted to marry him, only to see him taken to prison on a 40 year sentence, where he was promptly killed by other inmates, for refusing homosexual sex. The law is a very blunt instrument, and needs to be applied very carefully. One hundred or two hundred years ago, 15 was considered a perfectly suitable age for a girl to marry. There are sound reasons to say otherwise now, but, those reasons are mostly social and cultural.
Thanks, Bob. You know that I love you and respect your opinon and hope to learn from you. You are so right that the melodramas and caricatures of BBC or even this post can't begin to manage the nuances of a very complex situation like this. Since this is an evangelical blog, I am addressing my ideas more to evangelicals and our tendency to confuse our conservative culture with Gospel truth. That's why I led off with the very in-your-face statement. Personally I can't deconstruct the Bible to the point where it condones homosexuality any more than I can read it as an ecological tract or an emancipation manifesto.
Thanks David - we have a very difficult subject here - no doubt. I think our comments should not be ruled by our disgust. Paul certainly did not frame his 55 step argument in Romans this way. I also am not an antinomial believer. Good governance is necessary. Nor am I a gnostic - whatever is meant by that label.
David thank you for this thoughful and though-provoking piece on a tough subject.
Years ago I preached on the text on the ten lepers where only one returns to give thanks to Jesus, we had recently had difficult discussions about homosexuality in the parish - might the 9 who go on their way without giving thanks be heterosexuals and the one who turns back to give thanks a homosexual?
All lepers were excluded in biblical times, marginalised. It is the Samaritan (doubly excluded) former leper who turns back and gives thanks - - very much food for honest reflection on both who we exclude and if we ever give thanks.
90% of us don't even reflect on how Christ has encouraged us to show ourselves to the priest and reintegrate society. unfortunately many of our societies - and not only in African countries - also hold up unwillingness to integrate the "unclean" as a virtue.
So thank you for writing so clearly about the big problem which is violence against women and children and heterosexual transmission of disease.
Your analogy doesn't hold up. Yes all ten lepers were marginalized and excluded much like homosexuals. But all ten asked to be changed. All ten were changed, but only one returned to give thanks. We don't integrate the "unclean" into the church. We agree with God that we are sinful and Jesus cleanses, forgives, heals and integrates us into the body. Ad David MacDonald says (or claims) we are not antinomial.
Rick, thanks for your comment. I disagree.
I was under the impression that the lepers were suffering from an illness (leprosy) and not from sin. They were asking for healing.
Let me also be clear that I don't equate "being" homosexual with "being" sinful anymore than I equate "being" heterosexual with "being" righteous. I am certainly as sinful a person as many of the homosexuals I know, as much in need of transformation and cleansing. I know many celibate homosexuals. I know many who live in faithful long term relationships. I can also fortunately say the same about many heterosexuals I know. I also have many friends who have left partners with whom they have had children and founded new relationships and had further children. I have welcomed them and many other sinners and impure people at the Lord's table - and I have presided that table knowing that I too am far from the transformed human being Christ calls me to be.
It sometimes seems to me that as divorce rates increase there has been a need amongst some of us in the church to look for a new sin to condemn that is not too close to home.
So easy to point to the need for healing in the unknown other and assume that their "lifestyle" is more impure than our own. The many stones of sin in my own hand would be - being rich (oh how difficult it is for a rich woman to get into the kingdom of heaven), being fat (not treating my body as temple of the Holy spirit), not practising the beatitudes or hearing the magnificat call sufficiently. Despite these very great failings (and the Bible has a lot to say about how we use our wealth) I still trust that Christ integrates me with grace and forgiveness to his table and church.
Thanks for your comment - it led me to express this in this way at this time. I don't expect you to agree with me but I'm glad we're having this momentary exchange.
Peace
Jane
Jane, you compared homosexuality to leprosy, not me. You castigated 90% of us for failing to integrate the unclean into the church. What does that mean? Who are the unclean we are marginalizing? And are we inventing a new sin to condemn? This is a very old sin that is clearly condemned extensively in both the old and new testaments. What has changed is that homosexuality is now being redefined as a valid alternative lifestyle worthy of respect and promotion from grade school classes and middle school clubs to celebration of gay marriages. Having homosexual feelings is not necessarily sin, acting on them is. Paul includes homosexuality with theft and lying in his pronouncements against sin. So gay sex is no worse than theft, but neither is it any better. The adulterer or greedy rich person is not better than the homosexual, they all require repentance. If the Bible has any validity at all.
Rick, you say "This is a very old sin that is clearly condemned extensively in both the old and new testaments." I wonder why Jesus never condemned this sin? Did he ever mention it, ever as sin? Wasn't Jesus more in the habit of taking what was "clearly condemned extensively" and turning it around on the condemners? Didn't he with hyperbole and parable make the standards very very different from the once "clearly condemned extensively"? I'm not trying to say any NT epistle writer who might have ostensibly "condemned" homosexuality to be contradicting the Jesus of the gospels. I am trying to say that maybe the NT "condemnations" are not as clear as we might want to make them. If anyone is born a slave, or a woman, or a gay man or a gay woman, -- or if anyone finds that for whatever cause they are gay -- doesn't this compare with other difficulties? Paul is regulating these in his epistles, isn't he? And does the OT and NT as "clearly condemn extensively" the other situations (and sins) Jane mentions: getting a "divorce" or "being rich ..., being fat ..., not practising the beatitudes or hearing the magnificat call sufficiently"?
Fantastic ideas here. It is truly hypocritical of the Church to preach Jesus and then try to legislate God's morality. Our method of evangelism is backwards and something that is akin to the time of the Crusades (minus the death parts).

Change hearts, not laws.

The Church continues to loose believers because we spending too much time worshiping the god of legislation and not the God of Truth. What a shame and a waste.
Yeah. I agree. William Wilberforce’s principled Christian agruments against slavery were a waste of time. He should have concentrated on changing the slavemaster’s hearts instead of passing legislation. So many Catholic priests broke the law against having sex with minors, it just shows our hypocrisy for Christians to support these laws. So, let’s not fight the Man Boy Love Association’s lobbying and let’s agree to lower the age of consent or get rid of it altogether. Jesus forgave the tax collector who was stealing people’s money, why can’t we, in the spirit of Christ’s love, forgive tax cheats and repeal that mean law. Jesus isn’t mean. We shouldn’t be trying legislate God’s narrow minded morality on society. In fact, Christian’s shouldn’t even comment publicly on these laws, it just detracts from our witness. After all, the 10 commandments are almost 4,000 years old. No wonder Christians are declining in America. Trying to rescue young girls from sexual slavery in Indonesia is just a new Holy Crusade. Who are we to meddle with people’s different cultural ideas of what’s right and wrong. I’m with you, fantastic ideas.
I think you have neglected a major part of the OP:

"There is a difference between legislation designed to protect the vulnerable from victimization and that which tries to monitor and control consensual relationships."

Certainly, we need to draft reasonable laws to keep society safe. Protecting the unborn, protecting children and adults from a wide variety of predators who wish to assault, maim, kill, or steal from is imperative.

However, when it comes to frivolous legislation, modern man is king. We draft laws "in the name of God" all over the place that are better handled in other ways (via changing hearts). It is interesting that you mention slavery as that is a great example. In the name of God, we abolished slavery. The net result (that was predicted by General Lee himself in his memoirs) is a highly oppressed class of American citizens. General Lee, while fighting for the South, postulated that simply abolishing slavery would be worse for the slaves. He writes that the right way to do it would be to educate them and train them so that they could learn how to be responsible and respectful citizens, not to cut them loose.

Not to long ago, "in the name of God" I listened to a presentation at a church were the people were exhorted to sign a petition that would regulate how strippers conducted business in their clubs. This is hypocritical and frivolous. If the people who pushed for those kinds of laws really cared about the people that they wish to oppress, they would love them and show them Christ. Instead, all they do is show them condemnation and penalty for dancing too close to their audience. How does this show Christ?

Rick, there is a simple and obvious distinction to be made here. Homosexual behavior, assuming it is harmful, harms only the people engaged in it. It does not harm me, physically, nor does it endanger my soul. Slavery is the forceful, physical appropriation of another person's body, for any and all purposes. There is a simple distinction to be made here:

Injure or trespass upon another person, and the law, earthly law, police law, will restrain you.

Act in manner which harms only you, and you will not go to prison for it, but that says nothing about whether you will, or will not, go to hell for it.

Those are two distinct jurisdictions. It is far more appropriate to add spiritual fervor to stopping an evil such as slavery, than to add police power to stopping a spiritual evil, which may include homosexuality.
I appreciate the articulate manner in which you voice your reply, Siarlys, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. While the distinction may perhaps be simple and obvious, I do not agree with your conclusion that homosexual behavior (and I am assuming it IS harmful because God calls it sin in His Word) harms only the people engaged in it. Homosexual behavior (and you might want to define "behavior"; I am including sexual behavior here) unravels the fabric of society by going directly against the God-given model for an intimate, sexual relationship (which is to occur only within the boundary of the marriage of a husband and wife). When sin is allowed to go unchecked (and not only unchecked, but encouraged in the case of homosexuality), this eventually harms others in society. (And lest you think I am being unfair or judgmental, let me be quick to say that every other sin has this same effect on society as well. I am not singling out homosexuality here; it's just the topic of discussion at the moment. Sin is sin.)
I believe that homosexuality is, at the very least, a deviation from the norm. The union of one man and one woman reunites the Adam, the original complete image of God, which homosexual sex does not. But, I also accept that in every generation, a significant minority of people are attracted primarily to individuals of their own sex, not the opposite one. Leviticus not only condemns homosexuality, it prescribes death for it. The logical conclusion of "it is sinful, therefore it harms the entire society" would be to root them out and kill them all. I'm not willing to do that, and I don't feel called to do that. It would be irresponsible of me to stand by and let others do that. If we are not prepared to imprison or execute people for homosexuality, then we have to accept that they exist and will do what they do.

We do not have to teach our children that it is a good thing, or a good example to follow, we do not have to redefine marriage, and there is no reason a church needs to stop teaching that it is a sin. We should treat it similar to the way a church which forbids consumption of alcohol must treat drinking, since Prohibition was repealed. Call it a sin, if you wish, excommunicate those who drink, but understand that people who choose that path cannot be suppressed or imprisoned for it. Also, some churches will teach differently: Catholics and Jews will drink, so will Presbyterians these days, and the Metropolitan Baptist Church will teach that homosexuality is OK, as they come forward for the altar call.
As I suspected, you and I will continue to disagree on such issues. That's okay. It makes for a lively discussion. You make me sound awfully harsh, and that is not what I intended, or what I said. God's word is the standard, and it's clear on the matter of homosexuality. But I never suggested we line anyone up before a firing squad! Good grief, who would be left if we did that?! Instead, we are to share God's grace, share what we know--the good news that Jesus was a perfect sacrifice whose shed blood washes away sin, and He calls us to repentance. I don't condemn anyone. The Holy Spirit convicts, though.
I think Rick asks a good question: can we agree on and argue from a universal, objective standard?

Let me suggest that we should agree not to argue in a negative sense - we should agree to avoid name-calling like libertine as if only our own judgment qualifies as 'right'. As Paul notes in another disputed passage, it is not our custom to argue. Now as to objective standard, it is clear that we must govern ourselves and judge ourselves, but it is not given to us to judge our brothers and sisters as objects - This is the inner envelope of the whole epistle to the Romans. (The outer envelope is the obedience of faith.)

Is it possible to set up a legal standard against which we judge others? We must - but how will we know how to judge? If the Bible were able to provide such a 'standard', why do we have any disagreement? If our disagreement is in good faith, then who will be the arbiter? There is only one who can arbitrate effectively and he refused to condemn. What was the content of the phrase 'go and sin no more'? What objective standard does this refer to?

I doubt that there are any of us who can say we have made no mistakes with respect to this subject. I recall the passage in Job in the middle of his self-defense. He speaks twice saying - 'this is iniquity for intercessors' - (chapter 31:11 and 28) once with respect to heterosexual immorality and once with respect to idolatry. You will find the culturally driven King James version reads - this is iniquity to be punished by the judge. The phrase concerning 'punishment' is not in the Hebrew and no one quite knows what the word translated judge means. It comes from the root PLL, to pray, from which we also have the name for the Psalms TPLLIM. Why did the KJV translate these two 'problems' as demanding 'judgment'? Does our Lord Jesus agree? Or does he say, this kind only comes out by prayer, or, little children, keep yourselves from idols?

If I was called to set up a law, it would be against the things that are unequal, exploitative, destructive to others, or self-serving. This is a subject that is filled with pain. It is not helped by some kinds of argumentative behaviour. But it may be helped in each one of us by obeying the command to pray.
Bob: I called no one here a libertine. Nor would I ever, unless one embraced that definition. You are my brother and I am sorry if you in any took my tone to be insulting in any way. I said a libertine point of view appears to have won in South Africa. (A lifestyle or pattern of behavior characterized by self-indulgence and lack of restraint, especially one involving sexual promiscuity and rejection of religious or other moral authority).

I certainly don’t want to argue in the sense of being argumentative. Only in the sense that one argues a case before a judge.

Unfortunately the Bible is as explicit as it could possibly be on the subject the subject of homosexual behavior. The citations are numerous and expressed in many biblical passages. As David Ker said, “I can't deconstruct the Bible to the point where it condones homosexuality any more than I can read it as an ecological tract or an emancipation manifesto.” It would be strangely hypocritical of me (Rick) to pretend otherwise. The apostle Luke commends the Bereans for their devotion to proving out the truthfulness of Paul’s doctrine by studying the scriptures and using them as an arbiter. Of course, there were many Pharisees who knew the Tanach as well as they or even better and drew a different conclusion. That does not mean that the Bereans were wrong in believing they could arrive at the truth or that they should equivocate on Jesus being the messiah. The Bereans position was that the scriptures were clear to any person honestly willing to accept the truth. Because the Pharisees believed differently does not mean we can dismiss the Bible as being an incomprehensible cultural artifact.

I am not sure what you mean by “judging our brothers and sisters as objects” but I don’t think I am doing that. My goal has been to stay close to the scriptural “arguement”, as the Bereans did, not insult anyone. We have way too much that we agree on for me to be critical of any individual. Plus I have many logs in my eye for others to point out. However, remember, Paul judged the Corinthian brother who took pride in continuing to publicly flaunt God’s moral laws.
Thanks Rick, my fellow sibling in the way, for your reply. I agree you did not call anyone here a libertine, but you imply that my friend Bishop Tutu is agreeing with a libertine point of view. That is a class judgment that I cannot allow since I know that Desmond Tutu is a very careful reader and pastor. I agree with the Bereans - I love the scriptures also - every verse. I disagree with you and David on the interpretation of all the passages of scripture that you would cite against committed homosexual relationships. I take the scriptures as complete and literal - I read them slowly in their original languages. (It's all I can do! Speed reading them even in English leaves us highly prone to reading our assumptions into them.) I have wrestled long with this problem in the Spirit and have come to no conclusion lightly. The things that the Bereans searched to be so had to do with the glorious news that the Beloved gave his life for us. He is our circumcision, our Bridegroom of blood as Zippora described Moses. The types and metaphors are profound and lead to a freedom that is not circumscribed by any of our own predisposition or presuppositions.
Thanks Bob for your reply. So I did my homework on Archbishop Tutu and read his works last night(thank God for the internet). Boy, you are right. Your friend Archbishop Tutu is an outspoken advocate and activist for homosexual bishops, homosexual marriage and claims that the “genital act” between two men or two women makes us “godlike”. Anybody who disagrees with him is homophobic and guilty of the functional equivalent of a supporter of apartheid.
He also campaigned to lower the age of consent for gay and non-gay teens to 16 in South Africa. Here is his quote: "Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?" Mr Tutu asks. Maybe you think this is admirable or by some stretch Biblical, I don’t. So we will agree to disagree.
Several hours ago I posted a reply but it is either lost or not yet past moderation. Rick - thanks for your reply. I appreciate that you did not call me a libertine, but you did use this word to implicate people I know who are carefully read on this subject, among them Bishop Desmond Tutu. It is true also that you and David and I do not agree on how to interpret the subject texts. There have been many books written about such disagreements so there is not much point in rehearsing them here. I would certainly agree with the Berean concentration on the Scriptures (the Old Testament). They likely would have read them in Greek (the Septuagint) rather than Hebrew and what they would have searched for are the texts that speak to the gift of the anointed suffering servant, our Beloved Bridegroom of blood. I read these same Scriptures closely in Hebrew and I find them all a marvel of love.

When you say you don't understand judging brother or sister as object, I am referring to the adjective 'objective' which you used. It is more easily said than done to determine to what extent we are objective.

This is not the original comment but may capture some of its content. If it is a duplicate, or if I forgot to press some button or other, perhaps it will make it through this time or itself be moderated. Maybe the moderators are sleeping. I will check back tomorrow.
Go back and read Rick's post (I did). He did not call anyone a libertine. He used the term correctly in reference to what is being allowed to happen in Africa. Enough about that though. Rick obviously does not need me to defend him.

Let's talk about the valid issue Rick raised and you addressed: Can we agree on and argue from a universal, objective standard? This is a fair question. It would seem that a rhetorical “yes” is expected, but sadly, the real answer appears to be "no." We cannot seem to agree on, and therefore logically argue from, a universal, objective standard--that does not mean there isn't one, it just means we cannot agree on it. Where does that leave us, then, in our attempts to discuss sensitive topics like homosexuality where personal bias and interpretation come in to play? What happens when the Christian community cannot agree upon how God’s Word is used as the foundational truth statement from which we base our arguments? How does this impact our ability as Christians to influence society?
Sandra25 - thanks. I hate adjectives. This adjective is ad hominem and inaccurate. My honest if error-prone opinion is that Rick is acting in judgment on such a society. James is clear on this - to act in judgment is to usurp the place of God. Is that how you want to influence society? I can assure you the Bereans did not research the Scriptures looking for proof texts about this subject. Neither would they have understood the conservative usage of them today. To have known the Beloved and to be able to rely on the word of prophecy that shines in a dark place till the day star arises in our hearts. That is what they would be searching for. Absolutes do not cut it. The covenant demands that we die to such a deceptive absolutism and such a false objectivity. If we are saved by the law, then Christ Jesus died in vain. Anyone who knows his death will not be disappointed in his gifts and will be unable to speak of the law again with any sense of absolutism.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now