It would be amusing, if it were not so distressing, to note that evangelicals are by no means exempt from the danger of misrepresentating one another.
One such instance involves Andrew Bartlett, author of Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light From Biblical Texts, and Sharon James, in her review of that book.
Vaughan Roberts, in ‘Together in Faith and Love?‘:-
The difference between the moral instincts of contemporary society and the traditional teaching of the Church flows from two different worldviews, both of which could be called gospels, because each claims to present good news which offers an alternative path to freedom and fulfilment. The gospel of ‘expressive individualism’, to use the sociologist Charles Taylor’s term, prizes authenticity as its core value. Jonathan Grant has expressed it well:
‘Modern authenticity encourages us to create our own beliefs and morality, the only rule being that they must resonate with who we feel we really are.
I have found that egalitarians, and those leaning towards that position, tend to agree that ‘of course, men and women are not identical in every way’, yet seem reluctant to spell out what they think the real differences might be.
Andrew Bartlett (who, though reluctant to be considered either a complementarian or an egalitarian inclines towards the latter position) has in his nearly 400-page Men and Women in Christ less than one page dealing with the question ‘What it means to be male or female’.…
Distinguished biblical scholar Walter Brueggeman certainly thinks so.
On the question of human sexuality (and homosexual practice in particular) he finds ‘texts of rigor’ such as Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:1 to be incompatible with ‘texts of welcome’ such as Isaiah 56, Matthew 11:28–30, Galatians 3:28 and Acts 10.
One of the problems with Brueggemann’s position, as Ian Paul has pointed out, is that the supposed contradictions are not only between disparate parts of Scripture and different authors. …
Richard Hays, in his discussion of homosexuality, urges that no discussion of the biblical material can rest content with the few texts which refer directly to it.
We must consider, he says, how Scripture frames the discussion more broadly. At least the following factors should be taken into account:
(A) GOD’S CREATIVE INTENTION FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY From Genesis 1 onward, Scripture affirms repeatedly that God has made man and woman for one another and that our sexual desires rightly find fulfillment within heterosexual marriage.
Disclaimer: I am not a linguist. But I know (mainly through their writings) a number of people who are. So, obviously, I am relying heavily upon their expertise in what follows.
1 Cor 6:9-11 ‘Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. …
Moral compaigner Mary Whitehouse (1910-2001) is commonly remembered (if she is remembered at all) as an interfering moral busybody, an object of derision. Indeed, the entry about her on Wikipedia is laced with scarcely-disguised contempt.
I certainly did not expect the BBC to publish a thoughtful and sympathetic re-assessment of her work. But publish it they did, in the form of this article, by Samira Ahmed.
Here are some extracts.
‘The Christian decency campaigner Mary Whitehouse’s name became shorthand for anti-liberal prudery and censorship, but more than 20 years after her death, do her diaries reveal a woman who was ahead of her time in warning about the corrosive impact of internet pornography on society’
She was successful in lobbying lawmakers to draft legislation:
‘Her successes include the 1978 Protection of Children Act, which criminalised for the first time the making of indecent images of children, the 1981 Indecent Displays (Control) Act which controlled sex shops and the displays of pornographic material in newsagents, and the 1984 Video Recordings Act, to regulate the explosion in the sale of extreme content (so-called “video nasties”) in the new Wild West of home VCRs.’
Dr Paul Sullins (a retired professor of sociology from the Catholic University of America) has recently published research on the harm of SOCE amongst those for whom it has not had the desired effect.
The overall conclusion of this research is:
‘Despite higher exposure to factors predicting behavioral harm—minority stress, childhood adversity, and lower socioeconomic background—sexual minority persons who had undergone failed SOCE therapy did not suffer higher psychological or social harm. Concerns to restrict or ban SOCE due to elevated harm are unfounded.
Loveday Alexander helpfully clarifies the difference it makes when we regard homosexual practice as social phenomenon (as we tend to do nowadays) compared with seeing it as a moral issue (as is the case in the Bible).
‘We don’t talk (as a church) of being ‘inclusive’ towards murderers (say), or of repenting of negative attitudes towards financial fraud. (We will of course want to stress that the church is there for sinners — but we don’t thereby condone the sin.)
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
These verses are important in the debate about homosexual practices. The discussion turns, to a considerable extent, on what Paul means by ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ in this context.…
Lev 18:22 – “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.”
Lev 20:13 – “If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.”
What do these texts mean, and what is their relevance to homosexual practice today?…
Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face toward the ground. 19:2 He said, “Here, my lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house. Stay the night and wash your feet. Then you can be on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they replied, “we’ll spend the night in the town square.”…