Every action has an equal and opposite reaction:
If you eat an ice-cream cone, you smile.
If you push a child of his bike, he cries.
If you put laundry bleach on your hair… well, you get the idea.
This if/then style is the basis for Paul’s logic in Romans 1:18-32, an argument that has been used for centuries to condemn homosexuality. It basically states that “because somebody did X, God made Y happen.”
But what if X does not = homosexuality? How would that change our understanding of the condemnation we see in Y?
Confused? Read Romans 1:18-32 and then come to Tom and Regina’s house this Thursday night (Nov 12) for What Does the Bible Say About Gay? The fun starts at 7:30. And this week, bring a pen!
If you need directions, email us at ccfb.biblestudy@gmail.com.
Tags: gay, homosexuality
Really interested in your study. I am encouraged and have benefited from the notes! Couple of brief questions. Do you have a resource describing N.T. Wrights’ thoughts on this topic and if so what was ya’lls assessment? Notice you started in Gen 19, prior or at some other time, did engage the creation account from the perspective that it is a normative picture of God’s desire, discuss any Natural Law reflections flowing from the creation account, or in some other way cover What Bible says about pre-gay. Wish I could be there, interested in your answers and whether my friend in Brooklyn may be a person God wants to bring to your fellowship.
Hi Kevin. Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond, but I just saw your comment on the blog!
The N.T. Wright study that we just finished doing on Sunday mornings dealt with Wright’s ideas about resurrection. To my knowledge, Wright doesn’t deal with homosexuality in the book we’ve been studying. He has been rather public, however, in his opinion that homosexuality is not appropriate in the Christian community. As such, he also does not approve of gays being in positions of leadership within the church.
Even though I do not agree with his views on sexuality, this doesn’t lessen my respect for Wright as a theologian. Within the theological community, 100% agreement is an impossible standard. It’s often our dissonance that keeps us sharp.
Because I’m so tardy in responding to your post, you may have already noticed that we dealt with “natural law” during our Romans study. You can download the notes at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22633751/Romans-Study-Notes. Also, in the next few days I’ll be posting the notes from our last study on the Corinthians and Timothy passages.
Your question about the starting point of our study is a very good one. The reason I didn’t start our study with the creation account is that I feel the two accounts of creation in the early chapters of Genesis were intended to teach that God created. As a book of theology, Genesis wasn’t intended to teach how he created (science), how long it took him to create (history), or even why he created (philosophy) – but simply that he is the creator (theology). As such, it is my opinion that the Adam and Eve story teaches that God created the family. That there aren’t gay themes in the garden aren’t surprising. Genesis wasn’t written to teach that homosexuality is right, but it also wasn’t written to teach that it is wrong. The “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” argument – in my opinion – bypasses the greater purpose of the story.
Kevin, I really appreciate your feedback. And again, I’m sorry I’m only just now addressing your questions. Please understand that the opinions I’m expressing are mine, and not necessarily the official doctrine of our church. As a community, we’re still wrestling with this issue. And while our church is incredibly accepting of our gay members, they haven’t all finished doing their theological homework. Many of our members are still deciding what they think the Bible teaches (or does not teach) about sexuality. My opinions on this matter are simply my opinions.
If your friend is still looking for a church, I hope he/she makes his/her way to CCfB sometime soon. I’m always up for coffee if they want to chat about the church and how they might fit in!
-Bryan
Hi Kevin,
since I live in NJ exile from the center of the world that is Brooklyn, I haven’t been able to attend the study in person (but I have downloaded the notes, and Bryan, you rock). Anyhow, I’m just commenting to add that I’ve been doing some theological work on the concept of “nature,” and have posted some reflections here and there on my blog, one of which is a riff on the second creation narrative in Genesis (http://rudetruth.blogspot.com/2009/11/cyborgs-in-garden.html).
So I might have to disagree with Bryan’s statement that there aren’t gay themes in the garden–I think there’s all sorts of natural-boundary-transgression going on in the garden narrative, not least in the divine act of creation itself…God choosing to create relationship between creator and creation is a boundary-transgressive act. And that’s the key: relationships are about negotiating boundaries, and constantly renegotiating boundaries–and this means recognizing that our boundaries are constructed and not “given.” And if we want to read this narrative as a template for which “natural kinds” may relate to each other and which not (Adam and not Steve, Adam and Eve and not other animals)–I think we ought to pause and consider the significance of the relationship of the divine and human–two very different “kinds”–built into the narrative. That is a relationship that is totally out of bounds–and yet that relationship is the whole point. And even when the humans push to renegotiate the boundaries of that relationship in a way that challenges the status quo (that is, they sin by trying to become more like God), the relationship is not ended, but redefined.
I would agree that the narrative teaches “family,” but what does that mean, other than humans-in-relationship? And the humans in the narrative are in relationship, not just to each other, but to God, to the other creatures (whom they name and care for) and with that weird talking serpent too. …and when you consider the notion of “family” in the gospels, it certainly does not refer to the “natural” nuclear family…and it’s very important, I think, that one of the dominant metaphors in the NT for defining our relationship to God is adoption–an “unnatural” way to enter a family.
Okay, so I’m rambling (sorry), but the point is really just that I think it’s very possible to faithfully read the Genesis narrative in a way that subverts “natural law,” while taking very seriously the elements of the narrative.
Buy:Viagra Super Force.Levitra.Cialis Soft Tabs.Super Active ED Pack.Cialis Professional.VPXL.Viagra Super Active+.Viagra Professional.Maxaman.Cialis Super Active+.Cialis.Viagra.Propecia.Viagra Soft Tabs.Soma.Zithromax.Tramadol….
Buy:Synthroid.Accutane.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Prednisolone.Retin-A.Zyban.Actos.Arimidex.Nexium.Human Growth Hormone.Mega Hoodia.Prevacid.Valtrex.Zovirax.Lumigan….