Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) faces its own Homosexual Issue

So, to sum it up, a man who:
1. is presently an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and
2. is currently married to a woman (in a marriage that has produced children),
3. is living in a sexual relationship with another man in a church manse.

The question being raised is whether he should assume another position in the Church of Scotland. It is being pointed out that “it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The real question is whether he should be given a desk job for a while and an opportunity to repent - or whether he should be defrocked for cheating on his wife. Yecccchhh!

Thanks for a fabulous and astute summation, Ralph!

On the Scottish Sun link, Page 3 is much more interesting.  Thanx for the link

Mr Rennie, who stood in the Angus constituence for the Lib Dems in the 2005 general election,

Surpriiise…

is separated from his wife, with whom he has a young daughter. He shares the manse at Brechin with another man.

Uh huh.  Imagine if it read like this: “Rennie is separated from his wife, with whom he has a young daughter. He shares the manse at Brechin with his mistress”. Sounds a bit different now, doesn’t it?

I agree with you, too, Ralph.

It really jumped out at me that he was only “separated” from his wife. Would a man who had not yet gotten divorced and was living in a sexual relationship with a woman be acceptable? If not, then why a double standard for gay sex privileging gay sex?

Sorry for a double-post, and one that’s a bit off topic, but off the top of my head I can think of 3 prominent homosexual activists in The Episcopal Church who were married, but later chose to walk a very different path. Of these, VGR and SR have had children, and (as far as I know) LC has not. And, all 3 seem to enjoy going around telling the world about how great it is.

I can’t believe that TEC doesn’t have a problem with that, and that the Presbytery of Aberdeen doesn’t either. Aberdeen, wake up!

Sorry - but it wasn’t “critics within the congregation”.
It was critics OUTWITH the congregation, notably, adherents of a particular “wing” of the Church.

The Church of Scotland is a broad Church and embraces many differing opinions.

It would be interesting to learn on what grounds the “critics” outwith the congregation AND the Presbytery of Aberdeen are opposing a “Call” which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Graeme Longmuir, Minister
(The Auld Kirk of Inverurie [St Andrew’s])

The Call was not opposed by the Presbytery of Aberdeen.

And why, brothers and sisters in Christ, are we referring to “Gay Wars” ?

RE: ” . . . are opposing a “Call” which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Wow—all the progressive activists use the same boilerplate don’t they.  ; > )  It’s like a flashback to the rhetoric from GC 2003 in TEC.

No, AM, you cannot experience a “call” which is intrinsically immoral and opposed to Scripture that is “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

That’s rather like my deciding I’ve experienced a “call” to prostitution—and then saying: “It would be interesting to learn on what grounds the “critics” outwith StandFirm AND my family are opposing a “Call” which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Aberdeenshire Minister,

Are you teasing? Are you honestly saying you think the Holy Spirit would inspire a man to leave his wife and young child and go live with a paramour?

Of course, the issue is always discerning whether or not the call is inspired by the Holy Spirit or inspired by something else. People often mistake their own desires and devices as calls from God. And Christian communities can make the same mistakes. So, in discerning the call, we must consult the Bible and the larger Christian community.

I’m sorry.

I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

What I was saying was:
That after prayer, waiting, listening . . . The Congregation of Queen’s Cross heard the Holy Spirit calling Scott Rennie to be their minister.

This call was supported by The Presbytery of Aberdeen.

I don’t wish to enter prolonged discussion about “progressive activists” (your phrase not mine).
Since I don’t know where the phrase “progressive activist” appears in the Bible.

What is “GC 2003 in TEC”?

Who is experiencing “The Call”?

Scott Rennie?
Queen’s Cross Church?
The Presbytery of Aberdeen?

Do YOU know the answer?

Is/are/ your “family” members of Queen’s Cross?

Why bring “prostitution” into the discussion?

And, all Presbyteries of The Church of Scotland are constituted by solemn prayer, “In the Name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit”.

Are you daring to suggest that the Holy Spirit was NOT at work?

if so, on what grounds?

QUOTE:
“Aberdeenshire Minister,

Are you teasing? Are you honestly saying you think the Holy Spirit would inspire a man to leave his wife and young child and go live with a paramour?

Of course, the issue is always discerning whether or not the call is inspired by the Holy Spirit or inspired by something else. People often mistake their own desires and devices as calls from God. And Christian communities can make the same mistakes. So, in discerning the call, we must consult the Bible and the larger Christian community.”

Sarah.
I am not “teasing”.

Did I say that the Holy Spirit “would inspire a man to leave his wife and young child and go live with a paramour”?

I don’t think that I did!

I DID say that “The Call” to Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross WAS the action of the Holy Spirit acting through:
1) Queen’s Cross Church;
2) The Presbytery of Aberdeen.

Are you questioning Scott Rennie’s past honesty?

Or:
Are you questioning the action of the Holy Spirit?

OR:

Are you questioning both?

Does the HOly Spirit speak with two distinct mutually contradictory voices in this matter of homosexuality - once in Leviticus and Romans to the whole Church (OT and NT) and then speak differently to the person in question, the congregation in question and the presbytery in question?  I think not.  I suspect the same voices that led Aaron and the people to make the golden calf and worship there are are work here: the voices of the spirit of the age at work amongst them with predictable results.  Who shall be your Moses to stand between the people and God in this case?  Should Moses appear himself wouldst thou and you believe?

1. Progressive activism in Scripture? Well, there’s Exodus 32:1-onward. That didn’t turn out very well for the progressives, though I’ve never understood how Aaron got off without getting zapped.

2. Discernment of spirits is a tough job. It would be easy if the devil were to appear in the red suit, pointy tail, pitchfork, and brimstone aftershave. Unfortunately, he very often wears a dove suit, especially when coming to church.

3. One must indeed question this gentleman’s honesty in reciting his wedding vows, unless the vows said in the Church of Scotland are very much different from those said everywhere else in Christendom.

Hey, dwstroudmd, I like the way you think!

RE: “What I was saying was:
That after prayer, waiting, listening . . . The Congregation of Queen’s Cross heard the Holy Spirit calling Scott Rennie to be their minister.”

Yes, I know.

And what I was saying was that what they heard was their own desires, and not the “Holy Spirit” since the Holy Spirit does not call people to violate the mandates of Holy Scripture and institute the leadership of a man who is in gross, and flagrant public and unrepentant sin.

RE: “Since I don’t know where the phrase “progressive activist” appears in the Bible.”

Lol.  Neither does the phrase “The Presbytery of Aberdeen.”  But that is—as was your rejoinder—irrelevant.

RE: “Why bring “prostitution” into the discussion?”

Oh, it’s a simple analogy—one which you well understand, so there is no need for me to explain it to you—otherwise, you wouldn’t have protested it.  ; > )

Hi Aberdeenshire Minister,

I am not Sarah Hey. And I, among others on this thread including Sarah Hey, am “daring to suggest that the Holy Spirit was NOT at work.”

Your rationale that “‘The Call’ to Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross WAS the action of the Holy Spirit” is funny—that the participants engaged in “prayer, waiting, listening”. Don’t you notice you are missing consulting the Bible?

The grounds for questioning whether the Holy Spirit was the source of the “Call” is that Rev Scott Rennie is currently engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage and homosexuality. He is unrepentant.  Sarah Hey’s analogy is apt because sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and prostitution are often listed together in the Bible.  For example 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

“9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This clearly means that one must put aside these activities if one is to enter the Kingdom of God. Unless you are thinking if means that it is alright to continue being a thief or a swindler as long as one has been baptized.

What would you think if a church community claimed that after “prayer, waiting, listening” they had discerned a call from the Holy for a man to be a minister who was actively engaged in swindling and thievery?

I want to simply note the rhetoric of marginalisation (perhaps unintentional?) in #7. It is the “broad” church that is in favor of a novel theology of human sexuality. It is merely a certain “wing” that remain committed to the church’s traditional teaching.

The pattern will be as follows: what is argued now to be permissible will in the end become compulsory. Or as the late Father Neuhas so aptly put it - “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be prohibited.”

#7 asked on what grounds the congregation and the Presbytery of Aberdeen could be overruled? I think the better question is, on what grounds can the witness of Scripture be overruled?

When did the Presiding Bishop join the Episcopal Church?

Apologies wrong thread!

A small, or not so small, point, PB Loyalist: homosexuality as such and prostitution as such are NEVER listed together in the Bible, even in I Cor 6. You are quoting an inexact and unhelpful modern version. Even the dear old KJV had it down more accurately at this point. Please see this article
THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI: WHO ARE THEY?

But Sarah’s point still stands, of course: Jesus did not hang on His Cross so that any one of us should live as we please.

Hi Dr. Turner,

I ‘m not sure if your point was strictly that malakoi is not properly translated as homosexual prostitute and is properly translated “catamites” <a>OR</a> if you were arguing that sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and prostitution are <a>NOT</a> listed together in the Bible.

My point was unclear due to the translation I quickly grabbed from Biblegateway. Perhaps you would still disagree, but I was actually thinking that the first word pornoi included all sex outside of marriage including prostitution. Then I was using the word arsenokoitai for homosexual. (I didn’t mean that malakoi meant homosexual prostitute.) We also see pornois and arsenokoitais listed exactly next to each other in 1 Timothy 1:10.

I‘m not sure if your point was strictly that malakoi is not properly translated as homosexual prostitute and is properly translated “catamites” OR if you were arguing that sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and prostitution are NOT listed together in the Bible.

Actually both.

I am pretty certain that ALL the unsavoury characters in the I Cor. list are male. This is not because I suppose that the female of the species is less tainted with original sin, but has to do with the very different levels of freedom between the sexes in Corinth. Paul wants these people to repent, and he does not censure the female prostitute, who was quite unfree, only the unchaste male who resorts to her.

Even if the malakoi were accurately translated “male prostitutes”, it would be cruel and unjust to tell them that without repentance they could not go to heaven. They would often if not always be prostituted by their owner, and have no choice in the matter. The back-reference to the Holiness Code confirms this view, for the pair of men there are free agents who can be justly punished.

Are you daring to suggest that the Holy Spirit was NOT at work?

Oh, there was a Spirit involved all right ... just not the Holy one.

What your Presbytery was responding to, AM, was the seductive siren-call of the Zeitgeist, Spirit of the Age.  I don’t see how you can possibly deny that.

Dr Turner,

So as not to divert the focus of this thread, and to assist Aberdeenshire Minister in understanding why we are challenging his assertion that the Holy Spirit has called Rev Scott Rennie, let us return the discussion to how we can apply the Bible to the case of Rev Rennie, and the analogy that Sarah Hey has suggested.

Wouldn’t you agree that Rev. Rennie is free to choose whether to leave his wife and take up house with a male paramour and would fall under the categories of pornoi  and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1:10? Similarly, wouldn’t Sarah be making a free choice to be a prostitute and would therefore fall under the categories of pornoi in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1:10?

If not, Dr. Turner, how would you suggest the Bible be used in discernment of the claim to a call from the Holy Spirit in each case?

Wouldn’t you agree that Rev. Rennie is free to choose whether to leave his wife and take up house with a male paramour and would fall under the categories of pornoi and arsenokoitai in I Cor. 6 and I Tim. 1:10? Similarly, wouldn’t Sarah be making a free choice to be a prostitute and would therefore fall under the categories of pornoi in I Cor. 6 and I Tim. 1:10?

Yes, of course. I intend no frivolous diversion. I simply want to avoid claiming too much on the one hand, and citing weak translations which may seem to supply loopholes on the other. This minister’s sex-ethics and practical morality are unfitting for a Christian pastor.

Dr. Turner,
Where in the Bible would you direct Aberdeenshire Minister and the Presbytery of Aberdeen to look to confirm your claim (with which I fully agree) that Rev. Rennie’s “sex-ethics and practical morality are unfitting for a Christian pastor”?

Aberdeenshire Minister, thanks for coming here. allow me to address one of your comments:

And, all Presbyteries of The Church of Scotland are constituted by solemn prayer, “In the Name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit”.

I’m a bit confused by what you’re arguing here. It surely can’t be that simply because prayers are consituted in a trinitarian manner that everything that follows or precedes is validated?

Are you daring to suggest that the Holy Spirit was NOT at work?

Oh, I am most certaint that He is always at work. Sometimes He moves godly people to make godly decisions, sometimes He hands the ungodly over to their own sins. He is always at work, just not always affirming.

if so, on what grounds?

Well, I would suggest He is not affirming in this case because He has already spoken clearly on this subject. First on the fidelity that all husbands should show to their wives (and then, particularly, ministers who are daily examples to the flock). This matter alone should be cause for great concern for the presbytery.
Secondly, because on the subject of sexual activity and homosexual activity in particular the Spirit has, again, spoken clearly in the Scriptures. Any decision taken contrary to that clear revelation should, surely, cause any body of Christians to pause and consider whether they are really hearing from the Spirit or not.

#5 Rev Longmuir.  or to make you feel more at Home…“Fit like Meenister.’ (that is ‘How are you doing Rev’ in Doric for the non Aberdonians)

Mr. Longmuir… I doubt you will reply but as a Scot and a graduate of the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Aberdeen, I am going to call you on your comments.

I was going to make a post explaining how the Kirk is suffering many of the same issues as the TEC such as aging congregations, low attendance figures and significant financial issues.  Indeed your attitude is significant as many things affect the Church Universal which I believe the Church of Scotland still professes to be.  But I see that is not really needed due to your pointing out correctly that in essence the Church of Scotland though prebyterian is congregational in function.

Just as in the Episcopal Church you must surely acknowledge a large ‘traditionialist’ movement within the Church of Scotland many of which are the old Free Church parishes that returned in the reunion.  Like many here they hold to traditional Biblical views of clergy conduct.  A main proponent of this would be say Rev Andy McGowan who I first met many years at at St.Cuthberts, Edinburgh under Tom Cuthill.

Has the Kirk thrown the baby out with the Baptismal Water, the Bible and the Westminister Confession of Faith?

Perhap you will correct me but is not the Westminster Confession of Faith still the ‘Subordinate Standard of Faith?’  Iso forgive me if I quote from Chapter 24

Of Marriage and Divorce.
I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

Yes the Parish and Prebytery have consented according to the Law of the Kirk however do you not feel that Mr. Rennie’s behavior is contrary to both Scripture and the Westminster Confession, but as with both the Diocese of New Hampshire and the GC 2003 as you pointed out ascenting does not perse make it right.

Perhaps the issue is that Mr. Rennie is too tied up in the ‘T’ of ‘TULIP’ if you remember your 5 points of Federal Calvinism and the issues being raised by others as the ‘P’

Shall we bring St.Ninian’s, Stirling into the equation?

My love to Aberdeenshire, and since you used your full name I will use mine.

Aighe Bha

Alasdair+

Alasdair Harding, BD (Aber 91), CAS (CDSP, 93)

#5 May I echo my brother David’s+ welcome, and nice to see someone from Gordon Country here.

Alasdair+

PB Loyalist, one way of doing it would be to take Aberdeenshire Minister carefully and slowly through Gal. 5, in Greek if he reads it, in a good modern version if not. ‘Fornication’, or in this passage better ‘unchastity’, does include things that you and I as modern people do, or think of doing. I do agree that the I Cor. passage is very important; but it really extends from ch. 5 to ch. 7.

What is the basic principle in Christian sex-ethics according to St. Paul? Isn’t it Christ’s ownership of my body?

It would be interesting to learn on what grounds the “critics” outwith the congregation AND the Presbytery of Aberdeen are opposing a “Call” which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I, as a former Presbyterian would be interested to learn on what grounds the “Presbytery” of Aberdeen and the “congregation” are claiming that this ‘Call’ is “inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Any interaction with WCF XX would particularly be appreciated:

III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

In other words, they’re talking about authority that is consistent with known principals of Christianity and the light of nature;  litmus-tests which fail same-sex ‘sex’.

Also, I’m at a loss for how your assertion squares with WCF XXX.  Frankly, it seems like some sort of odd tertiary standard.  Would you care to elaborate?

Dear David and Alasdair (Forgive me - I’m so “new” here that I haven’t worked out how to quote/unquote),

Good to see some other Scottish voices here. At least we are talking from within the same Church - or, at least, from a Scottish connection.

Of course The Westminster Confession of Faith is still “The Subordinate Standard of Faith” in the CofS.  (And I have just realised what TEC means!  Sorry, people!!)  If I failed to acknowledge that, I would probably be subject to a Committee of Enquiry - if not a heresy trial!!

I hadn’t realised that Andy McGowan was with Tom at St C’s.  Just shows what a “broad church” the CofS is!

I will have a look at Galatians 5 (in Greek - since that language was compulsory for “theologs” in Oxford - at least, in my days there) - but it will be a day or two before I can.  I have a meeting at 121 on Monday and a funeral in Ayr on Tuesday.  And if this thread hasn’t *moved on* - then I hope to do you the justice of a response.

In the meantime, both you and David will agree, I’m sure, that were there to be a challenge to “The Call” either to the Judicial Commission or even to The General Assembly, there will be quite a “rumpus” in The Kirk! (Something which will not do us any good at all.)  I am NOT suggesting that anything should be “swept under any (old) carpet” - but a “rumpus” is bound to cause polarisation here, I fear.

Even the P&J;(Aberdeen Press and Journal) exhibited some inner turmoil.  The on-line headline read: “Kirk Leaders support call to gay minister” - whilst the Aberdeenshire (paper) edition’s headline read: “Kirk split over . . .”

Ah! Me!

Best wishes to both.

Graeme

Aberdeenshire Minister,

Thank * you * for participating in this thread.  I’ll be keeping your church in prayer and in particular for God’s peace.

If your church does choose to go on with this, there is a lot to be learned from the recent history with TEC regarding “rumpuses.”  Many things your church will want to avoid.  Unfortunately quite a few you probably won’t see coming before they’ve arrived.

Actually we could be better stewards of insights God has given us by somehow making things a bit more systematic and ordered in a manner for reading by those who are new to these issues.  They will be of use to more than just Aberdeenshire Minister.

Blessings.

Graeme,
Ciamara tha thu? Failte do Suidhichte Daingeann (Standing firm) S’mise Iosua Bovis agus tha mi a Anglican ministeir i Astralia.

In the meantime, both you and David will agree, I’m sure, that were there to be a challenge to “The Call” either to the Judicial Commission or even to The General Assembly, there will be quite a “rumpus” in The Kirk! (Something which will not do us any good at all.) I am NOT suggesting that anything should be “swept under any (old) carpet” - but a “rumpus” is bound to cause polarisation here, I fear.

I am very saddened by this news. And after the results of the Barrier Act decision of 2006 I am horrified at this “calling”.

Everyone please pray for Gordon Kennedy and Ian Watson who are involved with the group Forward together
http://www.forwardtogether.org.uk/index.htm which is a network of Evangelical Ministers within the C of S. Please pray as well for other faithful ministers of the Gospel within the C of S and the faithful members of C of S.

Sláinte bha
Joshua

RE: “In the meantime, both you and David will agree, I’m sure, that were there to be a challenge to “The Call” either to the Judicial Commission or even to The General Assembly, there will be quite a “rumpus” in The Kirk! (Something which will not do us any good at all.)”

Oh yes—a rumpus would be an excellent thing.  May it happen.

RE: ” . . .  a “rumpus” is bound to cause polarisation here, I fear.”

No.  A rumpus would demonstrate the polarisation that already exists in the church, and which certain parties hope will not be publicized to the people in the pews.

Rumpus’s don’t *cause* polarization—they illustrate and demonstrate differences which already exist and which some hope will not be in the open.

I was sent this message (privately).

“In a message dated 18/01/2009 12:36:06 GMT Standard Time, Ali Wilson writes:
There is an amazing amount of drivel being spouted over it all and to what end?”

Message reads:
Isn’t there just!  What next?  Implement Leviticus 22:24 and check all the men before Communion?
‘Excuse me sir, we have to check for damage before you can receive Holy Communion.  Cough please - next!’  ...
Is this a job for the Session Clerk or the “Meeters and greeters”?

Isn’t there just!  What next?  Implement Leviticus 22:24 and check all the men before Communion?

Gee, I hope you’ve informed this naive person that the Old Testament sacrificial system is no longer binding, thus ending the need to check out animals’ sex organs prior to sacrifice. 

Thanks anyway for the lame attempt at lame humor.

Of course what you’re describing as drivel is actually the historic teaching of the entire church.

I was sent this message via my personal e-mail address.

In a message dated 18/01/2009 12:36:06 GMT Standard Time, Ali Wilson writes:
There is an amazing amount of drivel being spouted over it all and to what end?

“Isn’t there just! 
What next? 

Implement Leviticus 22:24 and check all the men before Communion?
‘Excuse me sir, we have to check for damage before you can receive Holy Communion.  Cough please - next!’  ...

Is this a job for the Session Clerk or the “Meeters and Greeters?”

Next he’ll be bringing up the shellfish canard.  They always do…

Joshua [36]  Thank you for your greetings in the language of Eden.

I am actually a member of Affirmation Scotland.

http://www.affirmationscotland.org.uk/

Go well, brother.

[39]
“Gee, I hope you’ve informed this naive person that the Old Testament sacrificial system is no longer binding, thus ending the need to check out animals’ sex organs prior to sacrifice.

Thanks anyway for the lame attempt at lame humor.”

Ok!  Thanks. 

Now .... what else in the Old Testament “is no longer binding”?

Now .... what else in the Old Testament “is no longer binding”?

According to liberals, nothing in either Testament or in church tradition is binding if it goes against their wants and desires.

How about Leviticus 12: 1 - 5?
Or: Leviticus 20: 10?

Or: Leviticus 21: 16 - 20 nb. “for all time”?

Or Leviticus 24: 13 - 16?

or Leviticus 19: 27 - Gentlemen who shave - ?

After all, as Leviticus concludes: “These are the commandments which the Lord gave to moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites” [27:34]

St Anonymous wrote:
“According to liberals, nothing in either Testament or in church tradition is binding if it goes against their wants and desires.”

I very much hope that you observe ALL the commandments, including those in post [47].  And, if you do, then I think I will listen more intently to what you are saying.

I don’t want to appear to be rude:  I am only speaking the truth (ie the verses from Leviticus) in honesty.

Nevertheless, after all the “text-slinging”, I am still rather concerned about who can discern what the Holy Spirit is saying (to the Church of Scotland in Aberdeen Presbytery - if not to The Church of Scotland and, maybe The Church Catholic) if there are questions being asked about the veracity/integrity of “The Call” issued from Queen’s Cross Church, which “Call” was sustained by The Presbytery of Aberdeen.

If opponents are going to say that “The Call” and the fact that it was upheld is AGAINST the Holy Spirit.  How do they know?

St Anonymous wrote:

“Oh, there was a Spirit involved all right ... just not the Holy one.

What your Presbytery was responding to, AM, was the seductive siren-call of the Zeitgeist, Spirit of the Age.  I don’t see how you can possibly deny that.”

St Anonymous,
How do YOU know that it was not the Holy Spirit?  Others seem to think that it was. (Have you some inside information that you might like to share?)

You aren’t to know, but I am not a member of Aberdeen Presbytery.  I am a member of a neighbouring Presbytery.

Maybe this discussion is irrelevant for “Stand Firm” (Traditional Anglicanism in America).

RE: “What next?  Implement Leviticus 22:24 and check all the men before Communion?”

Wow.

Aberdeenshire Minister is ignorant of the most basic Christian theology regarding the Old Testament law and the New Testament.

Article VII of the 39 Articles, a confession for Anglicans, addresses the basic concept quite simply:

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

But most of the confessions of varying denominations address this basic and rather simple issue. 

You can try the confession of the Reformed Church of Zurich, the Irish Articles of Religions, The Westminster Confession of faith, the Baptist Confession of 1688, the Methodist articles, and on and on it goes.

One would have thought that someone who purports to be a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland would have learned so basic a concept before he even went to seminary—or at least in seminary.

RE: “If opponents are going to say that “The Call” and the fact that it was upheld is AGAINST the Holy Spirit.  How do they know?”

That was, of course, already answered above.  It’s another basic, simple concept of the Christian faith.  The Holy Spirit does not “call” people to sin.

RE: “Maybe this discussion is irrelevant for “Stand Firm” (Traditional Anglicanism in America).”

Oh not at all—we’ve heard all the boilerplate from progressive activists in other denominations as well.  Same old thing.  Just because there’s a switch in denominations doesn’t mean that the issues no longer are open for refutation or resistance.

And it’s a good reminder for all of our readers in Anglicanism—the canards, theological ignorance, and poor reasoning of progressive activists occur across the board in denominations, not merely in the Anglican Communion.  This post—as well as the comments of the representative progressive activist from the Church of Scotland are a useful learning tool.

Goodness!

Firstly, “checking out the men” was an email sent to me.

You seemed to have missed the irony of my post (and the email as well), Sarah Hey.

Earlier in this thread I was having texts quoted to me.
I think I already knew that Leviticus had been “dumped” by the Christian Church.
So, if Leviticus is no longer relevant, what, in the Old Testament is?
Are we to retain the baby as well as the bath-water?
Is it all or nothing?

“The Call” - Did I say, anywhere, that the Holy Spirit called people to sin?

I think not.

Forgive me - but please do not put words in my mouth which I did not utter.

So, all the “issues” are to be refuted and resisted?

I hope that you wear a hat in Church (or, at least a head-scarf), after all, THAT appears in the New Testament.
(Or are you going to tell me that St Paul was also wrong?  Well, if you are, then I am in good company!)

BTW:  I don’t “purport” to be a minister of the CofS.

I AM one!

Peace!

I seem to recall some NT words -Dominical ones, in fact- that were deemed to have rendered all foods clean - hence yielding the distinctions between ritual and moral more exacting.  However, what with all the texts, I’ll let ya’ll look ‘em yourselves.  They stick better that way.  They are in the NT,however.  I don’t want to leave some folks totally clueless!  Specially none who speak the language of Eden but might not yet have mastered the concordance, lexicon, or search functions so as to locate what Scripture says.

Well, we shouldn’t give him too hard a time.  My last TEC priest hadn’t read the 4 gospels through from start to finish in English - well I suppose she never did - she once gave a sermon whose main point was that John the Baptist never doubted Jesus.  But then I realized: why do we have to know about all this stuff to call on multinationals and governments to support the Millenium Development Goals?  And it soon dawned on me how irrelevant and out of date my expectations were.

Steady.
The passage you refer to (Acts 10:9-16) relates to “food” doesn’t it?
Or, are you going further? “It is not for you to call profane what God counts clean.”  I wonder whether God changed his/her mind?
And if so, whether he/she changed his/her mind about lifestyle as well?  (For it would appear that “lifestyle” is the issue about which the opponents to “The Call” are most concerned.)

Oh!  I’m sorry that JMC’s priest hadn’t read the Gospels through.

I had to study them in Greek at Uni!

BTW: dwstroudmd :  I am sadly lacking the “language of Eden”.  It is Joshua Bovis (an Anglican priest in Australia) who wrote in Gaelic.  (post 36).  Just setting the record straight.

Hi Aberdeenshire Minister,
Please note that I only cited New Testament in my posts above. Regarding your latest posts, please check out Acts 15 and particularly Acts 15:19-21 within its context. The prohibitions against sexual immorality are explicitly retained.

Aberdeen Minister.  The Lord calls us to have life not lifestyles.  I can say with full assurance that God did not suddenly decide to bring a new public revelation to any church that sexual expression outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is now a holy thing to be upheld and sanctioned by the Body of Christ.  Specifically I know this of homosexual relationships. 

I will leave it to other to argue the Greek and to point out the difference between changable ritual laws and eternal moral laws.  My argument is a modest one.  That homosexual relationships are not sanctioned because by thier very nature they are anti-life.  They are barren not because of some flaw in design such as blocked ovaries or low sperm count.  But because two men or two women having a sexual relationship can never relying on their own bodies produce new life.  Which means that such sexual expression can never be Trinitarian.  And Christian marriage is at heart Trinitarian. 

It must also be remembered that in creating the world God affirmed that creation was good.  He commanded Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply.  If only populating the earth was His intent God could have raised up more people from the dust of the earth.  But His commandment was so that we would share in and know the beauty of creation.  That was would nurture and value life.  That through love of life we would see evidence of our loving Creator.  Life is so valued by God that Christ reminds us we are to have abundant life through Him.

But gay sex is dry, sterile, anti life.  It does not restore what God gave us in creation and what we lost in the fall.  It and other sexual expressions outside of the life long marriage of one man to one woman are sought after to our destruction.  This destruction is both physical and spiritual.  Do you honestly think God would put such poison before His people and ask them to partake of it?  I don’t. 

The assembly in question and those who support such innovations have been deceived by the great liar himself.  It is not of God and it insults the Cross to suggest otherwise.

RE: “You seemed to have missed the irony of my post (and the email as well), Sarah Hey.”

Oh, I didn’t miss the attempted irony, AM.  ; > )

RE: “I think I already knew that Leviticus had been “dumped” by the Christian Church.”

Oh no, not at all.  Please see the above listed confessions for your education.

RE: “So, if Leviticus is no longer relevant, what, in the Old Testament is?”

You’d need to read some basic Christian commentaries, Aberdeenshire, that clearly detail the differences between the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws of the OT.  And of course, all of Leviticus is beautifully relevant.  Again—something pretty basic and I would have thought taught in seminary—but I suppose not in the one you attended.

RE: ““The Call” - Did I say, anywhere, that the Holy Spirit called people to sin?”

Apparently so, since you claim that calling a minister in gross, public, flagrant, and unrepentant sin is “a call of the Holy Spirit.”

RE: “Forgive me - but please do not put words in my mouth which I did not utter.”

Not at all—everyone can read the thread and see for themselves what precisely you said.

RE: “So, all the “issues” are to be refuted and resisted?”

Oh, for now on this thread, the one that is mentioned is enough.  We work on other issues as they arise on other threads.  You’re welcome to join in those threads as they arise.  But . . . I don’t think you’d fare much better.

RE: ” . . . after all, THAT appears in the New Testament.”

Oh, Aberdeenshire, I’m afraid we’ve already seen how lacking you are in what is or what is not in the OT or the NT, not to mention a basic lack of theological knowledge, as witness your lack of knowledge of something so simple as the way the Christian church has dealt with the OT texts.

At this point, it’s clear you’re desperate.  You’ve been demolished on this thread, and you’re just frantically throwing anything to hand against the wall that you can grasp to see if something sticks.

It’s been a pleasure—although expected—to watch the gradual descent into desperation. 

RE: “(Or are you going to tell me that St Paul was also wrong?  Well, if you are, then I am in good company!)”

Not at all.  St. Paul, being inspired by God to write God’s word written, is correct whenever he writes in Holy Scripture.  We may well be incorrect in our interpretations of God’s word written, but that’s another matter, of course.

It is not surprising that you would think otherwise.  The lack of interest in or concern with God’s word written and its authority is but one of the usual signs of progressive activists.

We don’t share the same gospel or faith, AM—so the “good company” isn’t here for you.

Aberdeenshire Minister, glad you studied the gospels in Greek at uni.  My comment about my TEC priest perhaps seemed off-topic, I suppose it’s meant to show what could happen in your own church - the clergy being so caught up in specific issues, that the most basic principles of Biblical studies and theology seem somewhat far-off, foreign territory, and even the instruments of critique blunted, due to lack of knowledge of the object of criticism.  There will always be a number of laity who are educated in the Bible, hermeneutics, and theology, and it’s not a fun life for clergy when a good number of the members of the congregation know these issues better than the clergypeople.  Calls to a “more inclusive theology” ring hollow when the case for these new theologies as opposed to the theology of the creeds can’t be made compellingly, when clergy calling for such have so lost touch with the theology of the church that they are no longer aptly capable of criticizing it.  This has become especially the case since Spong.  Perhaps one of the many reasons so many are leaving TEC.  We here are mostly up on the on-goings of TEC, and thus are likely to suspect that similar things could befall the Church of Scotland.  In my neck of the woods (mainland Europe) this is also a big problem with state churches.  Many leave seminary with a grasp of the tools for learning but not the passion necessary to dig deeper.  With a rather theologically undereducated congregation, often a passion for certain justice causes sprinkled with some theological vocabulary is adequate to keep all happy.  But I know of at least one church here which actively tries to keep young seminarians out of its doors.

In your own case, given the remarks above, I think you may be one who hasn’t yet gotten very far in the study of Scripture or how the church has interpreted it and applied it.  Your congregation probably doesn’t have many folks who have put much study to it, which is a blessing for a while because ... you have time to ... pick up on your motivation to learn these things and acquire the passion - the tools you already have.

This will come with a growing relationship with Christ.  Back to those gospels my friend, English will do - pull out Greek only when you’re really curious - when the hermeneutical instruments are getting you bored, let them fall and just read the texts.  “Mainline” congregations like the Church of England or the Church of Scotland certainly have their own particular blessings, beauty, and strengths in glorifying God, but are often somewhat shoddy in the “faith” (and education) department.  You may have a good Bible study in your area of people of faith of your denomination that can nourish you - if not, check out an evangelical or baptist church, I kid you not.  You may want to take a “back seat” and enjoy being led rather than leading.  Maybe you don’t “believe” in this approach, but it will help your faith, and by helping your faith, it will whet your appetite for theology and God’s work amongst His people, and you will have a gift to bring back to your own congregation.  Faith, theology, and nurturing of a Christian mind are things which take years.  There are indeed many “good people” in churches who can tell you about Matthew Fox and Creation Theology and how Gnosticism is really so interesting and spiritual etc. etc..  You will find that this does not bring you the necessary passion to study scripture and core theology.  Go to the churches where faith is present in abundance, bring that faith back to your church, and be creative in what God calls to do in your own particular situation; he will enable your faith; you needn’t worry about becoming a “carbon copy” of the people in the evangelical or baptist churches.

Yes, in the evangelical and baptist churches, the music is likely to be crap, the people are likely to smile too much when they really shouldn’t, and you’re more in danger of being smarmed than in a more traditionally reformed church.  Very little to have to bear for help in the faith department and what this can do for your zeal in learning theology.

Yep, st. anonymous, AM is trying to duck the issues by bringing up a variant of the old shellfish canard.

See:
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
In short, throughout the centuries, the Christian church acting in council, has affirmed some of these, rejected others (Since when does the Bishop of Rome or any Patriarch wear tefillin?), and been silent on yet others. On that particular list of the 613 (the various compilations vary in their numbering), #103 has been affirmed time and time again, throughout the centuries. I’m not aware of a single modern Patriarch who would reject #103. Perhaps the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland would be willing to pass a resolution stating that by its authority #103 is null and void, no longer binding on members of the Kirk. It could just as easily order Scotsmen to wear skivvies with their kilts.

Even with #103 tossed out, this particular minister would still have to face the music for (apparently) being in a sexual relationship with someone who is not his wife. I’m not his judge, nor is anyone at this website, but SOMEONE needs to send him a wakeup call.

1. He has obviously been able to be in a heterosexual relationship.
2. It would seem that he has made a decision to walk the other path, and in a very public manner.
3. Perhaps he will ask God to send someone to help him become free of homosexual practice, and return to his family. That can happen…

Somebody really ought to make a webpage that lists all of the tired old arguments that try to make Biblical arguments supporting those who choose to put their genitalia in unauthorized places. Each one could be numbered (Argument 8), and variants could also be catalogued (Argument 8c). That would save everybody time when some yo-yo comes by to tell us (again) about David and Jonathan.

I usually read the lessons in advance of going to church, but I had not done so today. I was amazed by today’s RCL selections.

Thanks j.m.c for your measured post [62], and for the suggestions.
As to my education . . . well, I spent 7 years at Oxford, studying under George Caird, Henry Chadwick, John Macquarrie (formerly a minister of the CofS), and Morna Hooker, to name but a few.  I invited folks like Archbishop Ramsey, Bishop John Robinson, Alec Vidler, George MacLeod and others of that ilk to preach in my College Chapel.

I have been ordained for almost 33 years now.  For 12 years I was a member of the CofS “Panel on Worship”, latterly Vice-Convenor, and Convenor of The Liturgical Committee.  For 18 years I was a full-time School Chaplain in an independent (“private”) school, teaching, amongst other things: English, Philosophy and, of course Religious Education.  Prior to that for 7 years I was firstly Assistant Minister in an URC Church in England, and for the last 4 years there was Collegiate Minister.  For the last 8 years I have been ministering to a congregation of over 1,000 - with retired ministers, college lecturers, leaders of business etc.

So I am NOT a “wet-behind-the-ears” young “just-out-of-college” minister.

Just thought that you should know that.

Another thing that should be stated is that my regular congregation is, indeed, a faith-filled community.  And I think, were they to know something of what you had written above, they would be extremely hurt (if not offended) at the “slur” against them.  Many of them could teach both of us a lot of “what having faith and a living relationship with God through Christ” actually means.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest - it would probably be better were we to respect from whence we both came.

I did smile when you described the music in evangelical and baptist churches as probably being “crap”.  But I think that adjective could be applied equally well to many churches outwith that “label”!!  Thankfully, in my Church, that is not the case, nor is it the case in many traditional Anglican Churches I often attend when on holiday.  “Choral Evensong” (broadcast on the BBC) is one of my favourite programmes and, if you seek another of my favourites - it is the incomparable language of the 1662 “Book of Common Prayer” - echoed in the CofS “Book of Common Order (1940)”.

I hope this rather long reply tells you a little bit more about “Aberdeenshire Minister” and maybe explains where I am coming from.

In Christ,
AM

Sarah Hey,
RE: “I think I already knew that Leviticus had been “dumped” by the Christian Church.”

Oh no, not at all.  Please see the above listed confessions for your education.”

Oh!  Well, it must have been re-interpreted, I suppose.  Very nice and very convenient.  To my mind, you either accept (verbatim) what is written OR .............. possibly you can re-interpret ANY part of Holy Scripture to suit your own argument.

Are you (calling) “stating that a (this) minister is in a state of gross, public, flagrant, and unrepentant sin” ?  - I recall Jesus saying something about not judging others whilst “the mote” is in your own eye.  I do not know the gentleman in question, therefore I can pass no comment about his “state of grace”.

RE: “ . . . after all, THAT appears in the New Testament.”

Oh, Aberdeenshire, I’m afraid we’ve already seen how lacking you are in what is or what is not in the OT or the NT, not to mention a basic lack of theological knowledge, as witness your lack of knowledge of something so simple as the way the Christian church has dealt with the OT texts.

At this point, it’s clear you’re desperate.  You’ve been demolished on this thread, and you’re just frantically throwing anything to hand against the wall that you can grasp to see if something sticks.

Just answer me this question, after you have read 1 Cor 11:1-16, Do you wear a hat or head-scarf in Church?  It is a simple question.  All I am asking for is a simple answer.  DO you?

Because, as you said, ,blockquote> St. Paul, being inspired by God to write God’s word written, is correct whenever he writes in Holy Scripture./blockquote>

I thought that we possibly DID share the same Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ - possibly your Gospel is different!

(I’m glad you enjoyed my “descent into desperation”.  As a matter of fact, I am not desperate. Not at all.)

,blockquote>
Yep, st. anonymous, AM is trying to duck the issues by bringing up a variant of the old shellfish canard.
</blockquote>

DID I MENTION “shellfish” ?

I don’t THINK so!

Ralph:

I usually read the lessons in advance of going to church, but I had not done so today. I was amazed by today’s RCL selections

Yup! 
Samuel was great!
Revelation was moving!
Nathanuel was superb!

Part of my Sermon today:

“Can any good come out of Nazareth?”

It is interesting
that the writer of the fourth gospel includes this detail. There’s no attempt
to whitewash the disciples’ CVs.

Despite our stained-glass windows
and their portrayal of the first Christians,
We encounter them as real people, warts and all.

How could Jesus choose people
who demonstrate the same failings
we meet in human beings in our daily lives?
How could Jesus choose us?

Philip risked rejection when he tackled Nathanael.
He risked being embarrassed.

He sees our potential and our prejudices,
our talents, and our sins; and chooses us.

That is amazing.

If the Messiah can be born
in the backwaters of Nazareth in a mixed community, anyone can live in Jesus as he lives in us.

Jesus calls US to be Nathanaels,
whose prejudice about people in the past,
(be they bankers, Muslims, Jews, gays)
whom we look down on in our 21st century hubris,
can be CHANGED by an encounter with the Lord.

Afterwards, I was asked if I had heard Barak Obama’s speech today.  (I hadn’t)  The questioner then went on ... Well you both said the same thing.

Sarah Loughlin,

The assembly in question and those who support such innovations have been deceived by the great liar himself.  It is not of God and it insults the Cross to suggest otherwise.

Ok, according to you, the congregation of 200 who voted in favour of issuing “The Call” have been deceived by the great liar himself.

So has The Presbytery of Aberdeen - OK.

I’m glad that God has given you this exclusive and most important message. 

He hasn’t given ME that message - nor has he to the Church and Presbytery in question.

Perhaps you may have been “deceived”.  I think that maybe some prayer would be in order - after all, “where two or three are gathered together . . .”

Paula Loughlin,

It is not of God and it insults the Cross to suggest otherwise.

Oh!  I thought that the Cross was made of wood.  If it has been “insulted” then, perhaps you are importing to “wood” something it doesn’t possess.

Matthew 4:10, “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.” If we worship God in spirit and in truth, we cannot worship anyone or anything else. Anything we worship, other than God, is an idol. According to Webster, an idol is “an image used as an object or instrument of worship.”

But .... if by “Cross” you meant “Christ” - that is a different matter.

Paula, in all humility, may I suggest that perhaps you might choose your language with a little more care.

Paula - I apologise for inadvertently calling you “Sarah”.

I haven’t QUITE got the “hang” of this website.

Though I think I have nearly learned how to “quote” and “unquote!.

LOL

#52 Sarah… Oh dear… Nemo Me Impune Laccassit.

The comments on the education and or seminary of a Duly Licensed and Ordained Minister of the Church of Scotland are out of order Ma’am, and no way to treat a guest who obviously popped in here as we were commenting on the Church in which he serves and indeed has a right to defend.

As a native Scot I can comment on the very serious and severe selection and training process that candidates for the Ministry of the Church of Scotland go through, and in my opinion a lot of TEC clergy would fail at the academics if they got past the Selection School to start with.

For starters they have a selection process that consists of a three day residential assessment called a Selection School.  Now Graeme and I have both been through that and it can be a bit of a wringer.  You have three attempts at that then you can go no further and will not be selected.

A minister in the Church of Scotland’s primary role is as a ‘Teaching Elder’ and that means preaching and that means academics.  I believe it is still true (Graeme does the Board of Education recognise Andy McGowan’s place in Inverness) within one of the 4 Faculty’s of Divinity within the 4 great Universities of Scotland being Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews and Aberdeen.  If one has a previous University Degree then one will study three years for your Bachelor of Divinity; however if like myself you had no previous degree you spent 5 years studying for your BD.  The Scottish Honors Degree system is no joke as it basically means that ones junior and senior years are spent studying for ones only exams the finals at the send of your senior year and they are all or nothing… literally (if one messes up pray the degree committee of the Uni is nice and gives you and ordinary degree, but they don’t have to). the vast majority of Candidates are on this course though it was also becoming common for people to do an ordinary degree if they didn’t want to specialize in a set area of Theology for Honors.

I well rememer my first day at Aberdeen being handed my class load for the first year that had
Greek
Hebrew
Old Testament
New Testament
Practical Theology
Sytematic Theology
Church History
and History of Religions.

Especially on Scripture all CofS clergy will have done a mininimum of 3 years (way more than most TEC who only do one year).

During their time at Uni the Candiate will have a Parish attachment each year where he will worship at the parish each Sunday in addition to time with the minister during the week.  Your minister will not shirk about throwing you in the pulpit on a regular basis.  I had a lot of fun and learnt some lessons i have never forgotten whlsty I was ob placement at Torphins under Peter Taylor (a great guy who was a former Int Corps RSM!!)

Depending on age and prior academics one may also have to fo a one or two year post graduate Certificate or Diploma of Pastoral Studies.  Now having completed between 3 and 6 years in University all told they have to ‘Preach for Licence.’  Having already ‘swam the Tweed’ (CofS to Scottish Episcopal Church) I was saved this, but one has to preach at the regular main Sunday Service of a Church and there is a committee who attend all three and afterwards disect your ‘performance.’  Bearing in mind the CofS has no lectionary that means selecting readings and hymns,etc.  Only after completing all this will the Candidate be ‘Licensed’ as a Minister and placed in his probationary parish.  One is not ordained until one is ‘called’ to a Parish if not already.

Sorry to rant Sarah but you twanged a few strings.

Alasdair+

Graeme:

Didn’t realize you were a ‘Sassenach’ preaching to the heathen.

I was lucky enought to go to Aberdeen under the late JB Torrance and I. Howard Marshall, so if you have any old Profs from Aberdeen give them my love.

Yours aye,

Alasdair+

Ouch!  Alasdair!

Andy’s role IS duly recognised.

One little (minor) correction:
The 1940 Book of Common Order had a lectionary.
The 1979 Book of Common Order had a lectionary (the 2 year-one)
The 1993 “Common Order” (which I have to say I had A LOT to do with) has not only the RCL but also a Daily One.

Thanks for your “spirited” defence of the academic background of CofS ministers.  Much appreciated.  (As you would see from a previous post [64] - I spent 7 years at Uni.  (Maybe I was a slow learner!!!  LOL!!! )

She was a “tad” rude.

I came here because someone who spent her last “attachment” with me, directed me here.  I was a little disturbed that only one side of the situation was being addressed after “Coffee with Louis” began this particular thread.

I still seek some sort of answer to my question: “How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?” . . . And, instead, I get this:

You’ve been demolished on this thread, and you’re just frantically throwing anything to hand against the wall that you can grasp to see if something sticks.

It’s been a pleasure—although expected—to watch the gradual descent into desperation.

AM,

Thanks for the response and sorry for assumptions in my own posting.  I’m honoured to get to know you better here.
Your asking whether we should return to the sacrificial code in Leviticus had me thinking you might have had an education and career like my own TEC priest and many other clergy I’ve had contact with - where the education is substantial, but somehow not adequate for acquiring the necessary inquisitiveness and passion for theology and biblical study.
But I know how internet postings go, one isn’t always sure of the audience (here, you addressing the SF crowd here, perhaps not realizing how often we’ve seen the “how about Leviticus” / shellfish type argument; or also: me addressing you, misconstruing your own background), and certainly one isn’t always at one’s sharpest.  My apologies for misconstruing things!
I had no way of knowing the state of faith in your own church, but if the Church of Scotland is like the state churches in continental europe, it would very likely be filled with people of most excellent ethical principles - but little knowledge or practice in turning to Christ and acknowledging His redeeming grace, with Jesus seen as a distant and ancient role-model of love and pre-modern albeit radical social justice.  I’m thankful your congregation doesn’t have to read this, and no “slur” was intended.  I’m glad to hear your congregation is a place of faith.  Sarah’s post wasn’t yet up when I began; if I had read her post, I may have foregone replying.  I also didn’t assume actually that you were fresh out of seminary.  I’ve known pastors near retirement who seem never to have acquired the appetite for study of the Bible and theology - and have found that often, with a good educational background in the human sciences, faith is one of the most powerful stimulants for study and sensitivity to the issues at hand.
Of course, an appetite for Biblical studies and theology is perhaps one of the worst reasons for pursuing faith.  However, many find faith while pursuing things for all the wrong reasons.  I’ve found people growing in faith the most when studying the Bible together, in small groups, praying together, and discussing life issues with one another - and thus wanted to give you my best shot at convincing you to join one if you if I had a remote chance
I’ve studied philosophy as well and rather envious of what you were able to do while at Oxford.

Graeme:

Didn’t realize you were a ‘Sassenach’ preaching to the heathen.

I was lucky enought to go to Aberdeen under the late JB Torrance and I. Howard Marshall, so if you have any old Profs from Aberdeen give them my love.

Yours aye,

Alasdair+

Alan Main is not far away!
Nor is Henry Sefton!

I’m not a Sassenach!  My paternal grandmother came from Loch Hourn (The late Dr Tommy Murchison remembered the family) - cousins came from Soay.  I was brought up in Greenock and then Glasgow before being sent to School in England.  My own home is on North Uist!  And that’s where I shall push up the daisies!!!!

(You weren’t to know - so I forgive you that slur!  )

I am a true Scot!

Bless you!

j.m.c

Thanks for the response and sorry for assumptions in my own posting.  I’m honoured to get to know you better here.
Your asking whether we should return to the sacrificial code in Leviticus had me thinking you might have had an education and career like my own TEC priest and many other clergy I’ve had contact with - where the education is substantial, but somehow not adequate for acquiring the necessary inquisitiveness and passion for theology and biblical study.
But I know how internet postings go, one isn’t always sure of the audience (here, you addressing the SF crowd here, perhaps not realizing how often we’ve seen the “how about Leviticus” / shellfish type argument; or also: me addressing you, misconstruing your own background), and certainly one isn’t always at one’s sharpest.  My apologies for misconstruing things!
I had no way of knowing the state of faith in your own church, but if the Church of Scotland is like the state churches in continental europe, it would very likely be filled with people of most excellent ethical principles - but little knowledge or practice in turning to Christ and acknowledging His redeeming grace, with Jesus seen as a distant and ancient role-model of love and pre-modern albeit radical social justice.  I’m thankful your congregation doesn’t have to read this, and no “slur” was intended.  I’m glad to hear your congregation is a place of faith.  Sarah’s post wasn’t yet up when I began; if I had read her post, I may have foregone replying.  I also didn’t assume actually that you were fresh out of seminary.  I’ve known pastors near retirement who seem never to have acquired the appetite for study of the Bible and theology - and have found that often, with a good educational background in the human sciences, faith is one of the most powerful stimulants for study and sensitivity to the issues at hand.
Of course, an appetite for Biblical studies and theology is perhaps one of the worst reasons for pursuing faith.  However, many find faith while pursuing things for all the wrong reasons.  I’ve found people growing in faith the most when studying the Bible together, in small groups, praying together, and discussing life issues with one another - and thus wanted to give you my best shot at convincing you to join one if you if I had a remote chance
I’ve studied philosophy as well and rather envious of what you were able to do while at Oxford.

You are MOST gracious.
Dominus Tecum!

It’s OK - I wasn’t offended - you weren’t to know.

I am a complete novice as far as websites like this are concerned.
Please don’t be “offended/worried” about my previous response to your goodself.  You were not to know about my background.  Perhaps I should have stated it from the outset.  Now it’s MY turn to apologise.

Having been directed here by someone with whom I was involved in her final training - I just felt that I should attempt to express some anxieties about the original posting which began this thread.

I actually feel that I am beginning to make friends with some of you here.

It’s a hard road that we are all journeying along as “Pilgrims Together”.

And . . . Perhaps I shouldn’t have “intruded” here!

“How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?”

Obviously we cannot know.  But we have seen similar “calls” on this side of the Atlantic, and their ruinous effect on the churches involved.  I don’t know how your particular denomination is faring, AM, but over here churches that have gone the liberal “revisionist” route (the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, TEC) have all seen catastrophic consequences. The United Church adopted liberal politics, same-sex ordination, and SSM nearly 2 decades ago; they are now the fastest disappearing denomination on the continent, losing hundreds of members per week and closing up more parishes than they plant.  Experts on demographics have also said that at the current rate of attrition there will be one (1) Anglican in Canada by 2020.  TEC has also seen a precipitous loss of membership.  Years before the stock market crash these churches were already struggling with debt, laying off staff and frantically trying to reduce expenses.

The evidence should really speak for itself, but liberal “reformers” always seem to need things spelled out for them.  So here goes, AM: the churches that have gone the way you favor (ultra-liberal, sexually permissive, disdainful of scripture) are visiby dying out.  Don’t you think the Holy Spirit might be trying to tell you something?

Alasdair+

I attempted to send you a private message (giving you my e-mail address).  I don’t think it “went”.

Mmmmm

#73 - Aberdeen Minister said

I still seek some sort of answer to my question: “How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?”

Scripture instructs us the test the spirits. The Holy Spirit does not contradict scripture or tempt people to sin. The pastor in Aberdeen flunks the bible test to be a minister of God.

Here is a sampling of just a few of many scriptures that point out who Holy Spirit does not affirm to ministry. He does not affirm men who are enslaved to sin - eg: homosexuality, desertion or divorce their wives, and other such behaviors.

1 Timothy 1:9-11 (ESV)
9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

Titus 1:6-8 (ESV)
6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.

#73.  That was bad calling you a Sassenach, and I apologize (my father is English).

Yes apologies, just caught up on the thread.  Ah good old George MacLeod. Apologies over Andy McGowan as it was a tease since I know Andy would jokingly wink at me and go ‘Papist’ (I am a Spike to make ‘Staggers’ look Low Church), and I well remember joking with him after the Assembly had voted to drop the part of the WCF that said the Pope was the ‘Anti-Christ, Son of perdition’ and a few other things that I can still spout by memory.

Thanks also for the correction, and it is probably my bias having left the Kirk over the lectionary.

May I as a frequenter of this blog apologize also for any email on a non christian variety you may have received.  Stand Firmers, my brothers and sisters, you should know better, and are just emphasising the ‘arrogant American’ view many others have of us in the USA.  I say Us, because even though I am born and bred a Scot, I am first and foremost an American.

I have to confess I am slightly ashamed to be part of this normally excellent blog currently.

Alasdair

St Anonymous,

How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?”

Obviously we cannot know.  But we have seen similar “calls” on this side of the Atlantic, and their ruinous effect on the churches involved.  I don’t know how your particular denomination is faring, AM, but over here churches that have gone the liberal “revisionist” route (the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, TEC) have all seen catastrophic consequences. The United Church adopted liberal politics, same-sex ordination, and SSM nearly 2 decades ago; they are now the fastest disappearing denomination on the continent, losing hundreds of members per week and closing up more parishes than they plant.  Experts on demographics have also said that at the current rate of attrition there will be one (1) Anglican in Canada by 2020.  TEC has also seen a precipitous loss of membership.  Years before the stock market crash these churches were already struggling with debt, laying off staff and frantically trying to reduce expenses.

The evidence should really speak for itself, but liberal “reformers” always seem to need things spelled out for them.  So here goes, AM: the churches that have gone the way you favor (ultra-liberal, sexually permissive, disdainful of scripture) are visiby dying out.  Don’t you think the Holy Spirit might be trying to tell you something?

Thank you for your posting.

The information you gave:  How disturbing!

I wouldn’t say for a moment that the CofS is either ultra-liberal, nor sexually permissive.  As a Church it is definitely NOT

disdainful of scripture

  Alasdair+ will confirm that.

But I do agree that there is a terrifying decline of members in many churches.

No room for complacency, here . . .  But, I do remember that in the “Old Lectionary” with its 9-week lead up to Christmas, there was one Sunday devoted to “The Remnant”.

Perhaps God is speaking to all the Churches!

AM

I have to confess I am slightly ashamed to be part of this normally excellent blog currently.

Alasdair - It was not my intention (EVER) that you should say that / have to say that / be forced to say that.

If I have in ANY WAY “soured” your friendships here - then I really DO apologise most profoundly.

Maybe I should not be here.

Graeme.

PS.  I wouldn’t mind chatting to you elsewhere - if I could ONLY get the “Private Message” thingie to work!

Alasdair,

PPS:  Our Website will be up and running in the next 10 days - perhaps via that?

As a layperson I would ask AM these questions:
1) Do you believe leaders of congregations should be held to a higher standard of behavior and ethics?
2) What kind of message do you think this sends to others, especially young people, in our church and elsewhere?
3)  What behaviors, in your judgment, would preclude someone from becoming a priest or bishop?

No Graeme:

No need to worry.  My brothers and Sisters here are well dyed in the wool and sometimes it takes somthing like this to help us step back and look at how we treat people who comment in.  You have come in and commented, made no rude comments, yet have been attacked.  That is what we accuse our ‘opponents’ of.  In their defence I would ask you to take account that this issue has ripped the AC assunder.

I can assure you that the majority of commentors in here are wonderful people whom I would love to meet over lunch or dinner (and as groups they have done that).

Please stay, Graeme, we have people of all denominations comment here, and it greatly adds to the breadth of discussion.

Alasdair

#84 It has been enlightening, thank you for engaging here Aberdeenshire Minister, and welcome.

SjB:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I am “unrighteous”.
I am “greedy”.
I have “lied”.
(That’s all I am prepared to state on a “public website”)

I would assume, that if baptism (“washing”) is the pre-requisite, that maybe I am OK (and maybe the minister in question is OK - I don’t know!)

But if Jesus Christ accepted Nathanuel who thought that nothing good could come from Nazareth, Judas who betrayed him, Peter who denied him . . . STOP AM!  They were not baptised (as far as we know!).  ERGO:  They are neither “sanctified” - nor “justified”.

AM is wrong again!

I do not know whether the gentleman to whom “The Call” was issued IS

sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

But, since he is minister of Brechin Cathedral (at present) and they have not “complained” (a technical CofS term) - I can only assume that he is.

I wonder whether any of the ministers/priests here are SURE that they fulfil the following:

if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.

RE: “Are you (calling) “stating that a (this) minister is in a state of gross, public, flagrant, and unrepentant sin” ?  - I recall Jesus saying something about not judging others whilst “the mote” is in your own eye.”

Oh dear—and now you demonstrate that you don’t know the meaning of the word “judge” which certainly is not about “don’t discern right and wrong, and come to conclusions about it.”

RE: “Do you wear a hat or head-scarf in Church?  It is a simple question.  All I am asking for is a simple answer.  DO you?”

Sorry but you’ll need to wait until the headcovering issue comes up before you introduce that one here on this thread, which is about another issue.  But you and I really don’t share enough of a similar foundational worldview to discuss it when it comes up anyway. 

After all, you’ve already revealed that you think “Paul was wrong” and once you do that, then it doesn’t really matter what anybody thinks about the interpretation of Holy Scripture.  You’ve precluded discussion on the issue of Biblical interpretation with those who don’t share your gospel. 

You’re welcome to go look up the threads where we’ve covered that particular issue—but you’ll need to stay on topic no matter what thread you’re on.  So far it’s obvious that you’re flailing around, and randomly introducing new topics.  But sadly for you the introduction of new topics on a thread is against comment policy.  Were you to bring up WO or lay presidency or any of dozens of other new topics, it’d be the same thing.

RE: “I thought that we possibly DID share the same Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ - possibly your Gospel is different!”

Oh it’s clear we don’t share it at all.  You don’t believe in the inspiration or authority of God’s word written, for one thing.  And yes, the Gospel which I believe is certainly opposed to your gospel.

RE: “As a matter of fact, I am not desperate. Not at all.”

Of course not.  We all see how completely “not desperate” you are by the scrabbling around you’re doing.  ; > )

RE: “I still seek some sort of answer to my question: “How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?””

It’s been answered multiple times on this thread—you’ll need to read the comments I suppose with a bit more care than you read theology in school.

RE: “Perhaps I shouldn’t have “intruded” here!”

Oh, I think it’s been wonderful for you to come here and comment—it’s been a perfect demonstration of how and why the Church of Scotland is in decline and also a great demonstration of the same old assertions and rhetorical sophistry in a different denomination entirely from the Anglican Communion. 

Alasdair,

RE: “The comments on the education and or seminary of a Duly Licensed and Ordained Minister of the Church of Scotland are out of order Ma’am . . . “

Sorry, but he’s not really been able to demonstrate any benefit from the education that he purportedly received in seminary.  It’s a pity that all that time was wasted.  He’s not even familiar with the basic differences in the OT law, nor with the way the Church has treated the OT through church history, along with multiple other demonstrations on this thread alone.

RE: “a guest who obviously popped in here as we were commenting on the Church in which he serves and indeed has a right to defend. . . . “

Absolutely. 

When might we expect his defense to begin? 

So far he’s brought up the old shellfish and polyester argument—something that even a child on this blog can defend against—and has demonstrated his contempt for the inspiration and authority of God’s word written.  And then he’s tried to change the subject a few times.  And then he has revealed that he deals with any difficult passages in scripture by just shrugging his shoulders and saying “Paul was wrong.”

So whenever he’s inclined to offer an intelligent, well-reasoned defense of his church, believe me, we’re all ears!

RE: “May I as a frequenter of this blog apologize also for any email on a non christian variety you may have received.”

Um, Alasdair?  The email he received was from a fellow progressive activist.  And it was not received via this blog.  All email sent via this blog goes through a central system and shows up in central area on the server.

J.m.c.

RE: “and sorry for assumptions in my own posting.”

You know, jmc, I don’t think you need apologize for your assumptions regarding AM’s education, although it’s certainly generous of you to do so.  It’s understandable that you made the error, judging by his rhetorical attempts so far.

#83 Graeme:

Whoops I did get it and have replied to you.

Alasdair+

Hi Alasdair—can you show me the comments where this man has been attacked? 

I’m assuming, of course, that you’re not referring to his ideas or comments, which is entirely a different matter.

Alasdair:

In their defence I would ask you to take account that this issue has ripped the AC assunder.

I hear what you are saying.

It may be that the “Aberdeen issue” might have a similar effect on the CofS.

I should be broken-hearted should that happen.

I left the URC to return (home) to the CofS (Appearing at the “Bar of Assembly” - YOU know what that means!) when it became apparent that the URC would NOT be the “bridge Church” which might lead to Canterbury, Methodism and Presbyterianism re-uniting in England.  Instead, the URC became another separate denomination.

If the “Aberdeen issue” divides the CofS - then, I’m afraid that “the daisies in Uist” (earlier post) will have a very disturbed time!

Our “role”, surely, is for the “edification” of God’s people - not for their destruction.

You have been bold in your last 2 or 3 postings here.  Please do not allow my intervention to come between you and your brothers and sisters here.

In spite of Pageantmaster’s post:

#84 It has been enlightening, thank you for engaging here Aberdeenshire Minister, and welcome.

I am even MORE disturbed that I may be contributing to “schism” within this group.

That is not what the Christian Faith is “about”.

RE: “Please do not allow my intervention to come between you and your brothers and sisters here. . . . I am even MORE disturbed that I may be contributing to “schism” within this group.”

Oh, there’s little chance of that, AM.  Unless Alasdair himself were to take offense and leave for our comments attacking your ideas, there won’t be any sort of rift.  I have no trouble at all with his comments and I very much doubt anyone else does.

Ah Sarah, Sarah my dear.  Just because someone diagrees with you no need to cast aspertions.  You know I am well and truly in the orthodox camp to the point that as I twice divorced man I do not exercise my ministry so as not to bring the Church into disrepute as rev Longmuir commented in #88 so I for one cannot answer YES.

The email I was commenting on was that mention in #73 which appears to be through SF, and as one of the webmasters you alone can confirm that.

Truthfully I think we would all have a good time in the local pub after Evensong discussing a great many things.

Sarah… I would ask you to look at the fact that the CofS is a small established Church that also suffers repercussions from having been seen as extremely severe.  Religion in Scotland is a hard and biggoted topic (our soccer teams go by whether you are Protestant or Roman) so though there are many similarities, the cofS has a few more local issues to deal with.

Also, from what I can see, Rev Longmuir has not defended the Theology perse, merely the legality of the Call of Queens Cross, Aberdeen and that being upheld by Presbytery.  I may be wrong and I too am human.

I think you don’t like the fact that someone called you on percieved rudeness and from the limited things I have seen on here Sarah you are a polite and wonderful Christian woman.

Alasdair+

Sorry AM, but a man who leaves his wife, has admitted sexual relations with another person, and is unrepentant, cannot be justified in leading a congregation, or to be a leader in a Christian community.  Would it be OK if the man’s lover was a woman, or if he regularly stole from the poor-box?  What standards do you have?  “But he’s such a NICE man - a good servant!”  NO, he’s not.  We are not supposed to judge about a person’s salvation (that is God’s job), but we are certainly supposed to be discerning about whom we call to be our leaders.

You can have all the theological training and experience in pastoring that you want, but the plain reading of scripture is that this is wrong!  The fact that the congregation that he currently serves has not “complained” speaks more about the congregation than the rules - which he is clearly breaking.

I doubt if Alasdair+ will take offence unless someone [as I have done to my shame] mis-spells his name, but I have found him gracious.

#92 There are all sorts here AM, I don’t agree with you btw, and personally am very cautious of any group which prays in aid of their decisions, the leading of the Holy Spirit.  There is often a spirit, but whether it is holy requires discernment and rigorous testing in prayer and consistency with the witness of scripture.

But I am most grateful for your engagement and the welcome is warmly meant - you won’t contribute to schism here rest assured - but sometimes the bear pit can take a bit of getting used to, but is usually fun.

It take a lot to offend me.

Sarah, Ma’am you cannot deny that the comments made on academic and ‘seminary’ were rude by any comprehension.

Perhaps also I am wee bitty ‘too attached’ to this as a Scot.  Aberdeen is where I became an Anglican.  It was The Rev Dr. Henry Sefton. Master of Christ’s College, who had the balls to say to me when he was President of my Selection School “why aren’t you at the Episcopal Selection School.” (Graeme tell Henry I followed his advice).

I love SF, but sometime the way we lay into people really, really disturbs me.  yes there is the assurance of our faith but that doesn’t mean we grab the pulpit Bible from the beadle and bash people over the head with it.

Alasdair+

RE: “Just because someone diagrees with you no need to cast aspertions.”

Alasdair—where did I cast aspersions on you?  Please explain.  Where did I “attack” AM—not his ideas, but AM?

RE: “The email I was commenting on was that mention in #73 which appears to be through SF, and as one of the webmasters you alone can confirm that.”

I do not see mention of an email in #73.  Can you be more specific.  I saw mention by AM of an email that he received which was clearly from another progressive activist giggling over the Same Old Tired Shellfish/Polyester argument.  But other than that—I don’t see the email mention that you are talking about.

RE: “Also, from what I can see, Rev Longmuir has not defended the Theology perse, merely the legality of the Call of Queens Cross, Aberdeen and that being upheld by Presbytery.”

I agree that I do not see any sort of “defense” of anything in particular.  Merely scads of red herrings and the things above that I listed that he had thrown up against the wall, to wit: the old shellfish and polyester argument, his contempt for the inspiration and authority of God’s word written, attempting to change the subject, and his perfectly brilliant and incredibly scholarly means of dealing with difficult Biblical passages. 

RE: “I think you don’t like the fact that someone called you on percieved rudeness . .  . “

Alasdair, I’m afraid it’s not my concern as to whether someone thinks me rude and I assure you that it does not trouble me.  They—you—are welcome to think me rude.  There is not much I can do about it, since I will continue to attack the rather ridiculous ideas expressed by AM.  My concern occurs if I think me rude. 

But I assure you that the only way “schism” could occur at SF with you is if you were to take offense and leave.  You need not fear one bit for “schism” or rifts on my part.

Alasdair (and Sarah)

Also, from what I can see, Rev Longmuir has not defended the Theology perse, merely the legality of the Call of Queens Cross, Aberdeen and that being upheld by Presbytery.  I may be wrong and I too am human.

That is exactly where I started.

Thanks, Alasdair, for being incisive!

1. Surely the question is whether the Presbytery has upheld the teaching of the church. That’s both a legal and a theological question.

2. I can’t recall a single progressive questioning the propriety of using the Jubilee legislation (Levitical, of course) as a basis for theological reflection back in 2000. A more sophisticated analysis than all or nothing is demanded. I take it, for example, that the Levitical prohibition of incest remains in force and that a minister who argued that the Holy Spirit may have “called” an incestuous minister to a post would rightly be trenchantly criticized?

Graeme tell Henry I followed his advice.

Alasdair,

I will, my friend.

G

RE: “Sarah, Ma’am you cannot deny that the comments made on academic and ‘seminary’ were rude by any comprehension.”

I not only can deny it, but I do!  ; > )

RE: “but sometime the way we lay into people really, really disturbs me. . . .”

Ah, Alasdair, I’m confident that AM is not disturbed in the least over the attacks on his ideas.  Like water off a duck’s back, I assure you, as with all the progressive activists who frequent this blog.

If AM did not wish for his ideas to be attacked, then he should not have come over to this blog and attacked our ideas—for which, incidentally, I also take absolutely no offense.  In fact, I welcome the demonstration that he has given.

If he is a dear friend of yours, then you and he, I am sure, will remain friends long after SF is but a twinkle in his eye.

RE: “Also, from what I can see, Rev Longmuir has not defended the Theology perse, merely the legality of the Call of Queens Cross, Aberdeen and that being upheld by Presbytery.”

Furthermore, Alasdair, AM made a theological assertion in his inaugural comment and not a legal assertion.  I see no evidence at all that he was making legal assertions but rather attempting to make theological ones.

Here is the bit from his very first comment which makes it quite clear that he is not attempting to argue legally: “It would be interesting to learn on what grounds the “critics” outwith the congregation AND the Presbytery of Aberdeen are opposing a “Call” which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Alasdair and Sarah,
You obviously know each other and are friends (either in “real life” or “here” - WHATEVER . . .)

Please forgive me for intruding on that friendship and perhaps being the “occasion” for . . . Well . . . perhaps breaking up that friendship.

Sincerely,

G

1. Surely the question is whether the Presbytery has upheld the teaching of the church. That’s both a legal and a theological question.

2. I can’t recall a single progressive questioning the propriety of using the Jubilee legislation (Levitical, of course) as a basis for theological reflection back in 2000. A more sophisticated analysis than all or nothing is demanded. I take it, for example, that the Levitical prohibition of incest remains in force and that a minister who argued that the Holy Spirit may have “called” an incestuous minister to a post would rightly be trenchantly criticized?

Oh!

Crikey!

Might I be subject to a “Committee of Enquiry”?

(expires!)

Alasdair - now that you have my e-mail address - perhaps you could give me some advice through that medium . . . . . . .

G

I am away for 3 days, beginning tomorrow - so, other contributers, please forgive me if I do not respond as quickly as you might wish.

#98 Sarah.. maybe I was reading the finaly blocked comment wrong…

“You’ve been demolished on this thread, and you’re just frantically throwing anything to hand against the wall that you can grasp to see if something sticks.

It’s been a pleasure—although expected—to watch the gradual descent into desperation. “

I am not a webmaster but thank you for confirming that as far as you know that comment did not come through the SF system.

Now I am going to risk being banned and I don’t give a damn as I am not a Schismatic but use of the word ‘attack’ concerns me,

Sarah, Ma’am,  etlling someone that they obvious in your opinion learnt nothing at ‘seminary’ is rude by anyone’s understand, and if only you have to think if you are being rude is a sad case my dear for anyone who purports to be Christian.

These maybe my perceptions Sarah and blpogs are hardly the best communication medium.

Alasdair+

Oh heck Sarah and I have tussled a few times, and believe me we are all very loving here.

I believe this is the start of the issue for the CofS by the sounds of it, and they are about to hit many of the same issues we have had in TEC.

Anyway forgive me all but time to go be a husband and step-dad and help with Sunday Dinner.

Pax

Alasdair+

On the other hand one might say that one did learn the wrong things (erroneous beliefs) in important respects at seminary. Indeed I suspect that you are committed to some such view in respect of those with whom you disagree.

(It’s slightly ironic, isn’t it, for any of us in the very broadly Reformed tradition to use the label schismatic about others without at least the humble and sorrowing recognition that it might apply to us).

TO: Aberdeen Minister per #88

I do owe you an apology. I typed your name in the #80 comment as the minister in question instead of Scott Rennie. Please accept my sincere apology for my mistake - I was thinking Rennie and typed your name instead.

I was trying to answer your question on how to test what is and what is not from the Holy Spirit. Scott Rennie fails the test against scripture (the voice of the Holy Spirit) on whether Rennie is qualified for office as a minister.

I think comment #1 summed up the problem with Scott Rennie’s qualifications:

<blockquote> So, to sum it up, a man who:
1. is presently an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and
2. is currently married to a woman (in a marriage that has produced children),
3. is living in a sexual relationship with another man in a church manse. </blcokquote>

Like it or not, this is situation the church has to judge. This decision cannot be bluffed by playing the “judge not” card. It is the “judge righteously” card that must be obeyed. We are not dealing with a repentant woman caught in adultery. We are dealing with an unrepentant man and a church that appears blind to it’s responsibility to judge righteously with an unrepentant sinner.

Oh heck Sarah and I have tussled a few times, and believe me we are all very loving here.

I believe this is the start of the issue for the CofS by the sounds of it, and they are about to hit many of the same issues we have had in TEC.

Anyway forgive me all but time to go be a husband and step-dad and help with Sunday Dinner.

Pax

Alasdair,  I suspect you are correct about this being the “start of the issue” for the CofS.

And . . . Here it is 23.00hrs and I still haven’t eaten.

Pax (as you said) to all…...

AM

Alasdair+

#105 I don’t understand your response. I take it to be the clerical equivalent of “What you gonna do, sue me”. I guess it’s intended humorously but when a conversation between people who aren’t friends reaches that point it seems to me that we’re beyond reasonable dialogue.

Abderdeen Minister.  No apology needed for the name mix up. If Sarah is the worst I am ever called I will call myself lucky indeed.

I should have prehaps made clear that when I wrote “the Cross”  I was of course using it to refer to Christ dying for our sins upon it and it was to that sacrifice I allude. 

As to the question could everyone who voted in favor of this minister being called be deceived by the great liar.  Why yes they very well could be.  But I think it more likely that some were deceived and others simply went along for lack of better understanding of what is at stake or for other reasons.  Ones which are not necessarily malign.  But once a deception like this is planted it is very hard to uproot.  After all if sin was easy to reject I would not be in the state I am. 

I should reveal something that will come as no surprise to you.  I am a Catholic.  And as such I do follow along with the Church’s teaching regarding public revelation.  I think many Protestant churches also agree that there will be no further revelation binding on all the faithful until the return of Christ. 

Now can the question of the proper use of human sexuality be outside the scope of public revelation?  I hope some more able scholar will attest to this but I say no.  The revelation remains as it always has.  That the only sanctioned, holy expression of sex is between one man and one woman in life long marriage.  Any alternative to this (even if briefly allowed) has not helped to unite man with God and has often lead a person into sin. 

As to private revelation can a person suddenly be told by God that for him it is right to marry 3 women or have sex with another man?  No, because all private revelation must be tested against Scripture (since you are Protestant I will leave out the whole Apostolic Tradition bit).  Is there anything in Scripture that so much as hints that God does not have a specific plan for our sexual morality and that it is really just a matter of choice?  Provided that choice is in the context of a loving relationship?  None that I can find.

But maybe you and others are speaking a different language?  It would help to know what you believe marriage is and why it has been ordained by God.  Also what place do our bodies have in how we worship God?  And whether our bodies matter? And if so why? 

And I should say I am concerned with what happens in other churches because what wounds the one part of the Body of Christ wounds us all.  And the abandonment of Christian sexual morality is a very grave wound indeed.

On the whole broad question of Christian exegesis of the OT, may I adduce in this thread my Dialogue with Hugh?

AM, my credentials include five years at Cambridge, five as an Oxford DPhil student, and the warm friendship and support of most of the eminences whom you mention, plus others still older and quite as venerable. The late lamented David F. Wright of New College was my exact contemporary in Classics at Cambridge, and our very dear friend. His distinguished article ‘Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟIΤΑI [I Cor. 6:9, I Tim. 1:10].’ Vigiliae Christianae 38, 1984, 125-53 is still worth careful study. He shows among other things that the Fathers used Leviticus to settle questions of sex-ethics. I was able as an Hebraist to supplement his argument in 1997, demonstrating that St. Paul’s lexeme ἀρσενοκοίτης, whether coined or merely taken up by him, constitutes a deliberate and conscious back-reference to Leviticus 18 and 22.

Alas, I have no credentials.  Just a desire to know the Truth.  Too frequently this does lead to a chance to experience the finer tastes of shoe leather and I remain grateful for those who help to point this out.

In my opinion—and I’m speaking as one who attends an Anglican Church while in seminary—who’s still a member of a Presbyterian church back home (but who will become Anglican soon)—there needs to be a method to remove clergy SIMPLY FOR BELIEVING such pansexuality is OK.

If they believe it, they will teach it—if they teach it, others will believe it, and, when it comes time on a presbytery (or diocesian) level, they will vote to approve it.  Church discipline starts at the belief-to-communication level.  Heresy is usually what is said (because it’s thought…)...long before it is done.

By that standard Robinson’s supporters, and the ABC himself, would have been defrocked long ago—and we would not be in the mess we have now.

Now .... what else in the Old Testament “is no longer binding”?

(Yawn).
Laws particular to a state where God resides.  IOW, all of it is binding at one point or another.

I realize my posting above will come off as wildly harsh.  I still think its the truth however.

I will add one more observation, after (finally) reading all the posts. I feel much better now about my quite humble education—a BA from a small evangelical college, and soon an MA in Theological Studies from another small evangelical seminary.  It seems from the posts above, education at the most elite universities in the world—along with fluency in Greek, and many years of experience, cannot make a person know or trust their own bible, or their own tradition’s Confession, and the clear distinctions discernible between the Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral sections of OT law.

The Holy Spirit only calls moral pastors to lead His flock.  Those living in flagrant sin are not called, until or unless they leave their sin and embrace Christ.

At our little place in Christendom, the RCL lessons were:
1 Samuel 3:1-10(11-20)
Psalm 139:1-5, 12-17
1 Corinthians 6:12-20
John 1:43-51

I certainly don’t have any credentials to preach, but:
1. Eli’s “eyesight” had grown dim…visions were not widespread. The Word of YHVH was rare. The sons of Eli were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. Hmmmm. The Episcopal Church…the Presbytery of Aberdeen?
2. God had not yet revealed the Word to Samael.
3. YHVH calls 3 times. Samael hears, but does not correctly discern the source of the call. He thinks it’s Eli.
4. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord…Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
5. Jesus, the Word, YHVH, searches us out - even when, at times, we’re not looking for Him. When He comes to us we may not at first recognize Him. Yet, he has seen inside us, and He knew us before we were born.
6. We recognize Jesus. We tell others about Him, but perhaps they don’t believe us until they have encountered Him themselves. Perhaps, like Eli, one of our ministries is to prepare others to hear and recognize God’s call.
7. (Fast forward to Thomas, rewind back to Samuel, then forward back to Nathanael.) We don’t know Nathanael’s tone of voice, or body language. Were these words said scornfully? Reverently? Did an old saying suddenly take on a new meaning? Is this Johannine irony?

Nathanael deserves more credit. Maybe, like Thomas, he had to “come and see” in order to recognize the truth. Maybe we have to do the same thing.

I don’t see Nathanael as having been prejudiced. I sure don’t see how one could take this Gospel lesson and turn it around to a statement on prejudice against Muslims, Jews, and self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals. Then again, I didn’t spend 7 years at Oxford.

I do see a message to unrepentant sinners of all kinds.

Signing off, Rafe

Graeme,

Joshua [36] Thank you for your greetings in the language of Eden.
I am actually a member of Affirmation Scotland.
http://www.affirmationscotland.org.uk/

Ahh the language of Eden…indeed!
I think the heart of this issue is the authority of Scripture and a misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit.
To say the Holy Spirit would call a man (who has left his wife and is in a sexual relationship with a man) is to say that the Holy Spirit would go against his own Word.
I think passages such as the ones mentioned (Rom 1:18-28; 1 Cor 6:9-11) are clear that homosexual activity is incompatible with the Kingdom of Heaven.
To endorse this I think is to acquiesce to the spirit of this world rather than submit to the Holy Spirit.
God does not call people to sin, and He never goes against his Word.
Thus the decision of Aberdeen shows an alarming lack of spiritual discernment, and lack of submission to the Scriptures.
Sláinte bha
Joshua

Sorry, but hasn’t Soctland been pro homosexual and anti scriptural authority for some time now?

RE: “Please forgive me for intruding on that friendship and perhaps being the “occasion” for . . . Well . . . perhaps breaking up that friendship.”

Heh.  You flatter yourself.

Alasdair,

RE: “I am not a webmaster but thank you for confirming that as far as you know that comment did not come through the SF system.”

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.  You mentioned an email coming through the SF system.  I pointed out that the email in question was from a fellow progressive activist’s of AM.  You responded with . . . . well, I simply have no idea any more what you are trying to say.

RE: “Now I am going to risk being banned and I don’t give a damn as I am not a Schismatic but use of the word ‘attack’ concerns me . . . “

Um . . . it was you, Alasdair, who used the word “attacked.”  Right here, in your accusation that someone was “attacked:” http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/19575/#325619

RE: “Sarah, Ma’am, etlling someone that they obvious in your opinion learnt nothing at ‘seminary’ is rude by anyone’s understand . . . “

Nonsense—of course it isn’t.  As exhibit A, take my understanding.  It may be in *your* understanding—and you’re certainly free to believe that; it’s not really a concern of mine one way or the other.

RE: “and if only you have to think if you are being rude is a sad case my dear for anyone who purports to be Christian.”

Well, I certainly do have a few individuals other than myself whom I know and take their opinions about my behavior seriously. 

But . . . none of those people are commenting on this thread.  ; > )

Hallo Aisdair,
Co as a tha thu? Cáit’a bbheil i ag Alba?
I hear the GILC is a faithful church up Aberdeen way. I lived in Scotland for a wee while working as a youth minister within the C of S and been there four times. I remember fondly St Silas Anglican in Glasgow.

Sláinte bha
Joshua
p.s Ever been to Oz?

subscribe

Oh dear.  Scots wha hae?  But then we can’t all be Rob Roys.

Thank you for your greetings in the language of Eden.

Hmmm..  I haven’t seen any Dutch or Fries written on this thread.

FWIW, Philo labelled same-sex intimacy a type of adultery, a violation of what in his numbering was the Sixth Commandment [in De Spec. Leg]. Certainly as the wronged wife in this case I should feel that my husband had committed and continued to commit a peculiarly horrible form of adultery against me.

From: Biblical Self-Defense Course (on Lesbian, Gay, bisexual & transgender concerns).

The Rev. Lindsay Louise Biddle
30 Ralston Avenue
Glasgow G52 3NA
Scotland United Kingdom

Revised 2007

Word Study: “sodomite”

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!  Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.  [NRSV]

1 Timothy 1:9–10

9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites,  slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.  [NRSV]

malakos – “soft,” “effeminate”

According to Boswell, “There are three passages in the writings of Paul [including Romans 1:26–27] which have been supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and one in 1 Timothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the early twentieth century to indicate that ‘homosexuals’ will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. 

  “The first of the two, ‘μαλακός’ (basically, ‘soft’) [“male prostitute” NRSV], is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning ‘sick’ and in patristic writings with senses as varied as ‘liquid,’ ‘cowardly,’ ‘refined,’ ‘weak willed,’ ‘delicate,’ ‘gentle,’ and ‘debauched.’ In a specifically moral context it very frequently means ‘licentious,’ ‘loose,’ or ‘wanting in self-control.’ At a broad level, it might be translated as either ‘unrestrained’ or ‘wanton,’ but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.
  “What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians. [Boswell, pp. 106–107.]
____________

According to Martin, “From the end of the sixteenth century to the twentieth, the preferred translation [of malakos in English language bibles] was ‘effeminate.’… no real historical or philological [study of literature and language] evidence has been marshalled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the ‘effeminacy’ of earlier versions to the ‘homosexual perversion’ of the last fifty years. In fact, all the historical and philological evidence is on the side of the earlier versions. The shift in translation resulted not from the findings of historical scholarship but from shifts in sexual ideology.” [Martin, p. 124.]

Martin notes the ancient definitions of malakos. Used as an aesthetic term, it means “soft,” “rich,” “gentle.” Used as an ethical term, “the word still refers to something perceived as ‘soft’: laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the feminine. For the ancients, or at least for the men who produced almost all our ancient literature, the connection was commonsensical and natural. Women are weak, fearful, vulnerable, tender. They stay indoors and protect their soft skin and nature: their flesh is moister, more flaccid, and more porous than male flesh, which is why their bodies retain all that excess fluid that must be expelled every month. The female is quintessentially penetrable; their pores are looser than men’s. One might even say that in the ancient male ideology women exist to be penetrated. It is their purpose (telos). And their ‘softness’ or ‘porousness’ is nature’s way of inscribing on and within their bodies this reason for their existence….
    “A man could be branded as effeminate whether he had sex with men or with women. Effeminacy had no relation to the sex of one’s partner but to a complex system of signals with a much wider reference code. Thus it would never have occurred to an ancient person to think that malakos or any other word indicating the feminine in itself referred to homosexual sex at all. It could just as easily refer to heterosexual sex….
  “I cite these texts [from various ancient sources] not to celebrate homosexual love. What strikes me about them is rather their rank misogyny. But that is just the point. The real problem with being penetrated was that it implicated the man in the feminine, and malakos referred not to the penetration per se but to the perceived aspects of femaleness associated with it. The word malakos refers to the entire ancient complex of the devaluation of the feminine. Thus people could use malakos as an insult directed against men who love women too much.
  “At issue here is the ancient horror of the feminine,…. It is better to die than be less than a man. Or, perhaps more to the point, any sensible person would rather be dead than be a woman.
  “There is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine. There is no historical reason to take malakos as a specific reference to the penetrated man in homosexual intercourse. It is even less defensible to narrow that reference down further to mean ‘male prostitute.’ The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. Malakos means ‘effeminate.’
  “Why has this obvious translation been universally rejected in recent English versions? Doubtless because contemporary scholars have been loath to consider effeminacy a moral category but have been less hesitant in condemning gay and lesbian people. Today, effeminacy may be perceived as a quaint or distasteful personal mannerism, but the prissy church musician or stereotyped interior designer [or tea drinker, Martin refers to later] is not, merely on the basis of a limp wrist, to be considered fuel for hell. For most English-speaking Christians in the twentieth century, effeminacy may be unattractive, but it is not a sin. Their Bibles could not be allowed to condemn so vociferously something that was a mere embarrassment. So the obvious translation of malakos as ‘effeminate’ was jettisoned. [Martin, pp. 124–128.]

arsenokoitês – ?

Martin states, “From the earliest English translations of the Bible, arsenokoitês [“sodomite” NRSV] has suffered confusing treatment….
  “Between the end of the nineteenth and the middle of the twentieth century, therefore, the translation of arsenokoitês shifted from being the reference to an action that any man might well perform, regardless of orientation or disorientation, to refer to a ‘perversion,’ either an action or a propensity taken to be self-evidently abnormal and diseased. The shift in translation, that is, reflected the invention of the category of ‘homosexuality’ as an abnormal orientation, an invention that occurred in the nineteenth century but gained popular currency only gradually in the twentieth century. Furthermore, whereas earlier translations had all taken the term (correctly) to refer to men, the newer translations broadened the reference to include people of either sex who could be diagnosed as suffering from the new modern neurosis of homosexuality. Thorough historical or philological evidence was never adduced to support this shift in translation. The interpretations were prompted not by criteria of historical criticism but by shifts in modern sexual ideology.…
  “As others have noted, vice lists are sometimes organized into groups of ‘sins,’ with sins put together that have something to do with one another. First are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics or justice. Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoitês in different vice lists [from various ancient sources], I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse—that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia)—but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation. Though this provides little to go on, I suggest that a careful analysis of the actual context of the use of arsenokoitês, free from linguistically specious arguments from etymology or the word’s separate parts, indicates that arsenokoitês had a more specific meaning in Greco-Roman culture than homosexual penetration in general, a meaning that is now lost to us. It seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex. [Martin, pp. 118–120.]

Martin concludes, “I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoitês meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant. I freely admit that it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex. But given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoitês appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that ‘of course’ the terms refers to ‘men who have sex with other men.’ It is certainly possible, I think probable, that arsenokoitês referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex. The more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.” [Martin, p. 123.]

References

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. At the time of publication, Boswell was a professor of history at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Boswell cites the King James Version (KJV, 1611) of scripture. Space prohibits the inclusion of his footnotes and appendices which provide further explanation and additional references.

Martin, Dale B. “Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” In Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, edited by Robert L. Brawley,
pp. 117 –136. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. At the time of publication, Martin was a professor of religion at Duke University (Durham, North Carolina, USA) and a member of the Episcopal Church (USA). Martin concludes by challenging both right-wing fundamentalists and moderates who appeal to history and exegesis, to interpret scripture based on the love of God and of neighbor – not on “what the Bible says,” which is ideological and problematic. Regarding the ancient male ideology about women, Martin refers to his book The Corinthian Body. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press, 1995. [New edition 1999.]

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Edited by Walter J. Harrelson, et al. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 2003. The [NRSV] Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Church of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Main References

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. At the time of publication, Boswell was a professor of history at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 1993. At the time of publication, Fewell was a professor of Old Testament at Perkins School of Theology (Dallas, Texas, USA) and Gunn was a professor of religion at Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Fredrickson, David E. “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24–27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique of Eros.” In Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, edited by David L. Balch, pp. 197–222. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000. At the time of publication, Fredrickson was a professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary (Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) and a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Martin, Dale B. “Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” In Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, edited by Robert L. Brawley,
    pp. 117 –136. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. At the time of publication, Martin was a professor of religion at Duke University (Durham, North Carolina, USA) and a member of the Episcopal Church (USA).

Martin, Dale B. “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32.” In The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, edited by Mathew Kuefler, pp. 130-151. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2006. At the time of publication, Martin was a professor of religious studies at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Episcopal Church (USA).

McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual, 4th ed. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Beacon Press, 1993. At the time of publication, McNeill was a practicing psychotherapist in New York, New York, USA. Ordained a Jesuit priest in the Roman Catholic Church, he was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1987 for refusing to cease his ministry to gay men and lesbians. Originally published in 1976, McNeill’s groundbreaking work continues to be a primary resource for pastoral care and moral theology.

Melcher, Sarah J. “The Holiness Code and Human Sexuality.” In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, edited by Robert L. Brawley, pp. 87–102. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. At the time of publication, Melcher was a PhD candidate at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) and a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Moore, Gareth. A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality. London, England, UK: Continuum, 2003. Published posthumously. Moore was a lecturer in theology and philosophy at Oxford University (Oxford, England, UK) and a Dominican priest in the Roman Catholic Church.

The New Interpreter’s Bible, in 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck, et al. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 1998. The NIB cites the New International Version (NIV, 1984) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) of scripture.

  Vol. I. “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections” by Terence E. Fretheim,
    pp. 319–674. At the time of publication, Fretheim was a professor of Old Testament at Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary (Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) and a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

    Vol. II. “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections” by Ronald E. Clements,
  pp. 269–538. At the time of publication, Clements was a professor of Old Testament at King’s College, University of London (London, England, UK) and a member of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [NRSV]

Literary Context

Leviticus, “book of the Levites” (priests in Israel traditionally came from the tribe of Levi), is the middle of the five books (Pentateuch) comprising the Torah (“Law”). The content of Leviticus is thought to come from two distinct “schools” – the Priestly school (chapters 1–16) and the Holiness school (chapters 17–26, known as the Holiness Code) – “which collected, composed, and edited the legal material of Leviticus over an extended time,” according to Melcher (pp. 90–91). Along with a final chapter, 27, the book’s epilogue, they form a manual instructing the priests of Israel in holy worship and the men of Israel in holy living, all based on the often-repeated command, attributed to God, to be holy because God is holy (11:44–45, 19:2, 20:7, 20:26, and 21:8).
  The Holiness Code instructs the “sons of Israel” about personal conduct in a whole range of situations: animal slaughter and dealing with blood, sexual intercourse, ethics, special conduct of priests, worship and sacrificial offerings, and holy days and seasons. Melcher states, “Most of the Holiness Code’s laws about sexual practice are found in Leviticus 18 and 20” (p. 91).

Historical Context

Scholars disagree about whether Leviticus was compiled before or after the exile (587–539 BCE). Scholars also disagree about whether the Holiness Code, itself a compilation, was an independent unit added to the Priestly material.

Cultural Context

The divine imperative for Israel to be holy undergirded a bi-fold system of purity and separateness. Purity in all things was to be upheld within the nation to distinguish it from other nations – specifically Egypt, the land from which God had brought the Israelites, and Canaan, the land which God had promised to them. And a hierarchical delineation among nations, with Israel as God’s chosen people, reinforced a hierarchical system within Israel – with priests at the center of power, surrounded by the other men of Israel, all of whom had control over their women and their children, as well as the outer circle of slaves, resident aliens and other foreigners in Israel. This hierarchical system was (to use modern parlance) of the patriarchy, by the patriarchy, and for the patriarchy. Its essential aim was the survival of Israel as a holy/whole nation of God from whom all blessings flowed.

Textual Notes

Many of the absolute commands (“You shall,” “You shall not”) in Chapter 18 are repeated in conditional form (“If, then”) in Chapter 20 along with their respective punishments. 
____________

According to Fewell and Gunn, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are to be interpreted in the context of what precedes and succeeds 18:22. 18:6–18 is a list of prohibited (hetero)sexual relations, and 18:19–23 is translated as:
  “And to a woman in the impurity of her uncleanness [that is, who is menstruating] you shall not go near, to uncover her nakedness. And to your neighbor’s wife you shall not give your lying down for seed, to make yourself unclean by her. And of your seed you shall not give, to cause it to pass over to Molech, so you do not pollute the name of your God: I am YHWH. And with a male you shall not lie down, as lying down with a woman; that is a to’ebah [‘rejected,’ ‘unacceptable,’ ‘objectionable’: in a ritual sense]. And with no animal shall you give your lying down, to make yourself unclean by it; nor shall a woman present herself before an animal to lie with it; it is a tebel [‘confusion’ (from bll, ‘mingle,’ ‘mix,’ ‘confuse’) or ‘waste’ (from blh, ‘wear out,’ ‘waste away’)].”

Fewell and Gunn state the major themes of the passage:
  “First, it situates men’s seed as a central subject. The inappropriate disposition of seed is a misuse of what in the first instance belongs to men but ultimately to YHWH. By ascribing the seed to the divinity the male subject obliquely divinizes the seed.
    “Second, the prohibition against passing seed to Molech [a god of the Ammonites] establishes the issue of ownership and control (the control and ownership of issue!) as another central subject. The hierarchy is clear: control devolves from YHWH through men. Or put another way, the patriarchy of Israel finds its justification in the divine.
  “Third, the prohibition centers our attention on the importance of name. Name is identity, reputation, and lineage. Name is also inheritance and property. And name can be polluted, corrupted, and neglected.
    “Let us reread verses 19–23 in light of these themes. The passage begins by
prohibiting for men sex with a menstruating woman: that is a waste of seed, in that the ancients believed that a menstruating woman could not possibly be fertile. (It is likely that they thought the seed would simply be washed away by the menstrual flow.) A man is not to lie with his neighbor’s wife: that is unacceptable because it conflicts with the neighbor’s ownership of the woman, and the birth of a boy-child would confuse the hierarchy of inheritance. The Molech prohibition, already discussed, is next. It is followed by the prohibition against a man lying with another man as with a woman. That, like sex with the menstruating woman, is a waste of seed and potentially a loss of name.
  So, too, if a man lies with an animal. For a woman to have sex with an animal (domestic, as usually with behemah; a male is assumed) is a waste (tebel) of seed just because it is a confusion (tebel): the seed waste is in the first instance the animal’s but ultimately it belongs to a man, the animal’s owner. Men have better use for their male animal’s seed than to waste it on women.
  “The passage prohibiting homosexual relations is of a piece with the earlier strictures regarding (hetero)sexual relations with ‘relatives’: it is a document of patriarchy which constructs rules of behaviour in the interests of a male dominated social system. And like the earlier section it has, for many a present-day reader, a missing stipulation.
  “What is missing is any prohibition against women having sex with women. For readers bent on culling from the Bible a blanket condemnation of ‘homosexuality’ this omission is an embarrassment. It is, however, eminently understandable. The text does not construct an essential category of ‘homosexuality’ but rather it defines sexual boundaries which are part of the construction of patriarchy through the privileging of male control of seed.
[Fewell and Gunn, pp. 105–107.]
____________

Melcher states, “Grammatical structure and literary context suggest that the adult male members of the community are the persons addressed by these texts of sexual practice.
The laws in their final form in the Hebrew text employ [in Leviticus 18] second-person masculine [singular] or [in Leviticus 20] third-person masculine [singular] verb forms….
  “Nowhere in these laws is a woman or group of women addressed directly. Generally speaking, the woman is represented as the passive recipient of the man’s ‘seed.’ She is often specified as the inappropriate partner for sexual intercourse….
  “Since women are discussed in the third person rather than addressed directly in the second person, one gains the impression that the ‘sons of Israel’ have jurisdiction over proper sexual conduct for females….
  “Because of the great priest’s heightened state of holiness, he must follow stricter restrictions for marriage partners. Only a premenstrual female is appropriate for marriage, because that ‘he must not profane his seed among his people.’ [Leviticus 21:15] ‘Seed’ here can mean both ‘progeny’ and ‘semen’ simultaneously. In spite of the use of the marriage idiom, the concern is with the act of intercourse and with its results. Purity of descent is the stated object of these laws for priests (21:7, 13, 14).
  “All the laws of sexual practice are not strictly ‘incest laws,’ since they include the situation of the female slave in 19:20, the situation of the menstruant in 18:19 and 20:18, and intercourse with animals in 18:15, 16 and 20:15, 16. At most we can say that these are laws prohibiting intercourse with certain designated partners.
  “Though a ‘son of Israel’ does not possess the same holy status as a priest, the need for progeny with pure lines of descent may be the primary motivating element behind this compilation of laws about sexual intercourse. The priestly concern to avoid profaning seed may find its equivalent in the ‘defilement’ of the son of Israel’s seed in 18:20, 23. It is likely that this arrangement of laws is concerned throughout with the results of intercourse. [Melcher, pp. 91–94.]

Conclusions

Melcher concludes, “Patrilineal inheritance of the land is the primary motivating factor that generates this arrangement of these laws of sexual practice: that and the concomitant preoccupation with purity of descent.
  “Conceptually, the spatial center for the Holiness Code is the land. In contrast, chapters
1–16 [Priestly material] are spatially centered in the tent of meeting. Though the land itself is never described as holy, it can be made unclean through the community’s failure to follow the statutes given to Moses. Often the Holiness Code portrays the land as the potential means by which the community is expelled. In chapter 26 the land becomes the instrument of YHWH’s [God’s] blessing or curse….
  “Leviticus 17–26, the Holiness Code, is a complex document, weaving a texture of concepts, symbols, and signs. The text is marvellously persuasive; its use of rhetorical technique is sophisticated and effective. However, the rhetoric is not empty, nor is it full of devices created simply to persuade the reader. The Holiness Code is a fine tapestry with a variety of hues, but the interwoven value concepts are matters of urgent concern to the community: the protection of the system of patrilineal land tenure, purity of descent, the special status of the priests, and dwelling securely in the land. In a quite literal way, if their system of land tenure fails (a system based on patrilineal inheritance within the clan), the ‘sons of Israel’ will find themselves to be landless. A clan’s hold on the land is ensured by clear lines of descent and many pure descendants. The laws of jubilee [which allowed land to be reclaimed in the fiftieth year] can accomplish only so much in protecting a clan’s hold. It seems that rules of inappropriate sexual intercourse serve to protect pure patrilineal descent. With the exception of the ‘ghosts and familiar spirits’ (20:6, 27), all these laws in chapters 18 and 20 seem to put a fence around pure patrilineal land inheritance.
  “Even the laws pertaining to ‘passing his seed to Molech’ can be seen as a terrible violation of a system of patrilineal descent. If a pure male descendant is the most important element for maintaining a hold on the land, the worst violation of YHWH’s covenant is this brazen destruction of the product of a pure, appropriate sexual union. Why laws forbidding certain partners for intercourse? Because of the potential for confusion of descent. There are also laws that constrain practices that do not promote the system.
Intercourse with a menstruating woman is unlikely to produce a male heir; intercourse between two males most certainly will not; and the unproductive nature of intercourse with an animal in such a system is apparent. Even the law against cursing one’s father or mother reinforces the boundaries between generations.” [Melcher, pp. 98–99.]

Greek and early Christian contexts

According to Boswell, “The Hebrew word ‘toevah,’ (בהﬠוֹתּ), here [in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13] translated ‘abomination,’ does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. It is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase ‘toevah ha-goyim,’ ‘the uncleanness of the Gentiles’ (e.g., 2 [4] Kings 16:3)….
    “The distinction between intrinsic wrong and ritual impurity is even more finely drawn by the Greek translation, which distinguishes in ‘toevah’ itself the separate categories of violations of law or justice (’ανομία) and infringements of ritual purity or monotheistic worship (βδέλυγμα). The Levitical proscriptions of homosexual behavior fall in the latter category.
    “In the Greek, then, the Levitical enactments against homosexual behavior characterize it unequivocally as ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil. This was not lost on Greek-speaking theologians, many of whom considered that such behavior had been forbidden the Jews as part of their distinctive ethical heritage or because it was associated with idolatry, not as part of the law regarding sexuality and marriage, which was thought to be of wider application. The irrelevance of the verses was further emphasized by the teaching of both Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted ‘abomination’ (‘βδέλυγμα’) but the interior infidelity of the soul.
  “Even where such subtleties were not well understood, however, the Levitical proscriptions were not likely to have much effect on early Christian morality. Within a few generations of the first disciples, the majority of converts to Christianity were not Jews, and their attitude toward Jewish law was to say the least ambivalent. Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details….
    “In fact non-Jewish converts to Christianity found most of the provisions of Jewish law extremely burdensome, if not intolerable, and a fierce dispute racked the early church over whether Christians should be bound by it or not. The issue was finally resolved at the Council of Jerusalem (ca. A.D. 49; see Acts 15). After long and bitter debate within the highest ranks of the Christian community, it was decided that pagan converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of the Mosaic law—including circumcision—with four exceptions: they were to ‘abstain from pollutions of idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication’ [of which none referred to homosexuality]….
  “The struggle over the issue of Gentile Christians and the Mosaic law was such a profound trauma for the early church that once it was resolved there was no thought of trying to bind new Christians—even converts from Judaism—by its proscriptions. Saint Paul urged Christians not to be ‘entangled again with the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1–2) or to give ‘heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth,’ for ‘unto the pure all things are pure’ (Titus 1:14–15). In fact he went so far as to assert that ‘if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’ (Gal. 5:2).
  “Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. A few patristic sources invoked Levitical precedents about eating certain animals in relation to homosexuality, but they did so incorrectly and offered the Levitical law only as a symbol of how God felt about animals. They did not suggest for a minute that the dietary laws be observed in their entirety. It would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new: the Levitical regulations had no hold on Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality. Even in the case of the exceptional Christian theologians who did refer to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, the opinions therein cannot be seen as the origin of their attitudes, since they rejected the vast majority of Levitical precepts, retaining only those which suited their personal prejudice. Their
extreme selectivity in approaching the huge corpus of Levitical law is clear evidence that it was not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded.” [Boswell, pp. 100–105.]

References

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. At the time of publication, Boswell was a professor of history at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Boswell cites the King James Version (KJV, 1611) of scripture. Space prohibits the inclusion of all his footnotes and appendices which provide further explanation and additional references.

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 1993. At the time of publication, Fewell was a professor of Old Testament at Perkins School of Theology (Dallas, Texas, USA) and Gunn was a professor of religion at Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Fewell and Gunn cite their own translations of scripture.

Melcher, Sarah J. “The Holiness Code and Human Sexuality.” In Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, edited by Robert L. Brawley, pp. 87–102. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. At the time of publication, Melcher was a PhD candidate at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) and a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Melcher cites her own translations of scripture.

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Edited by Walter J. Harrelson, et al. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 2003. The [NRSV] Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Church of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Interpreting Paul’s Letter to the Romans Naturally

Romans 1:26–27

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.  [NRSV]

Literary Context

The letter to the church in Rome is the apostle Paul’s longest in the New Testament, matching its breadth and depth. In it Paul addresses both Gentiles and Jews about God’s covenant relationship with Israel which has been expanded by the saving grace of Jesus Christ to include the whole world.
  Paul presents the case for God’s inclusive righteousness / justification using courtroom rhetoric. In Romans 1:1–17 he makes his opening statements. In 1:18–3:20 he first accuses the Gentiles of idolatry and polytheism and then, just when the Jews start feeling self-righteous, he accuses the Jews of wickedness, to make the point that all of humanity is guilty of sin and therefore in need of salvation. Having gotten everyone’s attention, he goes on to describe God’s righteousness and justice and the crucial role of Jesus Christ, God’s plan for Israel, and how Christians are to relate to one another and to the world.

Historical Context

Paul dictated his letter to the church in Rome sometime in the mid to late 50’s CE while he was visiting the church in Corinth and in anticipation of his first visit to the capital city and seat of Roman justice. (“Paul” was his Greek name; his Hebrew name was “Saul.”)
  The church in Rome was recovering from the Roman emperor’s expulsion of all the Jews (both adherents to Judaism and converts to Christianity) from the city 49-54 CE and their recent return to the city, only for the Jewish Christians to find themselves a minority in the church compared to the Gentile Christians.
  The Acts of the Apostles records Saul as being born a Jew and a Roman citizen in the Greek city of Tarsus. Becoming a Pharisee, he zealously persecuted men and women of the Christian faith which had developed out of the Jewish faith to such an extent as to be a threat to the Jewish authorities and illegal to the Roman authorities. On his way to capture Christians in the Greek city of Damascus, he experienced a conversion to Christianity. He eventually won the trust of those he had previously pursued and became a zealous apostle to the Gentiles as well as to Jewish audiences.
  Paul’s conversion is thought to have happened sometime in the 30’s to 40 CE. After devoting the rest of his life to missionary work, he is thought to have suffered the same fate as those Christians he once persecuted: imprisonment and execution by the Roman authorities, probably in Rome in the early to mid 60’s CE.

Jewish Context

In Romans 1:18–32 Paul explains the Gentiles’ sin of idolatry and polytheism and the resulting punishment by God. According to Martin, Paul’s argument presupposes a Jewish myth about the origins of idolatry and polytheism. Martin summarizes the myth for modern readers: “Once upon a time, even after the sin of Adam, all humanity was safely and securely monotheistic. At some point in ancient history most of humanity rebelled against God, rejected the knowledge of the true God that they certainly possessed, willfully turned their collective back on God, made idols for themselves, and proceeded to worship those things that by nature are not gods. As punishment for their invention of idolatry and polytheism, God ‘handed them over’ to depravity, allowing them to follow their ‘passions,’ which led them into sexual immorality, particularly same-sex coupling. Homosexual activity was the punishment meted out by God for the sin of idolatry and polytheism….
  “In sum, modern people, even Christians, do not believe the mythological structure that provides the logic for Paul’s statements about homosexuality in Romans 1. Heterosexist scholars alter Paul’s reference to a myth which most modern Christians do not even know, much less believe (that is, a myth about the beginnings of idolatry) and pretend that Paul refers to a myth that many modern Christians do believe, at least on some level (the myth about the Fall [of humanity into sin]). Heterosexism can retain Paul’s condemnation of same-sex coupling only by eliding [altering] the supporting logic of that condemnation.” [Martin, pp. 132, 134–135.]

Textual Notes

Martin states, “To some extent, it is understandable that modern scholars read Paul’s comments [Romans 1:18-32] as a reference to homosexual desire; Paul does, after all, mention desire and passion in the passage. In v. 24 Paul says that God ‘gave them up in the desires [epithymiai] of their hearts to uncleanness with the result that they dishonor their bodies in themselves.’ Paul uses the term ‘passions of dishonor’ (pathē atimias, v. 26), and he writes that males ‘burned in their yearning [orexis] for one another’ (v. 27). But it is a mistake to read into these comments the kind of modernist dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual desire, in which a difference in kind—between an unnatural, abnormal desire and a natural, normal desire—is assumed. The question is, Does Paul here assume a category of homosexual desire that is a different kind of desire from heterosexual desire?
  “First, it should be noted that Paul uses the term ‘contrary to nature’ or ‘unnatural’ only when referring to actions, not desires. In v. 26, Paul says that females exchanged the ‘natural use’ (physikē chrēsis) for that which is ‘contrary to’ or ‘beyond nature’ (para physin). Paul also mentions males forsaking the ‘natural use of females’ (v. 27). Paul does not, however, link the language of ‘nature’ to ‘desire.’ The absence in Paul’s language of any reference to ‘unnatural desire’ is understandable when we place him in the context of ancient, rather than modern, notions of homosexual sex.
  “As has been often noted, ancient Greco-Roman moralists (and we should include most Jewish moralists of Paul’s day) generally believed homosexual behavior sprang from the same desire that motivated heterosexual sex…. The problem had to do not with a disoriented desire, but with inordinate desire. Degree of passion, rather than object choice, was the defining factor of desire.” [Martin, p. 136.]

Martin notes how ancient moralists judged sexuality and eating similarly. “In this regard, it is significant that the Greek phrase para physin, usually translated “contrary to nature” or ‘unnatural,’ more exactly means ‘beyond nature’ or ‘in excess of what is natural.’ For the ancient writers, certain behaviors were ‘contrary to nature’ because they went beyond the proper limits prescribed by nature. Gluttony was ‘too much eating’; homosexuality was ‘too much sex.’
  “… for them [the ancients], the actions could be ‘unnatural’ but still sprang from basically natural desire. This is why the ancients had no notion of ‘homosexual orientation’ or ‘homosexuals’; it was not a question of ‘disoriented desires’ but of legitimate desires that were allowed illegitimate freedoms…. [Martin, p. 137.]

Greek and early Christian contexts

Martin notes how the ancients assumed that males were naturally superior to females in all aspects of society, including sexual relationships, and anything that disturbed the gender hierarchy was considered “unnatural.” Martin states, “Paul, as a product of his culture, certainly shared many of these assumptions—with the exception that Paul shows no concerns for procreation whatsoever (see 1 Corinthians 7). Thus he describes homosexual activity in Romans 1 as inordinate passion…. ‘It is better to marry than to burn” [1 Corinthians 7:9b] means, in spite of its incomprehensibility for modern persons, that Paul encouraged sex within marriage only as a prophylaxis [preventative measure] against desire. Sex is not so much the problem for Paul as desire: marital sex acts thus assist in the precluding of passion. It is a mistake, therefore, for us to interpret Paul’s phrase ‘passion of dishonor’ as implying the possibility for him of ‘honorable passion,’ since for him all passion is dishonorable. For Paul, homosexuality was simply a further extreme of the corruption inherent in sexual passion itself. It did not spring from a different kind of desire, but simply from desire itself.
  “Doubtless, Paul also objects to same-sex intercourse due in part to his assumption about the cosmic hierarchy of male over female. While this is not made explicit in Romans 1, it is probably assumed.” [Martin, pp. 137–140.]

Martin states in a footnote, “Significantly, most early Christian commentators on Romans take the references to women to refer not to lesbian activity but to heterosexual intercourse considered ‘unnatural’ due to the female’s assumption of the ‘male’ role. Again the concern is about ‘natural’ gender hierarchy—in these cases related to heterosexual rather than lesbian sex.”
[Martin, footnote 41, p. 150.]
____________

According to Moore, “There is no reason at all on biblical grounds for inferring that Paul’s description of same-sex practices as shameful implies that they are also sinful. The word ‘shameful’ is appropriate here because these practices closely concern the body….
  “To have passion is always to be subject to passion, and this is always, in the Greek philosophical tradition to which Paul is heir, shameful, for it is to be out of control; it is to be moved not by reason but by irrational forces. In addition, when a man becomes subject to his passions, he is like a woman, whose place is to be subject, rather than the man that he is, whose place is to dominate. This is a constant risk for a man, since he is constantly moved by passion, and it takes a constant battle against passion to be a true man…. So we need not think that in
Romans 1, Paul has in mind passions which lead to particularly dishonourable behaviour; for him, all passions are dishonourable in this sense. What is dishonourable about the passions of which Paul speaks is not that they are homosexual passions, but simply that they are passions.” [Moore, pp. 92–93.]

Regarding Paul’s reference to “their women” in verse 26, Moore states, “While Paul writes of the males, he writes of their females, suggesting (no more than that) a relationship of possession. It is not entirely clear to whom the females might belong, but females, in both Jewish and Hellenistic culture, normally belong to males. His use of ‘their’ casts doubt on the sexual egalitarianism of Paul in this passage. If Paul considers it natural for men to engage in sex with women, his culture also considered it natural for women to be sexually subject to their husbands, and perhaps he is here echoing and subscribing to that cultural assumption. The possibility arises that what the women are doing is not engaging in sex with each other, but engaging in sex with men who are not their husbands. If this is so, Paul’s concern with the women becomes much more traditional and much more comprehensible: they are committing adultery. That this is a possibility, suggested by the text itself, again raises doubts about the suitability of using this text in support of a condemnation of same-sex activity….
  “Importantly, Paul, when speaking of the women, does not speak of any change of sexual partner; he does not suggest that women act unnaturally with women, while he does say that the men act unnaturally with men. So it is legitimate, even natural, to suppose that the women commit their unnatural acts with men, not with women; that they are heterosexual, not homosexual….
  “He [Paul] is not concerned with homosexuality at all, but with ‘unnatural’ sex, which in the case of women involves acts such as oral and anal intercourse with men – forsaking their ‘natural’ sexual instrument – and in the case of men a feminizing submission to a desire to play the role of the woman in sexual intercourse with a man. Therefore the idea that Paul is condemning homosexuality collapses.” [Moore. pp. 97–99.]

Conclusions

Martin concludes, “Romans 1 offers no etiology [origin] of homosexual desire or orientation; its etiology of homosexual sex is one no modern scholar has advocated as factual; and its assumptions about ‘nature’ and sex are not those generally held by the modern apologists for heterosexism.
  “By now it should be clear that I am not arguing that Paul was pro-gay or even neutral on the topic of homosexual sex. My purpose, rather, has been to expose the radical difference between the logics of sexuality that underwrite Romans 1, on the one hand, and the modern logic, on the other, that rules virtually every current discussion, including those by people priding themselves on being ‘true to the bible.’” [Martin, p. 140.]
____________
Moore concludes, “In the New Testament, the most significant text, Romans 1, is difficult to understand in some ways, but if it is a condemnation of anything it condemns deliberate rejection of God, and describes homosexual desire and activity (perhaps, rather, non-coital sex and hence ‘unnatural’ sex) as a kind of punishment for that rejection…. The clear link Paul makes between refusal to acknowledge God and the sexual practices of which he speaks also makes it difficult to see how this passage can be pertinent to a discussion of Christian homosexuality.” [Moore, pp. 113–114.]
____________

According to Fredrickson, “Therefore, it is anachronistic and inappropriate to think that Paul condemns homosexuality as unnatural and praises heterosexuality as a reflection of the God-given order of things. Sexual activity between males is not portrayed as the violation of a male-female norm given with creation but as an example of passion into which God has handed over persons who have dishonored him. The immediate problem is passion, not the gender of the persons having sex. The argument of Romans 1:18–27 rests on the conception familiar to Paul’s audience that passion itself is dishonorable. Similarly, in
1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul draws from the philosophic tradition’s aversion to passion. In this instance he uses the concept of softness to portray persons who lack self-control [malakos]. He then mentions the figure of the hybristic [define] pederast [define] known in antiquity as one who through loss of self-control demeans others [arsenokoitês]. The moral issue is not sexual orientation but the connection between passion and justice.”
[Fredrickson, p. 222.]
____________

According to Boswell, “The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is an unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine. At the very most, the effect of Christian Scripture on attitudes toward homosexuality could be described as moot. The most judicious historical perspective might be that it had no effect at all. The source of antigay feelings among Christians must be sought elsewhere.” [Boswell, p. 117.]

References

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. At the time of publication, Boswell was a professor of history at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Boswell cites the King James Version (KJV, 1611) of scripture. Space prohibits the inclusion of all his footnotes and appendices which provide further explanation and additional references.

Fredrickson, David E. “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24–27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique of Eros.” In Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, edited by David L. Balch,
pp. 197–222. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.
At the time of publication, Fredrickson was a professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary (Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) and a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Martin, Dale B. “Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32.” In The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, edited by Mathew Kuefler, pp. 130-151. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2006. At the time of publication, Martin was a professor of religious studies at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut, USA) and a member of the Episcopal Church (USA). Martin counters heterosexist interpretations of Romans 1 that misconstrue Paul’s reference to a Jewish myth about the origin of idolatry and polytheism and instead force a reference to the myth (better known by modern Christians) about the fall of humanity into sin; mistranslate para physin (“beyond nature” or “in excess of what is natural”) as “unnatural” regarding homosexual activity; and ignore Paul’s negative attitude about all sexual passions or desires and instead force a modern differentiation between homosexual desire and heterosexual desire.

Moore, Gareth. A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality. London, England, USA: Continuum, 2003. Published posthumously. Moore was a lecturer in theology and philosophy at Oxford University (Oxford, England, UK) and a Dominican priest in the Roman Catholic Church. Focusing on the current debate about homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church, Moore discusses the biblical texts commonly used to condemn homosexuality, the texts recently used to affirm heterosexuality as normative, texts supportive of homosexual acts and relationships, and arguments based on natural law. He claims “there are no good arguments, from either Scripture or natural law, against what have come to be known as homosexual relationships. The arguments put forward to show that such relationships are immoral are bad. Either their premises are false or the argument by means of which the conclusion is drawn from them itself contains errors” (p. x).

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Edited by Walter J. Harrelson, et al. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Abingdon Press, 2003. The [NRSV] Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Church of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

he purportedly received in seminary.  It’s a pity that all that time was wasted.  He’s not even familiar with the basic differences in the OT law, nor with the way the Church has treated the OT through church history, along with multiple other demonstrations on this thread alone.

PURPORTEDLY?

Does 7 years at Oxford count for nothing?
Does a further 4 years at Lancaster (Theology & Philosophy) count for “nothing”?

Come on!!!!

B.Ed.
BA.
MA.
Cert Theol.

(and a bit more!)

AM, a simple question - have you read and engaged with Gagnon?

I ask, because you may not be aware that the academic argument, stimulated by Boswell, has progressed beyond it and Gagnon has addressed Boswell comprehensively. It is, however, notable that it’s very hard to find any liberal commentary in this area that actually recognises that fairly important fact.

The Holy Spirit only calls moral pastors to lead His flock.

Now!  We are arriving at the thrust of the discussion… LuxRex.

How do you KNOW?

OR . . .

How do YOU know?

<blockquote>AM, a simple question - have you read and engaged with Gagnon?</unblockquote>

David,

Did I (through quoting) not show that I was engaging with Gagnon?

Yes, the discussion may have progressed.

But, the stage we have NOW reached is how one interprets Holy Scripture - do you not agree?

I also asked a simple question of Sarah Hey:

<blockquote>Just answer me this question, after you have read 1 Cor 11:1-16, Do you wear a hat or head-scarf in Church?  It is a simple question.  All I am asking for is a simple answer.  DO you?,/blockquote>

And the reply I received?
<blockquote>Sorry but you’ll need to wait until the headcovering issue comes up before you introduce that one here on this thread, which is about another issue.  But you and I really don’t share enough of a similar foundational worldview to discuss it when it comes up anyway.

After all, you’ve already revealed that you think “Paul was wrong” and once you do that, then it doesn’t really matter what anybody thinks about the interpretation of Holy Scripture.  You’ve precluded discussion on the issue of Biblical interpretation with those who don’t share your gospel.

You’re welcome to go look up the threads where we’ve covered that particular issue—but you’ll need to stay on topic no matter what thread you’re on.  So far it’s obvious that you’re flailing around, and randomly introducing new topics.  But sadly for you the introduction of new topics on a thread is against comment policy.  Were you to bring up WO or lay presidency or any of dozens of other new topics, it’d be the same thing.

RE: “I thought that we possibly DID share the same Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ - possibly your Gospel is different!”

Oh it’s clear we don’t share it at all.  You don’t believe in the inspiration or authority of God’s word written, for one thing.  And yes, the Gospel which I believe is certainly opposed to your gospel.

RE: “As a matter of fact, I am not desperate. Not at all.”

Of course not.  We all see how completely “not desperate” you are by the scrabbling around you’re doing.  ; > )

RE: “I still seek some sort of answer to my question: “How do people know that ‘The Call’ was NOT from the Holy Spirit?””

It’s been answered multiple times on this thread—you’ll need to read the comments I suppose WITH A BIT MORE CARE THAN YOU READ THEOLOGY AT SCHOOL.

RE: “Perhaps I shouldn’t have “intruded” here!”

Oh, I think it’s been wonderful for you to come here and comment—it’s been a perfect demonstration of how and why the Church of Scotland is in decline and also a great demonstration of the same old assertions and rhetorical sophistry in a different denomination entirely from the Anglican Communion.</unblockquote>
Hurling (inaccurate) insults like hers is no way for Christians to engage with one another, is it?

Did Sarah Hey answer my “simple question” ?

Of course not!

It was easier for her to condemn my theological (sic) education (sic) than it was for her to answer MY simple question.

I am astonished to see further contributions by AM to this thread at this late date. Perhaps it should be closed, to provide space and time for some modern reading. Please, AM, read Rob Gagnon for a full refutation of the idea that real biblical philology can possibly lead to an endorsation of homosex. Included in his comprehensive bibliography is reference to my pioneering article on the relevant texts at

Spirit&Sex;.

where if the usual intrusive semi-colon is abstracted an updated edition is available.