Lgbt affirming versus non affirming positions
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

LGBT: Affirming versus Non-Affirming Positions PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 160 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

LGBT: Affirming versus Non-Affirming Positions. Language. Welcoming and Affirming. Welcoming but not Affirming. Love/Hate. Simplified As. Affirming. Not Affirming. The Shape of the Debate. Affirming. Not-Affirming. Acts 15. Jesus On Marriage. 7/8 Texts. Romans 14.

Download Presentation

LGBT: Affirming versus Non-Affirming Positions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Lgbt affirming versus non affirming positions

LGBT: Affirming versus Non-Affirming Positions


Language

Language

Welcoming

and

Affirming

Welcoming

but not

Affirming

Love/Hate


Simplified as

Simplified As

Affirming

Not

Affirming


The shape of the debate

The Shape of the Debate

Affirming

Not-Affirming

Acts 15

Jesus

On

Marriage

7/8

Texts

Romans 14

Genesis

1-2


The shape of the debate1

The Shape of the Debate

Modernism

Postmodernism

Hermeneutics

G

M

Paul

DisM

C


8 texts

8 Texts

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable (Leviticus 18.22)

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads (Leviticus 20.13).

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (Genesis 19.4-5).


8 texts1

8 Texts

"You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square.” So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing (Judges 19.20-23).


8 texts2

8 Texts

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1.24-32).


8 texts3

8 Texts

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 (arsenokoitai)nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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 (1 Corinthians 9-10).

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai), for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me (1 Timothy 1.8-11).


8 texts4

8 Texts

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality (fornication) and perversion (going after strange flesh). They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 1.7).

Affirmative Argument: A hermeneutic of irrelevance

A hermeneutic of contextual distance

A hermeneutic of textual isolation

A hermeneutic of textual misuse


8 texts5

8 Texts

Leviticus 18.22; Leviticus 20.13; Genesis 19.4-5; Judges 19.22; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.8-11; Jude 1.7

Leviticus 18.22; Leviticus 20.13; Genesis 19.4-5; Judges 19.22; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.8-11; Jude 1.7

Leviticus 18.22; Leviticus 20.13; Genesis 19.4-5; Judges 19.22; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.8-11; Jude 1.7

Leviticus 18.22; Leviticus 20.13; Genesis 19.4-5; Judges 19.22; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.8-11; Jude 1.7

Inhospitality, Rape & Injustice

Idolatory & Purity laws - superceded OT texts

Pederasty, Slavery & Patriarchy


Interpreting text with text

Interpreting text with text

1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1.10: arsenokoitai (male lie with)

Leviticus 18.22: meta arsenoskoitein (with man lie with)

Romans 1: Creator, Women, Men, Women, Men, Men

Genesis 1.27 Male and female he created them

Matthew 19.4 Creator made them male and female


The shape of the debate2

The Shape of the Debate

Jesus

On

Marriage

1 Cor

1 Tim

Romans

Leviticus

Genesis

1-2


The shape of the debate3

The Shape of the Debate

Acts 15

Jesus

On

Marriage

1 Cor

Romans

1 Tim

?

Leviticus

Romans 14

Genesis

1-2


Acts 15

Acts 15

Affirming argument:

The Council of Jerusalem: Admitting Gentiles.

Peter: Led by the Holy Spirit.

LGBT people today are equivalent to Gentiles then.

We are also being led by the Spirit.

Not-Affirming argument:

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality …”(Acts 15.20)

Sexual orientation is not a fundamental identifier of ones humanity, like race or gender.

Being led by secular humanist and neo-gnostic culture. The new Gnosis.


Romans 14 disputable matters

Romans 14 – Disputable matters

An argument isolated to Ken Wilson:

Disagreements about holy days, meats and wine was declared a “disputable matter”, that is, one where Paul exhorts Christians to “agree to disagree.”

There is no agreement on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1.

Therefore the advice of Romans 14 should apply.

Therefore we should follow a “third way” – allow for both views in the church today: celibacy and committed marriage for LGBT Christians.


Romans 14 disputable matters1

Romans 14 – Disputable matters

There is no scholar or commentator who agrees with Ken’s take on Romans 14.

Paul deals with this in both Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1. Ken isolates the one text from the other, leading to a skewed reading of Romans 14-15.

Paul’s whole point is to distinguish between matters of individual conscience, and matters of absolute morality.

Paul has made his view on the immorality of homosexuality very clear in 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1.

Therefore Ken has totally misused Romans 14-15.


The shape of the debate4

The Shape of the Debate

Not-Affirming

Acts 15

Jesus

On

Marriage

1 Cor

Romans

1 Tim

Leviticus

Romans 14

Genesis

1-2


Romans 1

Romans 1

There are five affirmation arguments on this text.

The exploitation argument: Paul is condemning pederasty, the abuse of slaves, etc., so the text is not relevant to consenting adults.

The orientation argument: Paul had no concept of a permanent homosexual orientation, since this has only been “discovered” in recent times, so this text is not relevant.

The heterosexual orientation argument: Paul describes people with heterosexual orientation who engage in homosexual acts, not people with inborn homosexual orientation.

The misogyny argument: Paul’s context assumed a hierarchical society where the passive partner was necessarily humiliated (made like a woman). This is part of a by-gone world of male dominance, so the text is not relevant today.

The idolatry argument: Paul is condemning homosexuality within the context of idol worship, so this text is not relevant to modern Western people who are not idol worshippers, and may in fact be committed Christians.


Romans 11

Romans 1

The exploitation argument: Ideas of exploitation must be brought to the text. Paul’s only clear allusion is to Genesis 1-2.

The orientation argument: This is simply not true. Already in Plato’s Symposium, 4 centuries earlier, there is knowledge of adult consenting homosexual relationships (N.T. Wright versus Sarah Ruden). The idea of the so-called ignorance of the ancients versus the higher knowledge of moderns is a typically modernist idea.

The heterosexual orientation argument: Very few have followed this argument.

The misogyny argument: Again, such ideas must be brought to the text. Paul’s only clear allusion is to Genesis 1-2.

The idolatry argument: We must examine this in more detail.


Romans 1 idolatry

Romans 1: Idolatry

Idol worship is the cause, when one considers pagan society in general, of depravity, including same-sex activity. Paul is not saying that any individual who does this is necessarily into idol worship.

The range of sexual activities that were same-sex, though different in many ways in ancient Greco-Roman society, was not that different from the range of activities in Modern Western societies.

There are specific forms of idol worship that are a very close parallel, namely ancient Gnosticism and New Age thinking.

There is a direct link between neo-Gnostic ideas, particularly Monism, and forms of radical feminism and support for same-sex activity today. There is a shift in the view of the divine being, or put simply, what god people worship.

Therefore the argument of contextual distance between “then” and “now” with Romans 1 cannot be made.


  • Login