From a more conservative netfriend:

Nathan,

I form the impression that I couldn’t more strongly disagree with both your treatment of the Genesis narrative and the suggestion that Christian grace necessitates a pro-gay position.

As to the first, the Genesis stories to my mind perform the function of foundational stories (i.e. “myth” in the anthropological sense of the term)

and as such lay the basis for the entire Judeo-Christian world-view. The question of history in this context is rather a side-issue for the _function_ of the Genesis prologue (regardless of whether it is taken historically or not, literally or not) is to define the permissible contours of the reality which humans _currently_ inhabit (By analogy, consider the aboriginal dream-time stories which directly dictate cultural practices in the here-and-now).

The question of a “return” to the Garden is thus to my mind somewhat misplaced. Foundational stories do not present a historical reality to which humanity must return, but rather a theological and philosophical ideal to which humanity must conform in the present. I would – in the strongest possible terms and contrary to your assertion – advocate the view that there can be no more definitive basis for ethics in the Judeo-Christian tradition than that of the Genesis stories.

Further, it is intrinsic to the nature of foundational stories that they make only a limited number of points critical to the world-view which they undergird. That this is so of the Genesis stories leads to two pertinent points;

First, it is clear that the question of illness and deformity is not addressed by the Genesis text making it improper to suggest that Jesus’ wounded hands are “abnormal” by the standards of Genesis – the text simply doesn’t give us any basis for such an assertion.

Second, given that the Genesis stories mandate heterosexual monogamy among their few significant themes suggests that this issue is one of the critical and nonnegotiable aspects of the Judeo-Christian world view. After all, foundational stories do not waste time on irrelevancies and it may be the case that to reject heterosexual monogamy as the only normative context for sexual activity is to undermine God’s intended order of things to an irreparable extent.

In all of this I would emphasise again that the Genesis narrative is not about a historical reality to which we must return, but about a theological ideal to which we must conform in the present. As such, it is in no way inconsistent with the eschatological vision of the NT. The fact is that Genesis puts forward an ideal of God, humanity and nature living in harmony whilst giving some small idea as to what “living in harmony” looks like. As such, Genesis presents a vision toward which salvation history is working and I consider it a false dichotomy to distinguish between the Garden and the New Jerusalem. In fact, even a brief study of Revelation 21 and 22 will show significant parallels with Genesis 1-3 suggesting that the eschatological fulfilment is a fulfilment of exactly those themes which the Genesis stories introduce.

Do Jesus and Paul demonstrate a counter case to the suggestion that heterosexual monogamy is normative? The problem with such a suggestion is that both men are _clearly_ called by God whilst unmarried to engage in ministries which made marriage virtually impossible. Thus, their departure from the normative state has a very clear divine mandate. For Jesus we need only read Matthew 3:17 or Matthew 17:1-5 to know that God had called him to something extraordinary. For Paul we find it in his Damascus Road experience and he clearly considered celibacy a gift from God (1 Cor 7:7 clearly substantiating the “divine mandate” suggestion). But where is there anything like a parallel in the case of homosexuality? As Brian McKie pointed out in another post there is _no_ biblical mandate for homosexual unions, whereas there is a biblical mandate for celibacy in exceptional circumstances. I can only conclude that Jesus and Paul are _not_ exceptions which disprove the rule. The certainly do not serve as exceptions to the claim that heterosexual monogamy is the only permissible context for sexual intimacy.

As to the question of language difference, I consider that the central problem to be resolved in this matter is not language difference per se but the relational fracture which results from it. I would say that our language difference only becomes _sin_ when we surrender to it and so condone a departure from the ideal of relational intimacy which Genesis mandates as normative. I would say the same of any abnormal sexual tendency – including homosexual desire; such only become _sin_ when a person surrenders to it and so condones a departure from the ideal of heterosexual monogamy which Genesis mandates as normative.

This perhaps flags my pastoral response to homosexuality; I see it as somewhat like alcoholism – an abnormal state of affairs which ought to be struggled against and in which the individual has the right to expect the full support of the Christian community. I do not expect that the desire be condoned through “blessings” or “marriages” as though it were something to be advocated as normal.

Whether the problem can be “cured” is – to my mind – quite irrelevant. As is the question of whether our response raises subsequent difficulties. The fact that a homosexual might have to face a life time of unfulfilled sexual needs is in no way inconsistent with the view that the Christian life consists of a lifetime struggle against the darker aspects of human nature. Christian discipleship is no guarantee of an easy life and each will have their own cross to bear.

I hardly consider it legalistic or judgmental to warn homosexuals that acting out their sexual desires is dishonouring to God, destructive to the individual and contrary to the very foundation of the Judeo-Christian social order. In fact, I consider that opposing homosexuality is not only consistent with, but demanded by, the highest dictates of Christian love, charity, righteousness and mercy for “Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death” – James 5:20

Regards <>

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.