* Michael Kennedy wrote:

** Marcelo Cantos <> wrote:

*** (Andrew Bromage) writes:

***The Bible is indeed silent on the topic of homosexuality, but it is pretty unequivocal on the topic of homosexual intercourse. (If you interpret it the usual way, of course.)

*** Please be careful to understand what people say before accusing them of all sorts of heresies.

**I must point out that Rowland is at least partly responsible here for the confusion since he is yet to state his position on homosexual activity (if I have missed any such pronouncements, Rowland, you have my sincerest apologies). How about it, Rowland? Beyond orientational issues, what do you _really_ think about homosexual intercourse?

* I was going to post something similiar myself, Rowland very rarely puts forward his opinion on anything.

* Although I understand the reasons for this, it does lead to some confusion on his position and some jump to conclusions about his position that are obviously incorrect.

* How about it Rowland ? Get off that comfortable fence, and take a stand in public !

* God Bless,
* Michael.

I have strong opinions on some things (the evils of religious legalism, for example); I am open on other things (eg. details about the proton and eschaton - wasn't there/ not there yet); I am ambivalent about a few things (eg. abortion in the case of some rape victims, some euthanasia situations); I am ignorant about many things (the mysterious ways of God whose thoughts are higher than mine); I am agnostic about lots of things (eg. to do with miracles) etc. etc. Now, I'm being being asked to nail my colors to the mast on the question of homosexual activity. I am hesitant to do so for lots of reasons:

1. 'Casting pearls before swine' reasons eg. whenever someone seems to be more judgmental about people's sexual activity than loving in regard to those persons. I was lecturing in a (Pentecostal) Bible College once, and asked the group: 'What did Jesus say to the woman caught in the act of adultery?' Their response, in unison: 'Go and sin no more!' My retort to the group: 'You pharisees!' (I haven't been invited back).

2. So what was Jesus' approach to questions like this? (And if this particular ethical question was of such paramount importance why is there no record of Jesus addressing it?). Take Zaccheus: Jesus didn't lecture him about thieving, just loved him (into repentance). With pharisees, repentance precedes acceptance, with Jesus it was the othe other way around. I want to be like Jesus.

3. Pedagogical reasons: it's better to teach people _how_ to think than _what_ to think by doing their thinking for them. I assume a maturity in adult (and most adolescent) learners which seems to encourage more mature convictions in the long run...

4. In my counseling practice I talk to homosexual people - women and men - about the agonies of their situation, particularly if their needs for sexual intimacy are overwhelming. I've cried with them, hugged them, prayed for/with them... I can't produce 'pat answers' about some matters after these encounters... IMO no one should propound an opinion about a serious ethical matter without first doing their homework with _people_ who have experienced the pain of that situation. (See the suggestion for the Festival of Light in the 'Homosexuality: An Interview with Jesus' article on my homepage.)

5. Reasons associated with hypocrisy. I work with clergy. They know that about 70% of the young church members whose weddings they conduct are not virgins. IOW, they know there are fornicators in their church's membership. And few have raised this issue, seriously, in terms of loving discipline and the continuing membership of those persons in their church. Fundamentalist/ some Pentecostal churches have shown some integrity about facing these issues (but mostly without love, in my experience). Now why have we allowed fornicators to remain as members of our churches - most of them - but when issues concerning homosexual practice are raised suddenly there's an ecclesiastical and media furore? Please help me here: the only reason I can put to this is homophobia. And why haven't we created a fuss about it all in the past when we've known there are homosexual clergy in all major Christian denominations?

6. Finally (for now) spiritual/devotional reasons. It may surprise some of you who haven't met me 'in the flesh' but I'm often criticized for being opinionated about lots of things. I'm trying to pull back a bit for that reason. I do have opinions - see the 450-plus articles on my homepage. There are tens of thousands of opinions there. And in my 12 published books.

7. OK, OK, OK, what's my opinion on the homosexuality orientation/practice question? I helped frame the Syndal Baptist Church's submission (on our homepage) to the Baptist Union of Victoria, and agree with it. If you're desperate to find out my specific stance, you can read it there :-)

Rowland Croucher

....

From: Marcelo Cantos <>

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: Rowland Croucher Rebuked For False Teaching

Date: 23 Jul 1997

(Jeffrey Cox) writes:

* Rowland Croucher <> wrote:

** Now, I'm being being asked to nail my colors to the mast on the question of homosexual activity.

* A Christian could do nothing else but condemn homosexuality since the bible is very clear on this issue, however Rowland doesn't.

Dead wrong. The bible takes even more care than most of us do in specifically addressing homosexual actions and not orientation. All the references to homosexuality in scripture refer quite clearly to acts and intentions, not tendencies.

The tendency to sin is in all of us. It is our attitudes and actions with respect to those tendencies that convict us, not the tendencies themselves.

Take the husband who hates washing dishes, but does them anyway because he loves his wife. Is he sinning because he finds dish washing onerous?

** I am hesitant to do so for lots of reasons [....]

* Spam deleted - arguments around the issue and a claim that Rowland agrees with some writing elsewhere that he doesn't quote. This looks a lot like an attempt to confuse the issue with spurious verbosity.

What is your definition of spam? I suspect that it differs markedly from what others understand it to mean.

In any case, Rowland's post clarified the matter perfectly for me. I had no trouble finding the submission on PastorNet which is crystal clear for all and sundry to read. Given the ease of locating information on the net, it seems unreasonable to suggest that Rowland should have to do more than he did in order to take an appropriate Christian stance. I, for one, don't ask to be spoon-fed.

* Rowland had previously written:

** My Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality anywhere

* Rowland's posts on usenet continue to be in direct contradiction to the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27.

All of us have adulterous tendencies. It is our response to our natural urges and not the urges themselves that condemns us. Jesus did not condemn the act of experiencing an attraction toward a woman; he condemned the act of succumbing to that attraction by lusting after her.

The point Rowland has consistently made is that homosexual orientation is not, in and of itself, sinful but rather the submission to that orientation in committing or even lusting after indecent acts. I agree that Rowland's statement is easily misunderstood, but it is strictly correct.

Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant