From a netfriend:

Acts 10:44-48 is dealing primarily with the issue of God’s salvific mercy being extended beyond the cultural borders of Judaism and with Peter’s, and no doubt others’, prejudice and limited grasp of the scope of God’s saving love. Praise God that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). In a parallel passage in Col. 3, Paul, the apostle appointed by Jesus, writes,

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

It is true that neither text specifically mentions homosexuality, but it wouldn’t be too much of a jump to see that the Bible, not least Romans 1, considers homosexual activity, (the Bible only condemns behaviour and thoughts; cf. Mt. 5:28, I assume this applies to women looking at women, or men looking at men lustfully) not only as sinful but also as a fruit of God’s judgement as he hands human beings over to the fulfilment of their own lusts. The downward spiral in Romans 1 begins by describing those who ‘suppress the truth by their wickedness’ before going on to say,

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 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. This is frightening! The chapter concludes with a chilling statement that may in fact be an accurate commentary on the contemporary church: ‘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.’ In other words, we stop calling sin what it is. I am reminded of Richard Niebuhr who once described the prevailing liberal theology of his own day like this: ‘A God without wrath, brought men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross!’

I have no doubt that utilitarian anthropocentric ethics can make out a good case for accepting what seems to be aberrant behaviour. However in the context of the Kingdom of God these are not acceptable. Those who do such things will not enter the Kingdom. The narrow gate and all that stuff!

Attitudes to all adulterers differ from the fact that they are what they are. Jesus was gracious to sinful people and sought to lead them from their slaveries. He did this by accepting sinners (Luke 15) and bringing them (where they would respond) to forgiveness. I love that God takes my sin so seriously!

The Epistles then speak of where people have already been delivered from their sinful habits and aberrations (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11). So Paul forbids Christians to eat with adulterers who claim to be Christians (1 Cor. 5:9-13)

. There is no permissiveness amongst those of the NT church, or should it appear it is condemned as incongruous with the faith and holiness. So James says that ‘faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that– and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?’ (Jam. 2). Hence such commands as ‘Shun immorality’ (1 Cor. 6:18) and ‘Shun youthful passions ’ (2 Tim. 2:22). And so David’s perceptive comments about gifts and calling.

I believe that the sex ethic takes note of the fact that God is holy love, and that purity carries with it a powerful grace. This is essential to true marriage or adultery would not be considered so evil. Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 show that to have a physical relationship with another, outside of marriage, is to have a union with that one which is mimicking the ‘one flesh’ union of true marriage. Hence, all sexual activity outside of the marriage-covenant union undermines and mocks the beauty and goodness of my own marriage to Judy. A glance at the purity of Christ and his church should indicate that the ethic which is Christ’s should be that of each of his people, and certainly no less of her leaders.

On a another tune: Thanks Nathan for your commentary on Spong and his ‘fossilised’ theology. Just be careful about what C.S. Lewis once termed ‘chronological snobbery’, i.e. that the ideas of our day and better, or truer, than those of by-pass days simply because they are new. That aside, I think you comments on JSS are very perceptive. So thanks.

May grace mixed with mercy be see in us all,

My latest E-meditation: Love without mutual self-disclosure is not a virtue, nor is it wise. Love without wisdom is not only foolish, it is shaming and destructive.

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.