Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

GLBT Persons in Church: Case for Full Inclusion, 2

In my first post on this topic, I tried to clarify some terms and presuppositions. READ THAT FIRST–especially before writing angry comments. This post will prepare us to read the (few) biblical texts related to this topic (or which have been used in speaking of this topic). We’ll actually get to particular texts next time. First, we need to talk about how to read Scripture in moral discernment–in deciding ethical issues.

There is an important 2-point minimal consensus in Christian ethics (identified by Bruce Birch and Larry Rasmussen) on the relation of Scripture to normative Christian ethics:

  1. Biblical ethics is not and CANNOT BE identical with contemporary Christian ethics.
  2. To be authentically “Christian,” all contemporary Christian moral judgments MUST relate to Scripture in some fashion.

Now, this is a VERY minimal consensus and many of us, myself included, would like to say far more. But first, let’s examine why this consensus exists. The first statement will be far from obvious to many and the second to others.

Biblical ethics is not and CANNOT BE identical with contemporary Christian ethics. Really? Why not? Several reasons which I list in no particular order.

  • First, the biblical writers and communities did not confront many of the moral issues and historical forces which shape our lives today: e.g., genetic engineering, global warming, cloning, nuclear weaponry, civilian nuclear energy, etc., etc. Although same-sex pairings and actions were known, I am arguing that they did not confront “homosexuality” as we understand it today.
  • This leads to a second reason: sometimes a moral issue remains much the same in its basic outline, but the context is so altered that the biblical response no longer applies. E.g., On almost every page from Genesis to Revelation is a deep concern for poverty and hunger, but the causes of hunger in our day are less to weather eccentricities than to hunger as a constructed human reality. Practices of gleaning will hardly help today’s urban poor. The basic moral issue is the same, but the altered context will demand an alteration in the character of response, too.
  • On some issues the Bible has plenty to say, but says numerous different things: e.g., on war and peace (with continuities, but also sharp differences between on Old and New Testaments) or on the relationship of women and men (with some texts stressing equality and others prescribing female subordination). Which biblical texts should be prioritized over others?
  • On some issues the wider shape of biblical faith points in a different direction than specific biblical texts. The classic example here is slavery. Nowhere in Scripture is slavery as such completely condemned (the closest is the book of Philemon). Even the jubilee legislation of Leviticus–which demands freeing Hebrew slaves every 50 years still allows for permanently enslaving non-Hebrews. A slave’s death was not considered as morally bad as a free person’s death. Even though biblical slavery was not based on the concept of “race,” the 19th C. movement to abolish slavery had a hard time because the conservatives seemed to have the stronger biblical case. (In fact, I would argue that most American evangelicals and Southern Baptists never changed the way they approached scripture. They abandoned slavery because they lost a war, not because they learned to read the Bible in such a way as they saw it as evil.)

But the second point of the consensus is equally important. Christian ethics cannot simply forged apart from reflection on Scripture. This collection of texts forms our identity narrative–it tells us who we are by telling us who we have been. It tells the tales of our ancestors in faith and their experiences in history with God: How they encountered God and responded, sometimes faithfully and sometimes not. We call these texts “Scripture,” and claim it as our “canon,” or “rule of faith.” We believe in some mysterious way that God speaks in and through these very human words (in a way different from whatever other writings, etc. in which we may hear God)–so that the community of faith can hear in them the Word of God. Christian ethics is not CHRISTIAN apart from Scripture.

No one, of course, derives their moral conclusions ONLY from Scripture–not even, maybe especially not even, those who think they do so. We approach texts from within various traditions that make up the Christian Tradition. My own (ana)Baptist faith has often made negative comments about “human traditions”–believing that no confession of faith, creed, or theological document (or person like the pope) is infallible or unable to be questioned or revised. I hold to that view, strongly. But that does not mean that we stand outside any traditions–no one does. And the more familiar we are with our own and other traditions, the more we can see where they are helpful in illuminating biblical insights–or where they distort and lead to misreadings.

Our own experiences also shape the way we read Scripture. We approach texts and moral issues with particular loyalties and vested interests.

Reason and the human sciences while providing no moral voice of their own can also help us. After all the first question to ask in moral discernment is not “What must I/we do?” but “What is going on?” (H. Richard Niebuhr) and “What is God doing in this context?” (Paul Lehmann). (Lehmann’s general answer, “God is in the world working to make and keep human life human” is a good one, but fails the ecological test–it is too anthropocentric.)

One of the strengths of the critical methods of biblical interpretation is that they serve initially to distance the text from ourselves–to show us how ancient and strange and different the world of the biblical writers was from ours. That may seem alienating, but we too often assume we know the answer to moral or theological issues before we even ask the questions. We have to make sure we are not hearing echoes of our own voices–our child rearing, our Sunday School lessons, what we heard said about gays or lesbians (to take our current issue as illustrative) in locker rooms or on the playground, etc. To discern the voice of God in Scripture and in the living church today, we first have to screen out other voices and look at these ancient texts with new eyes.

So, with these preliminary thoughts in mind, I will in my next post in this series begin to examine the texts in Scripture that have been used in the debate over “homosexuality.” I will begin with the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis 19–with a glance at a parallel story in Lev. 19. From there we will examine a pair of laws in Leviticus. Before leaving the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament, we will glance back at the creation stories in Gen. 1-2 (I will explain later why we do not begin there) and note some general things on sexuality found in the Song of Songs. Then, in the New Testament, we examine 2 common “vice lists” in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) before turning to Rom.1-2, the most extended discussion of same-sex matters, the only place lesbianism (female homosexuality) is specifically discussed alongside male-male actions (there are hints of female-female eroticism in Ruth, but nothing conclusive). Rom. 1& 2 is also the only place where much in the way of theological reasoning is given on this issue. There are good reasons why many consider it to be the key text in the debate. Finally, before leaving biblical exegesis for reflections on other sources of information (Tradition, science, and experience), we will examine an obscure saying of Jesus that some new studies suggest may have been a positive word for people we today would call gays and lesbians. (This will be very tentative because of its newness–it has not been widely tested in academic debate.) My final post on the topic will move from Scripture to contemporary church in theological reasoning. [This outline is open to revision as necessary.]

I expect much interaction–and many to disagree. I understand that. I took 10 years of wrestling with this issue before coming to a position on full inclusion. My own strong commitment to biblical authority kept me wrestling with texts (like Jacob with the stranger/angel at the river Jabbok) long after my experiences with meeting gay and lesbian Christians was pushing my heart toward full inclusion. I had no desire to jump on some politically correct bandwagon. If you are cautious in reading my arguments, I fully understand. I ask only an open mind and heart–and to keep reading and wrestling and praying long after this series is done. I will give sources for further reading for those interested.

If you already know “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about this issue, why bother reading this series? I welcome constructive criticism. Please point out any errors I am making. But if you are not reading with an open mind, why bother to read at all? The Bible is not really authoritative for us, no matter how much we claim otherwise, if we are not prepared to hear a different Word in and through its pages than the one we already believe beforehand.

December 30, 2006 - Posted by | Bible, GLBT issues, homosexuality

18 Comments

  1. Thank you for these reflections, Michael. I am still wanting to hear why and how you disagree with Richard Hays. I did not understand your previous comment that he had violated his own stated method. I am hoping you will substantiate this claim at some point in the future.

    Some of the points that you make(modern Christian ethics is
    different from biblical ethics)could be used to argue that although the New Testament teaches nonviolence, our modern Christian ethics are not bound to this teaching. If we are not bound to New Testament teaching about same-sex acts, then why are we bound to New Testament teachings about violence and nonviolence?

    There are some passages of Scripture which seem to condone slavery, but there are other portions of Scripture which undermine the practice (the exodus, for example). In these cases, we can side with what Wesley called the ‘whole tenor of Scripture.’ — which in this case would be on the side of liberation.

    But with same-gender sexual acts, there are no contradictions in Scripture. The whole tenor of Scripture is clear. It is not as
    though we could appeal to some parts of Scripture to subvert other specific verses.

    I have struggled with these questions for many years, and I am earnestly pondering your posts seeking additional insight. So far, I am persuaded by Richard Hays, but I remain open to new illumination — not new revelation, but new illumination of the original revelation.

    Comment by Jonathan | December 30, 2006

  2. I think the case for nonviolence rests on a very Christocentric reading of Scripture–one that I have.

    The 2-point consensus I mentioned is one that Hays himself paraphrased early in his book.

    I won’t be addressing my differences with Hays until (1) I get to Rom. 1 (where Hays builds his whole case) and (2) where I move from exegesis to hermeneutical/theological reflection. Please be patient.

    Actually, I think the case for same-sex inclusion has several parallels with slavery. It is usually compared with the case for women’s equality with men, but I think it is closer to that of slavery. With gender equality, we have pro-equal texts and pro-subordination texts and we have to see which match the overall tenor of the gospel.
    With slavery, although the Exodus and some other major themes do seem to undermine the practice–no rule or practice drew that conclusion. All the specific texts are on the side of pro-slavery. Likewise with full inclusion for GLBT folks: Unless this one text I will talk about at the end is an exception, there are no positive texts about these acts. But we have changed contexts–changed (scientific)understandings of human sexuality, of nature, of what it was that the biblical writers were condemning. We will, I will argue, have to ask if such changed understandings lead the old condemnations to be seen in a new light. But you are asking me to jump to the end of the argument.

    Going slow with each text right now seems better.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | December 30, 2006

  3. “not new revelation, but new illumination of the original revelation.”

    Jonathan, I wonder: Why not new revelation? Do you think that God no longer reveals new truths to us? Do you suppose that there was an age of revelation where God revealed new insights into God’s nature (the whole condemnation of certain meats as an abomination, for instance), but that age is passed?

    Not passing judgement, just curious…

    Comment by Dan Trabue | December 31, 2006

  4. I’m reading this series with great interest, in large part because I come at this topic from — as you so aptly noted — my own set of biases which I’m trying desperately to set aside in preference to clear and honest Scriptural teaching.

    As I’ve read so far, I have one sort of nagging concern: It appears you are taking a position that homosexuality is not a sin (a position with which I disagree. I say that only in the interest of disclosure; it’s not really my point). As such, then the whole issue of whether or not to “include” GLBT people in any aspect (not to mention the church) of our lives is really moot. Ultimately, if you’re right, you’re right (that’ll take some convincing for me, but I hope God will give me the humility to be convinced if it is true; I hold firmly to I Corinthians 2:9-16 which tells me that the Holy Spirit will help me value truth as God does).

    But I think it could be a powerful testament to our Christianity and the game-changing love which has been shed abroad in our hearts (Romans 5:5) as believers if we have a Christ-like, Christ-honoring, Christ-exhalting love for GLBT people in spite of the fact that they are sinners. Romans 5:6-11 speaks to the condescending (not in a negative way, of course; just the idea of that an Almighty God come to love unworthy, lowly sinners), undeserved, sacrificial and life-changing love Christ extended to us as unworthy sinners. Couldn’t a proper, Bible-based (not bias-based) manner of treating GLBT folks be a way of reflecting the love Christ has?

    Of course, that certainly applies beyond the issue of GLBT people and to all sorts of other issues: adultery, pedophilia, murder, drug addiction, other cultures, other religions, other skin colors, hate, etc, etc (by the way, I’m not suggesting that any of these things are equal to each other or to the behaviors of GLBT people … just that they are examples of “untouchable” things to some).

    I guess I’m asking if you’ve done some thinking about the topic from that angle. That is, have you done some thinking about what an appropriate attitude and action toward someone (be they GLBT or something/someone else) who is objectively a sinner (again, I realize that from your perspective that it’s not assumed that GLBT people are sinners because of their sexual behaviors)?

    Of course, now that I’ve said my piece, I also think you may be going to address my concern in a later post … if so, please forgive and I will, indeed, have patience.

    Matthew Tilley
    http://mjtilley.wordpress.com

    Comment by MJTilley | December 31, 2006

  5. It may help to know that some of us came from the position that homosexuality is obviously a sin according to the Bible and had to be “convinced” by the Bible and the Holy Spirit to think otherwise.

    Just so you understand that I (and probably Michael – we go to church together but I don’t want to speak for him) weren’t starting from a position that said “homosexuality is okay” and then went to the Bible to try to find proof for that position. Rather, quite emphatically the opposite.

    Comment by Dan Trabue | December 31, 2006

  6. Dan, you have asked me a very good question. I have decided to write some posts about this subject on my own blog because I do not want to monopolize the discussion on Michael’s blog. You can check my blog later for more of my own thoughts.

    Comment by Jonathan | December 31, 2006

  7. Michael, I’m sure you’re aware of the tradition of commentators who do not see Romans 1 as a reference to lesbianism.

    If not, let me know and I’ll post some references.

    Bless you.

    Comment by graham old | December 31, 2006

  8. Jonathan, I am glad you are also going to blog on this since I think more INFORMED discussion is needed in all our churches. But your inability (as you say on your own blog) to wait until I get finished seems to me to indicate a lack of an open mind on this issue. It seems like just what I am warning against in this post: Assuming we know the answers before we even have the questions properly formulated. I hope I am wrong, but please consider this.

    Happy New Year, all. Let us profoundly hope that 2007 begins to turn around the truly dreadful path our globe has been on for most of this new millennium.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | December 31, 2006

  9. Michael, I will certainly discuss this topic on my blog the particular way that I want to do it, but that does not mean I have quit listening to you. Far from it.

    Comment by Jonathan | January 1, 2007

  10. Dan — I understand and appreciate your position. However, I’m asking whether or not this series will address those folks who simply aren’t convinced that God doesn’t view homosexuality as a sin.

    Said another way, just because one sees a particular activity as a sin doesn’t (at least, it shouldn’t) mean that one should not act in a loving, reconcilling manner toward them. It seems that particularly given the clear message of Romans 3 (“we’re ALL sinners”) and Romans 2 (“anything I can condemn you for, I’m just as guilty of”), Christians ought to be the most accepting of all people … regardless of the “sinfulness” of an act.

    But then, what is appropriate “acceptance” (assuming the act is truely sin … something that offends the Almighty God enough to require His only begotten Son to bleed and die for it)?

    If this series doesn’t address that, it seems that that would be a valuable discussion … certainly one I’d like to participate in.

    Matthew Tilley
    http://mjtilley.wordpress.com

    Comment by MJTilley | January 1, 2007

  11. This is a great thread.

    Michael,

    I appreciate your willingness to address this topic in an honest fashion. I’ll be waiting for your next installment.

    Comment by Jon | January 2, 2007

  12. Matthew and Jonathan, I think your question about whether or not homosexuality is a sin is at the heart of the issue. From your brief comments I assume you believe “homosexuality” to refer to “particular activity” and that you do not acknowledge the existence of sexual orientation. I also assume that your confessed belief that such activity is sinful comes from reliance on a few biblical texts to define it as such. But what are we talking about here? (Michael does a good job, actually, of defining his terms.)

    In I Corinthians 11:27-33 Paul makes a causal argument, and links current illness and even deaths among the congregation directly to taking the Lord’s Supper unworthily. Empirically, this is a false claim. We can suppose and may want to imagine that God did act in this one case in a very special, specific way. But we cannot prove it. We have to go on the authority of Paul’s claim. Yet we do know generally that people do not fall ill because they take communion “unworthily.” There is no empirical causality between how one takes communion and dysfunction of the human biological system. There just isn’t. Because we have all taken communion in various states of heart and mind, we easily recognize this text to be empirically false as a scientific statement. We do not want to doubt Paul’s authority on the knowledge of God. But in as many ways as believers have gleaned spiritual truth from this particular passage, hardly anyone I wager has read Paul here as an authority on the medical arts.

    Elsewhere, As Richard Hays points out, Paul has made yet another causal argument: 1. what may be known about God “is plain” to everyone since creation, 2. wicked men suppress this truth, 3. therefore their hearts become darkened, 4. therefore they become idolaters, and 5. therefore God gave them over to “sexual impurity”. Paul essentially argues that idolatry is the cause of same-gendered sexual interaction; a deliberate turning away from the God of creation leads to “homosexuality”. Perhaps it is harder to see because most of us have never experienced powerful sexual attraction predominantly toward the same gender, but this causal argument is no more empirically true than the previous example. Why, then, do so many people want to read Paul here as making an empirical observation about the natural world?

    I know in myself, and nearly everyone else like me testifies to the same experience, that from my earliest memory I have found myself attracted to my own gender, and sexually repulsed by the opposite gender, with rare exception. This attraction preceded any knowledge of God. Moreover, I do also acknowledge having an attraction to God and the things of God. As an early youth I dedicated my life to His service. While I have struggled with the mystery of why I always felt so different from the way I was told I was supposed to feel about girls versus boys, I have also experienced the more common struggle of belief in general, and the practice of my faith has waxed and waned over the years. But I do know as a matter of fact that my own life and every single life like mine is direct, empirical evidence revealing Paul’s causal argument in Romans 1 as just plain false . . . if by “homosexuality” we mean a sexual orientation toward the same gender.

    But as Michael pointed out in his initial post on the subject, the biblical writers assumed that everyone was born oriented sexually toward the opposite gender. The “sin” assumed here is a deliberate defiance of God. Neither Paul nor any other biblical author understood or acknowledged the existence of sexual orientation. (Of course all human beings are sexual. “Orientation” is meaningful only where the object of sexual excitement is not universally poised in the same direction.) If there is no such thing as sexual orientation, then the ancient assumption is correct, and any same-gendered sexual activity is just that: sinful behavior. If we acknowledge, as the overwhelming evidence shows (and I speak as a first-hand witness of such evidence), that there is such a thing as sexual orientation, then we must reevaluate what to do with these texts and what to do with believers whose orientation is not the “right” one. This precisely is the value of Michael’s discussion in his blog.

    If we understand “sin” to be the deliberate turning away from God as Paul makes clear that it is in Romans 1 and elsewhere, then we can talk about sinful acts/behaviour. People talk about “hating the sin and loving the sinner,” by which they mean not to condemn “the homosexual” but to condemn “homosexual acts.” But to refer to “the homosexual” distinct from “homosexual acts” is to acknowledge that there is something going on in such people other than their potential behaviour. Those who wish to deny the existence of orientation might argue that it is a chosen identity or a lifestyle. “The homosexual” may have chosen such an identity for himself (an initial act of rebellion which would corroborate Paul’s causal argument), but he does not have to act according to that identity, they would argue. But this position still wants to deny the evidence. Instead, I would argue from my own experience that before my memory was formed, the orientation of my sexuality was already (biologically) determined as was my left-handedness. We were all of us born having libidos oriented toward one gender or the other. My orientation as is true of your orientation is a given. How we all live with this given fact is where we enter the realm of sin or righteousness.

    My question, and I believe this is Michael’s question, is how are people born with same-gender orientation to live righteous lives as a Christians if the Church does not recognize, accommodate, protect, nurture, and employ our full humanity in a moral way as it does for the vast majority of opposite-gender oriented members of Christ’s body? Instead, because of reading the few passages referring to same-gendered sexual activity to define as sin what we know today as same-gendered orientation, people like me are dismissed either as inherently corrupt or as unrepentant sinners (John Piper’s position), and otherwise either forced into celibacy or dishonest marriages – options no opposite-gendered Protestant would ever consider for himself today.

    Finally, I do not mean to argue that “popular opinion” or the vicissitudes of cultural attitudes should determine Christian morality. But I do believe that if we are going to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, and not worship the scripture itself as we’ve received it, that is if we are to practice what the scriptures teach in such examples of debate surrounding circumcision, inclusion of gentiles, meat sacrificed to idols, etc., then we must acknowledge the revelation of the empirical world that has emerged during the epistemological paradigm shift of the past several centuries. Failing to do so Christians today will be as guilty as God’s people in times past of killing the prophets and truly worshipping false gods, the sin that Paul does make explicit.

    Comment by Mark | January 8, 2007

  13. From the moment of birth I have had these issues:
    * Laziness
    * Lust (not simple attraction to other for sexual purposes … I mean an inordinate focus on the matter)
    * Pride (I’m talking about the “I’m better, smarter than you stuff”)

    These things were not choices I made nor even resulting from poor choices at some time in the past. These were things that are absolutely painful for me to change. I have seriously struggled with, prayed earnestly over and would prefer that they not be considered “sin” — mainly because, as such, they have provided a load of guilt and generally hampered by thinking and actions. Seeing these things as sin really screws things up for me. Are these feelings on par with one must deal with concerning homosexuality? I have no idea … that’s not the cross I must bear so I cannot honestly compare them emotionally (perhaps if you struggle with all three AND are drawn to homosexuality, you can help shed light on that aspect).

    But my point is that these things are born into me and I had no choice over whether they were influences on my behaviors.

    Is the resulting behavior wrong? Yes

    But is it JUST the behavior that’s wrong? Not at all… it’s the behavior, its the desire and — more to the point — it’s the very fact that I’m a son of Adam that makes me wrong (Romans 5:12-18). That is sin has three aspects: action, desire and nature (Ephesians 1:2-3).

    But the bigger question in my mind is “WHY” is it wrong? The three sins I’ve identified in myself are sins not because my wife gets mad about my lust, that my boss gets mad when I don’t work hard or that people are turned off by my snotty attitude. The reason isn’t because my upbringing says so or because even “the church” (however you want to define it) says so. I’m wrong, a sinner, sinful, because and only because God condemns these things in His Word.

    To say otherwise is to 1) take some other “metric” (be that a particular text or moral code) as your standard of right/wrong, 2) to be so relative that anything can be justified if given the right circumstances or 3) to have a very different hermaneutic (that is, different from a literal, historical view) to Scriptural study (given that I’m holding to the Bible as a final authority)

    But again … as I’ve said a couple of times in my comments … that argument is NOT my point. Far from it.

    I’m simply asking what a proper response to ANY sinner is (regardless of the sin … but esp. those sins that are considered by society to be untouchable for a variety of reasons — often bad reasons).

    Mark specifically said:

    “Instead, because of reading the few passages referring to same-gendered sexual activity to define as sin what we know today as same-gendered orientation, people like me are dismissed either as inherently corrupt or as unrepentant sinners (John Piper’s position), and otherwise either forced into celibacy or dishonest marriages – options no opposite-gendered Protestant would ever consider for himself today.”

    And that’s what I’m trying to hone in on. Is there no other position that can at once admit homosexuality (again … any issue, for that matter) is a sin and not simply throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater or force the person into living a lie to please the congregation? Is there not a way to approach this without redefining what sin is or isn’t? And again … at the risk of appearing extremely redundant … I pose this as a question not only about homosexuality, but about a host of issues that are very divisive and touchy in our society.

    Because if something is truly a sin (I continuously ask for the Holy Spirit’s discernment in this matter), isn’t there a role for the Grace of Jesus Christ? Even in Romans chapters 5-7, Paul admits to this struggle with sin. But he gives us the hope that being now “dead with Christ” we’re “resurrected to righteousness” … that is, we won’t sin. And by “sin” (as a verb), I don’t simply mean the outward act. I mean both the desire and the nature. But, as anyone who’s experience the life-changing love of Jesus can attest to, that’s not a total overnight makeover … there’s the fact that this is a continual process of sanctification. And just as I’d be in a mess if I was totally cut off every time I got a little bit of pride about me, I can imagine that the church is doing nothing for the homosexual person who (defining homosexual behavior, desire and nature as sin) stuggles to turn from that (again, the behavior, desire and nature) yet has bouts of failure and by default is labeled as untouchable and immediately booted from the congregation.

    Comment by MJTilley | January 9, 2007

  14. […] orientation.  If you are new to the series, please read the previous installments first:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, this addendum, and 6.  Jumping straigh to this post is not advised.  Also, even those […]

    Pingback by GLBT Persons in the Church: The Case for Full Inclusion 7 « Levellers | November 17, 2007

  15. […] Persons in Church: A Biblical/Theological Case for Full Inclusion, 1 GLBT Persons in Church: A Biblical/Theological Case for Full Inclusion, 2 GLBT Persons in Church: A Biblical/Theological Case for Full Inclusion, 3 GLBT Persons in Church: A […]

    Pingback by A Great Series on GLBT Inclusion « ProgressiveBaptist.Net | November 23, 2007

  16. […] the latest installment.  To date, there have been seven (7) major posts and an addendum. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, addendum on pro-GLBT “over reading,” 6, & 7.  This is addenum 2: […]

    Pingback by Video/DVD: For the Bible Tells Me So « Levellers | July 6, 2008

  17. […] sure that Scripture is the final norm in all ethical matters than appears at first glance as the second post in this series argued. B. Hays himself finds it difficult to hold to this principle in the way he […]

    Pingback by GLBT Persons in the Church: Richard Hays’ Argument (A) « Levellers | July 18, 2008

  18. […] Use of Scripture in Moral Discernment […]

    Pingback by Index of Posts on GLBT Persons in the Church: A Case for Full Inclusion « Levellers | July 27, 2008


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: