Re: Social Problems--Part A

Russell Maatman (
Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:23:54 -0600

John Burgeson wrote on Saturday, February 14, 1998 11:48 AM

> Russell wrote:
> "It is not a matter of what "Christians hold." We ought to discuss what
> the
> Bible teaches..... I'd appreciate it if
> you would show me where my biblical arguments are incorrect. "
> Russell:
> I'll send you my notes on the two books I mentioned.
> (Available to anyone else who wants them, of course).

Yes, I'd like to see your notes.

> My point is simple. Christians differ on this issue. The issue is:
> I1. Does Scripture proscribe ALL acts of homosexual contact, or does it
> not?
> If it does, than we may assume God disapproves accordingly.
> If it does not, then we must make other arguments about whether
> specifically:

I'd really like to know what you have to say about the texts I cited which,
I think, show that sexual union in one-man-one-woman marriage is to be
compared with Christ, the bridegroom, making the church his bride. These
texts are only a sample of what Scripture teaches: Matthew 9:15; Paul in
Ephesians 5 as he quotes the origin of the sexual union in Genesis 2:4;
Ephesians 25 and 32; and Revelations 21:2-3.

> I2. homosexual acts performed exclusively within the context of
> a loving, long term, monogamous, adult relationship
> are disapproved by God.
> Helmaniak deals only with I1, above; Schmidt deals with both I1 and I2.
> Note that the answer may differ if one differentiates between male and
> female acts.

See my response above. I think the Bible's teaching about the two relations
covers all cases.

> "Science" also comes in with data. Homosexuality is not unknown among
> animals. Some differences (very small and not very significant, IMO) have
> been observed between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Surely natural scientific data do not overrule the biblical teaching. I
realize that scientific results can sometimes help us understand the Bible
better. I do not understand how homosexuality among animals has anything to
do with the question at hand.

> What I see is that a relatively strong case can be made for a "no" answer
> to I1, but not a convincing case. What I also see is a polarization of
> people on the issue which is dependent on how "conservative" or "liberal"
> they are. I do not argue for either position myself.

Burgy, I appreciate your comments. I hope to hear from you again.


Russell Maatman
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250