Re: Social Problems--Part A

Russell Maatman (
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:04:36 -0600

Burgy wrote--in part--on Tuesday, February 17, 1998 10:41 AM:

> Russell wrote, in part:

<< >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. >>

> My own take on them is that they are a good metaphor but have no
> particular bearing on the issue of "...are homosexual acts performed
> exclusively within the context of a loving, long term, monogamous, adult
> relationship are disapproved by God."
> Clearly (I think) homosexual unions are not in the same class as
> heterosexual unions, and your text brings that out. But "not of the same
> class" does not necessarily mean "bad."

What bothers me in these discussions among Christians about sex is that
often sexual activity or union is dissociated from one-man-one-woman
marriage as ordained in pre-fall Eden. It seems to me that the Bible
recognizes the existence of several kinds of of sexual activity, but
comdemns all but one kind. I realize that I can make such statement only
after considering the whole Bible: one could get the eimpression from parts
of the Old Testament that polygamy is ok. Polygamy, like some OT divorce,
God suffered, but did not approve.

I realize also that the Bible did not delineate every kind of deviancy from
the one approved kind of sex. In fact, as many of us have heard recently,
it's not legitimate to search the Bible and conclude a deviancy not
mentioned is therefore ok. I really have trouble with your remark above in
which you say that in sexual matters "not in the same class" is not
necessarily bad.

> >>Surely natural scientific data do not overrule the biblical teaching.>>
> It cannot overrule; it may shed light on the interpretation of course.
> In this particular case, I am relatively uninterested in the scientific
> data, for what I have seen so far has been "data poor Speculation rich."
> That may change, of course.

Again--if one looks at the whole biblical picture re sex, one ought to come
to a pretty clear conclusion concerning what is right and what is wrong. I
know full well that there are many situations in which scientific results
can elucidate Scripture. But the whole point of my article was that the
theme of the Bible is God's plan of redemption of creation after man's
fall--the familiar triad of creation, fall and redemption of that
creation--and if a social problem/question/matter is intimately bound up
with that plan of redemption, "new scientific results" are not going to
change matters.

I'd welcome comments on my treatment of the other three social matters I
took up in that article as well as comments on marriage. The other three:
racism, life/death, and human origins.

Burgy, thank you for the notes on two books you sent me privately.


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