GAY TRUTH

A Corinthian Changes April 18, a.d. 56 Gaius was troubled as he passed through the market gate into the city of Corinth. He could not help noticing the fertility symbols emblazoned on the gateposts and lintel. Such open sexuality had earned Corinth an infamous name. He was again facing intense desires. “No!” his thoughts shouted as he wrenched his gaze from the decoration, “God, deliver me.” John was coming through the crowded market. “Gaius, my brother,” John said in warm greeting. “Your public confession has encouraged me to live for Christ. I am on my way to pray with Stephanos. Do you wish to come?” “Yes, I really do,” Gaius responded with a silent prayer of thanks. How long would he struggle so? April 12 Gaius felt such relief! A weight of guilt was lifting from his shoulders. For the first time in his life he felt clean, forgiven—free. Brothers and sisters in Christ gathered around him. He had crowded into the small dwelling with forty or so worshipers that morning. Standing at t...

Pim Pronk, Author Of Against Nature? Types of Moral Argument Regarding Homosexuality, has laid down a challenge to anyone who uses moral argumentation to oppose homosexuality.1  Specifically, he objects to the use of Romans 1 and its description of homosexuality as “unnatural.” His is a very elaborate presentation that makes some interesting contributions to the discussion of Pauline parenesis. I will give an overview of his position, citing positive contributions, and explaining my criticism. Pronk’s Reasoning Pronk’s chief point is that moral arguments or positions precede an appeal to revelation. While Christians may appeal to Scripture for teaching content, they must use some additional criterion to determine whether the teaching truly is God’s “good,” His will, for them. This criterion is our insight into good and evil, the consensus of discussion or “deliberation in the human community as a whole” (315, 323, 325).  Before settling the matter, the community must test the...

The only model of sexual expression contemplated in Scripture is that which finds its pattern in the Creation model of Genesis 1–2. This is the pattern taught by our Lord and the apostles (see, for example, Matt. 5:27–32; 19:3–12). It is to occur in heterosexual marriage. If in Romans 1 Paul opposes all forms of sexual expression between people of the same sex, then his judgments are, as Scroggs admits, “eternally valid.”97 Revisionist interpretations would do well to come under the meaning and authority of Scripture. So What? Several reasons seem persuasive that Paul does oppose homosexual lust and expression: 1. Paul writes as a Jewish Christian whose theology and ethics are formed by an Old Testament worldview, not Greek philosophy.98 Yet he speaks to Jewish and gentile readers with terms (the natural use and what is contrary to nature) that Greeks and Romans understood. 2. For Paul, what is “natural” (vv. 26–27) reflects the being or nature of the Creator (vv. 18–23) and His revea...

As we consider the significance of Romans 1 for contemporary ethics, one view is that Romans 1 identifies a temporary Jewish purity rule rather than a universal moral principle. When Countryman makes that suggestion, he errs in reading the literary context. In this context, the passage, with its “nature” terminology, can be interpreted only as an appeal to creation.  The words of verses 26–27 are on the level of universal moral principle. Unless the writer signals a change in meaning, context will not allow a limited purity rule to be sandwiched between universal moral standards in verses 24–28. The first and the third of three parallel passages clearly are universal and deal with sin, not impurity. Note Paul’s warning that “God abandoned them” in vv. 24, 26, and 28. God cannot consign the Gentiles to punishment for breaking a Jewish purity rule. The literary form of Romans 1:1–2 also demands identification of homosexuality as sin. When Paul says that “God abandoned them,” the the...