Was the author intending to enshrine the view that all lifelong sexual unions should be exclusively heterosexual because this is a ‘creation ordinance’? Or, is this simply the normative illustration, whereas the critical truths of the story lie elsewhere? If it is the former, then it is perhaps legitimate to refer to practising homosexual sex, even within a lifelong relationship, as having ‘fallen short of God’s ideal’ and to state that those who are not heterosexually orientated are ‘in need of restoration’. But if it’s the latter, then does the ‘norm’ necessarily infer the ‘ideal’? Or is it like the ‘norm’ of being right-handed, which never implies any failing of those who are born left-handed? If so, then neither of the earlier negative definitions is appropriate, but instead cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and, sometimes, terrible tragedy.... is Steve Chalke making basically the same argument as I made here, about two-thirds of the way in under the sub-heading "What's wrong with the creational argument?". I think he is. I like the left-handedness illustration. But I think that Steve and I both need to work at sharpening up the expression of the fundamental insight so that the arbitrariness of extending the moral imperative to gendered-difference is seen even more readily.
The Bible and Homosexuality: Part One | Christianity, Sexuality:
No comments:
Post a Comment