Changes

===Revisionist/prohomosex position===

===Revisionist/prohomosex position===

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation within historical narratives, and or allows a much broader range of interpretation and denial of moral commands and their immutability. Fundamentally such revisionists overall express a denial of the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals, viewing it more as the expression of a prescientific (ignorant) age, with its laws, in particular as regards sexual partners, being culture bound, and categorized as non applicable for today. While some primary prohomoex scholars do confess that it appears, "Wherever the Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a judgment of condemnation",<ref>McNeil,  drawing from the word of Dutch scholar Herman van Spijker, referenced by By Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 83 </ref>or that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> they believe aggravating circumstances provide reasons why injunctions against homosex cannot apply to loving homosexual relationships. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while many often see homosexuality in most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> Primary homosexual apologists, such as Professor Walter Wink, view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic, especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that supercedes Biblical structural requirements for sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (contra. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)) Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs concludes, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman concludes, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary resource for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref>, while John Shelby Spong mocks the idea that if the Bible is opposed to something, then it must be wrong.<ref>"The struggle among Episcopalians," Email Newsletter, 2009-JAN-28,/ref>  

In contrast, those who seek to find support for sanctioned homoeroticism in Scripture typically view the Bible as a book that allows a vast range of metaphorical interpretation within historical narratives, and or allows a much broader range of interpretation and denial of moral commands and their immutability. Fundamentally such revisionists overall express a denial of the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals, viewing it more as the expression of a prescientific (ignorant) age, with its laws, in particular as regards sexual partners, being culture bound, and categorized as non applicable for today. While some primary prohomoex scholars do confess that it appears, "Wherever the Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a judgment of condemnation",<ref>McNeil,  drawing from the word of Dutch scholar Herman van Spijker, referenced by By Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 83 </ref> or that "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,<ref>Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> they believe aggravating circumstances provide reasons why injunctions against homosex cannot apply to loving homosexual relationships. Much effort is expended seeking to relegate Biblical injunctions against homosex to only a formal cultic context, or pederasty, or to heterosexuals acting contrary to the orientation, while many often see homosexuality in most any close heterosexual relationship. Writers of holy writ are sometimes deemed to be too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid.<ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref>  

 

More forward in this regard is Professor Walter Wink, who states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept [a loving homosexual] relationship for a minute." However, he and other revisionists view the Bible as offering no coherent sexual ethic ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he and others hold that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws on sexual unions, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (cf. Dt. 12:8; Jdg. 17:6; Prov. 12:15; Mt.4:4)) Pro homosexual author Robin Scroggs, who proceeded Wink, likewise states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”<ref>Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.</ref> William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”<ref>Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)</ref> Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary resource for Christian ethics.<ref>Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121</ref>, while John Shelby Spong mocks the idea that if the Bible is opposed to something, then it must be wrong.<ref>"The struggle among Episcopalians," Email Newsletter, 2009-JAN-28</ref>  

In response, conservative scholars and writers evidence that such an attitude is contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are exegeted to be just as immutable and universal as those against heterosexual partners, and never conditional upon motive, and that the institution of such basic moral commands in a certain cultural context by itself cannot negate required obedience today. These are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom, and are based upon foundation purpose and precept. Additionally, it is argued that in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for that practice, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as many had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of prohomosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, as consistent with [homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

In response, conservative scholars and writers evidence that such an attitude is contrary to demonstrable sound exegesis, with the resultant inversion of Biblical morality by revisionists effectively allowing the immutable moral laws of the Bible to yield to a love that can actually rejoice in iniquity (cf. 1Cor. 13:6)<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm "No Universally Valid Sex Standards? A Rejoinder to Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexual Practice", Gagnon]</ref> The basic injunctions against male homosexual partners are exegeted to be just as immutable and universal as those against heterosexual partners, and never conditional upon motive, and that the institution of such basic moral commands in a certain cultural context by itself cannot negate required obedience today. These are held to have been penned under the inspiration of God, and which transcends human wisdom, and are based upon foundation purpose and precept. Additionally, it is argued that in seeking to negate all injunctions contrary to homoeroticism and to wrest sanction for that practice, certain hermeneutics and logic employed by pro-homosex apologists can also effectively work to disallow the immutability of most any moral command (as many had "aggravating circumstances" in their establishment), and the Bible itself as a moral authority. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of prohomosex polemics is seen as effectively negating the authority of the very source they seek to claim for their own. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE Bible (WALTER WINK REFUTED)]</ref>  This effect may be seen as a desired one, as consistent with [homosexual agenda]], and a form of [[homosexual historical revisionism.]]

Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

Alex D. Montoya<ref>Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at The Masters Seminary</ref> prefaces his essay on the subject at hand by stating,   

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] have put pressure on the [[evangelical]] church to respond in  some way. [[Homosexual]] spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church</ref>

“Developments in the secular society in its acceptance of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] have put pressure on the [[evangelical]] church to respond in  some way. [[Homosexual]] spokespersons have advocated varying principles of interpretation to prove from the Bible the legitimacy of their lifestyle.  They have resorted to either subjectivism, historic-scientific evolving of society, or cultural biases of the Biblical writers to find biblical backing for their position.  Scripture condemns homosexuality is such passages as Genesis 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 2:7; and Jude 7.  The true biblical teaching on the subject requires the church to condemn the sin of homosexuality, convert the homosexual, confront erroneous teaching, and cleanse itself.  The church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.”<ref>The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church</ref>

== Principal Sources ==

== Principal Sources ==