Changes

McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref>  Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "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." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for  ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>To hell with gays by Walter Wink</ref>

McMeel, 1976); Roger Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry,” in Homosexuality</ref>  Walter Wink is one whose emphasis upon this is most pronounced, and who much depends upon the upon the hermeneutic behind it, as he readily concurs with traditionalists, in that "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." But he advocates that while sexual conventions are necessary, we are, "in the name of love, to "choose for  ourselves what is right," which he states Jesus meant in Luke 12:57.<ref>To hell with gays by Walter Wink</ref>

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics (principals of interpretation) involved with this strategy. Determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction for the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even  cannibalism. And that while love must be the motive, motive by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins.  It is also established that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws, and while not specifying every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expression. In so doing Jesus stated where sin begins, and named iniquities that come out of the heart, including fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery. And in dealing with the latter, Jesus is shown to have instituted stricter requirements, based upon the original establishment of marriage, while in invoking such, it is specified that is man and women that constitute the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24), while also promising further inspired revelation, under which laws against sexual sins in particular are often upheld. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7 Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf "Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexuality"]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf GAGNON, WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>  

Traditional scholars and writers respond by exposing the spurious nature of the hermeneutics (principals of interpretation) involved with this strategy. Determining what is moral based upon whether Jesus explicitly condemned it could also sanction for the practice of consensual incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or even  cannibalism. And that while love must be the motive, motive by itself does not determine the validity of an action, and by using the "love justifies" hermeneutic, one could easily justify consensual premarital fornication, polyamory, wife swapping and prostitution, among other sins.  It is also established that Jesus clearly upheld Old Testament moral laws, highly esteemed John the Baptist who rebuked Herod for an incestuous marriage, (Mk. 6:18; cf. Lv. 18:16; 20:21) and while not specifying every expression of sin, He dealt with the foundational issue behind them, and their primary expression. In so doing Jesus stated where sin begins, and named iniquities that come out of the heart, including fornications, (Mk. 7:20-23) which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage, as well as adultery. In dealing with the latter, Jesus is shown to have instituted stricter requirements, based upon the original establishment of marriage, while in invoking such, it is specified that is man and women that constitute the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together" (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24), while also promising further inspired revelation, under which laws against sexual sins in particular are often upheld, including incest. (1Cor. 5; Eph. 5:3) <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7 Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf "Are There Universally Valid Sex Precepts? A Critique of Walter Wink's Views on the Bible and Homosexuality"]</ref><ref>[http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf GAGNON, WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?]</ref>  

 

Traditionalist thus contend that contrasting the laws of God such as define marriage and sexual partners with love is a false dichotomy. D. J. Atkinson argues that such manifest "a misconception of  the  relationship between  love  and  law  in  the Bible. The Biblical  understanding  of  the  nature  of  love  is  always  related  to  the description or expression of  God's character in Himself  on the one hand, and  the character of  life appropriate to the people of  God, on the other hand. D. J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 69-70.  

 

Traditionalist thus contend that contrasting the laws of God such as define marriage and sexual partners with love is a false dichotomy. D. J. Atkinson argues that such manifest "a misconception of  the  relationship between  love  and  law  in  the Bible. The Biblical  understanding  of  the  nature  of  love  is  always  related  to  the description or expression of  God's character in Himself  on the one hand, and  the character of  life appropriate to the people of  God, on the other hand. D. J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 69-70.

 

== See also ==

== See also ==