Seeking the better way -opening new horizons

Charles Jourdan

Sandnes

Draft 27th September 2021

Contents

· Introduction

· Is change possible?

2.1 Change as a threat or opening new horizons

2.2 Tradition as an authority resisting change

2.3 Issues supporting the need for change

· Back to the beginning

3.1 Genesis 1-11 - Primitive History including Creation and the "Fall"

3.2. Differing views of Creation

3.3 Adam and Eve and the "Fall"

3.4. Consequences for understanding and practising the Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy)

· A better way

4.1 Two biblically orthodox voices pointing to the inclusiveness of Scripture

4.1.1 Hegertun

4.1.2 Harper

4.2 Harper and Hegertun and the 5 (clobber) passages used in the debate

4.3 Summary

· The growth of the Kingdom of God

· What should we take moving forward?

· Introduction

In this document I firstly present some of the thoughts that I had during the homosexuality debate in the earlier part of this century. These were put aside when a greater degree of equality was achieved for the LGBTI+ people with the DnK adopting a dual solution. By this time, I was also weary of the destructive debate and the unwillingness of the UMC to make any new moves in this matter. More recently change is in the air so I have felt the need to bring these thoughts out again. At the same time I have tried to summarise, as best as possible, two of the authors, Steve Harper (American UMC) and Terje Hegertun (Norwegian Pentecostal), that have moved to what I call is a better way.

As a professional geologist with more than 40 years work experience, I have some insights that I feel can influence the theological debate. As a church minister for almost 20 years in the conservative southwest of Norway, and as a member of the parental group fighting for the rights of homosexuals, I have experienced the negative sides of the debate from fellow Christians as well as the pain of those homosexuals rejected by their spiritual siblings.

· Is change possible?

2.1 Change as a threat or opening new horizons?

The question about LBGTI+ persons position in the church is not just an isolated theological theme as some people believe. It is part of a larger issue that covers a large range of themes such as the social and scientific, as well as the religious. In all these areas we are frequently gaining new knowledge which should be evaluated as they impact upon our viewpoints and faith. Then there is also the important contribution that comes from our own experience of life with its different interactions with others. However, for some change represents a threat and experience has no validity, in which case there is no room for discussion. Many are particularly worried that the preaching of repentance and salvation becomes a secondary issue.

We have seen this, for example, in the reaction of predominantly male-controlled theological authorities, especially in the northern hemisphere, when confronted by scientific advances and more recently the modern multicultural and global society. For many in positions of authority facing change there is the fear that their position, even their country and their religion are being taken from them. When tradition as a unique understanding and unmovable foundation loses its validity, conservative forces fight to hold on to that which was previously considered unchangeable. For example, this is one of the main issues that the GOP politically and conservative Christians spiritually are struggling with in the USA as society develops in new directions. We see the same in eastern European countries such as Poland and Hungary.

The LBGTI+ issue particularly represents a threat to traditional, conservative positions because today's younger generations, and others outside of the church, do not understand why this group is stigmatized and often considered a deviant form of humanity, whilst the Church preaches about a God of love.

Encouragingly, there are many examples today of biblically focused Christians who have moved to a more inclusive/progressive position, but for these people change has often taken place over a longer period. The catalyst for change has invariably been meeting Christian gays and re-visiting the teachings and life of Jesus (see later Chapters).

2.2 Tradition as an authority resisting change

There was a lot the early church did not know or understand about earth history or human nature and their context was different from that which we experience today. Even in the Early Church there were a lot of disagreements on major doctrinal issues and many later have lost their lives for stating the obvious in confrontations with church authorities. We should also remember that throughout time the understanding of doctrinal issues is partly clouded by not knowing enough about the authors or local congregational and cultural situations of the NT Epistles. Indeed, the New Testament Canon was only established by a form of consensus in the 4th Century AD (The Hebrew Old Testament Canon as late as AD70). The problem has been further compounded by the church for much of its history having been both a state and powerful political institution without the freedom to be true to its origins.

Many of the advances in archeology, ancient texts, geology, astronomy, human psychology etc. have come in the last 3-400 years and were not available to the first church and its writers, the Early Church Fathers, or the Reformers. Even John Wesley with his academic scientific interest was only scratching the surface. Therefore, the traditionalist slogan/catchphrase that attempts to negate all differing opinions by stating that the traditionalist position on human sexuality is built on the solid foundation of the church's understanding for the last 2000 years does not hold up.

A major reason for many to resist change is their view of scripture. For the most fundamental traditionalist the written word is taken at face value with no room for interpretation[1], despite this also being an interpretation. Contradictions within Bible and scientific arguments are ignored. It is God who has written the Bible. Others are less rigid, but still consider the Bible as God's revelation of his will and is therefore the ultimate authority for teaching and behaviour with little room for interpretation[2]. For the majority of those in these categories any idea of change in ethical thinking is against their DNA, especially in the short to middle terms.[3] For those others who recognize the Bible as a means for God to speak to his people in contexts different from those at the time of writing there is more room for interpretation. However, even here change is not very likely if they have been taught for 15, 30 or 50+ years that homosexual behaviour is not acceptable, indeed sinful.

2.3 Issues supporting the need for change

Given that a conservative position generally implies little or no change, this document attempts to point to where the weight of evidence suggests that change is both possible and necessary in issues of relevance to LGBTI+. To do this we have to understand what shapes our world view (including that of God) which again influences our given standpoints on our view of humanity including human sexuality. In this respect it makes sense to consider first our understanding of Creation and Primeval History for it is already here that important divergences are apparent amongst Christians. Later we will see how the Bible is read in different ways and our awareness of different sexualities now that the chains of illegality have been removed in many countries.

· Back to the Beginning

So where do we start? Is it with the written Word (Bible) alone or do we also consider the major advances made in the physical understanding of the Earth and its universe? For me, as both a geologist and a theologian, it is clear is that no theological standpoint can discuss our knowledge of God without including what we are discovering about the world and the beings that He created as well as what has been written about Him. These things open the mind to the dynamism, energy and diversity that surrounds us.

Similarly we need to be aware of the increasing revelation of God through time that was not available to the earliest writers. Amazingly, one very rarely hears anyone talking about the authorship and objectives of Genesis chapters 1-11 that have determined so much of church doctrines throughout the centuries. These texts have been used to establish traditional norms concerning sin, the dominance of men and human sexuality. To open them up to historical analysis[4] is for many a faith threatening exercise as it challenges the understanding of inspiration.

3.1 Genesis 1-11 - Primitive History including Creation and "The Fall" Firstly, we need to ask who wrote/edited the first 11 chapters of the Bible, when and where they wrote/edited these and what was their motive and agenda. Only then should we consider the creation stories and speculate over the real consequences of "The Fall" in light of what the Natural Sciences have shown us. Here comes my understanding of the issue.

Historically the editing of the Torah/Books of the Law was completed in the period 550-470f.Kr. This at a time when Jerusalem was in ruins and Judah, the remnant of the Davidic Kingdom was in exile in Babylon, and God's defeated people must have wondered whether they had a God at all. The priestly scribes had the God approved job[5] of re-establishing the identity of His people by re-assuring them of their place in Creation and his plan of salvation/transformation. This they did by bringing together older verbal and written sources both from their own people, but also from the common stories of Mesopotamia. At the same time, they could reflect over the paganism of the Babylonian society with its large ziggurat (Babel's Tower) built towards heaven very visible to them.

Within in the first 11 chapters that describe Primitive History (that is early history without fixed dates or historically verifiable people) the frequently pictorial themes take up most of the existential issues in humanity such as the created world, life and death, sin, evil, the wide range of experiences from joy and love to hard work, humiliation, jealousy, pride, murderous thoughts etc.. Here we also recognize the development of civilization with both its positive and negative consequences. These priestly scribes clearly stated that:

• The God of Israel was the great God, if not the only god, and that all the other deities of the pagan nations were created objects e.g. sun, moon, nature.
• Man and woman were in a privileged position and created in the image of God. Furthermore, God had made a covenant with his people.
• Israel (Shem, oldest son of Noah and Abram's ancestor) was the centre of God's creation with the neighbouring people in a lesser position e.g. Canaan (Genesis 10.1ff).
• The priestly function was important because of the importance of maintaining the Sabbath as well as the people's allegiance to the Law given their tendency to sin.
• Procreation and management of the earth were important priorities for mankind and any relationship where sperm was spilt was a sin punishable by death.
• Man was ranked above Woman, and yet also mutually dependent on her. A patriarchal society and heterosexual reproduction were considered essential for the ordered preservation of God's people and in this respect non-heterosexuality could not be tolerated. Similarly, a woman's place was essentially within the home and did not have the same value as men. There was a required order for society that had to be adhered to - even down to the minutest detail so as to be different from the surrounding pagan societies.
• The family trees are named after the men, and great age is attached to them as a sign of respect rather than being a true longevity.
• Despite their sin God did care for his people and He did not want them to feel that their current situation was hopeless. (The Books of the Law end with a reminder of all the great things that Moses did with the Lord's help).

What we are dealing with here is a theological, religious, and political statement of the editors that has to be read in its context which is different from ours and in a language that we may be unfamiliar with today. For example, while we fully accept the greatness of God is not up for debate, through the Gospel we no longer support the idea of superiority of one race over another, the subjugation of woman and children, the validity of many of the purity laws etc.. This is a dilemma we must face up to.

3.2 Differing views of Creation

By studying the Earth and its atmosphere it is very clear that these have arrived at their current state through a long period of time, indeed over many millions of years (ca. 4.5 billion years - the universe is much older ca 13.3 billion years). It is not just sophisticated radiometric dating that tells us this, but also the nature of the rock record that witnesses massive upheavals and movement of continents that required immense amounts of time to have occurred. The world as we know it was, and still is, formed by dynamic processes as our daily news reports confirm. It is only the most obdurate creationist who would deny these facts. With such people, who read the Bible literally, it is nigh impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

Some defenders of a young earth will claim that such age estimates are wrong and that the Days in Genesis 1 represent no more a few thousand years. However, if we look at the superficial deposits and ice lying above the main strata beneath, they alone point to hundreds of thousands of years of history. Marine fossils near the top of Mount Everest are not evidence of a recent Flood, but of the huge tectonic forces in action when the Indian continental plate collided with the Chinese plate over a long period of time. These forces lifted older seabed deposits to their current position. A universal flood covering the world to a depth of water necessary to cover Mt. Ararat, let alone Mt. Everest is physically impossible. We must be honest about these observations.

Traditionalists are strong advocates of a binarity in Creation. This, however, goes against the fact that ca. 3-7% of males are not heterosexual due to conditions before their birth, or prior to, puberty. There are also cases where the sex of a child anatomically is very difficult to determine at birth which creates a serious ethical and human situation for those involved. 0.05-2% of the population do not fit anatomically into a binary / male / female definition and are referred to as Intersex. Here we note Jesus' words in Matt. 19.12 - For some are eunuchs because they were born that way i.e. Intersex.

3.3 Adam and Eve and "The Fall"

Since there is so much focus on both alleged sexual sin in the gay debate and homosexuality as a result of the Fall one should also ask whether Adam and Eve were real people or just "representatives" for mankind in general. If they were really the first two people, then their second generation offspring would have to have been the result of incestuous relationships. (Abraham having sex with his wife's servant Hagar which today we would call sexual abuse, and the extensive polygamy of King David and King Solomon are further examples of dubious sexual relationships within the Bible that are frequently ignored).

If Adam and Eve were not the only human inhabitants, which we can suppose since Cain had a wife in Gen 4, 17 (- who was she?), then why would their sin affect others living at that time? The logical answer is that all of mankind, whether created directly or created through evolution, was never created perfect[6] but has always practiced its propensity for selfish (sinful) behavior. This is what the pictorial story of "The Fall" is trying to capture. That is why Jesus was so clear in summarizing God's will in the Law in terms of personal relationships that are driven by agape, unselfish love to win over this behaviour[7]. Sin exists where selfishness precludes this love (Matt 22, 34-40) and right and wrong can be measured in terms of our love to God and others. Sin comes from the misuse of the freedom of choice.

Using our present-day knowledge, we can reject the claim that the event referred to as "The Fall" being the cause of physical death within creation. The geological record is extremely clear that the earth is very much older than mankind and fossils show that physical death, at times violent, has always been part of history. "The Fall" best refers to a spiritual death, from which salvation is necessary[8]. This then pours further doubt on the common traditionalist idea that a negative human moral decision affected the physical attributes of both mankind (eg causing illness, disease, divergent sexuality) and creation itself (earthquakes etc). We are part of a dynamically developing Creation.

The first books of the Bible confirm God's prevenient grace given to the human representatives from their beginning which offered them the chance to avoid the spiritual death that sin brings and to restore the likeness of God within us. Grace re-establishes a relationship to God for whoever accepts it.

3.4 Consequences for understanding and practising the Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy)

In my experience many traditionalists start with their understanding of the Torah and the OT in general to establish their worldview, their understanding of human nature and the physical world[9]. I have met those, with university level education in natural sciences, who say, "If I can't believe what is written here in the first chapters, what can I believe?" Here we are very close to blind faith. Furthermore, these traditionalists start from the few biblical texts referring to homosexuality to establish their ethical position, rather than starting with the development and flow of ethical thoughts that the Bible presents in its totality (see later discussions).

If one reads the laws in the Torah, it is clear that procreation is a major theme, a theme still used as an argument by traditionalists against homosexuality today. Basically, the sperm of a man should not be wasted and the punishment for this could be great. The consequences of such practice were significant for the patriarchal society that the Law supported. The family/clan/tribe and its leader were dependent on many children, to maintain position, wealth and survival in a harsh world. Homosexual relationships did not support these goals, just as a barren woman also lived with shame. Having sex with a menstruating woman was punishable by death (Lev 3,20) - an absurd thought in our society today.

Reading present day meaning into ancient texts is a precarious project. For example, the frequently quoted episode from the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah (1 Mos 19) is most probably not about homosexuality at all. The story is an indictment of those men who in their hatred / animosity subjected God's messengers to the passive role of the woman, which in the ancient world was the ultimate denigration of the male's identity. To avoid this Lot was willing to offer his own daughters - so heinous was the crime (- and a sad reflection on the value of women in Israel at that time).

The NT clearly states that there is no salvation through the detailed practice of the OT purity laws. Why then are the above mentioned procreational constraints relevant in our non-patriarchal society? Alternatively, one can ask why the traditionalists are not equally vociferous against single people who choose not to get married, married couples both of whom deliberately choose not to have children or the majority of married couples who practise contraception. Enjoyment of sex without conceiving a child is encouraged today as an important part of marriage and healthy, faithful, and loving relationships. In this respect we should note that Jesus' words in Matthew 19, 1-12 are not an obvious argument against homosexuality, but a criticism of the male dominated arrangement that gave no protection to the wife. His words can be equally applied to same sex relationships - a call for equality and mutual respect for each partner. Today we also accept that adult children do not let their parents decide over their marriage partners, lives etc.

There appears to be a clear lack of consistency in interpretation of OT inspired ethical themes as we have also seen in the arguments concerning slavery, the equality of women, re-marriage after divorce, women ministers etc.. It would be helpful to understand what actually is sinful about loving faithful homosexual relationships.

At this point the traditionalist will quote Matt 5, 17-20 saying that the Law still stands today. However, this text is in that part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is pointing to the old way of things before, he shows a better way. Here the Law is the measuring rod for those who follow the Law as a way of salvation. The counterpart, the better way, is found in Matt 7,12, in which Jesus presents the Golden Rule which is closely related to his summary of the Law in Matt 22, 36-40 - love for God and neighbour. Once again a verse, or verses, should not be read in isolation.

Traditionalists will argue that it is the truth in God's word that convicts practising LHBGT+'s of sin and puts that at enmity with God, that is, outside of salvation. Experience says that God includes these within the fellowship of saving grace.

· A better way

It is clear from what as already been written that interpretation of the written Word can vary significantly even though the protagonists of the different views do not disagree on the actual text in front of them. There are questions regarding the means of revelation, the literalness of the stories being told, the context of the texts and their validity today, the development of ethical and soteriological themes and the major contribution of human experience amongst LHGBI+ and their family and acquaintances. This last mentioned is hotly contested but is an important contribution in Wesleyan hermeneutics. It is worth noting that the traditionalist position is frequently concerned with "sin management" rather than mature discipleship where the focus is on the Wesleyan theology of love.

Several examples have already been given for where the traditionalist view needs revision. The rest of this document will be more concerned with a better way of understanding scripture that gives validity to inclusive fellowships for all Christians, and indeed those considering becoming Christians. This involves the better way of love (1 Cor. 12.31 - 13.13) and presenting the case for accepting those practising mutually faithful and loving same-sex relationships. We cannot underestimate the importance of human experience and the need for fellowship as Bishop Jack M.Thuell of the UMC clearly states[10]. Then, and only then, can the texts referring to homosexuality analysed to show that these no longer have a normative role in this debate. We are looking for the truth, intent and totality in scripture.

This approach was visible during the first decade of this century as clergy, theologians, the gay community, and groups such as the Foreldrenettverk (Parental Network) successfully worked to change attitudes in DnK. However, opposition was, and still is, strong[11]. There are intense feelings as the age-old norms underpinning faith are shown to be under threat.

4.1 Two biblically orthodox voices pointing to the inclusiveness of Scripture

In Norway, Pentecostal MF professor Terje Hegertun's recent book "Det trofaste samlivet» seeks to give an overview of the arguments that led to change in the DnK to those Christians outside of the former state church[12]. Whilst claiming to remain on scriptural high ground he has used his experience[13] with homosexuals to present coherent arguments for an ethical profile which includes loving, mutual and faithful homosexual relationships as acceptable for Christian fellowship. He asks whether the debate can be more about ethics rather than just biology[14]. The importance of this book is the challenge it presents to the independent church organisations and evangelical free churches that have been very careful in not addressing this issue in detail for fear of destructive debate and erosion of their beliefs.

Hegertun in his reasonably lengthy book quotes a lot of Scandinavian and Catholic authors/works but does not refer to the developments within the UMC or Wesleyan theology. In this respect it is then important to gain insights from authors such as Steve Harper in his short book "Holy Love - a biblical theology for human sexuality". Harper is considered a theological traditionalist, or maybe centrist, by David Livingston who previewed Harper's book. So, neither Hegertun, nor Harper, can be considered "raving" liberals, although such criticism soon arises with many colleagues not daring to publicly state their support for these authors for fear of losing their positions[15]( One must not break ranks!).

The next chapters will summarise the approaches of these authors and then how they reject the traditionalist interpretation of the 5 "clobber" texts concerning homosexual relationships. For both writers, it is concluded that the positivity of loving faithful relationships is that which is most in line with the ethical teaching of Jesus and other authors in the NT.

Before going further, I wish to stress one point. Love is a very misunderstood/misused word in the English and Norwegian languages, because the one word we use covers a whole range of meanings e.g., erotic, brotherly/family, friendly love. God's agape love is a completely different dimension of love. It is a quality of a person rather than a different kind of love. It is a principle by which one orders life. It is not first an emotion, but a deliberate policy[16] whereby one practices selfless love following the example of Jesus. In a discussion group looking at same sex relationships one of the traditionalists asked why there was so much talk about love. Since the dynamic of Wesleyanism is a theology of love we cannot avoid addressing this issue and understanding its deeper meaning.

· Terje Hegertun

In Hegertun's foreword he is very careful how he presents his thoughts to his readers, many of whom are theologically conservative within the Norwegian Free Churches. He presents the marriage covenant, which is important in this tradition, noting that the need for faithful love whilst at the same time recognizing that biological reproduction, another pre-requisite, is not possible for all couples. In addition, he points out that essential ethical conditions must be in place to prevent the marriage collapsing. It is the ethical values of faithful love in a permanent monogamous relationship that he suggests can be transferred to other types of living together.

In conversation with Christian homosexuals that have experienced the pain of rejection Hegertun has recognized that there are new insights that do not necessarily follow theological traditions. The classical position has negatively affected their quality of life. The life experience of these homosexuals shows that personal experience, and not just text interpretation, are relevant when discussing their place in the church. Combined with this is also the aspect of pastoral and spiritual mentoring. He is also quite clear that the basic sexual orientation is something that cannot be altered, a contentious thought for many conservatives. These non-heterosexuals are individuals with the same heart, thoughts, feelings, dreams, desires, and faith as all the others[17].

Using the ethical theme of faithful life together and starting with recognition of the revelation of Scripture he attempts to appease both the liberals and conservatives[18]. Reactions in the press since the book was published suggests that this is easier said than done. In this respect he rejects Espen Ottesen's claim that coming with alternative views of homosexual relationships causes people to lose faith in the clarity, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible. (Confirming again that fear is a strong undercurrent[19]). Hegertun does not accept the implicit claim that only those who say no to homosexual relationships take the Bible seriously[20]. It is incorrect to place faithful same-sex relationships in the same category as promiscuity and adultery, especially when these relationships are now lawfully regulated in Norway.

Hegertun, like Harper, also puts weight on the theological principle that God's thoughts for us are good, and that is unreasonable that homosexual orientation is met with the demand for celibacy[21], especially since there are so few references to this in Scripture. Since in the West homosexuals have been given legal, cultural, and social rights, the question arises of how the church can improve their life quality.

The classical position is based on the reproductive requirements for the continuation of the human species, which would not be fulfilled by same-sex relationships in the OT patriarchal society. This means that the OT texts do not discuss basic sexual orientation and do not, therefore impinge the modern context of same-sex relationships.

Hegertun seeks to present an alternative approach noting that the faithful requirements in God's covenant[22] with his people are more than emphasizing the sexual polarity between men and women. 1 Mos 2.18 "It isn't good for man to be alone" emphasizes the deep-seated needs in relationships independent of gender. Ethical qualities are also present in non-heterosexual relations and are independent of the anatomical compatibility and the gender polarity. The Eden story's social and ethical dimensions are not necessarily just heterosexual in nature. Furthermore, today the patriarchal emphasis on reproduction is no longer present, especially with the availability of contraception, and we think differently about marriage and the roles therein. This argument also notes that texts such as Rom.1 do not give a description that corresponds to the faithful same-sex relationships that exist today.

Again, like Harper, he highlights God's faithful love to us and then focuses on Christ and the Church. The Church as the bride of Christ also raises the thought that both men and women are equal and without gender in this analogy. Marriage cannot just be thought of in gender relations, just as Gal 3.28 says that "here there is neither man nor woman.." Gender is not the deciding factor[23]. Hegertun also visits the fact that all people are created in the image of Gud and the value that this gives them with again no difference in value between men and women. He sees that the likeness between man and woman in the creation stories, which we adhere to today, was not present in the patriarchal society with its hierarchical structure where there was clear sense of ordering in creation[24].

Hegertun quotes a very enlightening passage[25] from Vikström that explains the dynamic development in the biblical message with time, a development that continues through to today:

We can, however, see a line of development, from the prophets battle for social righteousness via Jesus' radical example of limitless love for our neighbour to the equality of status in today's society in many countries that have been influenced by Christianity. The stronger emphasis on the equality of all people does not represent a step away from the biblical message, but is a consequence of it.

In understanding both the GT legal texts and those of the Jewish apostles, Hegertun points to the abhorrence that the Jews had for the wickedness and sexual promiscuity and abuse that abounded in the neighbouring countries and later the Greco-Roman society.

4.1.2. Steve Harper

As for Hegertun[26] a critical experience for Harper was meeting Christian homosexuals who had experienced painful rejection from their parents and/or family and/or churches and yet who, in most cases, were still hoping that one day they will be included by the church for whom they are. For much of his professional life from the 1970's onwards Harper worked for several very conservative organisations, but during his PhD on Wesleyan theology at Duke University the seeds were sown for looking differently at his position. He became drawn to "emergence" Christianity, but only after his retirement in 2014 did his immersion in the prayers in The Book of Common Prayer convince him of the need for inclusion and the avoidance of contentious partisanship. He was no longer just welcoming, but now affirming the Christian homosexuals and yet, he still claims to have an orthodox theological standpoint[27] .

Theological Interpretational Framework

Harper argues that the differences between Christians about scripture are not disagreements about its authority, but rather its interpretation - not about revelation but hermeneutics. We are disagreeing as fellow Christians[28]. The use of "biblical" versus "unbiblical" is a falsehood that misconstrues the opposing interpretation. "A text without a context is a pretext" reminds us that we have to look at the larger picture first.

In his view the overarching hermeneutic that is necessary before discussing the parts is the hermeneutic of covenant love[29]. This he developed looking at the following 6 vantage points of biblical revelation which then guided his theology of sexuality.

Creator

All bona fide theology begins with God, who he is and how he acts. We do this because we are made in the image of God. He claims that our theology of sexuality has been too rooted in a view that God is punitive and retributive, and we too often have made who we are (anthropology) a starting point rather than who God is. God - YHWH is merciful, gracious, faithful, forgiving and steadfast in love. Faithful love takes us to the heart of God. God is love (1 John 4,18) is the culmination of scriptural revelation. Hesed and agape are found over and over again[30].

Creation

He states that many scientific insights about creation are greatly informing our theology. For Harper creation is non-binary, and includes a great diversity and even where we recognise pairings, these encompass spectra. In reply to those who claim that an LGBTQ identity is an expression of the "Fall" he remarks that the Bible more nearly defines sexual fallenness in terms of unfaithful behaviour (eg sexual immorality and adultery), not identity. To claim that LGBTQ identity is a distortion of God's creation is one of the key misinterpretations that lead these people to believe they are somehow less than fully human.

Made in the image of God tells us that love is the reason for our existence, love is our true identity (to quote Thomas Merton)[31].

Covenant[32]

For Harper the covenant reveals the will of the creator for the creation. Twice in Deuteronomy we read that the covenant was given so that we might live (4.1: 30.19) whilst Jesus declared "life to the fullest" was his mission (John 10.10). Israel's call was to share the love of God (Deut. 6,4) and the love of neighbour (Lev. 19.18). The 4 characteristics of the covenant are holiness, faithfulness, permanency and monogamy.

Importantly he states that "the morality of sexuality is not determined by a person's gender, identity or orientation, but rather by honouring the commitments of the covenant". Referring to the claim that LGBTQ must be celibate Harper notes that nothing in the biblical understanding of the covenant requires lifelong celibacy. To demand this of LGBTQ is to demand something that the Bible does not require. Furthermore, "Marriage is not defined by gender, but the covenantal values of holiness, faithfulness, permanency ands monogamy. This is why marriage is referred to as a holy covenant." (A theme also important to Hegertun).

Affirmative accountability describes all the ways we keep the covenant with respect to sexuality.

Christ[33]

Here we have come to the apex of this theological hermeneutic. The excarnate and incarnate Christ is the lens through whom we see the revelation of God for eternity and within time. Christ is all things and in all people (Col. 3.11). Here all means all. Jesus' ministry was to those who had been ignored, marginalized, shunned and deemed less than by political and religious leaders. Jesus was never more counterintuitive or countercultural than in designing his ministry to be one of going about doing good to everyone. In Matt.19.1-12 we see Jesus blessing marriage and acknowledging eunuchs (sexual diversity - intersex). His response to the teachers of the law was regarding divorce and he again confirmed covenant love. There are many things that are normative, but not definitive. Marriage is one of them.

Church[34]

The first churches continued Jesus' ministry of inclusiveness (Acts 10-15). Paul recognized that through their baptism believers have an identity and a perpective in which, "there is neither Jew nor Greek,; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3.28). In this respect it is noteworthy that the first named convert outside Israel was a sexual minority - the Ethiopian eunuch. People of other than heterosexual identity are not distortions of God's original design.

Consummation

Harper believes that this again confirms the idea that all believers are included, "They were from every nation, tribe, people and language. They were standing before the throne and before the Lamb (Rev7.9).

Love Stories in the Bible

Before dealing with the five passages used by traditionalists to argue against same-sex relationships, Harper recognizes one further wider context to be considered - the stories of love in the Bible, and the broad range of admonitions that grant permission and prohibition. Love stories abound and from these Harper sees that sexuality is more than physical activity. Human beings are not essentially sexual because they engage in sexual activity, but because we are created with the strong desire for relationships. As in the Trinity relationships can be strong and ongoing without ever having to be physical. Here chastity means the cultivation of single-minded devotion to someone or something.

Only 5 passages in scripture refer to same-sex sexuality, whilst there is a plethora of passages referring to heterosexual relationships. Harper states clearly that we have become conditioned to think that the Bible's concern is weighted towards LGBTQ misconduct. By focusing on LGBTQ sexuality, we have essentially created a cover-up for the much larger problem of heterosexual sinfulness[35]

4.2 Harper and Hegertun and the 5 (clobber) passages used in the debate

As an introduction to his review Harper notes that there is no consensus among scholars about what these passages are against. He argues that conservatives misrepresent reality and consensus when they allege that their non-confirming interpretation is the only valid one. Therefore, all interpretations should be expressed with charity[36]

Lev 18.22;20.13

For Harper the Hebrew word shakab tells us that is promiscuity that is prohibited - behaviour that is temporary, lustful and without commitment. This is not about a physical aberration, but the violation of covenant love's holiness, faithfulness, permanency, and monogamy[37].

Here Hegertun[38] considers several possible interpretations related to the established priestly way of thinking about sin -

• the spilling of sperm was forbidden,
• the established role model where the man is to give (penetrate), the woman to receive (be penetrated) is violated
• or where the sexual act is not motivated by love but is a demonstration of virility with the humiliation of the other part.

He states here that it is outside of the OT 's horizon to allow it to make a comment about the ethical ideals that form the basis for mutual feelings of love. We need to be much more aware of how extensive and deeply entrenched the cultic purity laws were amongst Jews. These same laws that were strongly criticized by Jesus and Paul.

1 Cor 6.9-10: 1 Tim 1.10

For Harper[39] the apostle Paul is here calling out aberrant sexual behaviour where addiction and abuse are involved in the Greco-roman society. Malakoi, used only here in the Bible, is elsewhere used to describe unbridled lust and sexual addiction where sexuality is out of control. The word also describes males who seduced women without hesitation. All 4 dimensions of covenant love are broken. The second word arsenokoitoi refers to the abuse related to prostitution or pederasty or sex between masters and slaves. It can also be used to describe thievery, betraying a confidence, murder, paying unjust wages, oppressing the poor.

Hegertun notes that it is very difficult to determine the meaning of the malakos /malakoi. He quotes Svartviks question that asks whether Paul used the word malakoi to describe very feminine men who submitted to other men as if they were a woman in the sexual act. In this case this was against the Jewish understanding of the male-female roles. Arsenokoites seems to point to the active part in the sexual act, which in the Greco-Roman world was accepted in same sex relations (see above), but which of course had no place in the Jewish view. Once again Hegertun does not recognize that the texts here can have any relevance for monogamous same-sex relationships in today's society. The texts describe a decadence that these couples are in no way participating.

Rom 1.18-32

For Harper this passage lists 21 behaviours that describe the sinfulness driven by lustful idolatry (self-gratification) that is present in Corinth and Rome. With the use of the words "exchanged" and "unnatural" we are witnessing heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts - an observation also shared by the non-affirming evangelical John Stott in his book Homosexual Partnerships. Again, what is being described is a violation of covenant love.

Hegertun sees Paul's words here as typical Jewish description for the Gentile ungodliness and wicked lifestyle. These people are denying the image of God within themselves. Interestingly sexual deviation in the list is not given greater weight that all the other sins that are found amongst most people such as gossip, greediness etc.. Hegertun concludes that stable homosexual relationships reflect a radical revision of ethical thinking that does not exist in this list of "deadly sins". Here he discusses what is considered natural and sees Paul describing homoeroticism in verses 26-27 with this being a form of idol worship.

Homosexuals today living in a committed relationship would say they have a very different understanding of what is natural. With the knowledge we have today about genuine homosexuality we will have to operate with an extended understanding of what is normative for those with a homosexual orientation. Paul's idea of what is normal, such as the issue of men having long hair (1 Cor.11.14) shows that the idea of what is normal can be very subjective. We must recognize the context in which this was written was governed by the hierarchical and gender determined structures in classical Jewish thinking of the time that were not up for revision.

4.3 Summary

For Harper[40] all these 5 passages are against sexual sin that is promiscuous and abusive treating others as objects to be used for personal self- gratification. Christian LGBTQ people honouring covenant love are above this and in the same position as heterosexuals Christians in this respect. Therefore for Harper it is important that we befriend LGBTQ people, fight non-violently against the use of outdated data /misinformation and invite the LGBTQ people into the life and ministry of the church with marriage in the church being accepted by all. If the lives of LGBTQ persons are reduced to an "issue" it is easy to discount the movement of the Holy Spirit in their lives and thereby conferring second class status on them.

For Hegertun it seems clear that the Bible texts here are limited to criticism of homoerotical actions and the decadence of the surrounding Gentile world, not homosexual relationships between persons with an established, permanent sexual orientation[41]. He asks, in light of Gal. 5,6 whether it can really be a sin to love the one that you love. It is time to move on to the demanding discussion about the importance of life together and marriage for all people/believers.

In the light of his conclusions Hegertun also challenges the churches of the West to engage in conversation with the churches in other areas where homophobia is coupled with violence, imprisonment and even death.

· The Growth of the Kingdom of God

I will limit my thoughts on this central issue in the life of the Church but will note two points.

Firstly, the Kingdom of God is constantly growing so that there will be room for many birds to find a place to nest[42]. Jesus' accept of the rejected, the so-called religiously defiled, the foreigners etc. remind us there are many types of birds who will find their rightful place.

Secondly, the Kingdom of God is not limited to one denomination alone, it is not geographically restricted but exists wherever there are people who have given their allegiance to the gracious, Sovereign and Triune God[43]. It is this God who investigates the human heart and who welcomes believers into his presence, into his rest. There is a real danger of huge mistakes when we humans take this role upon ourselves - as has been the case in the issue under debate here. At the same time this does not hinder preaching of a call to repentance that opens the way back to fellowship with God.

· What should we take with us moving forward?

• The energy released in Creation can be seen in everything from the smallest particle to the largest cosmic body. Only the loving nature of the Creator, the source of our faith, is unchangeable. On our earth we see dynamic change all around us, especially as we better understand the nature of the earth itself and the created beings that inhabit it. We see change in our own lives as we mature physically and intellectually while in the Bible we see how God's revelation of Himself has changed and is still developing through the Spirit of Christ amongst us. As Methodists we seek change to grow in sanctification, while the Kingdom of God is also explained in terms of growth which intrinsically involves change. We should therefore be brave enough to meet change, and not let it generate the fear that limits growth.
• There is enough evidence that the traditionalist position needs revision, both in the light of our improved knowledge and also ethical deliberations that also look at old texts in our current context. This revision is necessary to avoid further stigmatism and pain for those who the "objects" in the matter at hand.
• Recognising the rejection and pain experienced by homosexuals reminds us that life experience is a very important contribution to hermeneutical analysis, especially when we see how Jesus interacted with those religious society rejected.
• We need a greater awareness of how and why the Torah was written to better understand the contextual differences between then and now.
• When we read biblical texts we need to be sure that new relevant knowledge about the universe, human nature and the texts themselves is used to ensure that they are properly applied within our current context. This does not deny the Holy Spirit blowing life into the written word. Just because a position is 2000 years old does not mean that automatically applies today, much new relevant information has only become available during the last 300 years or less.
• Since many of the texts being debated are within, or are derived from, the OT and in particular the Torah it is essential that we understand the cultic formulas and purity laws that were created for the people of Israel to separate them from the surrounding pagan countries. Since we no longer live within a patriarchal society the important understanding of male/female roles is a core issue. It is then necessary to consider which of the demands of the Covenant of the Law, other than the love of God and neighbour, are relevant within the Covenant of Grace.
• There is a clear need for the Wesleyan theology of covenant love and grace to be promoted, especially in countries where reformed theology has promoted a model of sin management and a punitive picture of God. This also applies within the UMC. In this respect we should also find meaningful expressions that present the concept of salvation in the present-day context.
• The 5 main texts (clobber texts) used to argue vigorously against homosexuality have translational uncertainties and are obviously not so conclusive as the traditionalists often claim. Indeed, there is a clear tendency to recognize that these texts were criticisms of the pagan societies with their propensity for promiscuity and sexual abuse that contradict the Jewish-Christian doctrine of God's covenant love. As such these texts have no relevance for faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships. Therefore Hegertun has promoted his "ethical profile" that lays the acceptance for same-sex relationships within the Christian fellowship. This is a radical new ethical understanding for many within the Norwegian Free Churches and independent church organisations. This is essentially the same conclusion reached by Harper.
• It is important that we befriend LGBTQ people, fight non-violently against the use of outdated data /misinformation, and invite the LGBTQ people into the life and ministry of the church with marriage in the church being accepted by all. If the lives of LGBTQ persons are reduced to an "issue" it is easy to discount the movement of the Holy Spirit in their lives and thereby conferring second class status on them. There are many things that are normative, but not definitive. Marriage is one of them.
• We need to fight the church supported homophobia in many countries around the world.
• We need to move on to more important things in promoting the faith to the world around us. We should channel our energy into changing our world.

[1] The Bible is the only book containing the very words of the God who created all things, showing his creatures his perfect character while also explaining his way of salvation in Jesus Christ. The Bible is the only inspired, inerrant, infallible, clear, and sufficient standard for their faith and life. It carries absolute authority and is unflinchingly reliable. (ESV.org)

[2] That the Lord Jesus Christ our God and Saviour is the sole and absolute Authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws. (Baptist Union of Scotland).

[3] This is reflected in the Middle Age confessions that tried to rigidly define the Christian faith and thereby exclude those who were heretics.

[4] I use the term analysis here because the word criticism is frequently misunderstood as something that is purely negative.

[5] This is the role of the Holy Spirit

[6] As wrongly inferred from Genesis 1

[7] A propensity to sin that can be controlled by the grace-filled process of sanctification.

[8] (Wesley's position - Maddox p.81)

[9] This can explain the very legalist trends within the reformed churches and a focus on sin management rather than the covenant of love and responsible grace.

[10] Bishop Jack M.Tuell: We UM's like to use Wesley's Quadrilateral. That is, testing truth by scripture, tradition experience and reason. This is a very helpful thing. But what I have come to believe is that experience trumps all the rest in questions like this. ... To put it another way, no one who has a gut feeling that homosexuality is wrong is likely to be convinced otherwise by scripture, tradition, reason, or any combination thereof.

[11] and many calling themselves Christians often used expressions about homosexuals such as deviants, no better than pigs, better dead than gay, no longer a part of or family etc.. This is what we are dealing with.

[12] Hegertun p.13

[13] Hegertun p.14, pp22-31

[14] Hegertun pp 16-17

[15] Harper p.6

[16] Wynkoop 1972 pp33-34

[17] Hegertun p.29

[18] Hegertun p.15; p.21

[19] Here it is worth reminding ourselves of the words of 1 John 4, 18-19, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us."

[20] Hegertun p.49

[21] Hegertun p.30

[22] The use of covenant is a core issue to Harper.

[23] Hegertun p.65-66

[24] Hegertun p.74-75

[25] Hegertun p.76

[26] Hegertun p.13, pp.22-31

[27] Harper Chapter 1

[28] Harper p.11

[29] Harper p.13

[30] Harper p.14

[31] Harper pp.19-20

[32] Harper pp.20-23

[33] Harper pp.23-28

[34] Harper pp.28-31

[35] Harper pp.36-37

[36] Harper p.38

[37] Harper pp.39-40

[38] Hegertun pp172-179

[39] Harper pp 38-42

[40] Harper pp 49-55

[41] Hegertun p.21

[42] Matt. 13, 31-32

[43] A theme around which there has been a lot of debate in Norwegian Lutheran circles, but here I use the definition that makes most sense to me.