One netfriend:

I have to confess that the debate about homosexuality is secondary to the broader, and in many ways more difficult question of discerning and testing limits.

1. Sometimes we need to push things to their logical conclusion. I hold the dictum that heresy is often orthodoxy pushed to its logical limits. Unless and until we do this we neither appreciate the risks and consequences of a singular movement.

2. The thin edge of the wedge argument cuts both ways. One might argue in relation to homosexuality was that the thin edge of the wedge was the allowance of a unique committed relationship. It sounds hollow, but it is a first step.

3. The antiquity of a belief… I operate by the principle that if the church has held a particular view for 2000 years, then we’d better be darned sure before we shift. However, much of what we deem to be that old is really much more contemporary and cultural.

4. Look through the eyes of an individual. One of the characteristics of the ministry of Jesus was to see the individual as a human being. The labels we employ for discussion often mask this fact.

5. Grey is real. But it does not mean we avoid drawing firm lines in the sand, else the slippery slope becomes much more a reality, as in the example you give below. But how to balance the two, particularly in the light of 4 above? The three areas of balance you speak of below hit the nail on the head.

At the bottom line, what is assumed is often lost. Many of the current debates in church and public life reflect this truth. That we engage in the conversation is itself important, as much as determining an outcome.

In regard to the homosexuality debate, part of the complexity emanates from a lack of clarity from its advocates. There are gay advocates who argue that homosexuality is genetic, others who argue it is a lifestyle choice. The ground for the two arguments is very different in one respect….

And another:

Discussions on certain topics certainly press some ‘hot’ buttons. Homosexuality is clearly one. That we can explore these issues in their full diversity on a forum such as this can only be an advantage. Try holding the discussion in a pub or at a party, or some similar place with other christians, or even those who profess no faith and you will understand why it is important to have a place such as this where thoughts and ideas can be tested. Iron sharpens Iron…

One of the great joys of our Baptist heritage is also the source of one of its greatest frustrations for many – liberty of conscience is a fertile breeding ground for diverse ideas. Squashing them destroys the very thing we champion. If we retreat from discussion when this diversity becomes sticky, what are we saying about the contest of ideas and religious liberty?

It may sound strange to some but I do experience joy in discussions such as this – the joy of an idea tested, the joy of being pushed to clarify my own thinking, the joy of somehow being shaped more into the image of Christ.

Another:

How do we discern what are legitimate limits, and what need to be tested? After all, many movements of the Spirit of God throughout history have tested what were then conceived of as legitimate limits, biblically supported. So the question still remains: “How do we know what are legitimate limits and those which ought to be tested?” Arguments about the specifics related to the debate on homosexuality often ignore this point, and are somewhat circular… The same process of logic served to fight against surgery on humans, inter-racial marriage, and slavery, amongst others.

Re the story of the woman caught in adultery: one of the great scandals of forgiveness is that it risks trivialising the offence. Forgiveness flows from the heart of God, and is not dependent on our response to be issued. It is available to all who recognise their need of it. The woman caught in adultery is not an extreme or isolated example – Jesus offers forgiveness to many who do not ask for it. Such is the nature of God’s grace.

And another:

the dilemma of biblical interpretation and the task of setting legitimate limits. It seems to me that to say that the bible is given to us to standardize human opinions firstly denies the very spirit within which it was written and collated, and secondly falls victim to logical implausibility. It is clear from many places in the bible that a great diversity of views has been ever present in the relationship between God and the peoples. From diversity to nationalism, compliance to debate (see Abrahams argument with God in Gen 18:22-33), religious cult to prophetic reform. The bible is a dynamic conversation. In my mind it is clear that the eternal Word that you quote as never passing away is the Word that the gospel of John refers to in his opening chapter. The eternal Word is the creative Spirit of God, the God we know to be secure enough to engage humanity in conversation and creativity. If we are to do justice to the way the bible itself was written and collated then we must have an ongoing commitment to conversation. Conversation based on the firm belief that God has placed his Spirit amongst us, and God has given us reasonable minds in order to engage in serious decision making. I find it increasingly insufficient for Christians to claim that the human condition is so unreliable that we can’t be trusted to form our own opinions in conversation with God.

We have a serious logical dilemma with the assertion that “we need an absolute truth that stands above the dictates, pressures, and changes within our personal insight to build harmony and clarity within our communication.” Whose reading of the bible is to be accepted as this “absolute truth?” Surely you realize that even amongst Christians who count themselves as similar in belief there is a great diversity of interpretation. Take for instance our own different view of the meaning of Romans 14 and Paul’s ministry. You said that “Paul’s radical liberalism of Romans 14 is aimed at ceremonial issues.”

It is true that the presenting issues of this discussion was whether or not Gentile Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols or observe the seventh day. How can we pass these issues off as merely ceremonial? I venture to guess that the Jewish believer who eats meat sacrificed to a foreign god would feel seriously morally compromised as would the one who is asked not observe the Sabbath. It is clear to me that the primary focus of Paul in this chapter is not to determine the right response to ceremonial law, but rather to promote tolerance of a diversity of interpretations of the law. Paul’s primary purpose as is made clear in many places (namely Ephesians 2) is harmony between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. In order to gain one mind and one faith, Paul is prepared to allow a diversity of interpretations regarding Hebrew law.

Paul’s outburst against those who unsettle the Galatians (5:12) is clearly in frustration at those who would impose one ideology onto the new Gentile Christians. Never in all the New Testament are Jewish Christians forbidden to be circumcised. Rather, the diversity of opinions is encouraged and tolerance for those who are different is pleaded.

So that is my current reading of the situation (it is open to change), and it no doubt sounds different to your own. What then is the absolute truth in this debate?

This brings me back to the question about legitimate limits. I think that the task of setting legitimate limits belongs to the gathered people of God (the body of Christ) under the leading of the Spirit. If we apply this basic Baptist tradition we find ourselves continuing the long biblical tradition of vigorous discernment through conversation. In order to guide us in this conversation we submit ourselves to the authority of biblical witness, Christian tradition, human reason (including imagination), and current human experience. Trusting that we are clothed in Christ through the Spirit of Christ, together we ought to debate vigorously where we stand on any given issue. We must never make an eternal or absolute stand on anything. This would be reducing our assertions to mere dogma and ideology. Rather we commit ourselves to ongoing conversation and a dynamic openness to learn and change with the Spirit of God.

By doing this we stand more chance of abiding by the law as it was interpreted by Jesus. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Mark 12:31.

I have said enough for now. Peace to you,