tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post6927123965146117313..comments2020-05-15T09:03:26.406+01:00Comments on swivel chair theology: The Problem of Homosexuality in the light of the Holy TrinityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-40608702666578050462015-01-27T19:54:26.923+00:002015-01-27T19:54:26.923+00:00This writer is trying to fit homosexual behavior i...This writer is trying to fit homosexual behavior into the words of the Holy bible. Clearly the behavior "homosexual acts" are described as an abomination to the Lord. So are we to conclude by this author that God has changed his mind? I think not. It is the behavior that is sinful not the person.flywithwingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10543160957637127812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-43717173996478159872011-03-20T01:58:22.264+00:002011-03-20T01:58:22.264+00:00Ok, I think I'm more comfortable now with your...Ok, I think I'm more comfortable now with your clarification on the mutual necessity of fruitfulness and complementarity. (Not that you especially need my approval!) ;-) Thanks for taking the time to respond.Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16224612810589103615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-83581349130660583242011-03-19T18:46:26.623+00:002011-03-19T18:46:26.623+00:00Hi Achilles,
Thanks for posting. I know what you...Hi Achilles,<br /><br />Thanks for posting. I know what you mean, but I'm not suggesting a version of fruitfulness independent of a complimentarian model of the Trinity - I just hadn't thought of it when I originally wrote my piece. After Glen's comments I don't think fruitfulness can stand on it's own, since without the complimentarian model you simply can't have fruitfulness. It's not strictly one or the other, but both; I do stand by the idea that while fruitfulness without complimentarity is impossible, complimentarity without fruitfulness (or the potential for fruitfulness) is meaningless. <br /><br />I would also say that the problem you mention regarding gay adoption is a logical consequence of sex being separated from reproductive fruitfulness rather than fruitfulness being elevated over complementarity as the meaning of sex. If sex no longer has the potential for reproduction (within a gay relationship) then fruitfulness is not an issue, sex becomes a mere momentary act with no more meaning beyond itself than opening a tin of beans. Adopting a child in this circumstance has nothing whatsoever to do with any spurious fruitfulness. The relationship may in fact even be complimentarian of sorts (passive/active sexual partners, etc), but because it is non-fruitful the complimentarian aspect has no meaning. My point is that complimentarianism is only a special category of relating because of the potential it gives for being fruitful, and thus mirroring Trinitarian complimentarian fruitfulness; likewise, fruitfulness does not at all float free from the complimentarian ground that makes it possible.David Matchamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091447136570822767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-5744434859248133842011-03-19T14:56:10.708+00:002011-03-19T14:56:10.708+00:00The fruitfulness is a great thought and all very w...The fruitfulness is a great thought and all very well but I'm with Glen here and can't see how it can stand without the complementarian aspect. Based purely on a 'fruitfulness' motif, surely adoption then becomes a legitimate way for gay couples to be fruitful?<br /><br />As for the complementarian motif, I think there is a very strong case for understanding Genesis 1 to be promoting a specifically male-female complementarian understanding of the image of God, thus putting it front and centre in terms of this discussion.Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16224612810589103615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-7049717613705260142011-03-19T14:20:33.577+00:002011-03-19T14:20:33.577+00:00Hi Glen,
Thanks for the thumbs up on your blog! H...Hi Glen,<br />Thanks for the thumbs up on your blog! Have jotted some thoughts down about what you suggested.<br /><br />I'm not sure that I understand why a Head-Body complimentarian relationship is a fruitful or creative union of itself. I definitely think that you're right to highlight the fact that the trinitarian persons are not the same as each other, because to miss out that would be to go awry in another direction, however faithful to the idea of fruitfulness I try and be. I'm sure as well that it's not a case of choosing either complimentarianism or fruitfulness as the main model of human sexual relating, since in the Trinity the one suggests the other, I think. My concern though would be in how a stress on complimentariansim might be interpreted as possibly supporting a re-admittance of legitimate homosexual relating. That is, granted that the Father and the Son do not have ontologically identical relationships with one another, the suggestion might be that this could translate into the acceptability in human terms of consensual and (because of the different social standings and ages of the partners) complimentarian pederasty. I know it sounds far-fetched, but this for me clinches the argument for pushing the trinitarian basis of fruitfulness over the nuts and bolts of who is relating to whom and how from within the Godhead. If complimentarianism in the Trinity or in human relations were to become the reason why homosexuality is sinful relating then I would have to ask what was uniquely special about it, since complimentary relationships can manifest in a huge variety of ways, not just in terms of gender. So, in my view, the reason why the relations between the masculine Father and the masculine Son do not support homosexual relations is because their relationship is fruitful in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily because they compliment each other as different persons. I agree that one of the reasons why their love is eternally fruitful in the form of the Holy Spirit is because the Son is not the Father and visa versa, but Likewise, the reason why man-woman relationships mirror this is not because of the relatively different and complimentary statuses that men and women share, but because the love they share is not dyadic, but inherently fruitful. <br /><br />It becomes almost circular: the basis of male-female/Father-Son fruitfulness is complimentarity within difference; without complimentarity, no fruitfulness. Pederasty is complimentary, but fruitless both potentially and actually. (My relationship with my wife is, for example, also complimentary but fruitless; just that it is potentially fruitful, if not actually).<br />Sorry, I feel like I've written another essay! I do think you've got a point, but I'm not sure there is a way round the RC position via complimentarity, since what makes complimentarity worthwhile is whether or not it is (potentially or actually) fruitful.David Matchamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091447136570822767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7884937241028799665.post-7032047845998506452011-03-19T12:17:59.952+00:002011-03-19T12:17:59.952+00:00Hi David,
I've tried commenting a couple of ...Hi David, <br /><br />I've tried commenting a couple of times (I think blogspot has a vendetta against wordpress bloggers, I always find it difficult commenting on blogspot blogs!) Here's my third attempt to post a comment!<br /><br />I'll be brief this time...<br /><br />Like the post a lot. I wonder if in addition to the "fruitfulness" point, there's also a point to be made about the concrete particularity of the Persons. God doesn't pour life and love into His Twin, but His Son. It's not Head-Head but Head-Body. And in *this* way it's a fruitful union (because complementary).<br /><br />So created relationships of mutual indwelling ought to be covenantal and complementary (and in this way will be creative - I'm a preacher I have to alliterate!) In this way you don't have to buy into the RC view of contraception.<br /><br />Do you think?<br /> <br />GlenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com