The ad hardly looks outrageous to me, but I look forward to your expert comments. It is explicit in condemning violence against homosexuals. Although it doesn’t discuss any distinction between orientation and activity the focus does seem very much on the latter.

In Christ,

JF.

Si, you make a really interesting point. Thanks!!!!

The only taboo is taboo itself?

Peter, taking your first question - you’ve modified the words to “called to do something different to their wives”; whereas it was “called to greater self-giving”, in the phrase you used above. I wasn’t trying to create a “convoluted moral theology” (and hope I haven’t without wanting to), but taking it that if we’re called to do something, we’ll be given the capacity to do it. That’s not the same as saying that we’ll be “gifted especially” for it or that it’ll be easy and there’ll be no temptations on the way. So no, I’m not “seriously suggesting that everybody who gets married needs to have some kind of spiritual gift of never ever fancying anybody but their spouse” - not least because a command (like the one not to commit adultery) isn’t the same as a calling to something, I’d suggest.

Jon - i may well be confused, and perhaps out of my depth. To be honest I’m not sure that the parable of the labourers in the vineyard applies here, but that may be unfair. And at the risk of getting further out of my depth I think the language of calling has some good in it and could be worth holding on to… eg God is said to call all things into being (…wondering where I’m getting that from now…), so ‘calling’ might be said to have to do with creation. Perhaps linked to this, ‘vocation’ maybe isn’t simply about finding a role, but about the (re)creation of a person…?

Hmm, may not have clarified anything there…

in friendship, Blair

Why should husbands be presumed to be more capable in order to be called to do something different to their wives? I think you’re creating a really convoluted moral theology if you assume that just because we are called to do something we are automatically gifted especially for it. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that we are all called by God to no commit adultery, but are you seriously suggesting that everybody who gets married needs to have some kind of spiritual gift of never ever fancying anybody but their spouse in order to make such a command in any sense valid?

in friendship, Blair

see
http://timgoodbody.blogspot.co.....-away.html

The answer to your second question is a very simple “yes”, in the same way that just because Scripture calls all of us to chastity doesn’t mean that everybody unmarried gets the “gift of celibacy”.

You’re absolutely right about the Church of England texts. Give us a mo….

Re your first paragraph: I still don’t see the relevance of polygamy, or child abuse, to be honest. I see what you mean in saying, “I mean, Jesus never condemns child sexual abuse, but we aren’t going to surmise from that that such a practice is *therefore* OK” - but all I was saying above was about your argument re Ephesians 5, and whether it can be used to say that same-sex sexual relationships are inherently idolatrous. I accept this may not be my strongest argument against this point of yours, but still…

Re your second paragraph: I think one thing would be, granted that Galatians 3 is a soteriological text - but if it’s true that salvation is now, then surely the text applies now, and can’t be ‘relegated’ to the end times (is that an unfair reading of what you’ve been saying on this thread?). Another thing would be: you say, “So you could if you wanted to argue that husbands are called to greater self-giving in marriage than wives” - but can this be done without holding that men are superior to women (if they have a greater capacity for self-giving)?

Hope I’m not misreading what you’ve said…

in friendship, Blair

Haven’t yet looked but is True union in Grove Books’ catalogue - I presume you couldn’t link to there from Amazon though.

in friendship, Blair