Marcus Aurelius and tolerance

Sophisticated pagans such as Celsus and Marcus Aurelius apparently regarded Christianity as not simply unbelievable but, it appears, utterly incompatible with religion as they knew it. For them, Christianity was, we may say, “a clear and present danger” that had to be opposed.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, pages 183–84

<idle musing>
I always find it interesting that Marcus Aurelius, generally considered one of the most enlightened of the Roman Emperors, was so adamantly against Christianity. Could it be that he saw more clearly than most today what the natural implications of Christianity are? I suspect so. Read a bit about him and I suspect you'll discover why...and it has ramifications for today, too.
</idle musing>

You just don't fit in!

Granted, the early Christian household-code texts give general directions to the various categories of believers addressed, and their actual day-to-day situations likely would often have required adaptation, careful negotiation of relationships, and perhaps compromises, some of which may have been uncomfortable or even distasteful. For example, slaves ere often expected to provide sexual services for those who owned them, male and/or female. So any such demands would have produced intense moral tensions for Christian slaves, for whom such sexual service would be porneia. Christian wives married to non-Christians, and Christian children under the rule of non-Christian parents likewise, would have had particular tensions to deal with and difficulties in their efforts to live out their faith while avoiding some activities that they regarded as idolatry. For example, they would have had to deal with the typical expectation of all members of a household to take part in reverencing the household gods. But, all such difficulties and compromises included, the various behavioral exhortations and the particular efforts to actualize them in life comprise a major way in which early Christianity was distinctive in the ancient Roman-era setting.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 180

Molding behavior

These distinctive terms that were developed to express condemnation of child sexual abuse appear also in text of other early Christian writers such as Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, all from the second and third centuries AD. Sometimes they serve to illustrate “Gentile/pagan” depravity, and they form “a part of the apologetical battery thrown up at the Greco-Roman opponents of the Christians.” But the earliest uses in Didache and Barnabus show that the originating purposes in relabeling “pederasty” as “child (sexual) corruption” included also the concern to discourage the practice among Christians. In short, the terms are not simply ancient Christian propaganda against outsiders. They also reflect a collective effort to shape Christian behavior over against the practices tolerated in the wider culture, an effort that even included innovations in the vocabulary of sexual behavior.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 168

Early Christianity vs. Roman views on adultery

I emphasize again that, more typically in the Roman era, sex with prostitutes and courtesans, and with young boys as well, was not only tolerated but even affirmed as a hedge against adultery—specifically, sex with another man’s wife or with a freeborn virgin. It is noteworthy, therefore, that Paul, with some other ancient Jewish voices, condemns a far wider spectrum of sexual activities, labeling them as porneias, and that he posits marital sex as a hedge against these various temptations to extramarital sex of any kind. In short, Paul reflects a broadening of prohibited sex well beyond adultery. This alone represented a major shift in comparison to the attitudes of the larger Roman world.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 165 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Again, the attempts to rewrite biblical morality leave me unconvinced, largely because of this background. To argue that we know more about sexuality than they did is a bit hard to take when you actually dig into the Greco-Roman history. By the way, William Loader, who probably knows more about ancient sexuality than anyone alive, agrees that the Bible is unequivocally against any kind of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage. But he just says that the Bible is wrong.

He's an honest man. You can't have it both ways. Either you agree that scripture is correct or you agree with Loader that scripture is wrong. You can't claim scripture is correct by reinterpreting it on this issue.
</idle musing>

A different standard

The bottom line in the passage [1 Cor 6] is that the diverse sexual activities covered in Paul’s use of porneia, though they may have been approved in the wider culture and even among some Corinthian believers, are to be completely off-limits for them.— Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, page 163

<idle musing>
How much more now! All these attempts to rewrite scripture and loosen the standards just don't cut it. The sooner the church decides to become the church of God—and that means not just in the area of sexual standards, but also in the area of pandering to the political powers (right and left!)—the sooner there will be a revival in their midst. How can the church hope for a revival in the land when there is so much sin in our midst?
</idle musing>

It's grounded in YHWH

If you look at the book of Leviticus, chapter 18, to see how sexual behavior is addressed in Israelite society, you will find at both the beginning and the end of the chapter the simple expression, “I am the Lord [Yahweh] your God.” What is the point of this? It is providing one simple explanation for the commandments regarding sexual behavior: because I am Yahweh. Why don’t you do this or that? One simple answer is given: “I am Yahweh.” The basis for moral differentiation and for ethical discrimination lies ultimately and solely in the very nature of the God of Israel.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 113

<idle musing>
You don't hear that in the current debates, do you? It's almost as if nobody—on either side—really wants to approach it from the nature of who God is. And if it is grounded in who God is, then what are the ramifications? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it might send all of us back to God on our knees...

I've been reading the book of Romans lately in multiple different translations. It's been a fun exercise in seeing things through varied lenses, but all of them agree on something: the culmination of the catalog of sins in Romans 1 isn't homosexuality—sure it's on the road there, but the final destination is a list of what most would call "common sins"—gossip, pride, breaking promises, lack of kindness, disobeying parents—the list goes on. The sad thing is that some of the ones yelling the loudest against homosexuality are doing so in the most unkind and unloving way.

Make no mistake about it, homosexuality is sin! But so are the other things listed! They all need to be repented off. And by repent, I mean turned away from. In other words, Stop it!. All by the grace of God through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. There is no other way. But, by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is possible—and God commands it!.

Flame away! But here I stand, I can do no other!
</idle musing>

It's deeper than that

Here’s the deal with Jesus. He’s egalitarian when it comes to this issue, and He wants everyone to repent of their sexuality because everyone is broken sexually. Straight, gay, bi, whatever … if there is something truer to our fundamental identity than Jesus and what it looks like to follow Him, we’re not really following Him.— The Truest Thing about You, chapter 2

<idle musing>
Amen! I've never heard it put so well before. We are more than sexual beings and we all need to repent of our dysfunctional sexuality. And far more important than our sexuality is who we are in Jesus and how we respond to his overtures.
</idle musing>