CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL ETHICS : THE APPLICATION OF BIBLICAL NORMS TO TODAY

Christian theologians give many different interpretations to the Scriptures, particularly with regard to their ethical perspectives and their application to the present. An examination and criticism o f various approaches adopted at present to the ethical dimension o f the Scriptures is undertaken. A distinction is made between the revealed and lasting message o f the Scriptitres and the message that is conditioned by culture and hence subject to change. Using the thought o f Ricoeur and Hauerwas an approach is presented which attempts to do justice to the twofold polarity o f the worid o f the Bible and the world o f today. In order to preserve a scenario o f concreteness, attention is given to one practical example, namely the issue o f homosexuality. After investigating the Scriptural approach to this question, an attempt is made to see how this issue can be viewed from a Christian perspective in the context o f the present world.


IN TRO D U CTIO N
W hen C h ristia n s looic to th e B ible for so lu tio n s to th e ir eth ic a l d ilem m as and problem s, they are faced with the problem of bridging the gap betw een the world of the Bible and the world of today.W hat principles influence one's attem pt to bridge this gap so that the Bible, which Christians hold as norm ative and authoritative, may speak to the world of today?This issue becomes far m ore urgent when one is faced with m odern medical questions on which the Bible has very little to say.The scope of this article is m ethodological.It looks a t differen t appro ach es th a t are currently presen ted as directions for making an ethical decision.As a result of a critique of these approaches an attem pt will be made to present principles which are necessary for making an ethical decision.Finally, a practical illustration will be given by referring to the ethical issue of homosexuality -while this topic might not be considered directly speaking a 'medical' issue it is indeed an issue of psychological relevancy.O ne can in fact identify four m ajo r ap p ro ac h es tow ards th e use of th e B ible in C hristian ethical decisions.For a m ore detailed treatm en t of these approaches see H artin (1987 and 1990).

2.1
An ethics of laws H ere a one to one relationship is presented betw een the world o f the Bible and the world of today.W hat is said in the Bible is im mediately applied to today's situation.Longenecker (1984:2) sums up this approach well: It argues that G od has given prescriptive laws in the form of com m andm ents and ordinances, which can b e found in both the Old and New T estam ents.If people want to know w hat they should do, the laws of G od stand objectively before them in written form, and they have only to refer to them.
Dodd is an adherent of this interpretation.H e draws a distinction betw een codes and precepts.C odes give d etailed atten tio n to every specific situation that could arise, whereas precepts, on the other hand, aim at giving a direction to one's actions (Curran, 1984:181).A m ajor im petus given to such an approach w ithin the New T estam ent stem s from the prescriptive way in which many of the words of the New T estam ent writers including those of Jesus himself are presented.W hen examining the statem ents of Jesus, pride of place is assigned to loving G od (M ark 12:29-30 in quoting Deut.6:4-5) and loving o n e's neighbour (M ark 12:31,quoting Lev. 19:18).O th er com m and ments of the Old T estam ent are upheld with prescriptive force such as the honour due to one's parents (M ark 7:10;Mat. 15:4,in reference to Ex. 20:12 and 21:17) and the indissolubility of m arriage (M ark 10:7-8; Mat.19:5 in quoting Gen. 2:24).The picture o f Jesus as the new Lawgiver dom inates M atthew 's G ospel (M at. 5 -7).Even the Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus' teachings as commandments and one must give obedien ce to his words (John 13:34;14:15;14:21;15:10,12).The Pauline and Petrine letters also continue this perspective by which the Christian religion is viewed as presenting a new 'com m andm ent' (1 Tim.6:14; 2 Peter 2:21).
H owever, such an approach fails to do justice to the biblical message and, I would argue, in fact distorts it.Firstly, this perspective fails to take cognizance of the wealth of recent studies which argue for an understanding of the Scriptures first and foremost w ithin the historical and cultural situations of th eir own tim e. C u rran (1984:183) expresses the argum ent very clearly when he says: Thus parts of Scripture cannot be wrenched from their original context and applied in different historical and cultural situations without the possible danger o f some distortion.W hat might be a valid and true norm in biblical times might not be adequate today.Thus one caimot without further reFmement take biblical norms and automatically see them as always obliging in different contexts o f our historical lives.
Secondly, the Bible is m eant to be a message of salvation, of the good news of human ity's liberation from the forces of enslavement to the powers of evil.The writers call upon their readers to give a loving and grateful response to this good news.A law book app ro ach to these w ritings p resents them as containing dem ands requiring conformity.Such an attitude does not uphold the free and loving response that should be engendered in the heart of the Christian leading towards action."Such an approach does no t c re a te m oral beings, but only controls the w orst fe a tu re s of non-m oral behavior" (Longenecker, 1984:3).This approach corresponds to the general ethical model known as deontology, which considers ethics from the vantage point of duties, or obligations.W hen the Bible is viewed simply as a law-book, some further source of in te rp re ta tio n is n eeded, w h eth er oral or w ritten, in o rd er to apply these laws to different and changing situations, as occurs in the Jewish Rabbinic traditions, and the R om an C atholic ecclesiastical codes of canon law.W hile these attem p ts strive to overcome the dichotomy betw een two different cultural worlds, the danger arises that the traditions become more im portant than the Scriptures and one has simply replaced one culturally determ ined perspective (the Scriptures) with another equally culturally determ ined perspective (the tradition).A clear example of this is found in my own tradition w here the R om an Catholic traditional teaching on sexual morality operates with concepts and thoughts of many centuries past.I am not opposed to tradition -in fact as this p a p e r will p ro ceed to indicate th at trad itio n plays a vital role in the interpreting and revitalizing of the Scriptures -but when it fossilizes the Scriptures and acts as a fu rth er fossilized layer over th at of the Scriptures, th e living w ord o f the Scriptures is destroyed.

An ethics of ideals
In this framework a decision is made on the basis of ideals that are presented by the Bible.This approach differs from the previous direction in th at the individual laws contained within the Bible are not presented as having binding force for the believer.Instead, behind these laws are ideals which present the direction in which the person must lead h e r/h is life.This particular approach also corresponds to th at traditional approach described in theological ethical m anuals as a teleological approach to ethics w hereby the ethical n atu re of an action is judged according to the end or the goal towards which the action strives.
The great advantage of this particular direction is that it places the moral authority of Jesus in the very centre o f consideration.A t the sam e tim e it avoids dem anding that the believer gives a slavishly literal obedience to even the m inutest precepts of the G ospel (L indars, 1973:184-185).An in te rp re ta tio n of the Serm on on the M ount, following this particular direction, views the Sermon as providing a summary of moral principles and not the laying down of rules and regulations for one's conduct.These principles, then, are capable of application to every time and culture.However, it is questionable w hether the wealth of the New T estam ent (and biblical) message can be so neatly sum m ed up in a few ideals.G u stafson (1984:162) has argued th a t the perspective o f eschatology has ten d ed to give support to this direction.T he Old T e stam e n t looks forw ard to the fulfillm ent o f an idealized future, w hile the New T estam ent proposes the advent of the coming kingdom of God.But, this approach of e schatology as th e key to in te rp re tin g B iblical ethics for today p resen ts its own difficulties: O ne part of the problem is the significance of the eschatological context within the scriptures for understanding properly the biblical visions of future ideals; the other is the authority that the biblical eschatological context has for the use of those visions in constructive theological ethics' (G ustafson 1984:162).

Encounter with God
This direction stresses the free gift of G od's Spirit to the individual when reading the Scriptures.Brunner (1937:82-83) epitomizes this perspective when he writes: The C hristian m oralist and the extrem e individualist are at one in their em phatic rejection of legalistic conduct; they join hands, as it w ere, in face of the whole host of legalistic moralists; they are convinced that conduct which is regulated by abstract principles can never be good .W ithout doubt this approach gives centrality to the biblical teaching that Christianity is a way o f life led in a relatio n with G od. T he call issued by Jesu s to conversion {metanoia) which initiates this new way of life demands a turning from one mode of existence to another.This new way of life places centrality in following the person of Jesus.Consequently, Christianity is distanced from the perspective of being a religion of norms or goals -instead it is a way of life in which the disciple strives to m aintain a relationship to the person of Jesus and to rem ain faithful to his work.
From my perspective this approach is without doubt the most satisfactory for a num ber of reasons: • It respects and comes to terms with the distance betw een our world and the world of the Bible.The gap is not simply to be bridged in a naive way.
• It sees the purpose of the New Testam ent as not simply proposing a new moralityrath er its morality falls within the framework of a revelation of an understanding of God.
• It rem ains true to the call which the New T estam ent extends to change one's way of life.T h e new life to which C h ristians a re called m ean s they m ust o p en them selves up to the salvific activity of Jesus C hrist and extend this salvation to others.
In becom ing a Christian the most satisfactory image th at captures the new exis tence is that of a life that is led in a relationship with G od and with fellow believers -a life that is a response to what G od has done through the saving work o f his Son.

L IM IT
Biblical ethics is not the same as Christian ethics It is im portant to respect the gap betw een the biblical world and the world of today.E ach society takes the inform ation conveyed to it by its senses and organizes it by m eans of a system of signs which fit together w ithin the total context o f that world.O ne society will look upon its symbolic universe as the real and the factual world, while it will judge a n o th er world as strange or archaic (M eeks, 1986:14).This is a point w hich we in South A frica are only really beginning to a p p reciate m ore and m ore, namely that th ere are differences inherent in the symbolic universes o f our different people.B ecause the differences are not absolute, com m unication betw een the dif ferent world views is possible.But, this communication is nevertheless very difficult.
O bviously, th e way in which a p erso n acts is influ en ced by the way in w hich th at person's concept of the world functions.If I believe that devils cause suffering, and that evils in the world are the outcom e of my personal sins, my response to the pain I experience w hen I have a headache, for exam ple, will differ from th e response of som eone who sees suffering as the outcome of physical causes.The first approach will attem p t to overcom e the suffering by recourse to som eone who can expel devils; the second recourse will be to som eone who understands the physical cause and attempts to alleviate it by physical means, by medication, etc.
This dem ands th at one learn to understand the world o f the Bible as it is.This is the process th at R icoeu r (1981:295) has called distanciation.O ne attem pts to gain an understanding of the world which is alien and foreign to oneself and ultim ately to be true to that world by suspending one's own prejudices and ways of viewing the world, in other words by suspending one's own symbolized world.
T he m ethods of biblical exegesis which have b een so influential and so successful within this century can contribute towards this process o f 'distanciation.'For example, the historical-critical m ethod aim ed at trying to recreate and explain the text within the framework of its own world.The socio-historical approach aimed at highlighting more fully the historical, cultural and social world out of which the text em erged and to which the text speaks.W ithin our own country the im portance given to the different forms of structural analysis helped to understand the text itself and the relationships within the structure of the text.
Using these various methods or approaches within m odern day biblical criticism, one comes to a deeper understanding of the biblical writers within their own symbolized universe.But, the process of interpretation demands m ore than this.It demands that one move from that world to the world of the interpreter.Ricoeur speaks about this as a dialectic of passing from 'distanciation' to that of 'appropriation.'But, what actually is appropriated?Ricoeur answers this question in the following way.His argum ent here is most im portant; N ot the in tentio n o f the au th o r, which is supposed to be bidden behind the text; not the historical situation com m on to the author and his original readers; not the expectations or feelings o f these original readers; not even their understanding o f themselves as historical and critical phenomena.W hat has to be appropriated is the meaning of the text itself, conceived in a dynamic way as the direction of thought opened up by the text (Ricoeur, 1976:93).
In line with w hat has been argued previously, the aim o f appropriation is not to take over simply the ideals or norm s as specified in the Bible.Instead, one attem pts to discover the direction opened up by the Bible, which points towards a relationship that is initiated betw een G od and those whom he hits called.This relationship brings with it the call to a response.T h e C hristian believer is called u p o n to p e n e tra te this m eaning m ore fully in appropriating the biblical message.R eicke's translation of 1 Peter 2:18 is a typical example where the gap between the two worlds is not respected (I am indebted to Curran [1984:188] for this excellent illustration)."You workers, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and reasonable ones, b u t even to the difficult ones" (R eicke, 1964:97).H ere R eicke has rep laced the original word of slaves, with that of workers and he goes on to say that "Regardless of p ro v o catio n C h ristian w orkers should n o t reb e l or fail in re sp e ct tow ards th eir employers" (Reicke, 1964:98).That a distinguished biblical scholar should write this is quite astounding.H e has willy-nilly replaced one symbol slave by m eans of another symbol worker and has im m ediately attem p ted to im port w hat was said by the one symbolic universe into another totally different symbolical universe.N ot only does it fail to respond to th e principle of d istan ciatio n -ap p ro p riatio n for which we have argued, but it draws conclusions which are totally out of harm ony with the meaning opened up by the biblical text.I endorse totally the observation of C urran (1984:188): "I do not thin k th a t one can use th e S crip tu res in this way to argue against the possibility of a legitimate strike by Christian workers."

Against the selective use of Scripture
This occurs quite frequently in the approach where p roof texts are chosen at random because they fit the supporter's presuppositions.The same approach is evident in the choice of certain them es in preference to others.While it is not possible to avoid being selective either in the texts o r the themes that are chosen, the real problem arises when these them es are elevated to a central position while all o th er them es are excluded.This is evident in certain aspects of liberation theology w here the them e of liberation acquires central significance, alm ost to the total exclusion o f all other them es, such as them es like order and security which are equally biblical themes (Curran, 1984:194).

J The relationship between Christian and non-Christian ethics
In the past the generally accepted position was th a t the C hristian shared an ethical wisdom with all humanity while at the same time possessing a certain revealed wisdom w hich was co ntained in the Scriptures.H ow ever, today the approach is som ewhat different.The question is being posed more and more w hether there is really any great difference in content betw een Christian ethics (revelation and scripture are the reason for its distinctiveness) and any other hum an ethics.
Obviously, the m ajor difference lies in the very relation of the Christian to God.This relationship must certainly influence the way in which the Christian m akes decisions.F o r the C hristian the starting-point for ethical reflections lies in this relationshipresponse.This, however, does not deny the value for the C hristian of hum an ethical reflection on how other people live and give meaning to their existence.
In coming to an ethical decision, it is im portant to give attention to what the hum an ethical position has to say in that regard.O ne can, then, attem pt to see w hether or in w hat way this can be harm onized with the direction th at has been opened up by the biblical perspective.In this way th e biblical and the hum an work together to give direction to the ethical decision.Christians are not aliens within their own world, but the Christian direction opens up a perspective onto the world.A t the sam e time the world gives direction to the ethical reflection and its perspective within the Christian framework.

ETHICS AS NARRATIVE
Narratology is a m ore recent approach towards interpreting the Bible, and Hauerwas has been largely successful in using the concept of narrative as a herm eneutical key to understand the moral direction of the New Testam ent.The narrative of the Scriptures concerns above all the existence of a community, firstly the community of Israel and then later the community of the early church.These communities b ear witness to their encounter with G od and how they and G od responded to each other.A t the sam e time the very existence of Scripture presupposes a community which has preserved these writings as au thoritative.The writings continue to act as a challenge to each new situation and new community "to be the kind of people capable of recalling the stories of our fathers and mothers, on which our existence continues to depend" (Hauerwas, 1984:261).
W hen examining the ethical significance of the Scriptures, the most im portant consi deratio n th at em erges is the question as to w hat type of com m unity the C hristian community must become so that the narratives of Scripture can have central meaning for the lives of the C hristian (H auerw as, 1984:261).First of all, it m ust becom e a community that is able to rem em ber the stories of Israel and of the early church and for whom these stories becom e authoritative.The biblical narrative of Israel and the early church portrays a picture of a community that is in a relationship with the G od who has com m unicated his forgiveness.The memory that the present community of Christians carries with them is that "we learn how to be a people morally capable of forgiveness and thus worthy of continuing to carry the story of G od we find authorized by Scripture" (Hauerwas, 1984:262).
In rem em bering the narratives of Scripture the C hristian comm unity sees reflected above all the direction of response-relationality.G od acts in Israel and his Son Jesus in order to bring salvation and forgiveness to his world.Israel and Jesus respond to this activity of G od and in this way their relational-response becomes a paradigm for the way in which the Christian today is to act.The meaning opened up (as Ricoeur would express it) by the narrative becomes normative for the response called forth by the Christian.

4.1
The call to respond in faith to the way of life of Jesus of Nazareth Ultimately the responsibility to which individuals are called is a responsibility for what they alone are accountable.The only specific test of the correctness or rightness is how honest the individuals are in response to the demands made by faith (Fisher, 1984:168).They see their faith reflected in the Scriptures in the stories of Israel and of Jesus."By learning to im itate Jesus, to follow in his way, the early Christians believed they were learning to im itate G od, who would have them be heirs of the kingdom" (Hauerwas, 1983:178).
G o d 's way w ith Israel was in tu rn his way with Jesus, and ultim ately his way with Christians of all times.Consequently, by imitating the way of Jesus the early Christians believed they were responding in the way in which a disciple should.Above all the life of Jesus was a life of service, trust and love and this in turn becomes the life that the Christian must lead.
O ur use of the Scriptures then is not to see them as moral law books containing lists of ethical norms to be im plem ented, nor as ideals for which we strive.Instead, we use the Scriptures as a narrative of G od's dealing with the world, firstly as exemplified in the n ation of Israel and secondly as exem plified in the person of Jesus.C hristians are called forth to respond in a sim ilar vein to G od's forgiving love within their lives by bringing this forgiving love to others.It shows as well that the Christian is not called to a response in isolation or as an isolated individual.G od is calling the individual to a response as part o f a community, the church."The question of the moral significance of scripture, therefore, turns out to be a question about w hat kind of community the church m ust be to be able to m ake th e narratives o f scripture c en tral for its life" (Hauerwas, 1984:261).

A life of vision
T h e above consideration shows th a t the C hristian life in its essence is a life which learns to view the world in a specific way informed by the narratives of the Scripture.This means, as has been consistently argued, that the narratives of Scriptures are not p re s e n tin g n o rm s o r id e a ls b u t ra th e r a v isio n th a t calls fo rth a re sp o n se of relationality.Christians have a common view on the world and see things in a way that is determ ined by the narrative of the Scriptures.
W hat is this vision that informs the Christian view o f the world?This vision must take account of five perspectives fundam ental to the Christian stance: • C reation -G od's way of life with the world.
• Sin -G od's response of forgiveness to humanity who has rejected him.
• Incarnation -G od's sending his son to show the way to reconciliation.
• R edem ption -the com m unication of G o d 's forgiveness to humanity through the death of his son.• Resurrection destiny -the hope for which the believer strives: the ultim ate destiny of union with G od (Curran, 1986:84).
Such an approach makes it possible for a Christian to take a view of the m odern world and attem pt to come to term s with ethical issues within this framework.This vision of the world clarifies m ore fully what was said in the previous section of responding to the way of life o f Jesus of N azareth which recapitulates G od's way with the world and Israel.T he purpose o f such a vision o r stance helps the Christian to understand the world and to see actions within this perspective.Decisions stem from one's stance on the world.T he C hristian's stance, as has been indicated, is inform ed by the fivefold perspective of creation -sin -incarnation -redem ption -resurrection destiny.W hen acting, it will be this stance which influences what the individual does.Before taking this up m ore practically by referring it to the issue of homosexuality, I would like to draw together the major thrust of my argument.

The starting-point
The starting point for all ethical reflection or decisions are th e problem s th at arise from the present which require some explanation or resolution.This means that one selects those biblical passages which most closely approximate the problems which call for a decision.

5.2
In examining those biblical images respect must be had for the following points that have been argued: * The gap between the present and the past must be respected.The process of 'distanciation' must be first of all respected.
* T he biblical im ages or passages must be explained according to all the herm e neutical principles that are presently available.The m eaning opened up by the tex t m ust b e d isco v ered b e fo re o n e can m ak e an a p p ro p ria tio n to today.

53
Respect for biblical images R espect m ust also be had for the way in which these biblical im ages fit within the vision or stance on the world which the biblical revelation prom otes.Very often a decision is not based on a rational argum ent, but is the simple outcom e o f the vision that one has of the world.The Scriptures open up a vision which presents a narrative of G od's dealings with the world and how he calls forth a response from those who are in a relationship with him.The search is not so much for ethical norms, decisions, or goals, as for an attem pt to discover how the problem fits within the Christian stance or

Scientific ethical reflection
A tten tio n m ust also be given to scientific ethical reflection to see how th e ethical comm unity views the problem and th e images inh eren t in the problem .This crossreference is a corrective in o rd er to examine the problem from another angle.This does not m ean that one simply em braces this viewpoint, but one uses it as a challenge to see what the ethical scientific viewpoint can contribute to the biblical vision that has been so far discovered.This has particular significance especially in those areas where the Bible says little or nothing about the problem at hand.As argued above, biblical ethics and scientific ethics should not be seen to be in opposition, but rather together they can lead to a deeper appreciation of the problem and its resolution.Be that as it may, the community does not give some infallible certainty that the action is correct.O ne cannot simply m easure the rightness or w rongness o f an action by m eans of an opin io n poll.In th e u ltim ate analysis th e only crite rio n fo r sincere Christians is honesty with themselves and with the way in which they have endeavoured to come to a solution to their problems.

T he starting-point
In the world of today the issue of homosexuality is receiving m ore and m ore attention.M ore and m ore pain is being experienced by Christians who on the one hand discover their sexuality as having a same-sex orientation, yet at the some time this appears to be in contradiction to what their Christian faith expresses from its biblical foundations.A very good example of this was seen here in South Africa very recently in the reaction evoked by the book Om gay te wees: straf o f seen?(Pretorius, 1990).H ere an honest attem pt was made to give expression to the author's understanding of his own sexuality against the background of his understanding of the Bible and his Christian faith.The am ount of controversy provoked by this in the national newspapers and television was q u ite ph en o m en a l.C onsequently, this issue provides an ex cellen t test-case for examining the application of the methodology outlined above.W hile homosexuality is not strictly speaking a m edical issue, it is an issue w ithin the related disciplines of psychology, psychiatry and psycho-analysis.The intention here is not so much to make a study o f hom osexuality as such, as to illustrate one example of how to proceed in solving an ethical problem within the context of the biblical perspective.Tlie startingpoint, as has been indicated previously, means selecting those biblical passages which most closely approximate or deal with the issue of homosexuality.

6.2
Examination of those biblical passages that speak of homosexuality T h ere are seven passages in the Bible which speak of hom osexuality and ap p ear to condem n it in forceful terms.This is the way these passages have been traditionally interpreted.However, the major fallacy in such interpretations is the failure to pay atten tio n to the principle of 'distanciation' or to see the gap betw een the symbolic universe of the Old and the New Testam ent and our own symbolic universe.

6.2.1
The O ld Testam ent testimony 62.1.1 The story of Sodom and G om orrah  H ere we are aware that this passage falls into a narrative which forms p art of the early story of the forefathers of the Israelite nation.It must be understood and interpreted against the background of a narrative or a story that is unfolding.The narrative does not condemn homosexuality as such, nor even homosexual acts.W hat is condemned is the intention to commit homosexual gang rape in the context of a disregard for the law of hospitality (Vawter, 1977:233-234;Sarna, 1966:144-145).In reading this narrative today one must respect the 'gap' that exists betw een the world of the Bible and the world of today.O ne tends to overlook the sacred nature of the call to hospitality.In the A ncient N ear East, as the Bible frequently testifies, hospitality to those who are travelling is not simply a voluntary option -it is a duty.
W hen an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him.You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you: have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt.I, the Lord, am your G od .
The emphasis of the passage, no m atter what the intentions of the men of Sodom, is to stress the obligation of hospitality.This em erges clearly from verse 8: "But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof." A further insight with regard to this verse again stems from the symbolic universe of its w orld.Sexual relations b etw een hum ans and angels was considered totally evil in Jewish eyes because it was between two different orders of creation; humanity and the angels.The disaster of the flood in Genesis 6:1-8 was judged to be an outcom e of this relationship betw een angels and hum anity.T he fact th at the m en in this narrative w ere angels is a fact th at was known only to G od and the author of this story -not to the townspeople.Consequently, the author stresses the goodness of Lot in upholding the order of creation.
T he story, then, can hardly be read as a condem nation of all homosexual activity in general and w ithout qualification.R ap e is rap e and sinful, and gang rapes all the m ore so even to our m odern m oral sensibilities, w hether it be homosexual or heterosexual rape.F urtherm ore, to abuse hospitality and to treat m essengers of God in this way would be particularly h o rril^n g to the biblical authors (Hanigan, 1988:39).
Jewish commentary on this Sodom story does not specifically view the sin referred to as hom osexuality.F o r exam ple, Isaiah l;9 ff and 3:9 see it as a lack o f social justice.E zekiel 16:46-53 refers to it as disregard for th e poor.E ven th e T alm ud and the Misnah prefer to see the sin of Sodom in connection with sins of pride, arrogance and inhosp itality and only once do they give it a m eaning of hom osexuality (B arnett, 1979:10).
Judges 19:22-30 contains a sim ilar account to th at o f G enesis 19.A gain the host is asked to betray his duty of hospitality by handing over his guest so th at the m en of G ibeah can sodom ize him.The thrust of the narrative is once again on the aspect of betrayal of hospitality.
Even though the secondary aspect of the narrative concerns intended homosexual rape by the citizens of Sodom and G om orrah, it is to be noted that the narratives actually concern heterosexual m ales who wish to perform hom osexual acts as a sport.This in te rp re ta tio n is su p p o rted by th e fact th at th e offer in both stories of giving them women instead would have no sense.This insight is im portant in its context. Patrick].Hartin The laws in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Both laws are p a rt of the H oliness Code in the Book of Leviticus.W hat these texts expressly forbid is that a man should lie with another man as with a woman.No reason is given as to why it is viewed as such an abom ination before G od that it deserves the death penalty.W ithin the symbolic universe of early Israel this type of action was consequently deem ed abhorrent.One can only but guess at the reasons for this.
First of all, one notes that this occurs in both contexts in relation to other sexual sins.
Taken in connection with the other sins that are listed whereby they are forbidden to have carnal relations with an animal, one can see behind it the typical outlook on the world common to other people.Like them the Israelites did not have our understan ding of how conception takes place.It was th e m ale seed alone which was judged responsible for generating the new living person.The woman was merely the receptac le for that seed.Consequently, the prohibition concerns the concept that man is not to sow his seed in another man where it would be unproductive.Likewise with regard to an anim al w here it w ould lead to a confusion in the o rd er o f th e w orld and some monster might be born.
A fu rth e r p o in t w orth noting in this context o f th e exam in atio n o f th e im age of homosexuality is that even if these texts do explicitly forbid homosexuality as such, why should they be tak e n as binding on th e C hristian while o th er texts are not?The question of 'distanciation' or respecting the 'gap' between the two worlds again arises.For example, in exactly the same chapters if a man has intercourse with his wife during her menstrual period (Lev.18:19 and 20:18) he is to be banished from the community.On w hat grounds is one law seen as applicable to the Christian, while o th er laws are not?
Although the Old T estam ent texts do pass a judgm ent on homosexual acts, a number of questions still rem ain open.T heir condem nation seem s related to the symbolic world which they have constructed and in which these images function.As has been shown m ethodologically, one cannot simply take these laws and images and im m e diately in sert them into o ur own symbolic w orld, w hich is vastly d ifferen t.The distinction must clearly be kept in mind th at while the biblical author may intend to forbid all homosexual actions, he is speaking from out of the perspective and under standing of his own world.This m eans that an im m ediate one to one identification with ou r w orld is not possible, because it has not given sufficient atten tio n to the principle of distanciation as was outlined previously.

2 2 .Í
Rom ans 1:26-27 T his a p p e a rs to contain a d irect con d em n atio n o f sexual relatio n s betw een men.
H ow ever, this cond em n atio n m ust be seen w ithin the context o f the le tte r to the Rom ans itself.In fact the context shows that Paul is not speaking directly to the ethical issue of homosexuality, but is rath er concerned with the theological issue of idolatry.
Because humanity has turned away from G od to the worship of idols, G od then gave th em over to th e ir 'deg rad in g p assio n s.' P aul explicitly states th a t m en gave up intercourse with the opposite sex for intercourse with one another.H e has in mind heterosexual m ales who gave up th eir n atural o rientation to em brace a homosexual o rien tatio n which was contrary to th eir n ature.In a d etailed study of this passage Scroggs (1983:109-118) has argued that the passage must also be understood against the cultural world o f th a t tim e.In reference to hom osexuality the aspect th a t Paul would have had in mind would be th at of pederasty.F or Paul the basic sin that he is concerned with is the refusal to acknow ledge G od as G od. T his idolatry would be dem onstrated in a life in which the practice of pederasty (which was widespread in the G reco-R om an pagan world) was one of the evident examples of alienation.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is th at the intention of Paul in this passage is theological not ethical.Idolatry is the main thing that he is incensed about.While the example of homosexuality is exactly that -an example, the cultural world o f the time m ust be used to explain w hat is re ferred to and why it is condem ned.A gain the principle o f distanciation must be respected before one im mediately latches on to two verses and uses them as authoritative for the present.
In 1 C orinthians 6:9 Paul asks: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom o f G o d." H e th en proceeds to list those categories of people who will be excluded from G od's kingdom: "... n either fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes (naXaKoi), nor practising homosexuals (áp aew K o ÏT ai)..." In 1 Tim othy 1:10 Paul is speaking in the context w here he indicates th at the law is "meant not for a righteous person, but for the lawless and unruly ..." and then he goes on to in d ic a te sp ecific ex am p les am o n g st w hom a p p e a r once again "practising homosexuals (ápaet/O KO ítau;).
The meaning of both words malakoi (^oXoKoi) and arsenokoitai (ápaevoK oaai) is not easy to determ ine.Consequently, it is not clear just exactly what sexual practices they have in mind.Louw and Nida (1988:772, paragraph 88.280) define it as: "It is possible that ópaei'OKokrií;) in certain contexts refers to the active male p artner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with fioXaicóq, the passive male partner." G iven th e stu d ies m ade by Scroggs o f hom osexuality in th e a n c ie n t w orld and particularly with reference to the New Testam ent, his conclusion in reference to these texts is im portant: I thus draw the conclusion that the vice list in 1 Timothy is not condem natory of homosexuality in general, not even pederasty in general, but that specific form o f pederasty which consisted of the enslaving o f boys or youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult m ales (Scroggs, 1983:120-121.).

Siinunary
The biblical texts examined show firstly a certain vagueness concerning the reasons for the condem nation of homosexuality.These reasons are ultimately to be sought within the fram ew ork of their symbolic as well as cultural world which is not always readily accessible to us.O ne certainly cannot say th at the m eaning th a t is opened by the examination of this alien world is that all homosexual acts are to be condemned as evil.This would certainly be an illegitim ate appropriation to m ake o f the distanced text.
T h e c o nclusio n a rriv e d a t by Scroggs is to be su p p o rted , nam ely th a t "biblical judgm ents against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate.They should no longer be used in ... discussions ... not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved" (Scroggs, 1983:127).
A co n sid eratio n of those passages dealing w ith hom osexuality is n o t sufficient to answer the problem.O ne needs to see it against the background of hum an sexuality, its nature and purpose.However, before doing this it is necessary to pay attention to w hat scien tific eth ical reflec tio n today has to say with reg ard to hom osexuality.

3 Scientific ethical reflection on homosexuality
In returning to the methodological approach outlined it was argued that attention must also be given to scientific ethical reflection to see how the ethical community views the problem.Today the American psychological community has rejected the classification of homosexuality as an abnormality, or a neurotic or personality disorder.Instead it is referred to as an alternate sexual preference (Batchelor, 1980:2-3).While there are no agreem ents on the causes of homosexuality, a certain num ber of things have emerged which are universally accepted as clear.
T h e re is a d istin ctio n b etw een th e irrev ersib le hom osexual o rie n ta tio n and the occasional feelings of hom osexual attractio n .A hom osexual orien tatio n , just as a h etero sex u al o rie n ta tio n , involves th e w hole b eing and gives th e p e rso n sexual direction.The sexual orientation is not a m atter of deliberate choice, but is a 'given' of one's nature.
At the same time there is a distinction to be made between orientation and behaviour.This m eans a distinction betw een what one is and w hat one does.F rom an ethical perspective one can say that "to be a person whose sexual orientation is predom inantly hom osexual o r hetero sex u al is n eith e r p raisew orthy o r blam ew orthy " (H anigan, 1988:36) The Christian world appropriated the biblical vision that the G od of creation intended m o nogam ous m a rria g e b etw een m ale and fem ale as th a t tow ards w hich hum an sexuality was directed."This is why a man leaves his father and m other and clings to his wife, and the two of them becom e one body" (G en.2:24).F u rth er to this, the purpose of this sexual union was understood to be for the procreation of children: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen.1:28).
The Christian vision has come to see hum an sexuality not simply as directed towards the p ro crea tio n of th e hum an race, b u t also as the m eans for expressing a loving relationship betw een a couple which aims at perm anency.In fact, given the situation that not every sexual act in marriage is open to the procreation of children, the primary end o f m arriage m ust be th e uniting o f husband and wife in a bond of m utual love.
While the ideal of hum an relations exists in the male-female relationship of a couple expressing their love for each o th er in a relationship th at strives for perm anency, I think it is possible to make an argument as some scholars do (such as C urran, 1979:71 ff) in support of a couple with irreversible homosexual orientations entering into a loving relationship that is striving for permanency.This would be seen to be morally good.
In saying this, a num ber o f factors need to be stressed.The irreversible homosexual o rientation is not th e specific choice of the individual.H is n atu re is w hat it is and every being is called upon to act according to its nature: agere sequere esse (morality follows from our being).This is not to say that every homosexual action is good: not at all.O ne is simply re ferrin g to those individuals w hose o rien ta tio n is o f such an irre v e rs ib le n a tu re .It also m ean s th a t th e a c tio n m u st ta k e p lace , as w ith a heterosexual couple, w ithin the context o f a loving relationship which strives for a perm anent bond.
T he ethical m odel th a t I have painted before as the way to ethical action is that of rc sp o n se -re la tio n a lity .In th is sen se one can see th e irre v e rsib le hom osexual responding in a loving relationship which conforms to his nature.The individual is not free to choose either a heterosexual or homosexual direction.Sexuality is not neutral in this sense.O ne discovers one's sexuality and its orientation and must act according Seen in this light the irreversible homosexual orientation is judged to be a consequence of the entry of sin into the world and a distortion o f the ideal world.This in no way m eans th at the individual hom osexual is morally evil or b ears personal m oral guilt (C urran, 1979:76-77).Just as a person who is born a cripple can see his position as a consequence of the limitations of our world and how the world does not always attain its perfection or ideal, so with the homosexual.

CONCLUSION
I believe that the approach outlined above does justice to the various sources essential for the ethical decision of the Christian believer.It has endeavoured to be true to the Scriptural evidence and the way it has been accepted within the Christian community.
The examination of the use of the Bible today argued for a fivefold development.The exam ple given has endeavoured to rem ain faithful to this m ethodological process by looking at biblical passages which w ere appropriate to the problem .However, these passages w ere exam ined against the perspective of th eir world view and the symbols that construct that view.This approach has distanced itself from the naive application o f biblical norm s from one symbolic world to another different symbolic world on an im m ediate o n e to one basis.T h e attem p t was also m ade to show how th e biblical images fit within the wider vision o r stance o f biblical revelation.
A tte n tio n w as g iven to th e m o d e rn sc ie n tific eth ic a l re fle c tio n o n th is topic.C onsequently, one notices how th e directio n o r vision th a t was o p en ed up by the biblical revelation is now able to be appropriated within the present world view.This dem anded as well that this appropriation continues to rem ain true to the faith of the believing community in which the ethical reflection has taken place.
The ethical issue of homosexuality has illustrated this methodology very clearly.While this solution distanced itself from a naive biblicist interpretation, a t th e sam e tim e it has not accepted a naive endorsem ent o f every form of homosexuality.Instead, it has a ttem p ted to tak e seriously th e discoveries and findings of m odern psychology and psychiatry, while incorporating and correcting them within the context o f the Christian vision and stance of the world.
C R IT IQ U E O F P R E S E N T A PP R O A C H E S T O W A R D S IN T E R P R E T IN G T H E E TH IC A L RELEV A N CE O F T H E BIBLE FO R TODAY In m ore recent times the issue of how to view the place of Scripture within ethical deci sion making has received more and m ore attention.C urran and M cCormick (1984) dem o n strate this well in their collection of articles from leading scholars who have b e e n w r e s tlin g w ith th is q u e s tio n o v e r th e c o u rs e o f th e p a s t d e c a d e .
vision called fo rth by th e b ib lical n arrativ e .C h ristian ity is d ista n c e d from the perspective of a religion of norm s o r goals.Instead, it is a way o f life in which the disciple strives to m aintain a relationship to the person of Jesus and to rem ain faithful to his work.
d ecisio n m ust u ltim ately b e ju d g ed in th e context o f th e faith o f th e learning ChristianT h e C hristian does not act alone, b u t the decision is supported and guided by the Christian community."What the biblical author wrote arose from the community.So also the read er must be aw are of the community as a source of in terpretation and as recipient of communication from the reader"(Daly, 1984:294).
. E th ical ju d g m en t and discussion e n te r in only when one considers the behaviour and the action, that is ethical judgm ent concerns what one does with one's sexual orientation.Looking back at the biblical perspective one sees that the biblical world had no concept w hatever of such a perception as a homosexual orientation.The p e rs p e c tiv e o f th e ir sy m bo lic w o rld c o u ld only co n ceive o f so m e o n e w ith a heterosexual o rien tatio n acting contrary to this by perform ing hom osexual actions.The distinction betw een the different world views em erges m ore clearly; one cannot simply im port the one into the other and make it normative.Christian biblical ethics: the application o f biblical norms to today6.4Thecontext of the faith of the learning Christian How does w hat has been said fit within the wider vision of the biblical revelation and the faith of the community?
vision or stance of biblical revelation one can see this perspective fitting in the following way.It was previously pointed out that the C hristian stance or vision in c o rp o ra te s five basic m ysteries: c re a tio n -sin -in c a rn a tio n -re d e m p tio nresurrection hope.T he notion o f sexuality m ust be seen against this background.F rom th e p e rsp e ctiv e o f c re a tio n th e id e a l m ean in g o f sexual re la tio n sh ip s is u n d o u b ted ly in term s of m ale and fem ale.H ow ever, the w orld is no t as it was originally created.Sin has en tered the world and with it creation has undergone a change.The 'sin of the world' affects some individuals without affecting others.