End with the beginning in mind--a fancy way to introduce my Table of Contents

I'm a fan of the late Steven Covey, author of the best-selling (to say the least) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The aim of his "habits" is to move individuals first from dependence to independence or self-mastery, and then on to interdependence--learning to work effectively with others. Finally, he urged his readers to always seek self-improvement--to never be satisfied with the status quo.

Well, I'm using (some might say abusing) one of Covey's habits a bit out of context here. Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind urges us to "self-discover and clarify your deeply important character values and life goals. Envision the ideal characteristics for each of your various roles and relationships in life." I'm relating it more to the process I use to figure out what I believe. I do so primarily through writing.

I was getting into my forties when I first realized how reliant I am on writing to clarify my thoughts and to spot holes in my knowledge base or arguments. I am a municipal politician, and I would find that as I listened to debate on any particular motion, I was writing frantically at the same time. What I was doing is getting down a framework for my own thoughts, noting what principles or values were in play, and where I lacked information, or thought that information was lacking in the debate thus far. This would help me to get past simple preference or prejudice, and to guide me more rigorously (I hope) toward to good conclusion.

I have found with this blogging I have been doing on theological/moral matters that I have been employing the identical method. While I may have some kind of half-formed (did I hear someone say half-baked?) notion on a topic at the beginning, I need to reason my way toward something in which I have more confidence. If I'm going to hang my hat on a conviction, I had better work it out as best I can first. Otherwise, I become nothing more than a retailer of secondhand ideas. It often means that by the time I get to the end of an exploration on a matter, I have to go back and revise the earlier stuff (what Covey calls Habit 7: Sharpening the Saw). Writing is how I get there.

[I wish I could say it was a more romantic process--sitting in front of a roaring fire, glass of red in hand, faithful dog at my feet as I pondered the great mysteries of life--but it is what it is, and wine would only compromise my typing.]

What I want to do now is to list a sort of Table of Contents, something most writers probably do at the beginning but which I am writing at the end, now that I've figured out what I wanted to say in the first place. Got that?

So here it is, my own little Table of Meanderings, Strivings, Puzzlings, Clarifyings, and Concludings. A hint: if you want to save a bunch of time in seeing where and how I come down on the subject, start with posts #13, 15, 16, and 18.

1. "There are no gay people in Sochi." 2/9/14. This introduces the topic of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. It was written during the Russian 2014 Winter Olympics and quotes the mayor of the host city, Sochi. It looks at the very negative view of gays taken in Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, and elsewhere, and gives a quick overview of Canadian legislation on gays and gay marriage. 
2. The Bible according to football and and other fundamentalists. 2/11/14. The post begins with the very negative reaction of some professional athletes to one of their own coming out of the closet. It goes on to overview the various views (from very harshly opposed to gays to somewhat less so) of evangelicals and Roman Catholics. 
3. Sans Peur. 2/20/14. It is here that I first address what are sometimes called the "clobber verses" from the book of Leviticus, often seen as the foundational Biblical teaching against homosexuality. I also reveal my secret wish for a tattoo.
4. Now we know why it's called Air-izona, not Ahr-izona. 2/22/14. This is the first of several digressions from a strictly academic study of biblical material to a look at some highly discriminatory legislation against gays passed by the government of Arizona, but overturned by the governor. It illustrates just how many professing Christians have a deep hatred toward the idea of homosexuality.
5. Tale of Two Cities. 2/25/14. Further on the Arizona legislation and the contrasting reception given to a gay athlete in Brooklyn.
6. Leviticus lives (in a few places and for a few reasons only). 3/2/14. In this post, I look at the evolution in biblical legislation regarding moral imperatives and right living first introduced in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and greatly modified in form and application over the succeeding generations in both the Old Testament and the New.
7. On the other hand.....3/5/14. It was at this point in my study that I began to get an inkling of how one could hold a high view of Scripture while concluding that the clobber verses may not be intended for the Christian era as they literally read in the Old Testament legal material.
8. Doing a Hank Snow. 3/17/14. I really enjoyed this stretch of study. I looked at the principles underlying the Old Testament legal material and how these principles were honoured in quite a different fashion in the New. The blinding (for me) insight was this: The great turnaround of the New Testament was that while the principles lying deep beneath the Old Testament laws continued to be honoured, the focus turned from an emphasis on external practices to an internalized value system with the application of the principles left to the person of faith to decide for herself or himself. From the point of view of the legalistic 1st century A.D. Jews, this was revolutionary. 
9. "Of course it's unnatural. How can you argue with Paul?"3/21/14. Here I began to address the alleged New Testament equivalent of the Levitical teaching on homosexuality, Romans 1:18-32.
10. Time to take a breather? Guess not, and Aw crap! 3/26/14. These two posts are my second digression from the biblical study to an expression of my great chagrin at World Vision first announcing that they would now employ same-sex married couples and then their reversal mere days later because of donor pressure. I still get angry when I think about it.
11. Okay, time to tackle Paul. 4/2/14. This is a long post, dealing with a host of New Testament material that indicates how Old Testament legislation was being turned on its head as the legalism of the Old Testament gave way to a principled approach to appropriate lifestyle in the New. Paul's teaching is addressed as well as that of Peter and Jesus.
12. Does he or doesn't he? 4/6/14. More on Paul, but also a look at the famous city of Sodom, historically the icon of homosexual depravity. I conclude that Sodom deserves a bad rap, that's for sure, but not for the usual reasons. I arrive at a critical conclusion at this stage:
    I am proposing then, particularly when we remember the Apostle's revelatory take on Levitical teaching (see my earlier posts), that it is not acts in themselves but the motivation for the acts that is in question in Romans 1. Paul is looking at men and women who, if they took their knowledge of God's nature, power, and priorities seriously, would be loving, merciful, faithful, self-disciplined, and concerned for what's best for others. But he sees just the opposite--including individuals who are seeking sexual satisfaction wherever and however they can find it. Note that the individuals in Romans 1 appear to be exercising a choice to abandon their usual practice in favour of another solely for sexual gratification. Paul turns himself inside out to denounce this choice and the degraded motivations that prompt it.
    
13. Let's take stock before plunging on. 4/8/14. I had to stop my blogging at this point to summarize what I had learned thus far before going further. This post is actually a good place to start if you are wondering what I am yammering on about in this series. It includes a quick overview of the seven passages of Scripture that explicitly address homosexuality.
14. Russell Crowe, Noah, reincarnation, and the Christian view of gays. 4/19/14. You could call this a semi-digression, motivated by watching the Russell Crowe movie Noah. I look at the ways in which a wrong view of Old Testament teaching can have international repercussions to the present day. Apartheid, slavery, and the U.S. civil rights movement are discussed.
15. Unclean Jesus? 4/23/14. This was one of the "funnest" parts of my study, where I first look at ways in which Jesus was unclean and committed abominations, yet was still sinless. 
16. Jesus committed abominations. 4/25/14. Further on what an abomination was in the Old Testament, and whether it was the same as a sinful act. I conclude that, by and large, abominations had nothing to do with sin. Remember that gay sex is called an abomination. But then, so is menstruation. And childbirth.
17. Why I think that Trinity Western University should have a certified law school, 4/30/14 and How a lawyer argues freedom of religion v. gay rights, 5/6/14. My final digression. I worked for Trinity Western University full-time for 18 years. I deal with the on-going (at this writing) issue of whether they should be allowed to have a certified law school despite their anti-gay code of conduct. 
18. King James, abominations, and gay sex. 5/11/14. Finally I reach my conclusion, feeling that I have retained my high view of Scripture and faithfulness to biblical principles regarding right living. If post # 13 is a good place to start, this would be the second one to read if you are in a really big hurry and don't have the time to wade through theological speculation. My conclusion is: The argumentation against the "sexual sin" of homosexuality rests primarily on what I consider to be ritual laws, intended only for a certain purpose, not necessarily linked to actually sinfulness, and divorced from genuine righteousness. A growing understanding of the relative importance of the two kinds of expectations (ritual purity and identity markers versus personal righteousness) is seen in the Old Testament and comes to full flower in the New.  As hard as my upbringing and my evangelical circle try to convince me to the contrary, I see nothing in a loving, committed, faithful, monogamous same sex relationship that violates the biblical admonition of loving God through loving one's neighbour. Such a relationship, at most, violated the code associated with ritual purity to worship at the Temple--as did intercourse between a husband and wife, menstruation, and childbirth.