First, the actual issue underlying this whole post concerns another Apostolic tradition, that of the Anglican Church, which as far as I know (having belonged my whole life) has respect for tradition, but does not elevate it to the status of divine revelation. So Anglicans get to struggle with the messages in the Bible and work to discern the revelation from the Creator that will guide our lives.

This brings me to the second point: traditional Christian teaching has changed over the centuries, and different traditions teach different things, and while I can’t claim to know their position on all aspects of sexual morality, they clearly disagree on many more important aspects of Christian faith and life. So you cannot invoke the authority of tradition as a unitary and unchanging thing. Passing revelation through a large number of fallible and fallen human beings necessarily creates this problem.

Which brings me to the third point. You disagree with my reading of Matthew 12. Fine. You cite your tradition. Fine. How and where did your tradition transmit that information to you? I want a cite. A book, an essay, a sermon, something which will explain your tradition’s understanding of that chapter of Matthew.

Obviously you would disagree regarding Tradition. The source of Tradition? God. Who has the authority to transmit it? The Apostles and their successors, the bishops.

With respect to Mr. Phillips and other Protestants who are attempting to defend traditional teaching from the authority of scripture alone, I would just point out that this is the logical conclusion of sola scriptura–that people use it to oppose traditional Christian teaching.

So, if it’s all about one’s ‘private’ interpretation of scripture, whether it be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit or some other mode of divine confirmation, there really isn’t a point to discussing the issue any further, is there? If God is going to work via means of human instruments and infused Faith, He is obviously quite foolish to do it in such a way that leaves people in doubt as to what is Divinely Revealed teaching. This is what sola scriptura entails.

On expressions such as “physical evil” and “defect”, I disagree comprehensively. But I will specifically comment on one matter only, again the matter of authority. On what basis do you or anyone define variations as “defects”? How exactly does that basis relate back to scripture? Please cite your sources here.

Finally, on John 9: does John 9 have nothing to do with gifts or favours? Really? Do you not regard eyesight, mobility, a mind able to reason as gifts from a loving Creator? For I certainly do. So does the Bible; it forms the whole theme of Job, where the Creator makes it clear that we earn nothing, and the Creator dispenses gifts according to holy and eternal wisdom, not our desires or notions of deserving.

As far as I know, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental Churches do not differ on moral questions pertaining to sexuality.

But the whole nature of the Bible as a revelation having special authority means that no person, and I would argue at this point that no one tradition. can simply assert their own authority over the meanings of the Bible,
That is your understanding of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. But not that of the apostolic Churches. The Bible does not stand apart of Tradition, but is understood within it.

And this brings us to my central argument against expressions such as “physical evil” for differences in bodily ability, and the idea that some of us embody the “fall” to a greater degree than others, and worse, post-lapsarian human judgment, touched by all the depravity and limits of our fallen nature, can judge the difference. Even if Jesus did not have extremely harsh words for those who see in themselves the repositories of the Creator’s favour (Matthew 11 20-24), the last few centuries have seen such monstrous results from those who took it upon themselves to define and judge “lesser” human beings that I can see no place for this thinking in our discussions.

An Orthodox adherent can speak to the use of evil or kakos within the Orthodox theological tradition. It is used in different ways within the Latin theological tradition, and has a long pedigree. One does not have to judge between different degrees of physical evil in order to recognize that there is a defect that should not be present. And I also add that evil is not used univocally of physical evil and moral evil. Again, as far as I know the apostolic Churches make it clear that irrespective of any defects that may be found in our bodies, no one is worth less than another simply because of a physical defect. So to argue that just because some may find some sort of justification for unjust actions based on the presence of defects that we must not have any notion of defect or physical evil just doesn’t follow.

Yes, God’s love and therefore some of his gifts are prior to merit, and He is the cause of His love, not us. But your explanation of John 9:3 is still tenuous, since it is not talking about gifts or favors.

The point is that if two legally self-responsible people feel love for one another, then the law should not discriminate against them based on their sex. If the law does discriminate against certain kinds of marriage, that discrimination should be applied equally to all sexes. Hard to comprehend?

Arguing from”perversion” makes no sense without demonstrating that homosexuality is perverse. Pederasty with underage boys is considered legally perverse precisely because all sex with underage people is considered a perversion. It would not matter if the older partner were a man or a woman, the same also regardless of the sex of the underage victim.

But with adult homosexuals no such situation exists, in which one partner is legally incompetent to make sexual choices for themsevles, and is being taken advantage of by an older and more powerful adult. Nor, as in incest, is there any danger of the sexual union producing genetic defects, or of being a cover for child abuse. (Most examples of incestuous couples wishing to wed began their relationship before the age of consent).

We already have legal adult marriages, and nothing is different about homosexual marriages, literally, except the sexes of the partners. There is no argument based on accepting homosexual marrigages that would justify eliminating either incest taboos or pedophilia laws, or anything like polygamy as others might suggest. The only meaning it has for these situations is that if we did eliminate laws against incest marriages, or pedophilia, we could not eliminate them only for heterosexuals, we would also have to life them for homosexuals. That is the only significance legalizing homosexual marriage would have, in that it would not alter the nature of marriage in any way, other than the sexual orientation of its partners.

And homosexual identity is not a recent phenomena, except to the degree that having an “identity” at all is a fairly modern phenomena. Homosexuality is as old as the hills, literally.

In your comment about John 9 3, I partly agree: Jesus does not speak, there, about how the Creator distributes gifts and talents. Rather, He speaks of the moral implications of this distribution, and in one of a huge number of passages where he says the same or similar things, makes the point that the Creator does not distribute physical, or to a great extent spiritual, gifts simply as an indication of favour.

And this brings us to my central argument against expressions such as “physical evil” for differences in bodily ability, and the idea that some of us embody the “fall” to a greater degree than others, and worse, post-lapsarian human judgment, touched by all the depravity and limits of our fallen nature, can judge the difference. Even if Jesus did not have extremely harsh words for those who see in themselves the repositories of the Creator’s favour (Matthew 11 20-24), the last few centuries have seen such monstrous results from those who took it upon themselves to define and judge “lesser” human beings that I can see no place for this thinking in our discussions.

As for the other example, I specifically used the example of a child who feels that he or she is in a romantic relationship with the pederast, who does not feel that they are a victim in any way, but that social mores prohibit the relationship from being consecrated.

It is less a slippery slope argument than demonstrating that you are guilty of the very behaviors I named– claiming a loving relationship is unacceptable because you are not tempted in those directions. The argument for gay marriage is that loving relationships are sanctified by God simply because two people love each other.

There are many other examples I can use of loving relationships that are just not consecrated by God, despite the fact that the people in them really feel that their love is pure and wonderful and won’t people try to understand.

It is precisely because gay marriage isn’t a ‘special sin’ or ‘worse sin’ among the sexual sins that these examples are valid. It is just one of numerous sexual temptations in the world, and it is unfortunate that many Church members fixate on it to the exclusion of other sinful covenant relationships. And to the exclusion of encouraging loving and respectful Christian marriages.

What would the point be, if you don’t accept the Tradition and authority of apostolic Christianity? This is ultimately what is at issue.

To go into more detail on John 9:3, yes, Jesus answers that the Creator permits differences of ability and powers to make the glory of Creation visible.
John 9:3 is not talking about how God distributes gifts/talents.

Add to these clear statements the fruits of the idea that some people, particularly the disabled, and a closer relationship to “evil” and further from “true nature,” as defined by fallen and depraved men, not the Creator. I have no hesitation in calling these idea very questionable readings of scripture, and radically bad in their consequences.
This is a bit unclear.

To answer your specific question: we prohibit adult incest (allowing for the various definitions of incest in different cultures) because of the social and genetic consequences, and because a prohibition on incest does not cut a person off from all loving relationships they might have. As for child rape, well, if plain reason and observation does not convince you of its depravity, then go read Mark 9 43. The slippery slope argument simply does not work here.

To go into more detail on John 9:3, yes, Jesus answers that the Creator permits differences of ability and powers to make the glory of Creation visible. Contrast this to Jesus’s statement on the origins of evil: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles.” (Matthew 15:18) Add to these clear statements the fruits of the idea that some people, particularly the disabled, and a closer relationship to “evil” and further from “true nature,” as defined by fallen and depraved men, not the Creator. I have no hesitation in calling these idea very questionable readings of scripture, and radically bad in their consequences.

There is also the example of pederasts whose victims feel that they are in a loving relationship with the pederast, and that it is only the ‘disgust’ or ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘prejudice’ of society that keeps them from joining in a covenant marriage.

The point being that there are plenty of people who feel their particular sin is acceptable because, well, they are ‘in love’, but those other guys over there, well, that kind of love is ‘wrong’.

Attempting to support same sex marriage as Christian means you have to go there, precisely because those examples above rely on the arguments pro-gay Christian advocates utilise. Which is that if the two people feel love for each other, all the rest shouldn’t matter. In addition to the ‘you don’t understand my particular romantic situation, and if only you did, you’d totally approve and agree with me that God sanctions it!’ argument.

Having a tendency to be tempted a particular way that a majority of people are not tempted in is hardly an argument in favor of God sanctioning gay marriage in the Church. Incest-marriage folks could make a similar argument about their predilection, as could the army of people with ‘natural’ desires that postdate the existence of the modern objects those desires are associated with.

Lest we forget, the very concept of a homosexual identity is extremely recent and would have had many asking if someone was a ‘whore-sexual’ if they were given to excessive whoring, because the idea of identifying as your sexual desires would have seemed like that to them.

John 9:3 merely states that God permitted physical evil, so that He could draw some good from it. It is an answer to the question, “Why does physical evil happen in the world?” and parallels the treatment of the question in Job. Is it punishment for some sin that I’ve commited? Or my parents committed? Or is there some other reason why it happens? There are some indications within Tradition what life would have been like if the Fall had not taken place. But Scripture and Tradition do not deny that things have natures, nor is it impossible for us to come to know what those natures are, at least with respect to integrity and function, despite what some of the Reformers might have thought about reason.

As for Matthew 12, the reasoning also seems pretty clear, so perhaps you could explain the foundation for your disagreement?

We’ll have to disagree about Matthew 12.