At the centre of the painting, standing on either side of the vanishing point, are the two greatest masters of ancient Greek philosophy, Plato, on the left hand, and Aristotle on the right. Plato—whose philosophy focused on the overarching, absolute Forms of which all material objects on earth are merely shadows—points a single, insistent finger upward, in a gesture that perfectly reflects his central philosophical preoccupation: the epistemological necessity of immaterial, immutable universals that give meaning to all the particulars of life. By contrast, Aristotle—whose philosophical system emphasized the Particulars of the individual substances and entities we encounter—points a hand out horizontally, with splayed fingers to symbolize his insistence that truth and meaning is to be derived from the particulars of any given instantiation of an object in time and space.
I sometimes wonder if this portrait of two philosophers, one with a single finger pointing skyward and the other with splayed fingers pointing outward, isn’t a perfect metaphor for the difference between affirming and non-affirming Christians when it comes to the debate about what the Bible really says when it comes to same-sex sexuality. It certainly illustrates the tension I feel in my own heart as I have worked through this issue to arrive at the integrative position I’ve been advocating for in this series.
When I focus on the overarching “ideals” that seem to be in the background, forming the shadow whenever the Bible happens to talk about sex—with my single finger pointing upward, so to speak—I can’t escape the conclusion that its overarching vision is for sex to be contained within the bonds of exclusive, monogamous, heterosexual covenant relationships. I have spoken briefly about this in previous posts (see here and here).
When I point my hand outward, though, to look at the particulars of those places in the Bible where it happens to be discussing same-sex sex, I can’t escape the conclusion that whatever same-sex marriage is, as it occurs in the modern world, is not what the biblical authors were imagining or, indeed, condemning, when they said that people who engage in certain kinds of sexual activities won’t inherit the kingdom of God.
Each one of the biblical passages where same-sex sex is the topic of focus needs a full-length monograph to discuss properly, so I’m under no illusions that a blog post can do any of the data justice, but let me share a few thoughts about how I’ve come to understand some of the so-called “clobber passages” in the Bible (i.e. those passages that non-affirming Christians often reach for to justify their position, often “clobbering” LGBTQ people with rigid claims of absolute truth, in the process).
1. Genesis 19:1-28, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It is very obvious to me that this story contains no explicit condemnation of same-sex sex generally. The reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, in the story, is because the men of the city intended to gang-rape a visitor, in horrific violation of the ancient world’s moral code of hospitality. Sodom and Gomorrah would have been equally deserving of destruction, according to the moral logic of the story, if they guests in question had been female. This is a point the parallel story in Judges 19 makes clear. This story does not necessarily condemn same-sex sex, anymore than the Bible’s stern words about heterosexual fornication and adultery means that all forms of heterosexual sex are wrong.
2. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, a man shall not lie with a male.
I am not personally convinced that this passage is only condemning homosexual cultic prostitution in the context of idol worship (a common take on the prohibitions against homosexual activity in Leviticus). I say this primarily because it occurs in a list of other prohibited sexual practices, none of which have to do with worship, and all of which seem more to do with procreation (i.e. regulating certain types of sexual relationships to ensure a safe and healthy propagation of the family line). Some interpreters appeal to the passage’s subsequent reference to “sacrificing children to the pagan god Molech” as evidence that the prohibition against homosexual sex is about idol worship, but I find this unconvincing. Most commonly in the ancient world, it was unwanted babies who were “given to Molech” like this, so the prohibition against child sacrifice appears on this list of prohibited sex acts, not because it’s talking about cultic sex, but because children are the natural and expected result of intercourse.
Nor am I personally convinced that because Leviticus 20:13 uses two different Hebrew words to describe the men who are engaging in sex (first it’s ish, “man” and then it’s zachar, “male”), this must mean that the passage is only prohibiting exploitative sex, or homosexual sex with minors, or some other kind of abusive sex. While it’s true that zachar can mean “male child,” this is not the most common usage, and it tends to mean that only when the sex of the child, specifically, is germane to the point (like in English, when we say “was your baby a boy or a girl?”). Given the emphasis on procreation in the passage, my sense is that it uses zachar, which emphasizes the maleness of a man in terms of his sexed body, to undesrcore the fundamental problem: a man having sex with a “male” will not procreate, because, in terms of procreation, only a female is compatible with a man.
Note: this is not to say that, because I believe Leviticus is speaking about male-male sex generally in these passages (and not specifically about cultic prostitution or abusive sex) I therefore believe it ought to be applied today, and that those who are in same-sex marriages today are “abominable to the Lord,” per Leviticus 18. I most emphatically do not believe that. But that is because I believe that through his death and resurrection Christ has completely fulfilled all the requirements of the Law for us, and by the pouring out of his Holy Spirit, he has set us into an entirely new relationship with Leviticus, as with the rest of Torah. In other words, it is for theological reasons, not exegetical reasons, that I do not believe Leviticus 18 and 20 should determine our response to same-sex sexuality today.
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, “men who have sex with men” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In brief, I do not believe the references to same-sex sex in these passages are describing anything like the modern day phenomenon of same-sex marriage, or LGBTQ+ sexual identities. The Greek terms in question, often translated as “homosexual offenders,” “men who have sex with men,” etc., are aresnokoitai, and malakoi. Literally these terms mean something like “man-bedders” and “effeminate ones” respectively. The first was ostensibly coined by Paul, and the second was not widely used to describe sexual behavior in the ancient world (more commonly it was used to describe men who were seen as weak, lacking in self-control, or “soft” in a derogatory sense).
Given the fact that Paul groups arsenokoitai with “slave-traders” in 1 Timothy, given the fact that in Greek the word malakoi could be used to describe men who were the “receptive” partner in a same-sex encounter, and especially given the fact that same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world always involved a power imbalance, was generally understood to be shaming for the receptive partner (but not for the penetrating partner), and typically occurred between men who also had heterosexual relations with their (female) wives, my sense is that Paul is referring here to particular sex acts that today we would think of as homosexual rape, homosexual fornication, and/or homosexual prostitution. These verses do not refer to same-sex covenant relationships, or even imagine them as a possibility. And to state the obvious: to prohibit homosexual rape is not to prohibit all forms of same-sex sex, any more than it prohibits all forms of heterosexual sex when we condemn heterosexual rape.
4. Romans 1:26-27, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
This passage is probably the most difficult to make sense of from an affirming perspective, and one of the main reasons I do not describe myself as “affirming,” even though I believe Christians ought to bless, respect, and fully include LGBTQ people in the life of their community. The literature on these few verses is vast, and I can only summarize, but suffice it here to say the following. Verse 27 uses the word “natural” (in Greek: phusikos) to describes heterosexual sex in this passage, and strongly implies that male-male sex is against nature (para phusis). (Note: it’s not entirely clear whether verse 26 is describing female-female sex; given the broader context it seems to be, but strictly limiting ourselves to what is said, it does not necessarily have to mean this, though verse 27 is clearly describing male-male sex).
It is true that in the ancient world the concept of “nature” and what is “natural” had a broader meaning than just one’s biological nature. In 1 Corinthians 11, for example, Paul describes long hair on men as “unnatural,” even though today we would think of this more as a cultural matter than a biological one. Nevertheless, my sense is that the most likely interpretation here is that Paul describes male-male sex as “unnatural” primarily because it lies outside the “natural” male-female relations that “naturally” lead to procreation. Paul seems to have the creation story of Genesis 1 in his mind as he is dictating these words to his scribe, alluding to it in verses 20, 22, and 23 (Paul also has the Wisdom of Solomon in mind, though this ancient text, too, is deeply informed by the creation account of Genesis). If it’s true, though, that Genesis 1 is informing Paul’s writing, it’s also true that Genesis 1 culminates with the creator mandating humanity to “be fruitful and multiply,” suggesting that, whatever else sex given to us for, its most “natural” function is the propagation of the species.
Having said that, I think that if we are going to be strict literalists with the text on the meaning of “what is natural and what is not,” we also need to be strict literalists with the fact that Paul is clearly describing “lustful sex” here, and that the kind of sex these hypothetical people are having is “dishonoring” to one another’s bodies (that is, it is a form of degrading sex). The questions then become: (1) is all homosexual sex an instance of lust, by default? And (2) if there were forms of same-sex sex that were demonstrably not lustful, would they still fall under the general censure of Romans 1?
Having said that, I think that if we are going to be strict literalists with the text on the meaning of “what is natural and what is not,” we also need to be strict literalists with the fact that Paul is clearly describing “lustful sex” here, and that the kind of sex these hypothetical people are having is “dishonoring” to one another’s bodies (that is, it is a form of degrading sex). The questions then become: (1) is all homosexual sex an instance of lust, by default? And (2) if there were forms of same-sex sex that were demonstrably not lustful, would they still fall under the general censure of Romans 1?
I cannot speak for Paul on those questions, but my personal answer is “no” to both. In other words: all forms of homosexual sex are not lustful by default, and those forms of same-sex relationships that are not—that is to say mutual, exclusive, covenant same-sex relationships—should not be included under the censure of Romans 1. (I don’t know what Paul would say about them, if he could hop in the time-machine and get a glimpse of them; I’m just saying that they are not the same things as what Romans 1 is describing). I say that because: (1) the evidence that there were any same-sex sex relationships in the ancient world that were not “lustful,” “degrading,” and/or “abusive” is very weak, so it’s not likely Paul would have even imagined such forms of sex, let alone talked about them; (2) when Paul speaks in Romans 1:24 about people following the “lusts of their hearts,” he is not yet describing same-sex sex specifically, but all forms of lustful sex-acts generally (the topic of homosexual sex does not come up until verse 26-27, and there he talks both about women and men, suggesting that both women and men are included in the lustful sex-acts described in verse 24); and finally (3) I have known enough LGBTQ+ people, listened to their stories and experienced their relationships sufficiently to know, simply, that these relationships are not, lustful, or even, predominantly, about sex; at least they don’t have to be (anymore than all heterosexual relationships have to be lustful). Rather these relationships are about the same kinds of things that heterosexual people seek in physically intimate relationships: affection, companionship, mutual support, well-being, friendship, personal meaning, and more, all of it in addition to, and as an integral part of their sexual expression.
There is a lot more that could be said about each of the above passages, of course, but in very broad strokes, those are the reasons I have sought an “integrative approach” in my response to same-sex sexuality and LGBTQ+ identities. When I speak with Christians who are staunchly non-affirming, I often hear statements like, “But the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality…” What I hope this brief survey has shown, though, is that (a) these passages are not nearly so clear in their condemnation as we might have thought; and (b) the particular “kind” of homosexual activity in view may not have all that much to do with same-sex relationships as they happen today.
For these reasons, I have concluded that this is an ethical issue, and not a theological one (see here for my thoughts on that); and that as we do with other ethical issues (like divorce and remarriage, or the problem of war), we need to find a way to integrate the witness of the Bible with the world as we encounter it, and so find a wise way forward that is respectful of both.
In my next and final post in this series, I intend to get very concrete in terms of what this looks like in practice, but in general terms, I think it means the following things: (1) that churches should fully welcome LGBTQ+ people into the life of the community, leaving them free to serve in all levels of leadership and ministry, according to their gifting and calling, and this whether they are walking a path of celibacy or living in a same-sex covenant relationship; (2) that churches should respect and bless same-sex marriages, including those couples who are part of their community, even if, as a position of conscience, churches refrain from performing same-sex marriages themselves.
While this “integrative approach” may seem hopelessly compromised to some readers, and not nearly good enough to others, I have found it to be the best way to hold all of the relevant data and competing issues together. If our conclusions about the Bible’s teaching on same-sex sex were “The School of Athens,” you might say, an integrative approach is seeking a place right at the centre of the vanishing point, with one hand pointing upward, gesturing simply to the overarching ideals, and the other hand pointing outward, intent on respecting the particulars in all their complexity.
There is a lot more that could be said about each of the above passages, of course, but in very broad strokes, those are the reasons I have sought an “integrative approach” in my response to same-sex sexuality and LGBTQ+ identities. When I speak with Christians who are staunchly non-affirming, I often hear statements like, “But the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality…” What I hope this brief survey has shown, though, is that (a) these passages are not nearly so clear in their condemnation as we might have thought; and (b) the particular “kind” of homosexual activity in view may not have all that much to do with same-sex relationships as they happen today.
For these reasons, I have concluded that this is an ethical issue, and not a theological one (see here for my thoughts on that); and that as we do with other ethical issues (like divorce and remarriage, or the problem of war), we need to find a way to integrate the witness of the Bible with the world as we encounter it, and so find a wise way forward that is respectful of both.
In my next and final post in this series, I intend to get very concrete in terms of what this looks like in practice, but in general terms, I think it means the following things: (1) that churches should fully welcome LGBTQ+ people into the life of the community, leaving them free to serve in all levels of leadership and ministry, according to their gifting and calling, and this whether they are walking a path of celibacy or living in a same-sex covenant relationship; (2) that churches should respect and bless same-sex marriages, including those couples who are part of their community, even if, as a position of conscience, churches refrain from performing same-sex marriages themselves.
While this “integrative approach” may seem hopelessly compromised to some readers, and not nearly good enough to others, I have found it to be the best way to hold all of the relevant data and competing issues together. If our conclusions about the Bible’s teaching on same-sex sex were “The School of Athens,” you might say, an integrative approach is seeking a place right at the centre of the vanishing point, with one hand pointing upward, gesturing simply to the overarching ideals, and the other hand pointing outward, intent on respecting the particulars in all their complexity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment