The Textual Tradition & Homosexuality
November 30, 2008
I would like to begin this post by insisting upon my humanity over this subject. I have felt a great many emotions concerning the rights and struggles of my gay brothers and sisters. I will not attempt to deny my anger or sadness, as this subject is one I have great difficulty simply intellectualizing – not taking personally.
—
There are a few passages in the Hebrew and Greek testaments that give reference to same sex relations. As I will attempt to show here, many of these interactions can be reasoned not as negative due to their same-sex status but rather an interaction that is either taboo or destructive socially. While assessing each of these scenarios keep in mind a couple of questions: Do the historical ramifications translate to our culture? Do these actions in themselves merit condemnation or simply understanding? Third, why does this matter to me?
The Abominable Act
Every sin and law mentioned in the scriptures has a qualitative rationale for its impartation. Laws against marrying cousins and siblings seem to us quite reasonable, almost unnecessary. For a culture such as the early Hebrew nation, exogamy and exclusionary tactics made interfamilial courtship and matrimony a viable solution. We are quite removed from this backdrop. We believe exogamous marriage to such an extreme is culturally taboo. Even more, we realize now the genetic disorders we are now predisposed to, many disorders that were not in existence during the early times of the Hebrew nation. Taking this in mind, we do not culturally recognize such acts as sin in the way our predecessors did. Take this in stride with laws against wearing multi-textile clothing, shaving your face at the sides , even having foreskin upon ones genitals. We are disconnected culturally from many of these sins/laws.
Take these into account in the writings of Leviticus 18. A culture straining to maintain equanimity as well as cultural identity among their Babylonian captors sought any way of weeding out those who would not assist in the populating of the culture; hence the word abomination – against culture.
Leviticus 18.22
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (NASB)
One must ask the question “why” in reading this verse. I believe the question is not ‘what happens’ in terms of being gay but rather ‘what does not happen’. If one is sleeping with a man as they would sleep with a woman, a woman is NOT being slept with – not propagating the culture and not assisting in the development (numerically) of the people. If you read through this chapter it has a lot to say about nakedness, marriage and the act of “laying/knowing”. It should be taken into account, however, the scriptural ramifications address the act:
18.29 – “For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.” (NASB)
A reasonable translation to this (yes from English to English) would be as such: “If you perform an act against our culture, you will be removed from our culture.”
Fast-forward several thousand years to the USA in the 21st century. Are we worried about the depletion of our population? Do we believe men sleeping with other men (ladies likewise) will propagate some sort of sterility in our world? I believe the answer to be “no”. We obviously no longer live in an exogamous society, the message of the redemption of Yahweh is no longer confined to Israel (please know I mean this historically, not theologically), we are not in captivity – fearing our race (religious as well as ethnic) to be obliterated. One should ask themselves, does the word abomination apply?
Homosexual?
The word homosexual has been a term of major dispute in the interpretation of the scriptures. Words such as malakoi, arsenokoitai, andrapodostai, have gone through significant typological and culturally influenced misinterpretation. Since the distribution of the scriptures “malakoi” itself has been translated as ‘masturbators’, ‘morally weak persons’, ‘catamites’, ‘sodomites’, ‘effeminate men’ etc. Notice each of these phrases have specific and different meanings dependent on their culture and interpretation.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV)
The passage in itself seems to be a bit redundant (male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (malakoi oute arsenokoitai ) unless a little context is put in place. It was common in Greek culture for a young man to gain cultural and political esteem by sexual means. In these times a boy aged 14-18 would receive gifts, learn from and even sexually please an elder in their city in order to gain access to the social network of Greek city-states. This passage speaks specifically against actions of sexual promiscuity; more specifically acts of sex not performed in the proper ground of love and commitment. It is quite plausible to assume from this historical understanding, the boys performing sexual acts to gain esteem may be the malakoi. Likewise the older men soliciting sex the arsenokoitai.
There is no reference to acts of sex, between same sex nor opposite sex partners in this passage that are in the cradle of mutual love, affection or commitment. It is irresponsible to conclude from this passage that an act of love between two men expressed sexually can be construed as immoral.
Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV)
As before, this passage refers not to loving acts of sexual exchange but rather lustful acts. Take in mind the real sin in this passage was misdirected worship (idolatry) as sighted above.
I would also like to note, passages concerning love are not limited to heterosexual relationships. Many scriptures refer to men who loved each other deeply. The scriptures do not paint sexual acts as ‘good’ solely because they are heterosexual. Sex must be loving to be good. Acts of lust, same sex and opposite, are sinful. Concerning this, I perceive an equation stirring in conservatives’ heads that I do not understand:
Straight + Lust = Bad
Gay + Lust = Bad
Straight + Love = Good
Gay + Love = Bad?
Gay + Lust = Bad
Straight + Love = Good
Gay + Love = Bad?
Is loving someone of the same sex bad inherently? Is it not plausible for a woman to love another woman or a man to love another man in a way sexually expressed? Where does the scripture dictate this as wrong action when done so in love? The scriptures say:
Proverbs 3:3
Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. (NIV)
John 13:34-35
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (NIV)
1 Samuel 18:1-3
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. (NIV)
and most importantly …
1 John 4:7-8
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (NIV)
What boundary then does love have?
The church has been (and I mean this only from experiences I have had and those familiar to me) horrendous in teaching proper sexual interactions between even committed heterosexual couples. Many cite verses like Genesis 38 as completely logical rationale for oral and other types of non-life producing intercourse to be considered immoral in today’s culture. This takes scriptures such as these out of context. What form does sex have to take to be holy?
Here are a couple assumptions I have about the assumptions other people make who take an anti-gay position in theology:
1. A gay relationship can never be loving or committed
2. Gay individuals do not know god
3. God hates homosexuality
4. Gay people are sexually promiscuous
5. Being gay is weird
6. Homosexuality is effeminate/de-womanizing
2. Gay individuals do not know god
3. God hates homosexuality
4. Gay people are sexually promiscuous
5. Being gay is weird
6. Homosexuality is effeminate/de-womanizing
Let me say, I believe anyone who acts unloving and noncommittal or is promiscuous is not following the redeemer-god. And I do not believe homosexuality is inherently promiscuous or lustful.
I would agree the Christian tradition has looked unfavorably on homosexuality. I would argue however, homosexuality as a practice became wrapped up with prostitution and promiscuity (et al) and was not treated as an issue of love.
Gay individuals and marriage
While meeting with a pastor, whom I love and adore, several months ago I heard him say (and I am crassly paraphrasing) “Why do homosexuals have to get into marriage? Why do they have to affect the institution of marriage?”
I think this is an excellent question. Initially I would respond by saying, I don’t believe gay men and women are ruining marriage by getting married. While learning about Christian marriage I was under the impression marriage was the responsibility of my spouse, my Lord and me. When the man down the street beat his wife to a bloody pulp, I didn’t think my marriage was at risk of loosing some inherent value.
My marriage and its institution was and is locked tightly in the fortress of love and commitment.
When the divorce rates rise, my marriage doesn’t cheapen, it remains my personal commitment to my wife and my creator. Simply put, I believe anyone who chooses love and commitment may get married.
If one is worried about marriage somehow being ruined as an institution (and I believe this issue is more politically motivated than interpersonally) one should begin teaching couples about the importance of finance, require marriage counseling for church members, try to legalize a divorce ban (with obvious exceptions). I don’t think this is ever going to happen, though, because I don’t believe the issue has anything to do with ‘marriage’. If I may squeeze this out a bit more, I have never heard a minister (nor a politician for that matter) speak of the institution of marriage as being attacked when they hear of domestic abuse. Could this issue possibly be more about the taboo of homosexuality than us worrying about marriage?
Homosexuality and the Church
In the end what does ones view of homosexuality have to do with the church? One of my mentors asked me a few months ago, “Do you believe it’s okay to be gay?” My response to her was, “It doesn’t matter what I think.” I think the Church must answer likewise. If you think it’s wrong to be a glutton do you allow gluttons membership in your church? When searching about denominational beliefs, do you ask if they allow individuals who are financially irresponsible to take communion? This point can, as you know, go on for days. Our goal is love.
If homosexuality is wrong, a gay person will enter the church, fall in love with Jesus and be convicted of their sin – the triumph goes to our Lord. If homosexuality is right, a gay person will enter the church and fall in love with Jesus and be convicted by their sin – the triumph goes to the Lord. I am not worried because I trust my Lord.
Ultimately, I believe our reaction should be faith in love. I would urge church leadership to insist upon continuity in church theology. If you really do believe (enter sin here) is wrong then distribute judgment and consequence equally. It is upon this ground all Christians can gather, we seek after love, conviction and community.
1 Peter 4:8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (NIV)
Authority in The Apostolic Fathers (AAF) – Intro
November 29, 2008
I’ll never forget it, as I peeled back the shipping papers to reveal my green, hardcovered, 3rd ed of Michael Holmes digloted Apostolic Fathers I knew that I had in my posession something spectacular. “Now here is what the early church was “really” like, no form criticism needed to discern multiple communitites and redactions underneath historical narratives, just Ignatius and Polycarp, Clement and Diocletian. I do enjoy reading the AF’s.
As we have spent some considerable time unpacking foundational elements of Christian Authority, I have decided to discuss Authority in the Apostolic Fathers. In part because it is just fun, in part because it is useful to test my Protestant assumptions, and to test my “Catholic” (for the record when I just say Catholic I mean both Roman and Orthodox, when I want to be more specific I’ll use the proper terms) siblings (I know at least one Catholic who reads this blog, perhaps others will come and test my ideas).
Now, I know this will not be anything like the quality of a peer reviewed journal, but I am gonna attempt to be thorough; so if anyone wants to use any of my “research” in their own work (VERY unlikely I know, but my ego is large) then all I ask is that you site me.
One can assume the standard reference works: 3rd ed. BDAG, BDB, NA 27, Holmes 3rd ed, LSL 12th I will basically just be repeating what they tell me
Struggling to be Holy
November 29, 2008
This aims to be the last post by me on homosexuality for a while, although I have been fermenting on celibacy and Protestantism, it will have to wait; I don’t want to prattle on only about one topic.
But my proposals do seem to go against the grain of Western Evangelicalism, not least since it has been so influenced by Methodism and the “Holiness” movement. Is holiness then thrown out the window if we allow struggling sinners into the fold? I would point out that even in the holiness churches the definition of what is holy and what is not has changed with time. My father recalls how when he was a kid he couldn’t play with face cards or go bowling, let alone go to a movie theater! But just this last year, the church gave him a gift card to the movie theater for Pastor Appreciation Day and my family just played poker at our Thanksgiving gathering. How things change. So did holiness change? Have we all just gone down the slippery slope? I don’t think so, and I do not think that we are at risk of going soft on sin by recognizing the sloppy process of “sanctification.”
More important than individual holiness is recognizing holiness on the larger scale. The Holiness of the church is not determined by the individual members, but rather by it’s relationship to Christ and from the salvation that it enjoys through him. Just check out Ephesians 1:3-14 and 5:25-27. Hans Kung expresses it thus:
“It is God who distinguishes the church, sets it apart, marks it out for his own and makes it holy, by winning power over the hearts of men through his Holy Spirit, by establishing his reign, by justifying and sanctifying the sinner and thereby founding the communion of saints”
The Church p.273
So, while we are certainly called to personal holiness as a witness to the working of the Holy Spirit to re-shape us, we should not fear the reality of sin in our midst provided in prayer and discernment the congregation plots a way “onward and upward.”
*and check out this bit by none other than Father John Zizioulas on holiness, quite appropriate I think
Remember when Christmas was about Jesus? Or: A Black Friday Indeed
November 28, 2008
Today (Black Friday) a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death by a herd of shoppers outside of New York. For me, the war against Christmas isn’t against secularists and the Politically Correct Police, it’s against this…absolutely disgusting.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams on Advent
November 26, 2008
Any time this man speaks, I listen
Is the Devil in the Details?
November 25, 2008
Did the Devil lead worship in heaven, complete with a Taylor acoustic guitar with Fishman electronics? Was he there in the first place? Did he get thrown like a skydiver with no parachute?
I want to avoid a whole discussion on the history of this figure, but it is worth noting, even taking into account the developed tradition in the New Testament, that every reference source I have looked at stresses the ambiguity of the figure and his “personhood,” role and actions in the whole Biblical narrative.
My primary point in my recent post was that the passages in the prophetic books of the OT, primarily Isaiah and Ezekiel, did not and do not intend to speak about “The Satan, The Accuser, The Serpent, etc….” I base this off of the reality that the passages in question are dealing with real kings of real kingdoms. The Satan is nowhere mentioned, and the texts do not at all even hint at a “satan” figure. I would venture to argue that the passages loose any significance and meaning when they are taken metaphorically to speak of another “supernatural” figure other than the king in question or in addition to the king in question.
Picture if you will, a people dispossessed of their land which they were promised by divine right by YHWH the one God is Israel. The prophets had been telling them that the King in question was gonna do some damage if they did not repent of their sins. But, even though doing YHWH’s bidding, in the end these kings too would be judged for their arrogance and pride, as they were putting themselves in the position of god (a well known and well documented Ancient Near Eastern practice). So in the end Israel, and more importantly YHWH would be vindicated by judgement on the prideful kings.
Now try in that social and religious climate to suggest that the prophet actually meant (or God meant?) another malevolent spiritual figure unconnected to the narrative and I will say that one is reading between the lines in a big way. If authority lies primarily in authorial intent, then I would venture to assert again that the OT prophetic passages are not at all referring to “The Accuser” and that any subsequent interpretation of them in such a manner is using a different hermeneutic than I would deem reliable.
Perhaps Jeremy, we will have to agree to disagree 
Or, make your case, iron sharpens iron right?
Origins Revisited
November 25, 2008
An impromptu curiosity seized me this morning as I woke with an odd urge to read a bit of commentary on the primeval stories in Genesis. While sipping coffee and interspersedly checking my blogs, I absorbed the series of articles that dealt with the topic in my Anchor Bible Dictionary. The whole activity reminded me of our sustenance topic and I thought I might revisit it here with a few observations I learned about Genesis 1-3.
1. Myth, History, or Story?
In what language can we discuss this epic literature? Certainly it captures elements of all three of these vague ‘genres.’ John J. Scullion (the writer of “The Narrative of Genesis” article in the ABD) prefers to speak of it in terms of Story. History, he says, is “still much under the influence of the fathers of modern scholarly and documented history—[...] and rightly so.” Additionally, only myth fails to capture the gravity of meaning that this literature carries for communities throughout history and today. As he explains;
“For the people of Israel, the book of Genesis, and the whole of Pentateuch, is their tradition; this is their past, this has made them what they are, this is what happened.”
2. God Created Order, NOT matter
Despite what a fundamentalist may tell you, Genesis 1 is not a scientific, event by event essay on the creation of the space-time Universe. Rather it is the story of God bringing order to chaos, and the outline of mankind’s role in that intended order. The Hebrew word for create, bara inescapably implies ordering. Much confusion came when the Hebrew idea of creation as order collided with the Hellenistic idea of creatio ex nihilio. You can see this tension of interpretation played in the scriptures. Compare Isaiah 45:18: “[God] did not create [the Universe] a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited” and the much later 2 Maccabees 7:28 “Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.”
3. The Full Meaning of Genesis is Best Understood in the Context of Other Primeval Cultural Stories
The Genesis account is to designed to make distinctions in light of other creation accounts. For example the sun and moon are created and not to be worshipped, light is created and is in no way identified with or as God (as in the Egyptian account), and it is through God’s (not Baal’s) own natural blessing that humans and animals are fertile.
4. Man is Made
Among many other things, Adam is not some dude named Adam but is in fact mankind, ha’adam. He is made from the dust and is limited and will one day return to dust. But despite this, he is made in the image of God and exists in communion with the creator. In this way there is a distinction between ha’adam and the animals. He is given work and he is held accountable for his will.
5. The Prohibition is an Essential, Thematic Detail
Both the Garden and The Tree of Life are common themes in ancient Near Eastern creation stories. Their significance is not so much their presence as the way that (ha’adam) interact with them. In Genesis, the creator’s prohibiting the Tree from humanity implies certain theological certainties. Among them;
1. It emphasizes the will of the creator, and ha’adam‘s responsibility to obey a will outside of his or her own.
2. There is the opportunity for disobedience
3. Work and toil is not punishment for disobedience. It is given before the prohibition is disobeyed.
6. Woman In Complete Oneness
God did not forget at first to create woman. Nor did man survey the animals and find none of them suitable to mate with so God had to make him something else instead. Man surveyed the animals and found none that could be his equal. In fact, woman is the counterpart of man and made of the same stuff. The author of Genesis “is expressing the complete oneness of man and woman: their physical and spiritual unity, their mutual belongs as equals, their mutual joy in each other.”
7. The Serpent Is Not a Character
The Serpent is a significant symbol in the Ancient Near Eastern world (the brass serpent in Numbers 21, the serpent as a symbol in the Canaanite fertility cult, etc…) The question should not be “what does the serpent represent?” (i.e. the devil, temptation, man’s selfishness, etc…) but “how does the serpent function in the story?”
The serpent functions to exaggerate the prohibition. He addresses the woman, you always in the plural. Knowledge here is not a theoretical, smarts kind of thing, but a practical and experiential thing. It is the knowledge to know what is right and wrong for ha’adam. It is dethroning God of his role as creator and attempting to function in his stead.
When the disobedience is discovered the serpent’s role is finished. It is not interrogated, nor cursed, nor are its motives explained.
8. The Riddle of Existence
“The writer [of Genesis] faces that unfathomable riddle which is part of the human race so long as and wherever it exists. There is in the human being that drive to transcend the self by overstepping or bursting the limits within which it is set. There is nothing wrong in the desire itself. The fruit is “good to eat and pleasing to look at.” Two normal and good reactions are described. The fruit is also “desirable so as to make one wise.” It is here that the drive to overstep the limits is introduced. The relationship of the man and the woman to God is changed by the transgression; hence too their relationship to each other.”
—John J. Scullion in ABD “Genesis, Narrative of”
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
