Homosexuality and Christianity
With Forays into Related Issues
Dialog between Norman E. Anderson and a
Homoralist
Summary
This is a book-length compilation of correspondence with an
advocate of homorality regarding the issue of homosexuality in both
society and the church. Special attention is given to the prohibition
of homosexual conduct in the Bible and its implications for today. A
homoralist is one who believes, as a principle of discussion, that
the charge of homophobia is inappropriate in response to non-hateful
criticism of homosexuality. Woven throughout this compilation is
discussion of sexual ethics more generally.
Among the biblical passages discussed are these: Genesis 19
(the story of Sodom); Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 22:5;
23:17-18; Judges 19-21 (the story of Gibeah); 1 Samuel 18:1-4
(regarding David and Jonathan); 2 Samuel 1:26; 1 Kings 14:24; Romans
1:18-27; 2:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5-6; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Revelation
21:8; 22:15.
Among the Greek words discussed are
arsenokoites,malakos, and porneia.
Among the non-biblical persons and sources brought into the
discussion are: Middle Assyrian Laws, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle,
Dionysius of Halicarnasus, the Damascus Document, Philo,
Pseudo-Phocylides, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, Targum
Onkelos, Sifra, Sifre, Talmud Yerushalmi, Talmud Bavli, Marcion,
Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Pelagius, Bernard
of Clairvaux, Maimonides, Martin Luther, Hugh Latimer, John Calvin,
Jacobus Arminius, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, the Treaty of
Tripoli, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Hodge, John Humphrey Noyes,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Victoria Mary ("Vita") Sackville-West, Alfred C.
Kinsey, Thornton Wilder, Chuck Baldwin, John Boswell, Bernadette
Brooten, Theo Colborn, L. William Countryman, Jerry Falwell, Michel
Foucault, Earle Fox, Robert Gagnon, Robin Scroggs, John Shelby Spong,
John Stott, Marco Vassi, David W. Virtue, and George Weinberg.
My position in the discussion is (a) that the biblical
prohibition of homosexual behavior, insofar as it is explicit, is
limited in scope; (b) that churches should not divide over the issue
of homosexuality within their ranks but that they should engage the
issues involved with open minds and an expectation of a centuries'
long discussion; and (c) that there should be no law prohibiting
homosexual behavior in today's society, but that instead the law
should protect and treat fairly, regardless of sexual orientation. I
represent myself as a pacifist in the culture wars, as one who
practices irenics within the church, as one who operates in a
questing rather than a dogmatic mode, and as one who urges humility
in hermeneutical, theological, and ethical thought.
Tables of Content
To view document with tables of content to the side in a
separate frame, click here.
General Contents
|
|
Summary
|
|
Preface
|
|
Norms' Side of the Exchange
Correspondence on
Homosexuality
|
|
Introductory
|
|
Critique of the
homorality.org Web site
|
|
Organizational
stances
|
|
Homophobia
defined
|
|
Where my sympathies
are
|
|
Understanding sin
existentially
|
|
Moral
responsibility
|
|
The problem with
focusing on consequences, and other matters
|
|
The homorality
principle
|
|
Authority and
sin
|
|
Dialog, the interpretive
process, and homosexuality in the church
|
|
Sin as apodictic
|
|
Lust, self-centeredness, and
authority
|
|
Mystical spirituality,
tradition, and sin
|
|
Sexuality and
Christian spirituality
|
|
Social promotion of
homosexuality
|
|
Confession and
assertion
|
|
Definitions -- agape,
Christian, bisexuality, promiscuity, contradiction,
one flesh
|
|
Idea for a book on
homorality
|
|
Holiness and
sexuality
|
|
Fame
|
|
Pain of Confession
|
|
Exhaustion
|
|
Critiquing a letter to E.
M. Kaeton on homosexuality in the church
|
|
Oppression
|
|
Ten Points for a Sexual
Ethic
|
|
Oppressions
compared
|
|
Critiquing a faculty
advisor's statement on sexual ethics
|
|
Critiquing a review of
The Bible and Homosexual
Practice
|
|
Natural law and
other matters
|
|
|
Dissection
|
|
Excursus on
Male Homosexuality in the Bible
|
|
Concluding comments regarding
the correspondence
|
|
Feedback
|
Threads of Thought
|
|
Authority 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21
|
|
The Bible and sexuality 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10, 11,
12, 13,
14, 15,
16, 17,
18, 19,
20, 21,
22, 23,
24, 25,
26, 27,
28, 29,
30, 31,
32, 33,
34, 35,
36, 37,
38, 39,
40, 41,
42
|
|
The church and homosexuality 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10, 11,
12, 13,
14
|
|
Council of Jerusalem 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10
|
|
Dimorphism 1,
2
|
|
Government and sexuality 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16
|
|
Homophobia 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18
|
|
Homorality 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19
|
|
Humility 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7
|
|
Lesbianism 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8
|
|
Licentiousness 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14
|
|
Marriage and homosexuality
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6
|
|
Monogamy 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10, 11,
12,
13
|
|
Moral responsibility 1,
2,
3
|
|
Natural law 1,
2,
3
|
|
Noachides 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8
|
|
Oppression 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
10
|
|
Promiscuity 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8
|
|
Sex ed 1,
2, 3,
4, 5
|
|
Sexual ethics 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15
|
|
Sexual orientation 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8
|
|
Toleration 1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8
|
|
Traditionalism 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18
|
|
Utilitarian ethics 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
|
Preface
During the summer of 2001, I received from an anti-gay activist
two e-mail messages inviting me to engage in a discussion of
homorality. Homoralists believe, as a principle of discussion, that
the charge of homophobia is inappropriate in response to non-hateful
criticism of homosexuality; and they generally align themselves with
the view that a homosexual orientation is not fixed and that
everybody should choose not to be homosexual. As I found out later,
the fellow who contacted me was the Web master for the homorality.org
Web site. [The site seems to have moved to:
http://groups.msn.com/HOMORALITY
-- January 30, 2004] He had found me through
my Web site, which
reports on my research into sexual
ethics.
He and I had an intensive e-mail discussion over the next
several weeks, during which time two others, a publisher and an
Episcopal priest, contacted me regarding the discussion. So it was
that I learned that some of my correspondence had been shared with
others, in fact (so I learned later yet), with a whole discussion
list! Until then I had kept the results of my limited researches into
homosexuality confined to a small number of people, and I had kept my
evolving thoughts about the morality of it private. I wanted to
present my views much later in the context of a fully worked out
sexual ethic and totally apart from the current polemics in the
homosexuality debate. Now my private thoughts, still tentative in
nature, were being exposed to public view. So be it. I was peeved but
perfectly willing to take responsibility for what I had written and
to carry on the conversation with all candor.
I was and am a heterosexual with an Evangelical background. At
the start of the discussion, I held a
let-'em-alone position with regard to
gays in society at large, and I advocated open-minded discussion of
homosexuality in the church. During the conversation, my own position
developed somewhat, as the reader will have a chance to see.
Following the flurry of discussion of the first several weeks,
I decided to start editing the conversation -- much as I had done
with another batch of correspondence, one that focused on
polygamy. The document presented here is
a compilation of my side of the conversation on homosexuality;
although it does incorporate those portions of what my interlocutor
contributed that were essential to my own chain of thought, that is,
those to which I was directly responding. Thus I was freed to share
the conversation, if I wished to do so, without presuming upon him
more than necessary.
In the course of editing, I made many changes. Most of the
changes I made obvious, for example by the use of square brackets for
additions and the use of "[snip]" for deletions. But some changes
were made silently, especially corrections, stylistic adjustments,
formatting, and minor additions and deletions. (I have not yet had
opportunity to correct all of the quotations used by my
interlocutor.) Most significantly, explanatory and supplemental notes
were added, and even an excursus on male
homosexuality in the Bible, which complements work I have done
elsewhere on female homosexuality in the
Bible.
I deleted some parts of the conversation that were
insignificant, that expressed failure to understand, or that
contained more personal data than I thought suitable for a general
readership. In one case, I deleted a heated question I posed, which,
in retrospect, I can see might be read as offensive to elderly
persons; although it was by no means intended to be. (Is it offensive
to the elderly to ask: "Have you fallen off your rocker?" I still
bear a scar from falling off a rocking chair while a tot.) One may
fairly criticize me for not deleting much more, especially the minor
exchanges; but a conversation is an organic thing and hard to reduce;
so, for the time being, I have decided to present it pretty much in
full.
Editing e-mail is a difficult task. In this case the challenge
arose chiefly from the flurry of exchanges. I might respond to
several messages, then receive several responses, to which I would
respond, usually, but not always in sequence. Thus a chain of thought
might skip over several messages. So readability in a compilation
like this becomes a tough goal. I have decided to retain a strict
chronological order, while repeating enough of earlier messages to
remind the reader of the line of thought. Furthermore, I have titled
messages; and I have created links, so that key threads can be
followed through the entire document by using the
"Threads of Thought" table above.
A couple of comments on meanings:
- The word "ethics" is used in more than one sense during the
discussion. Generally I use the word to mean the reasoning that
goes into the determination of good and evil aspects of volitional
behavior.But sometimes I use the word as an alternative for "moral
code," especially when I do not wish either cultic purity or
conventional mores to be confused with reasoned morality.
- When I use the adjective "moral" or the noun "morality"
unmodified, the reference is never to sexual behavior alone but,
usually instead, to the principle of living by a determination of
what would be good behavior in any and all areas of
life.Occasionally I mean a standard of behavior that is tied into
universal principles, a particular standard that somebody has
defined. Either way, I distinguish morality from cultic purity,
cultural mores, social proprieties, mere conventionalism, and mere
traditionalism -- which is not to disrespect any of these items or
to delink them totally from morality.
The reader should understand that, since my interlocutor held
strongly to a traditionalist position, some of my presentation of
arguments was guided by that fact. Hence, for a couple of
examples:
- My frequent reference to canonical communities, that is, to
those groups whose faith and conduct are consciously carried out
in continuity with the teachings of the Bible, whether defined
according to the Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or
Protestant canon. (By the way, the intra-canonical hermeneutics
that I bring to view are not channeled by my interlocutor's
traditionalism but, instead, by my perception of the use of one
text by another.)
- My general preference for the New American Standard Bible
(NASB) during the discussion, even though I do not share the
enthusiasm for the NASB that some religious conservatives feel.
(Occasionally I use other translations, such as the NRSV, that is,
the New Revised Standard Version.)
The conversation presented here starts with a few preliminaries
and then quickly launches into a critique of homorality. It proceeds
to cover many of the moral issues raised by homosexuality in society
and the church, with quite a bit of attention being given to method.
At some points it broadens out to sexual ethics more generally. It
ends with a discussion of whether toleration of homosexuality has
provoked God's wrath against America, especially considering the
events of September 11, 2001. The careful reader will, I hope, find
here many valuable distinctions and useful models for
understanding.
A WARNING: The conversation is sexually
frank. If you would be offended or if such information would in any
way be harmful to you, please proceed no further.
Norm's Side of the
Exchange
Introductory
August 17, 2001, 4:28 p.m.
Is my study [of sexual ethics]
still active today? Yes, very much so. Among other things, I am
currently writing a history of sexual ethics. At the moment, I am
giving a lot of attention to a chapter on Robert A. Heinlein.
As for my Web site, I haven't added anything to it lately; but,
so far as I know, little if anything is out of date. Of course, there
is much more that I have written and haven't posted. What you find
there is only the tip of the iceberg.
I just picked up your earlier message in this batch of emails.
I have yet to look at the [homorality.org] Web
site. A quick answer to the first question you
put to me, "are you a homoralist or a homophobe?" I'm not a
homophobe, at least not in the sense that the term was defined by the
American psychotherapist, George Weinberg, who coined it in 1972 [or
earlier]. [For correction, see below.] More after
I look at the site.
Would you be kind enough to introduce yourself and your
interest in the subject?
Critique of the
homorality.org Web Site
August 19, 2001, 11:40 a.m.
Thank you for directing me to the
homorality.org site. I had not heard of either the term "homorality"
or the organization before. My first
impression of the site was favorable; for it said, in effect, "hey,
let's make a clearcut distinction between homophobia and mere
criticism, of either the rational or religious sort." Furthermore, it
quite appropriately questioned some of the assumptions about
homosexuality that have been floating about for decades. However, as
I read on, I kept objecting to detail after detail. So I wound up
deciding that, no, I am not a homoralist.
Part of the reason is that I am a scholar and philosopher who
is trying to dig deeper and deeper and uncover the truth of
matters. Although the positions I wind up with are
controversial, I am not a controversialist or crusader. I am not one
looking to jump into the fray and stake out a position at one pole or
the other, except as a citizen opposing tyranny. I want to bypass the
culture wars altogether and look for both a deep understanding and an
appropriate rapprochement of all values.
The rest of the reason: those objections I spoke of. (Forgive
me. Looks like this is going to be long.)
Let me give you some examples.
One of the bugaboos, perhaps the
chief one, of homorality is the idea of sexual orientation,
especially sexual orientation in the fixed sense. Now I am not
convinced that sexual orientation is genetically determined. I
wouldn't be, since I have studied genetics just enough to know that
genetic determinism is rife with problems. However, I am convinced
that some people have a strong, abiding, and more or less intractable
attraction to some members of the same sex. Some of them even have a
revulsion to the thought of having sex with a member of the opposite
sex.
Now I suspect that this is due much more
to hormonal development, both in utero and, to a decreasing extent,
post natally, than to any genetic predisposition, social
circumstance, or psychological condition. If you have spent much time
studying endocrinology (my time with it has been scant, nothing to
boast of), then you realize that hormones are an extremely complex
subject -- far more so than the human genome, I understand -- and
that scientists have yet an enormous amount to discover. Relatively
speaking, endocrinology is yet in its infancy. On top of that,
scientists have yet to assess the effect of countless chemicals that
we humans put into the environment which mimic hormones. Regarding
the last, let me refer you to Our Stolen Future, by Theo
Colborn and
others.1 The
book is not at all about human homosexuality, but it leaves you
wondering if the chemical that you spread on your lawn 25 years ago
resulted in your neighbor's child growing up homosexual. We polluters
could be among the primary "recruiters" into the homosexual ranks,
which reminds me of Jesus' mote and beam saying
[Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42]. Anyway, we are
far from having the causes of sexual preference settled.
I suppose I should revise myself, for actually I see all the
factors I mentioned -- genetic predisposition, hormonal development,
social circumstances, and psychological condition -- working
together, plus more, such as some revised version of the Freudian
idea of sexual polymorphousness, by which I mean multiple
potentiality for sexual development, particularly from a stage
shortly after conception through the first few years of life, but
sometimes and to some extent even during adulthood.
Something else of which I am not
convinced: That either sexual awareness, sexual invitation, or sexual
encounter changes the sex or sexes to which one is attracted. The
assumption that they do seems to be part of the fear behind the
homorality site's attack on sex education. (More on sex ed
below). I am aware that such things can trigger
a realization of the nature of one's own sexual proclivities, but I
doubt that they change those proclivities.
Another point about sexual orientation: Homosexual activists
are hardly monolithic in their views on sexual
orientation. One classic divide within their own
ranks is between essentialism and social
constructionism.2
[This divide is frequently expressed as nature versus nurture. See
note below.] In other words, many
activisits don't believe in a fixed sexual orientation from before
birth any more than does homorality.org. Consequently where sexual
orientation becomes a protected category under law, it does not
depend in the law itself upon a presupposition of fixedness -- or, at
least, I am not aware of any instance where it does. (Of course,
legislative debate and court cases are another matter.) To suppose,
as does homorality.org, that fixedness is some sort of lynchpin is to
miss the point, the point being: Why should someone have to conform
his or her sexual attraction and outflowing activities to a mold in
order not to be discriminated against in vital areas of life, like
housing, employment, and freedoms generally enjoyed by the public --
particularly in a republic that is both free (purportedly) and
pluralistic (indubitably)? You see, homorality.org thinks it is using
a switch on a donkey (fixed sexual orientation) when it is only
swishing through a swarm of flies (a countless variety of views on
sexual orientation).
Homorality assumes that a person whose primary attraction is to
the same sex can change it to the opposite sex. Yes, sometimes,
possibly. To speculate a bit:
- Occasionally adolescents and adults still possess a degree
of sexual polymorphousness.
- Sometimes there is an attraction to both sexes anyway.
- Sometimes the issue is not what sex one is attracted to but
what person.
- Sometimes libido is unusually low, so that one doesn't care
all that much about which sex one hooks up with.
- Sometimes a trauma or confrontation with unacceptable loss
tips the balance.
- Some people have the ability to turn parts of their
sexuality on and off like spigots.
- Some people do their utmost to restructure themselves
through religion or psychotherapy with sufficient success to claim
victory a day at a time.
- There have been and still are cultures where people have
been socialized to homosexual practices for a period, for example,
as a way of entering manhood; and, of course, most such people are
easily able to redirect themselves to the opposite sex.
But none of this proves that homosexuals can convert into
heterosexuals universally. Most of those I know of who have, have
converted back. (I don't know what the overall statistics are.) My
point here is that a person's sexuality is far too complex for
sweeping generalizations.
Homorality.org
asserts that it is free of homophobia. Unfortunately it lapses into
the rhetoric of homophobia, for instance:
"Sexuality Forced on Children - Can you visualize
your child or grandchild, in either grade K-8, being asked the
question, 'Honey, what is your sexuality?' ... to ask the question
and explain the answer is the first step [toward] indoctrinating and
possibly recruiting the 'young mind' into homosexuality."
Certainly insufficiently examined assumptions in sex ed
curricula should be challenged. But evoking the old bugaboo of
homosexual recruitment and orientation of children is sheer
homophobia, in the sense of irrational fear of homosexuality. At
least it plays on such fear. Same difference.
Speaking of sex ed and as an aside,
the homorality site says that "Human sexuality must be taught with a
moral curriculum stressing consequences." I should point out that
this is a utilitarian approach to morality, which at best has an
uneasy alliance with either biblical or duty-based moralities.
The Web site says that:
"Homoralists believe homosexuals should be happy
with their lifestyle choice and are free to do what they wish except,
as proscribed by law, religious belief, and in imposing their
lifestyle on others including children."
Among the objectives of homorality.org:
"To establish [that] homosexuals have choice and
the freedom to [do] what they choose to do ... [and] To establish
that laws based on sexual orientation should be challenged."
I am rather confused by these statements. At first glance it
appears that homorality advocates freedom for people to engage in
homosexual practices. But then the "as proscribed by law, etc."
throws the entire issue back into the vortex. Or is homorality merely
asserting that homosexuals have enough freedom right now, but that if
the law now or at any time in the future falls out against them, then
that's that; they should simply submit?
Personally, I'm against governmental
interference in consensual sexual relationships; I think it is one of
the terrible forms of tyranny (although I'm for governmental
protection of rights, children, and unstolen properties). So again, I
find myself out of step with homorality.
As for "imposing their lifestyle on others," whenever I hear
that phrase, in my mind I switch heterosexual and homosexual to see
if the intended meaning works both ways. It seldom does. A public
wedding of a man and a woman could [by the operative illogic] itself
be understood as imposing one's sexual preference on others just as
much as, say, a gay pride parade. [So I suggest that imposition is
not the true issue. -- November 19, 2001]
The same, by the way, with regard to choice (to return to that
subject for a second). The Web site says that:
"Homoralists believe homosexuals may change their
lifestyle when they realize they have the freedom to act and the will
to do so."
Turn that around: Can every hetersexual freely choose to be
homosexual? Or would the inclinations of many be such that "choice"
would hardly be the right word? A large number of heterosexuals would
never override their natural inclinations unless pressed to do so,
and some would die resisiting. I am not saying that volition can't
override a great deal, at least in the short term. Nor am I
necessarily saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are
completely analogous. But putting the shoe on the other foot may
change the limp.
By the way, on what basis is it conceded
that the Bible would not condemn "a male lying with a male as
with a woman" if the orientation is fixed and not a choice? Don't
forget that the Bible presents the ban approvingly, that is,
the unmitigated slaughter of people -- men, women, children, and
infants included -- on the basis of their belonging to a disfavored
nation that happened to be in the way. [See, for example, Leviticus
27:29; Numbers 21:2-3; 31:7-18; Deuteronomy 2:34; 7; 13:12-17;
20:16-18; Joshua 6:16-21; 10:28-40; 11:10-23; Judges 21:10-11; 1
Samuel 15; 27:9, 11; Isaiah 34:5; cf. 2 Kings 8:12.]
The homorality site has this
statement:
"The term 'Sexual Orientation' leaps at us as a
concept, saying in essence, we are no longer to be described as being
male or female, we are described as heterosexuals and homosexuals,
two major sub-classifications of male and female."
As nearly as I can make out, this seems to be saying that life
is simpler and better if we divide humankind into male and female and
leave it at that. However, there has been attraction to the same sex
from time immemorial. Similarly there have been hermaphrodites (now
often called intersexed persons) from time immemorial. And
individuals have had complex sexual configurations from time
immemorial. The image of pure dimorphism (the idea of classifying
every individual as belonging to one of two sexes) is partly dream
and partly dogmatism, where everyone is made to fit whether they
actually do or not. Phenomenologically speaking, life has always been
more complex than that.
Some homosexual activists would agree with the sentiment of not
dividing people into hetero-, homo-, and (let me add)
bisexual. They claim
that the concept of a homosexual was not framed until the [17 or]
1800s.3 Before
that there were people who had sex with members of the same sex, but
there was no category of persons known as homosexual. That was a
socially constructed concept, which resulted in social
marginalization of a class of people and widespread
discrimination.
Two Senses of
Social Constructionism
|
|
Note the two different uses of
the term "social constructionism" in this
message:
- The
first
refers to the development of homosexuality itself, with
more specific reference to the social aspects of that
development. It is the "nurture" in the nature versus
nurture debate.
- The
second
refers to the development of how homosexuality is
conceptualized.
-- October 15, 2001
|
For my part I delight in male-female differences and
attraction. I think it pretty amazing that, even in an age of
over-population, most of us are still made that way; although I hope
we don't have to pay for that fact with starvation, pestilence, and
war.
Furthermore, I do not care to slight intersexed persons or the
sexual complexity of individuals. In the past, dimorphic
oversimplication played a social role, because people really had no
convenient way to match their sexual complexities in a complementary
fashion. So if you ("you" plural and general) were male and female,
that was considered sufficient for a match and you were expected to
make the best of it. For many the "best of it" was profound
unhappiness. In this age we have the capability of going way beyond
that and matching complex sexualities in a complementary fashion,
when we choose to do so; also of correcting our mistakes if we make
them. The automobile and the [birth control] pill profoundly changed
mating patterns. Now the Internet and computer matching services are
taking us to another level. At least to some significant extent, our
mating patterns are conforming accordingly. There is no going back.
Recognition of sexual complexity is now out of the bag. As for
dimorphism, speaking of it simply on a phenomenological basis, it is
shown to be merely the general pattern of certain aspects (shall we
say) of human being, not an absolute divide, perhaps not with regard
to any aspect.
The homorality site insists that the Bible
champions dimorphism, that it contains "The teaching of male and
female humanity." The Bible does not teach it. It just uses dimorphic
terminology as representational of humankind. (I have done tedious
indexing of terminological representations like that in the Bible.)
In fact, it is entirely possible that Genesis 1:26-27 is meant to
recall the ancient myth of the primeval androgyn, who was split in
two to make the sexes. In this interpretation, the original human was
male-female, both sexes in one. Certainly John Chrysostom, one of the
so-called Church Fathers, interpreted the text that way [In
epistolam ad Romanos. Homily 4]. Plato used the myth, with a
reasoning that still escapes me, to explain sexual preferences
[Symposium 189d-193d]. I have seen a current
transgendered interpretation of the Genesis text to this effect:
Every person has within both male and female elements. But, as I say,
in my interpretation the text is merely generalizing to represent
humankind and doing so here in such a way as to lead into the next
subject, which has in part to do with reproduction.
My next points have to do with
traditionalism and the Bible, both of which are invoked by
homorality.org. My abstract loyalties are to the
ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness; and to the spirtual qualities
of faith, hope, and above all love. However much I respect the old
and still viable, my loyalty is not to tradition; and however much I
venerate and look to the Bible, my loyalty is not to
biblicism. To my mind, we must understand
why the Bible says something in order to be able to apply the spirit
of it (that is, unless we happen upon the spirit of it just out of
the goodness of our hearts). To me it is not good enough to ask, "Is
homosexual activity wrong? If so, why?" and be answered, "Yes,
because the Bible says so." That is following the letter in total
absence of spirit [cf. Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6]. We must
understand why; and if we do not, then for all we know the underlying
spiritual principle may call for exactly the opposite application
under today's circumstances or may show that the ancient meaning had
a narrow application which has no place in today's context. Whether
we are talking about prohibition or allowance, I ask, "Where is the
goodness? Where is the love?"
I ask the same questions too about the initial prohibition of a
male lying with a male as with a woman in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13;
for, apparently, if we believe Jesus on the law being summed up in
love, there was a point on behalf of love behind those texts, a point
that quite possibly was grasped right into the Apostolic age. But we
have lost it, and I think it was lost as early as the third or maybe
even the second Christian generation.
I should point out too that
traditionalism is hardly at all in accord with the Bible on
sexuality. It only seems so because of the traditionalist overlay of
interpretive distortion. For instance:
- Traditionalism says that the Bible
teaches monogamy. It does not. Not in the creation accounts. Not
in the divorce sayings of Jesus. Not in the marriage teachings of
Paul. Not in the Bible's use of singulars in its "man-woman"
terminology. In fact, the Bible shows the people of faith, from
Abraham on -- not all of them, but many of them -- picking up the
rarer of antediluvian marital practices, polygyny. Furthermore,
under certain circumstances the Bible enjoins polygyny on people
of faith:
- with regard to levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10;
it didn't matter whether the brother was already married);
and,
- with regard to
reconciliation of spouses (1 Corinthians 7:11; again, given the
polygynous context out of which the author was operating, it
didn't matter whether the husband had already taken another
wife or concubine, which is why the passage is so difficult to
bring to bear today in pastoral counseling where monogamy is
enjoined).
It is fine to laud monogamy. It is fine to find biblical
images that underscore its merits. But it is, I believe, a
distortion to say that the Bible teaches [that] monogamy [is the
only acceptable kind of marriage], a traditionalist distortion
with its codification reaching back to the 16th
century.4
- Traditionalism
says that the Bible condemns lesbian activity. It does not, at
least not explicitly. Romans 1:26 is the locus classicus,
but the author, Paul, was making no new law; and in the Hebrew
Bible, it was a male lying with a male as with a female that was
condemned, not a female with a female [Leviticus 18:22 = 20:13].
The assumption that Paul was talking about lesbianism rests on the
supposed parallelism with the next verse, but a structural
analysis shows that the true parallel is with the preceding verse,
which alludes to creatures. (The pivot is the "Amen!" in verse 25.
In verse 27, "in the same way" has reference to sexual impurity in
general [cf. Jude 7-8].) In my view Paul
was talking in an oblique and delicate way about women having sex
with beasts, which was contrary to the Holiness Code of Leviticus
(18:23; 20:16) and which he used to evoke all the sexual
violations of which females could be guilty under that
Code. By the way,
ancient Jewish rabbis noticed the lack of an explicit condemnation
of lesbianism in Mosaic Law; and, far from assuming that a
parallel with men should be constructed (an anachronizing
assumption that we moderns bring to the text; also an assumption
that would run contrary to ancient Jewish hermeneutical
principles), they resorted to the levitical prohibitions [of
walking in the statutes of Egypt and Canaan and] of lewd behavior,
which called for lesser penalties [Leviticus 18:3; 19:20, 29;
21:14].5
- Christian traditionalism is almost
silent about sexual relations with a menstruating woman, which is
prohibited in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:19; 20:18). But
if:
- the prohibition of adultery (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10) is
carried forward into the New Testament church (1 Corinthinas
6:9; etc.), and
- the prohibition of incest (Leviticus 18 and 20) is
carried forward (1 Corinthians 5:1), and
- the prohibition of males lying with males (Leviticus
18:22; 20:13) is carried forward (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians
6:9; etc.), and
- the prohibition of bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:16)
is carried forward (Romans 1:25-26 as interpreted
above), and
- the prohibition of a priestly person having sex with a
prostitute (Leviticus 21:7) is carried forward (1 Corinthians
6:16-20),
then why doesn't the prohibition of
having sex with a menstruating woman also fall under the rubric of
porneia (sexual impurity), which the Council of Jerusalem
carried forward in a general way (Acts 15:20, 29)? Perhaps because
a believing woman's body is sanctified, she now being part of the
priestly body of Christ? But, you see, that is a theological
reason, one that could easily be construed to conflict with the
letter of the Bible.
- Christian traditionalism has set up a system of degrees of
consanguinity and affinity that define incest. The Bible knows
nothing of degrees. For instance, traditionalism says that first
cousin marriages are immoral. The Bible allows first cousin
marriages [Leviticus 18 and 20; for examples, see Genesis 10:1;
28:9; 29; 36:3; 1 Chronicles 23:21-22; 2 Chronicles 11:18; and
Tobit (in Codex Sinaiticus) 3:15; 6:10-13; 7:2-5, 10-13].
Incidentally, judging from responses to my
Sexual Ethics Test, which is
posted at my Web site, the incest taboos of the Bible are almost
dead, even among believers. [For an important qualification of
this statement, see below.] So
how can the homosexuality taboo be so loudly argued for when the
others, which have equal status, languish?
- Then, of course, there are marriage licences, church
weddings, and adolescence as a time during which marriage and
childbirth are discouraged -- aspects of traditionalism that are
utterly foreign to the Bible. On the other side of the ledger are
biblical marriage customs that are completely foreign to us,
like:
- the utter simplicity of conditions needed for marriage
to exist [Genesis 2:24; cf. Mishnah Kiddushin 1.1];
- dowries and brideprices [for an example of payment by a
bride's father, see 1 Kings 9:16; for an example of payment by
the prospective husband, see 1 Samuel 18:25]
- marriage by capture [Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges
21:20-23];
- marriage to one's rapist [Deuteronomy 22:28-29];
- concubinage [for example, Song of Songs 6:8];
- levirate marriage [for example, Deuteronomy
25:5-10];
- visiting one's wife in her father's home [for example,
Judges 15:1] or, conversely, living with one's husband's
extended family [for example, Genesis 24];
- wildly differing definitions of
adultery for males and females [Leviticus 18:20; 20:10];
and,
- living by purity regulations that affect, for example,
when one may have intercourse [for example, Leviticus 15].
When the homorality site advocates both traditionalism and
biblical teaching, I am at a loss; since I see them in profound
conflict, despite all the massaging of meanings that traditionalism
has engaged in over the centuries.
So these are some of the reasons why I must answer, no, I don't
think homorality.org "answers the question" and why I would not
consider myself a homoralist.
References
|
|
1
Our Stolen
Future, by Theo Colborn
and others (New York, NY: Dutton, 1996).
|
|
2 For an
example of the use of "essentialism" and "social
constructionism" in this sense, see "Bisexuality in an
Essentialist World: Toward an Understanding of Biphobia," by
Amanda Udis-Kessler, in
Bisexuality: A Reader and
Sourcebook, edited by
Thomas Geller (Ojai, Calif.: Times Change Press, c1990): pp.
51-63.
|
|
3 See, for
example, One Hundred
Years of Homosexuality, and Other Essays on Greek
Love, [by] David
Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1990): p. 15.
|
|
4
See After Polygamy Was
Made a Sin: The Social History of Christian
Polygamy, by John
Cairncross (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1974).
|
|
5 For the
Jewish texts on lesbianism, see:
- Pseudo-Phocylides 192;
- Sifra = Torat kohanim, Aharei
mot, parasha 8.8 = 337a;
- Talmud Yerushalmi, yGittin 8 II
D-F (Neusner) = 8, 49c, 58 (Krakov, 1609);
- Talmud Bavli:
- bShabbath 65a-b;
- bYebamoth 55b;
- bYebamoth 76a; and
- Maimonides = Moses ben Maimon,
Mishneh Torah,
Kedushah, Issurei bi'ah = Code. Book 5, Holiness.
Treatise 1, Forbidden
intercourse
21.8.
|
Organizational Stances
August 19, 2001, 11:41 a.m.
In response to my request for an introduction, you wrote: "the
web site is a partial answer."
Whoops! Is the homorality.org Web site yours? After my last
message, I guess I have my foot in my mouth. If I had realized before
I wrote my response to the site, I would have tried to be more
diplomatic and less blunt. No offense intended.
[snip]
You wrote that Episcopalians "ignore the
teaching that homosexuality is a sin in that they disregard both
Scripture and the doctrine."
I understand that it is still a hotly debated topic.
You wrote: "I believe [the American
Psychological Association's declaration on Sexual Orientation] is
contrived and promoted by the homosexuals."
I have problems with the APA on sexual matters too, but
probably for different reasons. I see it as still culturally bound
and as yet failing to make some critical distinctions.
[snip]
Homophobia
Defined
August 19, 2001, 11:41 a.m.
You asked: "Are you a homoralist or a
homophobe?" Earlier I answered the homophobe
part of your question by alluding to the fellow who coined the
term.1 Here is a
little more data.
According to the American psychotherapist, George Weinberg:
Homophobia is "the dread of being in close quarters
with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves,
self-loathing."
Another definition that he gives:
It is "the revulsion toward homosexuals and often
the desire to inflict punishment as
retribution."2
[A more recent definition, one that takes into account evolving
usage, is provided by Byrne Fone:
"The term 'homophobia' is now popularly construed
to mean fear and dislike of homosexuality and of those who practice
it."3]
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1 The history of
the term "homophobia" may be more obscure. "The word, which
may have been coined in the 1960s, was used by K. T. Smith
in 1971 in an article entitled 'Homophobia: A Tentative
Personality Profile' [in
Psychological
Reports 29 (1971),
1091-1094]." See
Homophobia: A
History, [by] Byrne Fone
(New York: Henry Holt, 2000; imprint: "Metropolitan Books"):
p. 5. Only after mentioning Smith does Fone mention
Weinberg, although I vaguely recall reading somewhere that
Weinberg coined the term years before his 1972 book.
|
|
2 See
Society and the Healthy
Homosexual, by George
Weinberg (New York: St. Martin's Press, c1972): pp. 4,
133.
|
|
3 Fone (2000):
p. 5.
|
Where My Sympathies
Are
August 20, 2001, 9:50 p.m.
You asked: "What are you, if not a homoralist? You are
certainly not a homophobe or a homosexual. And I would conclude that
you would deny that you are a homosexual sympathizer, or are you
hiding behind your academic cloak and are really one?"
I wasn't hiding, just responding. Am I a homosexual
sympathizer? That's a loaded question, and I don't really know what
it means. Kind of smacks of Nazi and Communist sympathizers, as if we
were in a war and sympathizing with the enemy were an act of
disloyalty. I suppose the so-called Culture Wars fit the bill; but,
as I said, I'm not interested in joining the
fray. Maybe you could call me a pacifist in
the Culture Wars.
Homosexuals are our children and our parents and our siblings
and our neighbors and, quite possibly, one out of ten of the people
who worship in church with us (maybe more, but I'm not given to
arguing statistics). Even many classed as heterosexuals have
homosexual feelings at times and have engaged in homosexual
practices. (You have doubtless heard of the Kinsey scale.) So I don't
consider homosexuals to be our enemies.
The Kinsey
Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale
|
|
"Based on both psychologic
reactions and overt experience, individuals rate as
follows:
- 0. Exclusively heterosexual
with no homosexual
- 1. Predominantly
heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
- 2. Predominantly
heterosexual. but more than incidentally
homosexual
- 3. Equally heterosexual and
homosexual
- 4. Predominantly homosexual,
but more than incidentally heterosexual
- 5. Predominantly homosexual,
but incidentally heterosexual
- 6. Exclusively
homosexual"
From
Sexual Behavior in the
Human Male, [by] Alfred
C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1948): p. 638.
|
I think that what we need to do with
regard to homosexuality is to work through all the ethical
dimensions, grow together accordingly, agree to disagree where we
must, and make accommodation for a plurality of views and lifestyles
where they can reasonably be accommodated. I see no place for animus
or heated rhetoric on either side, although avoiding heated clashes
and tragic situations should be one of the motivations for serious
engagement.
As for my sympathies, well, so as not to have words put in my
mouth, let me spell them out.
I am sympathetic to freedom. I am
sympathetic to the idea of restricting government so that it is not
allowed to interfere in our sex lives or our love lives, except by
way of protection of rights, children, and property. I don't want the
police knocking down my door and hauling me away to jail because I
engage in heterosexual practices. So why should I want that for
people who engage in homosexual practices? Their freedom is my
freedom.
I am sympathetic to love and goodness. This life is extremely
difficult for many people to get through. What companionship, love,
and mutual pleasuring they can find to ease their way is their
business; and I see no social reason why anybody should deny
them.
I am sympathetic to the idea of being allowed to be oneself in
public as well as in private. I don't want to be banned from kissing
my wife in public or from holding her hand, so why should I want
small displays of public affection banned for homosexuals? I don't
want male-female weddings banned from public sight, so why should I
want gay pride parades banned?
I am sympathetic to any oppressed
group or individual. The Nazis made a systematic effort to wipe out
homosexuals. That was evil. Gay-bashing is evil. Denying homosexuals
the basics of life is evil. I say live and let live; lock up
egregious oppressors; and be ever vigilant not to create a climate
that would give rise to oppression, much less lend it an air of
validity.
I am sympathetic to the idea of
self-definition and self-chosen association, thus to the idea that
people should be allowed to define for themselves who their partners
are in life, who hold their "next of kin" rights, and of whom their
households consist -- and be fairly treated accordingly, whether we
are talking about health care, insurance, taxation, inheritance,
adoption, or general social support of families.
I am sympathetic to the idea of not
allowing hatred or irrational fear control our policies. For
instance, it beats me why we want a military that prefers to protect
homophobia rather than freedom from persecution within its ranks.
That's dangerous for a democracy, and all the more so when we turn a
blind eye to it. And why should a citizen who cares about rights and
opposes discrimination hitch up with what he or she perceives to be a
bigoted organization? [Hence, for instance, Harvard University will
not officially sponsor the Reserve Officers Training
Corps. -- October 10, 2001] Given the likelihood
that at least some with that thought will desist, a dynamic is set up
of political drift within the military, a drift that places the
military in tension with the body politic -- also dangerous! (Of
course, classic Freudian theory would add that we can expect danger
to emanate from sexually repressive organizations.) Since Pearl
Harbor, we Americans have been so obsessed with external threats that
we forget that, historically, one of the greatest dangers to
countries, perhaps the greatest, has been their own militaries. The
framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that and were trying to
protect against it. We need to do the same. A person's sexuality
should have nothing to do with military service, unless that
sexuality is linked to violence or coercion [according to the
evidence of past offenses]. In that case it is dangerous to everybody
for the military to have in its ranks a person with a sexuality so
constituted, not only with regard to individual victims and
organizational discipline, but also with regard to international
relations, as we are witnessing right now in Okinawa. [For discussion
of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, see
below.]
The Bill of Rights, Article 2,
"The Second Amendment"
|
|
"A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
It could be argued that the
right of the people to bear arms entails the right of the
individual to participate in the common defense, regardless
of sexual orientation.
-- October 29, 2001
|
In Praise of the
Military
|
|
Since the above comment about
homophobia in the military was written, a patriotic fervor
has swept the United States in response to the September
11th attack on Manhattan, the Pentagon, and four commercial
airliners; and the military is being positioned for what is
expected to be an extremely hot war on terrorism.So I wish
to make clear my general attitude towards the military.
I regard military service as
honorable; and I regard a military career as a high
profession, insofar as it
is concerned with defense of the country and the great
ideals for which the country stands. If I had my "druthers,"
there would be no militaries at all, but the world is too
dangerous for that; in fact, it is too dangerous for a great
nation like the United States of America not to have a
standing military. Now a standing military presents certain
dangers to its own country, as Thomas Jefferson recognized;
and all citizens, both within and without the military, must
be vigilant in guarding against them. However,
the U.S. military has been
generally wonderful in the way that it has carried out its
duty; and the country owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude
to
it.
-- September 24, 2001
|
Thomas Jefferson
on a Standing Army
|
|
"There shall be no standing army
but in time of actual war."
-- Draft Constitution for Virginia §IV
"For defense against invasion,
their number is as nothing; nor is it conceived needful or
safe that a standing army should be kept in time of peace
for that purpose." -- First
Annual Message to Congress (December 8, 1801)
|
Finally, I am sympathetic to the idea
that religionists should not try to impose their private moral codes
on others outside of those who voluntarily join in their beliefs. But
dialog, of course, is okay -- better than okay.
That probably doesn't exhaust my sympathies, but the list is no
doubt revealing.
You didn't ask, but there are ways in which I am not
sympathetic as well, for instance:
I am not sympathetic to homosexuals
and self-appointed policers of political correctness making the
accusation of homophobia against people that raise moral or practical
objections to homosexual practices; although, in my observation, a
lot of so-called rational arguments against homosexuality scarcely
veil a hidden animus.
I am not sympathetic to stupidity. I suppose I should be, since
I can both be stupid and act pretty stupidly sometimes. In any case,
I am not sympathetic to a lot of the gibberish that comes out of gay
propaganda. And I am not terribly sympathetic to people who
consciously and volitionally endanger their health or the health of
others in a chronic way. I am even less sympathetic when the effect
is to increase the health care burden on others. [On the other hand,
sexuality overrides smarts quite often on the part of almost all of
us; so I can't be too unsympathetic here. Another qualification: I
don't mean to suggest that health insurance companies should be
allowed to pry into our sex lives. -- September 24,
2001]
I am not sympathetic to pure
licentiousness. Licentious passion enslaves all too easily and
thereby coopts our lives and the good that we might
accomplish. Freedom and licentiousness are all
too fungible, unless we have a moral philosophy, a way to exercise
it, the will to do so, and, perhaps also, a community of friendly
fellow travelers to hold us accountable with gentleness and
patience.
I am not particularly sympathetic to
the use of semantics in such a way that masks the real issues,
semantics like redefining the meaning of marriage. [However, the
general point cuts all ways. -- September 24,
2001]
I am not sympathetic to believers treating
moral statements about homosexuality in the sources of their
tradition lightly. On the other hand, perhaps I should be more
sympathetic, knowing something of how difficult it is to achieve
understanding.
Frankly, my interest in the subject
of homosexuality is subsidiary to my far deeper interest in
understanding the whys and wherefores of sexual morality,
particularly as drawn from the Bible. It turns out that my
investigations into homosexuality have proven fruitful to that end.
You have probably noticed that my political philosophy also informs a
good deal of what I have said here.
[snip]
Let-'Em-Aloners
|
|
What should we call "straight"
people who, for whatever reason, think that gays, lesbians,
bisexuals, and transsexuals should be left alone -- that is,
unbothered -- and that a decision regarding the morality of
their homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual behavior per se
for them should be up to them, while yet leaving room for an
ethics of sexual behavior applicable to all? How about the
Leave-'Em-Alone Crowd or, for short, the let-'em-aloners? I
suppose that let-'em-aloners would naturally divide into
three groups:
- those who think that
homosexuals and company should be left alone both in
society and in the "church."
- those who think that
homosexuals and company should be left alone in society
but not in the "church"; and,
- those who think that
homosexuals and company should be left alone both in
society and in the "church," except for the ordained
clergy of the "church."
I put quotation marks around the
word "church," to indicate that it might mean any religious
body, and particularly the religious body to which the
let-'em-aloner belongs.
-- October 3, 2001
|
Understanding Sin
Existentially
August 21, 2001, 2:32 p.m.
[snip]
Earlier I wrote: "I am convinced
that some people have a strong, abiding, and more or less intractable
attraction to some members of the same sex. Some of them even have a
revulsion to the thought of having sex with a member of the opposite
sex."
You responded: 'Respectfully, here is where I believe you
depart from the homoralist thrust of the question. This speaks to the
issue [of] whether the theory of fixed sexual orientation is well
founded..."
As I study your response, I'm trying to figure out how it is
that our toggles aren't lining up, so to speak. Perhaps part of the
problem is a Platonic versus Heraclitean view of the world or, to be
more to the point, the issue of essences versus flux. I gather that
you share an essentialist world-view with your opponents, so that if
their essentialist case for homosexuality were proved, you would be
in a box. I, on the other hand, don't. To my mind the whole physical
world is in flux -- it is both changing and mutable. That means
genes, hormones, everything. The key questions are the speed of
change, how much influence we can exert, and whether we want to.
My saying that "some people have a strong, abiding, and more or
less intractable attraction to some members of the same sex" is
merely a phenomenological description, one that is frequently
observed by psychiatrists and repeatedly confirmed by many
homosexuals. I don't know the whys and wherefores of that attraction,
although I have some ideas for exploration, as
you have seen. We have a long way to go before we get to the
bottom of the matter.
In any case, we need a satisfactory explanation of why some
people have a homosexual orientation. Merely attributing it to choice
or seduction doesn't work. Yes, many people can be socialized to
engage in homosexual practice during a period of their lives. Ancient
Sparta was a case in point. But most such people turn to and are
quite content with heterosexual practice. It's the minority that
needs to be explained, all the more so in a context where the
prevailing socialization is heterosexual in nature.
Earlier I wrote that "we are far from having the causes of
sexual preference settled." You responded: "I agree the science is
not settled here on this question."
Excellent! This is an important point of agreement.
You wrote: "But the homoralist
stance is even though we may be inclined and predisposed, that
doesn't say we do not have the will and freedom to change. Here we
may cross the line from 'science' to philosophy and consider the
simplistic issues of determinism and indeterminism in considering the
freedom of the will."
Yes, you are quite on the mark. [Except for the
"simplistic"!]
You wrote: "I rejoin the question of responsibility. For I
believe this is critical in considering the ethical question, the
reason I have come to you, an ethicist. For if we are predisposed,
then that suggests fixed sexual orientation is truth..."
Let me respond to this point later. I had a bout of insomnia
last night and then was woken up three and a half hours after falling
asleep by my teenage son, who is renovating his closet. Dipping into
the bondage-of-the-will/ freedom-of-the-will debate had better be
done when I have more wits about me.
You wrote: "we have Augustine's famous theological
interpretation of Romans 5:12."
Shucks! After a lifetime of book collecting, my set of
Augustine is still incomplete and at that very point! I suppose you
are referring to Augustine's idea that sin is a hereditary disease.
Am I right?
Well, I agree with the Reformers in rejecting that idea. I go
further and say that Adam and Eve are metaphors for humankind. In
other words, they represent humankind and their story represents an
ancient and ongoing awakening of humankind to issues of good and evil
and to a sense of alienation from the divine source of being. Their
story also represents the encounters with matters of ultimate concern
that a normal individual goes through during the stages of life. In
other words, good, evil, alienation, mortality, etc. -- all are to be
existentially understood, at least in part; and all entail the whole
person in interaction with the ultimate circumstances in which he or
she is found. (By the way, in my view this interpretation of Genesis
1-3 dovetails beautifully with Romans 5.) I doubt that any of this is
different for homosexuals, except:
- the issues may be more acute given adverse social
reactions, and
- the supposed relation of homosexual practice to alienation
from the divine calls for explanation.
My mind is grinding to a halt and I have some chores pressing,
so I will leave the rest to answer later.
Peace to you.
Moral
Responsibility
August 22, 2001, 1:22 p.m.
You wrote: "I rejoin the question
of responsibility. For I believe this is critical in considering the
ethical question, the reason I have come to you, an ethicist. For if
we are predisposed, then that suggests fixed sexual orientation is
truth, and that further suggests that one's sexual orientation is as
fixed as is the male/female designation (except as rectified by the
knife -- forgive me)."
I was wondering if we are talking about what you wanted to talk
to me about. I am glad to hear that we are.
Let me make a clear-cut distinction, one that I was building up
to in the part of my response that I sent yesterday (when I was in a
sleep-deprived fog). Predisposition, even
fixed orientation, has no necessary relation to the Christian freedom
to change -- at least, not according to the tradition of Augustine,
Luther, and Calvin. To their minds, the
unregenerate will is in bondage. It takes the supernatural action of
the Holy Spirit to enable holy living. That position left them with
the problem of moral responsibility, for how could blame be laid on
someone if in bondage?
They had answers; but, by the emergence of the modern world,
those answers were cold and unsatisfying. Freedom became the
watchword, and the mainstream of American culture came to believe in
freedom of the will with little sense of moral bondage (except,
perhaps, in the pew), the primary restrictions on the will being:
- physical,
- financial,
- psychological,
- [and, maybe, of the addictive kind]. (Addictive substances
would sometimes be counted as restrictions too, but Americans have
always been ambivalent about that, because the first use is
usually a choice.)
In the 20th century, psychologism among some of the highly
educated almost overturned belief in the will's freedom, for it
seemed that all of our decisions could be explained psychologically,
that is, as if they were all predetermined by the subconscious and
the factors that framed it. But psychologism failed to dislodge the
American belief in free will. On the contrary. For example, those who
adopted the principles of the old EST movement and many New Age
groups make it an article of faith that we can choose our future,
that we can will ourselves to be whatever we want to be. Even
Pelagius and Arminius did not go so far.
Homorality's insistence that homosexual predisposition is
either absent or unproved at best, and it's insistence upon the
freedom of everybody to be heterosexual -- meaning that
predisposition is irrelevant to the ability to change, even with
regard to the unregenerate -- sound more like New Agism than like
Luther, with respect to free will, that is.
Now allow me to change gears here, in order to undergird the
theme of the regenerate versus the unregenerate.
In at least
some of the Judaism of Jesus' day, it was understood that the
Gentiles did not live by Israelite Law, and that was okay. God gave
everybody, both Gentiles and Jews, the Noachides, a handful of
precepts that Adam and Noah were expected to live by; and they were
enough for the Gentiles to live moral lives. That meant that the
Gentiles could have widely different sexual and marital customs from
the Jews, and, up to a point anyway, that too was okay. However, the
Jews and their ancestors, the Israelites, had the Mosaic covenant and
the gift of the Mosaic Law. This Law was tied to Palestine and bound
the land to the Jewish people, so long as they observed it.
Possession and observance of the Law made them holy relative to other
peoples, but within their own ranks were those who were holier yet,
the priests. Note the concentric structure of their view of the world
-- at the center the Levites, that is, the priests; then the Holy
People; then the Gentiles.
Now when
non-Israelites were in Israelite territory (in biblical terms, the
non-Israelites being "the strangers among you") they were not
expected to adopt the whole of Mosaic Law. Rather they were expected
to adopt just enough to avoid pollution of the land and the people.
That included, among a handful of other things, adoption of key
Israelite laws regarding sex and marriage [Leviticus 18:26]. It was
the purity rules for "the strangers among you" that were carried
forward by the Council of Jerusalem to be applied to Gentile
Christians (Acts 15). Paul made a case for the
observance of each one of them in the context of a state of divine
grace, except, that is, for the ingestion of blood, which he seems
only to have alluded to in discussing the eucharist/ communion [1
Corinthians 11:27; there may be another allusion in Paul's discussion
of meat-eating in Romans 14]. With regard to the concentric circles,
Paul states his case in terms of the innermost circle, for he
considered Christian believers (or at least those to whom he was
addressing himself) to be priestly, they being members of the body of
Christ, that body being the spiritual equivalent of the physical
Temple, which the Levites then served (1 Corinthians 6:12-20). (The
word "equivalent" may be misleading. The physical Temple was
understood to signify the living organic/ spiritual Temple.)
An aside: Among
early Christians, the prohibition of the ingestion of blood had as
high a status as and possibly a higher status than the prohibition of
"a male lying with a male as a female." Both are prohibited in the
Holiness Code of Leviticus, even for "strangers" [Leviticus 17:10-13;
18:22, 26]; and both are carried into Gentile Christianity by the
Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15:20, 29]. However, the ingestion of
blood is specifically prohibited in the Noachides (Genesis 9:4),
whereas the other can at best only be inferred from them. In other
words, early Christians would be at least as appalled at Christians
today ingesting blood pudding, for instance, with no moral qualms as
they were at the thought of admitting practicing catamites into their
fellowship. Christians today rationalize their unconcern by saying
that we now know better: blood is not to be equated with life or, if
so, only symbolically; and, in any case, as Paul said, it is not what
we eat that is of concern but our consciences (1 Corinthians 8).
However, Paul was addressing idolatry, not the ingestion of blood. To
be consistent, those who appeal to the biblical prohibition of
homosexual practice must resurrect with equal passion the biblical
taboo against eating blood -- either that or explain themselves.
The Blood
Prohibition
|
|
I do not wish to leave the
impression that I think the blood taboo should be observed
in a literal way. To my mind, the essential point of Genesis
9:4 is respect for animal life. We may eat animal flesh, but
we must not disrespect animal
life.
-- October 9, 2001
|
Now to return to the main train of thought: It may well be that
the prohibition of "a male lying with a male" was understood by the
early Christians to be a Noachide. Paul seems to have made some such
connection in Romans 1, which, by the way, is cast in the past tense
from verse 21 on, referring not, in the first instance, to the Romans
of Paul's present but, in my view, to the Egyptians and Canaanites of
Leviticus 18:3 (and similar passages) as representatives of the
wicked. However, as I say, Christians have undermined the Noachides
as normative; and, in any case, a moral argument based on the
Noachides is hardly going to fly in a secular world characterized by
the protection of religious pluralism.
Where does this leave us?
On the outside concentric circle, it leaves considerable
freedom of cultural self-determination with regard to sexuality and
marriage, even under the Noachides as apparently understood by Paul.
In the absence of any force being given to the Noachides, which is
the situation in America today, we are left only with what a society
considers good for itself.
On the innermost
concentric circle, the priestly one, we are left with those who have
voluntarily taken upon themselves the obligation to observe the
sexual prohibitions adopted by the early Christians or, at least, the
spiritual principles that underlay those prohibitions as they would
work themselves out in a different context. Taking over the earth and
imposing their code wouldn't, in my view, be the objective. Rather
those believers represent the vision of the kingdom of God, which
might work itself out in any number of ways, God being the ultimate
One to determine just how and when.
Obviously there is yet the possibility of a middle circle,
which, to the chagrin of my free church leanings, has an
uncomfortable closeness to Roman Catholic sacerdotalism and which, in
any case, suggests the possibility of treating members of the clergy
differently from congregants with respect to homosexuality.
To sum up this part of my response:
- Where in the core of traditional Christian teaching does it
say that the unregenerate have the ability to overcome all their
predispositions on their own? The question of homosexuality within
the church is certainly one to be taken up by the church, but how
is it that Christians should impose their sexual code upon a
pluralistic society, much less upon the whole world, particularly
if the whole world does not share in being regenerate and thus,
supposedly, able to live up to the code?
- It seems to me that Christians as Christians (to be
distinguished from also being citizens) have but one answer to
homosexuality outside of their ranks, and that is evangelization.
However, evangelization, of course, is [another touchy subject; it
is] primarily about things other than sexuality; Christians have
yet to settle the issue of homosexuality within their own ranks;
and, in any case, those who believe that homosexuality is okay for
Christians may set up their own churches, just as some have done
(but I don't mean to imply that they should be forced to).
- As
citizens, Christians can argue on the basis of whatever it is that
makes arguments acceptable in a given society; for example, in
American society they can make utilitarian arguments. But if they
are to have any specifically Christian footing in the sphere of
society outside the church for a stand against homosexuality, then
they have to have either a way to rest on the Noachides or a
justification for imposing a holiness code designed for the
"elect" upon the whole world, neither of which they currently
have.
(I should say "we" instead of "they," but I have been trying to
speak with strict objectivity.)
Having said all of this, there is
still a dimension of your question left unanswered, namely, if we are
predisposed [speaking in the abstract, not just of homosexuality] can
we then be held responsible? [To respond at three levels:]
- God can hold us responsible, yes; at least if we have
recourse to the potter imagery that the Bible uses [Isaiah 64:8;
Jeremiah 18:2-6; Romans 9:21].
- Yes, a voluntary organization, like a church can too,
depending on its own principles.
- Society can as well, to the degree that there is a chance
that an exercise of will [on the part of a predisposed person] can
work without being internally destructive.
[However, to return to the specific issue at hand], we must
remember that effort for a heterosexual to be a heterosexual doesn't
compare at all with the effort it may take for a given homosexual to
take up heterosexuality. That could require an act of will comparable
to putting one's hand on the stove burner and never removing it. Due
credit must be given. But frankly, in my view predisposition can
impair freedom of choice. All of this, of course, is to skirt the
issue of whether a person with a homosexual predisposition should be
expected to buck it, especially if that person is unregenerate.
Well, let me send this much off. More response to come.
The Problem with
Focusing on Consequences, and Other Matters
August 22, 2001, 4:23 p.m.
You asked, "if it is your contention that a homosexual should
be protected when they have the choice, what about pedophiles and an
adulterous womanizer?"
I reiterate my stance: Government
should be restricted from interfering in either consensual sexual
relationships or consensual love relationships; furthermore it should
be called upon to protect rights, children, and property.
Adultery is none of the government's business. However,
adultery typically carries with it its own penalties at the
interpersonal level; it may call for discipline at the ecclesiastical
level, particularly when the offender is a member of the clergy; and
it may come up at Judgment Day.
Pedophilia does not count as a consensual sexual relationship,
and government should provide one of the levels of protection from
it.
Levels of
Protection from Pedophilia
|
|
I wrote of levels of protection
from pedophilia, government providing one of the levels, and
now wish to clear up any ambiguity. Here are some of the
levels I had in mind:
- Parents and other relations
should both bring to bear personal morality and provide
physical protection of children.
- Religious institutions
should provide moral teaching.
- Schools and day care centers
should have policies against the sexual molestation of
children, policies that are rigorously
enforced.
- Communities should be on the
watch. And,
- Government should provide
law and enforcement.
I did not mean to suggest that
levels of governmental protection should be reduced to
one.
-- October 10, 2001
|
I suppose it would be fair to say that most homosexuals are as
incensed about pedophilia as are most heterosexuals, perhaps even
more so because of the pedophilia charge so commonly laid against
homosexuals in general.
Is it your view that government should punish homosexual
practice?
You wrote: "sex makes a fool out of man. God knows that. David
knew. [snip] This, I believe, does really affect the homoralist
thesis."
Yes, sex can make a fool of us humans all around, from the
profligate to the prude. However, I think it unwise to think of human
sexuality per se as undignified or shameful.
I wrote: "Homorality.org asserts that
it is free of homophobia. Unfortunately it lapses into the rhetoric
of homophobia, for instance: 'Sexuality Forced on Children
[etc.].'" And you responded: "here is the
classic case of crossing the line on homophobia and homorality. And
that line is the right to criticize."
I absolutely uphold the right to criticize. I hope I have
explained my criticism adequately. Remember, I'm a neutral party,
Kinsey scale zero. Imagine how others might take what was
written.
You asked, "Why is a homoralist a homophobe when critically
insisting ... [that the notion of a fixed sexual orientation] is not
true?"
A homoralist is not a homophobe for challenging the idea of
fixed sexual orientation.
I wrote: "Speaking of sex ed and as
an aside, the homorality site says that 'Human sexuality must be
taught with a moral curriculum stressing consequences.' I should
point out that this is a utilitarian approach to morality, which at
best has an uneasy alliance with either biblical or duty-based
moralities."
You then asked: "What is wrong with this? I certainly do not
trace it exclusively to a utilitarian approach."
Two points:
First, if a utilitarian ethic is used, then as soon as a
utilitarian solution to a "consequence" comes along, the ethic can be
changed. The consequence is pregnancy, then take a birth control
pill. The consequence is venereal disease, then take an antibiotic.
The consequence is AIDS, then wear a condom. And so on and so on.
Change is not quite so easy with biblical or duty-based
moralities.
Second, when different types of
ethics are mixed, they can do each other in. Let me give you an
example: I think it is a mistake to create legal consequences for
sexual behavior that is [considered] immoral on religious grounds in
order to discourage people from engaging in it ostensibly just
because of those [legal] consequences. That is to use a utilitarian
or consequentialist principle for the sake of a religious ethic,
thereby undermining both the principle and the ethic.
In most formulations of biblical and duty-based ethics,
consequences are taken into account. However, stressing consequences
in an isolated fashion is pure utilitarianism, especially in a public
context that, for public policy purposes, recognizes little else but
utility and political expediency, which, for that matter, is also a
form of utility.
You asked, "do I give up my right to
criticize by being cast as a homophobe?"
No, but I would urge sensitivity.
I wrote: "At first glance it appears
that homorality advocates freedom for people to engage in homosexual
practices. But then the 'as proscribed by law, etc.' throws the
entire issue back into the vortex. [Etc.]"
You responded: "Homoral belief asserts homosexuals have the
choice; that the sexual orientation is not fixed; that if a
homosexual has the will to change, then he may do so; that a
homosexual, knowing he or she has the choice, should be happy with
it. Most homoralists agree that the homosexual has this freedom and
should not, as an example, claim misery because they are what they
are, while attending Gay Pride events celebrating their
lifestyle..."
My question was driving at your legal philosophy.
As for misery and pride, I don't know if there is any group of
people that can't claim both.
You wrote: "I think you may have misinterpreted the intent
here."
Yes, quite likely. Perhaps it helps you to see how someone else
might read it.
You wrote: "the government through the courts will rule on
this."
The "this" that the courts will rule on is fixed sexual
orientation?
You wrote: "A number of people that
I know specifically have changed from heterosexual to homosexual. A
number are also claiming to be bisexual. This is evident and proven."
By "this" you mean that some people have changed?
[snip]
The Homorality
Principle
August 22, 2001, 4:23 p.m.
You wrote:
"a homoralist has the right to be critical of homosexuals and their
agenda without being cast as a homophobe or being called homophobic.
The criticisms by homoralists may be challenged, as you are doing in
your excellent reply. But the allegation that they are homophobic
responses is the key point. For they drape the argument with an
appeal to a hostile attack that puts those who are critical on the
defensive, that their argument, per se, is flawed with bigotry and
intolerance. I trust you understand this point?"
Oh, yes, and I agree totally, so long as homoralists don't
cross the line into homophobia and so long as they don't use rhetoric
that inflames homophobia. To have fun with mixing metaphors: The
umbrella for dialog should be a two-way street where the traffic
rules apply in both directions. Of course, people expressing opinions
are much like cats, which can't be bothered with traffic regulations
-- present company excepted, of course. There's no point in seeing
red just because one is accused of homophobia. :)
I posed this question: "on what basis is
it conceded that the Bible would not condemn 'a male lying
with a male as with a woman' if the orientation is fixed and not a
choice? Don't forget that the Bible presents the ban
approvingly, that is, the unmitigated slaughter of people -- men,
women, children, and infants included -- on the basis of their
belonging to a disfavored nation that happened to be in the way."
You answered: "On the basis that the Bible is God's revealed
Word, for the many who believe it is. The testimony of the Bible on
homosexuality is not the question here. But if it is, I will be happy
to speak to it in a separate email."
I think you misread my question. There is a "not" in there. It
looks like you thought I said exactly the opposite of what I did say;
and that, indeed, would have been drivel. But the question as I
actually framed it, leads to a point about God's absolute sovereignty
-- as the potter has over the clay [Jeremiah 18] -- and to a
theological pilgrimage regarding the nature of goodness, particularly
God's goodness.
You wrote: "mankind is essentially
dimorphic, that is male and female, and that point is not only made
in the Bible, it is an essential biological fact."
Well, as you can tell from what I have written, we disagree on
the biblical point. I am afraid that I disagree on the scientific
point as well. Dimorphism is a general characterization of what is
observed. So is polymorphism, or the view that there is a spectrum of
human sexes. Dimorphism is in the position of having to recognize
exceptions, for instance hermaphrodites and transexuals. Polymorphism
is in the position of being able to encompass the exceptions without
having to force them into any category. However, it is also in the
position of having to recognize the preponderance of two sexes and
their significance for the propagation of the species.
You wrote: "But proceed with the understanding that what
science has not proven, or is contended, may be open to
criticism."
Of course. Everything is open to criticism.
You wrote: "I am critical of homosexuals
who claim their homosexuality is a gift from God and is not sinful.
The corroborating witness of the Bible on sin and the issue of
homosexuality are clear to me although not accepted by homosexual
activists."
Why, in your view, is homosexuality regarded as a sin in the
Bible?
You wrote: "I disagree with the
above 'contextual' argument as a Christian and a homoralist, but I
admit that even another homoralist may disagree with me on this
point. For I believe there is nothing different today compared to
ages past on the issue of homosexuality except in the real context of
sexual promiscuity evident today and as exploited by the mass
media."
Certainly you agree that the social context has radically
changed. If the rule is to whip your transportation to make it go,
that may work in the age of donkeys but it's not likely to in the age
of automobiles; in fact, it may cause damage. It's possible for a
change of context to turn a sensible rule into a meaningless and even
harmful one.
As for the difference between biblical times and today, I'm
sure that you are aware of the thesis of John Boswell and others that
the homosexuality prohibited in the Bible does not cover all the
forms of homosexuality seen
today.1
You
wrote: "It may surprise you :-) that even all homoralists do not
agree on everything, except one point! And that is the basic right to
criticize homosexuals and their agenda without being cast as
homophobes."
I agree with that point, so long as there is not a homophobic
animus or rhetoric at play and so long as due sensitivity is
exercised. Does that make me a homoralist after all?
You wrote: "your line of reasoning and rationale that follows
remind me of the many books I have read citing the same arguments
written by homosexual activists. I do not mean to offend you by this
statement or to dismiss your argument."
No offense. I've learned from all kinds of sources. However,
most of the influence upon me that I am able to identify has come by
way of my critique of whatever reasoning is presented. (As you have
seen, my critiques can be pretty tough.) So my point of view is
informed much more by my long and close association with
conservatives than by my reading of the likes of Foucault and
Bosworth and so on. In any case, as far as I know, the way I put all
of this together is completely original.
[snip]
You asked: "I have come to you as being a leading expert in
sexual ethics. Are you one?"
That's yet to be established. I've kept most of my work close
to home. But I've been working on the subject for so long and with
such rigor that it would be hard for most people to catch up without
a lot of help.
You asked for ten points from me that
address sexual ethics.I'll need time to think about that. I'd be glad
to take a look at your ten points, if you like. Meanwhile I'll send
what I have written here.
[snip]
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1 Among
the works that argue that the New Testament is talking about
limited forms of homosexuality or about other deeds
altogether are:
- Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western
Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the
Fourteenth Century,
[by] John Boswell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1980). Boswell argued that Romans 1:26-27 refers to
heterosexuals going against their nature by engaging in
homosexual acts (p. 109) and that other New Testament
passages often supposed to refer to homosexuals actually
refer to male prostitutes (p. 344). For one trenchant
critique, see: "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A
Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," [by]
Richard B. Hayes, in
The Journal of
Religious Ethics; v.
14, no. 1 (spring 1986): pp. 184-215.
- The New Testament and
Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary
Debate, [by] Robin
Scroggs (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, c1983). Scroggs
argued that the sort of homosexuality opposed by the New
Testament was "the love and use of boys or youths by
adult males" (p. vii; cf. pp. 121-122, 138-139).
|
Authority and Sin
August 22, 2001, 9:22 p.m.
You wrote: "There has never been such an
interpretation that recognizes same sex relations as loving. The
Bible clearly never speaks to such a concept."
So if there is a loving homosexual relationship (as some
homosexuals claim theirs to be), then the Bible does not speak to it?
What was it that the Bible saw in "a male lying with a female
as with a male" that was necessarily opposed to love? Can that be
answered without being anachronistic?
By the way, I have seen many recognitions from various
Christian camps that same sex relations can be loving.
You asserted that "Scripture clearly
presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity."
Here you are using an appeal to authority without expressing a
spiritual understanding of what lies behind that authority.
You wrote that "Disobedience to God in the form of homosexual
practice may be a trivial sin compared to the teaching that it is not
sin."
And failure to understand leads to endless mischief. [We have
here reminiscences of Pascal's Wager, which has been trenchantly
critiqued. -- September 24, 2001]
Pascal's Wager:
The Short Form
|
|
"I should be much more afraid of
making a mistake and discovering that the Christian religion
is true, than of not making a mistake by believing it to be
true."
From
Pascal's
Pensees, translated with
an introduction by Martin Turnell (New York: Harper, c1962):
§36 = Lafuma (1963) 387 = Brunschvicg 241 = Chevalier
458.
For the long form of the Wager, see
Turnell 343 = Lafuma (1963) 418 = Brunschvicg 233 =
Chevalier 451.
|
You wrote: "We have failed to understand the meaning of sin and
love [etc.]"
It is the understanding of both love and why certain things are
identified as sins that I am after.
You quoted John Stott as saying that
"God established that the only context which he intended for the 'one
flesh' experience is heterosexual monogamy..."
I respect John Stott but think that he is wrong in the way that
he frames this argument for heterosexual monogamy. An argument for
monogamy CAN be drawn from the Bible. [Monogamy-only is another
matter. -- October 9, 2001] But Genesis was the
product of a polygynist culture and was used for its Scripture,
without having any moral problem with polygyny. Jesus was talking
about divorce, not monogamy, and was doing so in a culture that
assumed polygyny. (See my posted book on
divorce.) And Paul made absolutely clear that a man could have
oneness with any number of women (1 Corinthians 6). It was the
historical evaluation of arguments like Stott's that led me to an
opposite position.
You wrote: "I suspect you may have
selected a particular feature of Romans 1:24-27 on the lesbian point
to apparently undermine the truth of the whole section of 1:18-32!
For if you prevail on the lesbian point, you prevail on the
homosexual attack against these verses."
No, no! Totally untrue. You miss my whole point. I do not deny
that Paul is condemning "a male lying with a male as with a woman."
And I even alluded to a historical example of
how a prohibition of lesbian activity can be given a different
ground. As for "prevailing," my point is simply a historical
exegetical point. That may serve as a datum for a contemporary ethic,
but it is not determinative. Please read me carefully. Sometimes my
arguments seem to evoke others you have heard, and so you respond to
them, not to me.
You wrote: "Respectfully, your
analysis on this is flawed. In considering your comments on
lesbianism generally compared to the total message of Romans 1:24-27,
I take an expanded view of the critical verses in Romans by citing
the authority of other renowned theologians..."
You are again using only arguments from authority. Such
arguments are neither compelling nor convincing.
[snip]
You asked: "Are the comments of the
following eminent theologians homophobic as they also assess Romans
1:24-27 and your interpretation of the lesbian indictment?"
I am not accusing the theologians you quote of homophobia. And,
so far as I know, none of them has encountered my interpretation of
Romans 1:26.
You refer to Charles Hodge, who "states this [the indictment in
Romans 1] is not confined to 'one class or sex.'"
I have said the same to you. In my
interpretation, Romans 1:26 is meant to be evocative of all the
sexual lapses of women mentioned in the Holiness Code.
You quoted D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, James D.G. Dunn, John
MacArthur Jr., Charles Hodge, and John Stott. None of the quotations
you provided speaks to the issue of lesbianism in Romans 1:26.
However, I readily concede that I am alone in my interpretation. I
haven't released all the evidence to the world at large yet. [It is
being prepared for posting.
-- October 10, 2001] I am not alone, however, in denying that
the passage is talking about
lesbianism.1
By the way, Bernadette Brooten, a feminist scholar, accepts the
traditional interpretation of Romans 1:26 as referring to lesbianism
(or she used to) and uses that as the basis for accusing Paul of
bigotry, for he then would be making a new law on his own authority.
[This appears to have been an incorrect
statement.2
-- October 31, 2001]
You commented: "When considering these
authorities, I ask, respectfully, are you serious that I take your
opinion and consider it authoritative?"
Absolutely not! Heaven forfend! I don't want to be cited as the
authoritative word! I want the evidence and arguments that I present
to be taken seriously and evaluated fairly on their merits. I am a
scholar and philosopher, not an oracle.
Regarding my references to the
sexual regulations in Leviticus, I note that you do not speak to the
apparent inconsistency in traditionalism.
By the way, if you were paying close attention to my
examples, you might have observed the
connection I was bringing out between Leviticus 18-21 and 1
Corinthians 5-7. I think that 1 Corinthians 5-7 is a christological
midrash on the Leviticus passage -- in other words, a commentary
rabbinic in nature but Christ-centered.
You said to me: "you miss or avoid the point in understanding
the issue of sin and meaning of Christ's salvation. You recite
specifics such as a lawyer (a legalist) would do without the
perspective gained by Christ's wisdom."
Au
contraire! As I specifically said earlier,
Paul was making a case for the Council of Jerusalem's decision in the
context of a theology of grace. However much we may speak of Law
versus gospel, letter versus spirit, works versus free grace, and
bondage versus Christian freedom, we still have to reckon with Paul's
enjoinment of certain sexual and other prohibitions. My argument is
that Christ's wisdom calls for understanding, not authoritarian
supposition. It is authoritarian supposition that falls readily into
legalism, doing things by the letter, a "works" mentality, and
bondage.
I wrote: "Judging from responses to my
Sexual Ethics Test, which is posted
at my Web site, the incest taboos of the Bible are almost dead, even
among believers. So how can the homosexuality taboo be so loudly
argued for when the others, which have equal status, languish?"
You responded: "You reach this
conclusion without differentiating the issue of sinful conduct and
the truth gained by the sanctifying walk with the Holy Spirit (Romans
6). You are weighing facts and concluding truths by measuring the
conduct of the world with data you solicit and gather through your
Web site. Do you understand the fallacy here?"
Responses to my Web site hardly
constitute a valid statistical sample. I did not mean to suggest
otherwise. That would have been a fallacy! But my point stands.
Judging from exegesis of the Council of Jerusalem's decision [Acts
15:20, 29] and Paul's statement on incest in 1 Corinthians 5, in the
minds of the Apostles the incest taboo had equal standing with the
male homosexual activity taboo.
Your phrase, "the truth gained by the
sanctifying walk with the Holy Spirit" seems to suggest that you have
a mystical approach to ethical knowledge.
[snip]
You wrote:
"You may deem that homorality, tradition, and Biblical teaching are
in conflict, but I do not. Nor do I deem that the weight of Christian
testimony, which you ignore, contributes to the conflict."
That is a circular argument. Of course
Christian tradition agrees with itself! As for ignoring it, hardly!
You forget that I am writing a history of sexual ethics. What's more,
as I said, I have a deep and abiding respect for Christian tradition.
It's just that that is not where my loyalty lies. It is rather to
truth and company.
As for my comments on the Bible versus tradition, they were
historical comments. They were not ethical conclusions. I draw a
sharp distinction and see a lot of territory to travel between
history and contemporary ethics. In fact, that may explain part of
the difference between us. I probably see a lot more distance there
than you do. In any case, I don't particularly fault Christian
traditionalism for having traveled the "fer piece" that I suggest it
has -- not per se. I have no desire to see a revival of the marriage
customs of the Hebrews.
You wrote: "only truth is the test."
I agree that truth is the standard.
You wrote: "You appear to reach with an argument that
substantiates your predetermined conclusion. You appear to have made
a judgment and found the arguments and data to support it; judgment
first, substantiating data and argument second. Does this not
undermine the credibility of your arguments?"
I hope I have acquitted myself
already of that charge; but, if not, I deny it. On the contrary, I
have attempted to construct and have then torn down model after model
of how the sexual ethic of the Bible might be supposed to work and
how it should apply to the present day, so much so that it became a
stock saying with me that I live in the rubble of my own
systems. Finally I decided to focus on
lesbianism in the Bible, because that was something about which I was
able, at the time, to be absolutely objective. It touched me not at
all, whereas heterosexuality was too hot a matter for me to be
completely objective and male homosexuality too repulsive (a
gut-level emotion [regarding acts, not persons] that I have been
working to quell). Cracking that nut at last gave me a glimpse of
what was going on in biblical thought. When you look for my
"sympathies" supposing that they control the direction of my academic
investigation, you misunderstand the development of my thought.
By the way, I started off pretty close to where you are.
You wrote: "You observe the conduct of the world and you
attempt to corroborate it with the Bible's teaching, assuming that
the sinful conduct described in the Bible justifies the sinful
conduct of those measured in your data. It doesn't!"
No, corroboration and justification are not my concerns. Truth,
beauty, goodness, faith, hope, and love are.
You wrote: "Your argument is
consistently bogus in a theological sense, for the Christian message
and the tradition of Christianity neither support what you say nor
deny that the sin of homosexuality is anything but what it has been
held to be over many millennia".
Being at odds with tradition doesn't make an exegetical,
historical, ethical, or theological argument bogus. Further,
as I said, to say that tradition agrees with
itself is a circular argument. Actually, of course, tradition has
internal disagreement all over the place.
You quoted the Catholic
Catechism as saying: "homosexual acts... are contrary to the
natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do
not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."
Ah, at last real reasons are adduced! Would you care to
elaborate in your own words?
You wrote that "Even Evangelicals agree with the Catholic
statement."
No, a lot of Evangelicals disagree with Roman Catholic natural
law theory -- as do I, respectfully. And
you can find some Evangelicals who will disagree with any or even all
points.
You wrote: "Homosexual conduct is clearly
unrighteous and is condemned in Scripture.... your version of the
truth, as you state it, is clearly contradictory with Scripture's
message."
I beg your pardon, but that is the question at issue in this
part of our dialog, the meaning of the Scripture message, both in its
own time and for ours. [For scriptural discussion, see
below.]
You said that my version of the truth "clearly is an apparent
repeat of the homosexual line by homosexual activists."
Can't be. They don't know it. And many, maybe most of them
accept the traditionalist line regarding the meaning of
Scripture.
You added that "It completely ignores the issue of sin, the joy
of obedience, and the walk with the Holy Spirit ..., the transforming
power of Christ..."
On the contrary, in the course of our discussion I have raised
several issues regarding sin and obedience, for instance the Noachide
regarding blood; and I have suggested that
understanding is an important part of "the
walk with the Holy Spirit." I also raised and spoke to the issue of
regeneration, although that was in a more
recent message [than the one here being responded to].
[snip]
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1 For an
example, see "The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or
Heterosexual?" by James E. Miller, in
Novum
Testamentum; v. 37,
fasc. 1 (January 1995): pp. [1]-11. Miller concludes: "There
is little reason to read Romans 1:26 as a reference to
female homosexuality and strong reason to understand Paul's
comments as a rejection of some or all unnatural
(non-coital) heterosexual intercourse, the type of
intercourse used in verse 27" (p. 11). I agree with the
first part of the statement and utterly disagree with the
second part, for several reasons, among them:
- Miller's interpretation would
in effect be to have Paul casting a relational law
(Leviticus 18:22) as one about physicality.
- Miller's interpretation would
have Paul creating a new law, one about physicality; and
such a law would give sufficient appearance of
inconsistency with his subsequent statement that "in the
Lord Jesus ... nothing is unclean in itself" (Romans
14:14) as to require explanation. (Cf. "To the pure, all
things are pure," Titus 1:15). This is to say nothing of
Paul's theological effort to move beyond the Law (see for
example, Romans 7:6).
- Miller fails to discern the
structure of the passage or to take into account the
likelihood that the word meaning "in like manner" (Romans
1:27) is to be understood broadly and not specifically,
just as it must be in Jude 7.
- Miller's evidence that Paul's
framework of thought would have cast oral or anal
intercourse as uniformly unnatural is weak. He relies
entirely upon supposed Greco-Roman attitudes. Even so,
the only evidence he adduces of oral or anal intercourse
being regarded as unnatural is Herodotus,
Histories
1.61; but the form of intercourse is not specified and
the word for either natural or unnatural, though
sometimes read into the text by translators, is not even
used!
- An interpretation more
consistent with Paul's framework of thought
is
available.
|
|
2 I have
retraced my steps and not found an accusation of bigotry
against Paul by Bernadette Brooten. Most probably over the
years my mind conflated her association of Paul's teaching
in Roman's 1:26-27 as influencing fundamentalist groups in
their opposition to an anti-discrimination right for
lesbians and gay men, and her assertion that "Paul's
thinking about women was culturally conditioned by his
environment." See the following article:
- "Paul's Views on the Nature of
Women and Female Homoeroticism," [by] Bernadette J.
Brooten, in:
Immaculate &
Powerful: The Female in Sacred Image and Social
Reality, edited by
Clarissa W. Atkinson, Constance H. Buchanan, and Margaret
R. Miles (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, c1985; in:
The Harvard Women's
Studies in Religion
Series): pp. 61-87,
specifically 61 and 63.
Other works of hers that I have at
hand include:
- "Patristic Interpretations of
Romans 1:26," [by] Bernadette J. Brooten, in:
Studia Patristica
XVIII; v. 1 (1985):
pp. 287-291.
- "Early Christian Women and
Their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical
Reconstruction," [by] Bernadette J. Brooten, in:
Feminist Perspectives
on Biblical
Scholarship, Adela
Yarbro Collins, editor (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press,
c1985; in series:
Biblical Scholarship
in North America; no.
10): pp. [65]-91.
- Love Between Women: Early
Christian Responses to Female
Homoeroticism, [by]
Bernadette J. Brooten (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996; in: The
Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and
Society)
|
Dialog, The Interpretive
Process, and Homosexuality in the Church
August 27, 2001, 1:01 p.m.
Hello, I have just returned from the Berkshires, where I stayed
with a small group of people in an antique rented house, which, it
turns out, is owned by a gay couple (not part of the group). Among
other activities, we discussed various issues, including
homosexuality.
Naturally, I mentioned homorality and its central idea that a person
should be able to criticize homosexuality without being called a
homophobe. A couple of the people who were there are affiliated with
Union Theological Seminary in New York -- they are the friends who
invited me -- and their reaction was instructive. It ran along these
lines: "How can it possibly be that criticism of homosexuality is not
homophobic, given that some people are born with a homosexual
orientation? Of course it is homophobic!" Until then I suppose I had
thought of the homorality principle as rather overly sensitive and
defensive in nature, basically a plea for courtesy. Now I see it as
(unfortunately) being at the crux of the current debate, for the
charge itself and the assumptions it entails preclude a serious
dialog between various sides, each with important arguments and major
vulnerabilities. To stand for that one homorality principle is to
stand for keeping open a serious dialog.
[snip]
You wrote: "the believing homosexual is a
liar if he/she believes their homosexuality is not sin (Romans
1:26-27; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10;
Genesis 19:1-9; Judges 22:19 [i.e. 19:22-24]; 1 Kings 14:24; Jude 7;
and 1John 1:6-10)."
Do beware of throwing Scripture
verses at people like marbles. Every word, sometimes every letter may
be weighty relative to the issue at hand and may require careful
attention, including grammatical, historical, and other forms of
exegesis, plus the hermeneutical enterprise of relating it across
thousands of years of history and social change to our present.
What seems at first certain and firm becomes, by the very
process of interpretation, less so, which is exactly what is supposed
to happen. For sacred text is not supposed to make automatons of us,
rather people of judgment, discretion, and maturity.
Often as we dig deeper, all our assumptions are blown away, and
all the more so after we learn that the scouring of pre-conceived
notions is, likewise, just what is supposed to happen. For then, if
we are spiritually prepared to be receptive listeners of the text, we
consciously cooperate in the process. With the removal of
preconceptions, some of the greatest obstacles that hinder our
approach to true meaning are removed. This, by the way, is a task
more difficult than mastering Hebrew and Greek and a large mass of
what can be known about the social and literary background of the
Bible. In fact, ideally it should encompass such tasks.
There are times too when the
apparent meaning or expected application of a text is turned right on
its head. Perhaps of all processes, this is the most disconcerting.
Yet, again, that is what is supposed to happen. For deep in the heart
of Scripture is an overturning power, one that operates persistently.
Scripture will not be tamed, not by the individual whom it surprises
and convicts; not even by traditionalism, which it continually
unsettles, undermines, and subjects to revolution. So long as we
struggle to understand Scripture on its own terms, it keeps pushing
and challenging us. If we do not experience that effect, it is
because we have a veil between us and Scripture; and the plushest
veil of all is that of traditional interpretation.
For the people of the Book, for the canonical community, the
process of deep engagement with Scripture is itself part of the
message. Prooftexting slights that message.
You wrote: "homosexuals... have the
basic issue that homosexuality is a sin!!! I understand you do not
believe this!"
Huh? Where did I say that? I keep making phenomenological,
historical, and political remarks, which seem erroneously to be taken
as ethical conclusions. Let me give you in a nutshell what I have
been trying to convey:
- I believe in toleration. Just as
the West has learned religious toleration (alas, through centuries
of horrible convulsion), so should we learn toleration of a
plurality of private moralities. Just because a religion is
considered wrong, does that mean it shouldn't be tolerated? Of
course not! Likewise with a private morality. To tolerate, by the
way, is not to condone; that is, unless one is tolerating within
oneself a violation of one's own moral code.
- I believe
that we must exercise deep humility with regard to things we think
we know, but even more so with regard to things we don't. Two
things we don't know:
- We don't know the precise
sources or exact nature of sexual orientation. We do not even
know how general or individual they are.
- We don't know the operative
principle underlying the prohibition of "a male lying with a
male as with a female" [Leviticus 18:22], which is the key text
on homosexuality from which nearly all others in the Bible
derive.
That's my message so far in a nutshell. Now I feel a compulsion
to break out of nutshell confinement and elaborate a bit on the last
point.
We all too readily assume tons; but we don't know what problem
the prohibition of "a male lying with a male as with a female"
addressed in context; neither do we know its reason, its scope, or
its precise meaning.
As an instance of the last, we don't
know the meaning of the qualifier, "as with a female." Biologically
speaking, the qualifier is nonsensical, since a male does not have
female reproductive organs. (I'm leaving aside intersexed persons,
for the moment. Or could it be that intersexed persons were meant?)
If the biological interpretation is nonsensical:
- Might the qualifier then mean, "as your 'inferior'
partner"? (Remember the patriarchalism of the age.)
- Might it mean, "so as not to usurp the property rights of
the female?" (Remember the close ties of sex, marriage, land, and
inheritance in ancient Israel.)
- [Might it mean "following the same kinship
restrictions as with a woman"? -- November 10,
2001]
- Or might it mean something even more
alien to us, for instance: so as not to risk spawning monsters.
(Philo, the First Century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, gave
that as a rationale for the prohibition of bestiality [see
De Specialibus Legibus 3.45].)
[Note: Conceivably the qualifier is simply a helping phrase.
Since the verb "to lie down" (shakab) can mean either
simply to lie down or to copulate, perhaps the phrase "as with a
woman" was intended to indicate the sexual sense. However, there
are several problems with this interpretation:
- The context makes a helping phrase unnecessary;
- Drawing sexual parallels between men and women was alien
to the culture. Exception: When the image of God as husband was
used, the Israelites or some group of them would be portrayed
as female; for example, Ezekiel 23. But this was a case of
spinning metaphors and of making analogies for abstract
purposes, not of drawing tangible parallels.
- Interpreting the phrase, "as with a woman," to invoke a
general idea of sexuality may be anachronistic; for the Hebrews
did not construct the idea as we do.
- The question of the precise significance of the phrase
still arises, for the parameters are unclear. --
November 8, 2001]
Even when it comes to the New Testament, we are left unclear as
to the apostolic interpretation of the qualifier. At least some of
the time, it seems, the application of the prohibition was to males
using male inferiors in a sexual way [Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9;
and 1 Timothy 1:10; see below].
In the post-biblical period, some Jews employed a "fence"
around this law, adopting an expansive interpretation of the
qualifier. Some second and later generation Christians did
essentially the same thing, just using different terms. In the case
of those Christians who won the power plays vis à vis other
Christians, such an approach suited their ascetical temperament and
body-negative theology.
The upshot: Not knowing the operative principle, we can at best
suppose how the prohibition should apply. If we figure out a likely
operative principle, we might be able to do a little better than just
suppose. [See below for an attempt.] In any case,
application is a concern chiefly of people who claim to be people of
the Book; to others it matters only if convicted at heart.
Hmmm, perhaps I am
wrong. Perhaps we should exercise the deeper humility with regard
to the things we think we know.
Is homosexual practice a sin in the biblical sense? Yes, at
least some kind of it, somewhere, sometime, somehow. However, as much
as this statement is driving towards an ethical conclusion, it is not
one. There are yet too many other considerations to take into
account, for instance, whether there is any validity to the
progressivist framework, which says that the Bible reflects a stage
in our moral evolution. A more significant consideration to me: The
affirmation [that at least some homosexual practice is sinful], such
as it is, has yet to be sufficiently elaborated with regard to truth,
beauty, goodness, faith, hope, and, especially, love.
You wrote: "The issue [of homosexuality]
is pretty much settled in the Mormon church, in the Catholic Church,
and in the Baptist and Evangelical faiths. Presbyterians, Lutherans,
Episcopalians, and Methodists are facing major schisms over the
issue."
I think that many American Baptists would be surprised at your
statement. Nevertheless, you seem to have sketched out a pattern.
Interesting, isn't it, that the most hierarchical churches on the one
hand and the freest on the other are those that have supposedly
settled the issue. In hierarchical bodies, people feel free to ignore
the hierarchy. In free churches, authority doesn't matter; minority
opinions have as much standing as majority ones. It is in those
denominations where there is some check on both hierarchy and pure
congregational rule that turmoil is most being manifested.
Frankly, however, I don't agree
that the issue is settled anywhere in the church. This is the first
age in church history where sexual issues have come to the fore, and
the encrustation is two millennia deep. Even without the issues of
homosexuality in the West, and Christian polygamy in Africa, and
growing polyamory in the English and German-speaking worlds, and
over-population world-wide, and celibacy in the Roman Catholic
church, and the implications of effective contraception, and the
recognition that imposing a particular sexual morality can be
destructive of a culture, and all the rest, it is time both for
reevaluation and for openness to ecclesiastical reformation in the
area of sexuality. Typically when an issue this big comes to the
forefront, it takes several centuries for the church to resolve
it.
In any case, I think that people of faith are better off
dialoging about these issues together rather than pursuing a
schismatic path. Of course, any group is free to set up its own
church. But it's a shame that a church should be defined -- defined,
mind you -- by a stand on sexuality rather than by its struggle to
love, when the livery of the true church is love (to allude to a
famous sermon by Hugh Latimer, who died [in fact, was burned at the
stake for his beliefs] in 1555).
Hugh Latimer on
the Livery of Christ
|
|
"Our Savior saith, 'By this
shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one
another.' [John 13:35]
"So Christ makes love His
cognizance, His badge, His livery. Like as every lord
commonly gives a certain livery to his servants, whereby
they may be known that they pertain unto him; and so we say,
yonder is this lord's servants, because they wear his
livery: so our Savior, who is the Lord above all lords,
would have His servants known by their liveries and badge,
which badge is love alone. Whosoever now is endued with love
and charity is His servant; him we may call Christ's
servant; for love is the token whereby you may know that
such a servant pertaineth to Christ; so that charity may be
called the very livery of Christ."
From: "On Christian Love ... John
xv., 12," [by Hugh] Latimer, in
The World's Great
Sermons, compiled by
Grenville Kleiser; introduction by Lewis O. Brastow (New
York: Funk & Wagnalls, v. 1, c1908): pp. [145]-158,
specifically p. 148.
The illustration is from
Actes and Monuments
..., gathered and
collected ... by Iohn Foxe (London: Iohn Day, 1563), as
reproduced in The English
Church in the Sixteenth
Century, by Craig R.
Thompson (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1958; in
series: Folger Booklets
on Tudor and Stuart
Civilization): p. 29.
Although digitized at 600 dpi, many of the fine lines of the
original were omitted by the scanner. The header reads: "A
description of Maister Latimer, preaching before Kyng Edward
the syxt, in the preachyng place at Westminster." Edward VI
reigned from 1547 to 1553.
|
Now, with regard to the document you wrote on the Episcopal
situation, "The Loss of Salvation - The Consequence of ECUSA's
Apostasy and Schism":
Loss of salvation, apostasy -- all
of that is part of what is being debated. To make the charge is to
close off the dialog just as much as the blanket charge of homophobia
does.
One more point about loss of salvation: There is nothing about
the homosexuality prohibition that makes it stand out relative to
many other biblical prohibitions or to the possibility of grace. Both
many Christians and many Christian institutions are guilty of
countless sins. We are confronted with the speck and beam issue
again.
In your document, you wrote: "A dark cloud is cast over all of
Christendom. The flagship Episcopal Church's 2.4 million member
denomination, called ECUSA, has become apostate and is schismatic as
a result."
Who is schismatic -- the pro-homosexual crowd that wants to
remain within the church or the anti-homosexual crowd that wants
either to kick them out or break away? This reminds me a lot of the
1970s debate over charismatics in the church. Charismatics within a
long-established denomination were called schismatic by those who
would not accept them, even when the intention of charismatics was
neither to break away nor to disturb. Is it
being unacceptable to others that is schismatic or is it
intolerance? I say that love, a mutual
willingness to submit to God's will and mercy, and ongoing dialog
where serious questions can be raised should override both
intransigence and intolerance.
In that document, you wrote: "ECUSA is drifting into a belief
system supporting the United Religions Initiative (URI) that holds
there are many ways to God besides Jesus Christ. Obviously, such
belief denies the 'faith once held' and God's supreme revelation in
Jesus Christ so critical and fundamental to Christian belief."
Beware the word "obviously." The theological issues are deep
and complex, as, for instance, the "Wider Hope" movement has
demonstrated in hefty tomes.
The Wider
Hope
|
|
The "Wider Hope" view is that
some who are not explicitly Christian in this life may
nevertheless be
saved.1
Some formulations of the Wider
Hope view build on a proposition such as the following,
which is from the First
Apology of Justin, the
Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165):
"We have been taught
that Christ is the First-begotten of God, and have
previously testified that he is the Reason
[Logos]
of which every race of man partakes. Those who lived in
accordance with Reason are Christians, even though they were
called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and
Heraclitus and others like them ... So also those who lived
without Reason were ungracious and enemies to Christ, and
murderers of those who lived by Reason. But those who lived
by Reason, and those who so live now, are
Christians..."2
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1
For elaboration, see:
No Other Name:
An Investigation into the Destiny of the
Unevangelized,
[by] John Sanders (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1992).
|
|
2
Justin Martyr,
First
Apology 46. As
translated in
Early Christian
Fathers, newly
translated and edited by Cyril C. Richardson
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953; in series:
The Library of
Christian
Classics; v.
1): p. 272.
|
|
In that document, you wrote: "Both of
these actions, the denial of sin as manifested in the denial of
homosexuality, and the denial of Christ's authority, are two
repudiations of the most basic Christian teachings. Apostasy is the
conclusive result."
The homosexuality prohibition is not one of the most basic
Christian teachings. It is part way off towards the periphery,
albeit, in early Christian teaching, sufficiently serious as part and
parcel with the other sexual prohibitions and certain other sins to
have a bearing on the cultic purity of the church and the
individual's participation in the Kingdom of God.
In that document, you wrote: "What is the further evidence of
the ECUSA's schismatic apostasy? It occurs at a central and precious
sacrament of the liturgy. The apostasy is exemplified at the Cup.
ECUSA admits unrepentant homosexuals into the Church and allows them
to continually take the Cup without the confession of their sin."
This is partly an issue of ecclesiology. But I
already raised that issue in my discussion of
concentric circles of obligation.
In that document, you wrote: "In the
context of this teaching's application in ECUSA, idolatry means a
blind or excessive devotion to an unsubstantiated belief system that
contradicts Scripture as cited herein."
This is part of what I was addressing
above when I spoke of submission to the will
and mercy of God. In my view, the blind and excessive devotion
applies to both sides.
In that document, you wrote: "If ECUSA is correct in its
position, then the Scriptures and Christianity are a myth. After all,
isn't that what the Bishop Spong and his followers believe?"
In my view, fear should not be the basis of a moral admonition,
especially not fear of a dissipation of group self-identity. Such
fear is implicit in the "if-then" statement above.
In that document, you wrote: "One should take heed of this
message, to heed the truth and consequence of ECUSA's schismatic
apostasy, the loss of God's salvation to everyone -- bishops, clergy
and laity -- who by their belief and witness condone the church's
error."
Again the rhetoric of fear, which, in this case, leaves all
questions begging.
You wrote to me: "The issue is sin. Clear and simple. Break the
code here, and the issue is simple. Christianity cannot stand if it
caves on the issue! And the issue regarding fixed sexual orientation
is both religious and secular."
So just what do you want to have done with homosexuals inside
the church? And what do you want to have done with homosexuals
outside the church?
Sin as Apodictic
August 27, 2001, 2:01 p.m.
I asked, "Why,
in your view, is homosexuality regarded as a sin in the Bible?" You
responded, "Because it is God's judgment and revelation that it
is."
Ergo in your view the prohibition of homosexual practice is
apodictic, that is, it has no evident reason except that it comes
from authority?
You wrote: "The problem [of homosexuality] has been with us for
a long time."
What problem if there is no evident reason for prohibiting it?
Merely the problem of disobedience to God? Why isn't that just God's
problem (which becomes a homosexual's problem on Judgment Day) and
the problem of those who care about obedience per se, their own
obedience?
You expressed general skepticism regarding historical
investigation, and you characterized John Boswell's research as
"speculations."
Ah, but you too are making historical assertions! [Using the
word "assertions" in the sense of "statements." --
October 10, 2001] That is the very nature of interpreting
sacred text. I have many problems with the historical picture that
Boswell paints, but at least he presents evidence for evaluation, and
copiously so.
[snip]
Lust, Self-Centeredness, and
Authority
August 27, 2001, 5:16 p.m.
I asked: "So if there is a loving homosexual relationship (as
some homosexuals claim theirs to be), then the Bible does not speak
to it?" And you answered, "Right!"
I assume that you believe that a homosexual relationship cannot
be loving by definition. Am I right? Or are you saying something
else?
I asked, "What
was it that the Bible saw in "a male lying with a female as with a
male" that was necessarily opposed to love?" And you answered,
"lustful sin."
The word "sin" begs the question. The word "lustful" evidences
no obvious and essential relation to homosexual practice as
distinguished from heterosexual practice. If a heterosexual practice
can be non-lustful, then why can't a homosexual practice? Another
problem with "lustful": The word conjures up any number of
constructions, not many of which hold up well to philosophical
scrutiny -- or even exegetical scrutiny. The point is that it
requires careful and precise definition.
I asked if the preceding question can
be answered without being anachronistic; and you answered: "Yes. If
it was true love, Scriptures would confirm it. Any other declaration
is not based on fact and is only an assumption -- for the
corroborated witness of Scripture contradicts such an
assumption."
Huh? This ranks with some of the most purely authoritarian and
ethereal reasoning I've ever seen. In any case, it is non-responsive.
The question is, What is the supposed reason behind the biblical
prohibition of homosexual practice? And I'm looking for a reason that
we don't read back into the Bible like Third-Century body-negative
theology or medieval natural law theory or Nineteenth Century
utilitarian rationale.
I commented, as an aside, that I have
seen many recognitions from various Christian camps that same sex
relations can be loving.
You responded: "What kind? Promiscuous? Bisexual? A committed
same sex monogamous couple? We should be specific here."
I'll name one of each, in reverse order:
- The Spong camp would argue that a
same-sex monogamous couple can be loving. That sort of view pretty
much dominates the liberal theological seminaries.
- The Liberated Christians group would argue that
non-monogamous relationships can be loving, whether they entail
same sex, different sex, or "bisexual" practices. They would also
argue that non-monogamy is not necessarily to be equated with
either patriarchal polygyny or promiscuity.
- The Roman Catholic lay
philosopher, Marco Vassi, presented rampant promiscuity in such a
way that at least some episodes could be regarded as loving.
Mind you, please, I am just giving examples of various
viewpoints.
Commenting upon Louie Crew and his
same-sex partner, you said: "They may seriously be lovingly
committed, but Scripture has no record to substantiate their
conduct!"
Therefore that invalidates the idea of them being a loving
couple?? Scripture doesn't substantiate any singing of "The Old
Rugged Cross" either, and that's an issue of cultic worship, which
is, conceivably, a central matter. Yet only a handful of
Christians would say that the church should not draw on its
storehouse of the hymns of all ages for worship.
You wrote: "Scripture states their relationship is an
'abomination,' an abomination corroborated by other verses."
So you ignore phenomenological data and escape into a "by
definition" argument in order to uphold a dogmatism? If Scripture
doesn't speak to this situation, have you considered that maybe it
really doesn't speak to it even in the passages you cite?
You wrote, "I understand that you disagree with this [that a
homosexual relationship is an abomination]."
I addressed that issue
earlier.
You wrote: "You may accuse me of
crossing the line, in a homoral context, with a homophobic
argument."
No, not here, not at all.
You wrote: "Scripture is my witness. I
believe we are obligated as Christians to reprove the sinner,
especially those suffering the sin of homosexuality who claim to be
Christian (Hebrews 12:5)."
Yes, sinners, especially those within
the fold, may need reproof, some to the point of being cut off from
the fold ([Leviticus 19:17] 1 Corinthians 5); but the very issue here
is what constitutes sin and why. Keep in
mind that on the other side of the ledger, so it is claimed, are the
sins of oppression and failure in love. In other words, if sin is
defined in such a way that love is frustrated or oppression results,
then the defining of sin becomes an affair fraught with
trepidation.
You wrote:
"the homosexuals who claim to be committed in the Episcopal Church,
who cherish the concept of committed monogamous same sex
relationships, deny that promiscuous homosexuality is wrong! They in
fact also endorse bisexualism!"
I am not certain of what you mean by "bisexualism." Many
bisexuals, in the standard sense of having sexual attraction to
members of both sexes, are monogamous. You seem to be using the term
to mean promiscuous and having sex with one or more members of each
sex.
As for homosexuals who claim to be Christian, my experience is
limited, but most of those who have declared themselves to me do not
fit the mold you describe. However, I am not one to quibble about
statistics, unless an important point is involved.
You wrote: "Promiscuous
homosexuality combined with bisexuality confirms their lie! Am I
being a homophobe saying this?"
No, you are simply being illogical. It confirms nothing other
than, possibly, that some people use specious reasoning.
You wrote: "It is the Holy Spirit that provides a 'spiritual
understanding'!"
Amazing it is to me that so many people who claim spiritual
understanding from the Holy Spirit contradict each other with such
regularity!
Frankly I think that the Holy Spirit expects hard work of us to
achieve detailed understanding and that both logic and historical
research are tools of the Spirit.
[snip]
You wrote: "I believe those professed
Christians who practice homosexuality do it not in love for God or
for their partner. It is a predominately self-seeking experience that
exemplifies selfishness."
That is an attribution of motivation, which is an
intellectually dangerous practice at best. Further, just as with your
attribution of lustfulness, there is nothing to differentiate the
supposed selfishness from heterosexual practices, even those of the
most benign sort.
However, if you were to take up Reinhold Niebuhr's idea of
self-centeredness being the core of sin and were able to demonstrate
that homosexuality is universally and essentially self-centered,
then, at least, you would be dealing with a reason why, possibly, all
homosexuality should be considered
sinful.1
However (again), I can't imagine what a convincing demonstration
would look like.
You wrote: "if this [the selfishness of
homosexuals] isn't true, then I see no proof of it in the massive
homosexual agenda that is based on their program of attempting to
indoctrinate our children without a responsible moral
curriculum."
Many a homosexual wishes that his or her kind of sexuality had
been recognized in school and wishes to save others from going
through the struggles that he or she endured. Ostensibly a Golden
Rule ethic is at work there.
Furthermore, many people recognize that with AIDS on the scene,
the sexual landscape is more dangerous than ever. Realistic sex
education can frequently be a matter of life and death. Expecting
either abstinence or the denial of one's sexual preferences across
the board is unrealistic. Therefore there is yet another compelling
social interest in getting into matters of sexual preference in sex
ed classes -- so that people can learn to employ realistic measures
suitable to their own sexualities. Thus the argument runs, and that
argument reveals an altruistic motivation.
There's an
English proverb that goes back at least to 1670: "Hell is paved with
good intentions." The essential idea goes back further, at least to
St. Bernard. You could argue that good intentions can lead to
disastrous results or that some good intentions yet have their blind
spots, but I see no point in imputing evil intentions to your
opponents. It is only natural for that kind of rhetoric -- ill
thought of others when more favorable interpretations are possible --
to elicit the charge of homophobia; so it seems to me that it only
serves to defeat the point of homorality.
I said that "Paul made absolutely clear
that a man could have oneness with any number of women (1 Corinthians
6)." And you asked which verse. I was referring to 1 Corinthians
6:16.
You wrote: "I think Stott has it
right! Scripture is securely interpreted by Stott."
Your attachment to authority would seem to betray a scholarly
insecurity. But there I go imputing motivation!
You wrote: "It appears you have a different objective, to prove
the truth of Scripture is wrong."
Huh? Truth can't be proved wrong, nor would I care to waste my
time on the fruitless task of trying to do so.
Regarding the female of Romans 1:26,
you wrote: "Her major sin was not a homosexual act! Her sin was
unbelief, the major if not only sin of a nonbeliever! .... If Paul's
inspired writing cited the homosexual act of a female, it certainly
verifies John Stott's point that God must be displeased with this act
to so dignify it as an example of the application of His Wrath."
Your point about unbelief is taken, but your mere assertion
that Romans 1:26 refers to lesbianism leaves the question
begging.
You wrote: "we should cite
authorities. If they are not compelling or convincing to you they
would certainly be in a court of law ."
That's one reason why the courts are so lousy when dealing with
scientific questions. They are little better at scholarly questions.
And they are at a complete loss when it comes to theological
questions. Even ecclesiastical courts fall down there.
You asked: "if my arguments citing authority are not valid, how
can you convince me your opinions are -- even though they may seem to
be a logical conclusion to the uninitiated in this matter?"
Frankly, whether the arguments and evidences that I present are
convincing to you is much more up to you than to me. I don't have the
compulsion to whip others into line with my views. My compulsion is
limited to expressing my thoughts and the reasons for them. Other
people can take them or leave them.
In response to Bernadette Brooten, you wrote: "Paul a Bigot?
That is blasphemy."
Sacrilegious, maybe, but not blasphemy. I wouldn't even say
sacrilegious, since Brooten's comment was in the context of serious
scholarly debate. Obviously I disagree with Brooten, since I don't
think that Paul did make a new law. Other grounds for disagreeing
with her are possible too. [For a correction, see
above.]
Bibliographical
Note
|
|
1
The Nature and Destiny of
Man: A Christian
Interpretation, by
Reinhold Niebuhr (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, v. 1,
1941; in series: Gifford
Lectures): pp.
186ff.
|
Mystical Spirituality,
Tradition, and Sin
August 27, 2001, 6:47 p.m.
You wrote: "I wish I could persuade
you to write your book on Homorality. It would be a big seller!"
What do you imagine such a book would look like?
You wrote: "You
appear to support the thesis that Paul was a bigot..."
What? What?? No, I do not support the notion that Paul was a
bigot! I brought Brooten's comment into the discussion because it had
provocative relevance, not because I agree with her. When I quote
people (or, in this case, refer to them), generally it is to converse
with their ideas.
[snip]
I commented that your phrase, "the
truth gained by the sanctifying walk with the Holy Spirit," seems to
suggest that you have a mystical approach to ethical knowledge. You
replied, "Not mystical."
We must have a different idea of what "mystical" means.
Actually the term bears a heavy load of meanings in common parlance.
You said: "It is impossible to write a creditable history of
sexual ethics that has Christian application without understanding
sin."
A worthy point to be considered.
Evil and
Sexuality
|
|
Are good and evil to be defined
in part by sexual morals, or are sexual morals to be defined
by good and evil? To delineate the possible answers:
- If
good and evil are defined in part by morals, then the
understanding of good and evil is apodictic, that is, we
know it only by word of authority, whether that authority
be divine revelation or tradition or custom.
- If morals are to be defined
by good and evil, then any idea of sexual immorality is
delimited by the idea of evil and must demonstrably be a
declension of evil.
- If both, if good and evil
both define and are in part defined by morals, then a
complex interplay is at work requiring a philosophical
explanation.
- If neither, if good and evil
have nothing to do with sexual morals, then we must ask
if our loyalty is to goodness or to sexual morals should
they ever conflict. If it is claimed that they never can
conflict, then a philosophical explanation must be
provided as to why not.
Clearly when sexuality is mixed
with violence or coercion, evil may subsist in either the
intent or the result or both. But that is not the fault of
sexuality.
Clearly when promises are
broken, or personal or cultural expectations are unmet, or
heartfelt wishes are dashed, hurt and a sense of betrayal
may result, which are typically experienced as evil effects.
However:
- Hurt is inherent in
interpersonal relations; and here the cause of the hurt
has to do with the promises, expectations, and wishes,
not with sexuality per se.
- The sense of betrayal has to
do with a violation of loyalty, and the bonding aspects
of sexuality can produce a sense of loyalty, but an
expectation of loyalty is not to be confused with either
jealousy or an expectation of exclusivity or a
presumption that loyalty will be the result of sexual
intercourse. Fundamentally, loyalty is a matter of will
and agreement, not of sexuality.
Clearly
when a harmoniously operating social system that brings
happiness to all is violated, the resulting dischord might
be experienced as evil. But humankind has never known such a
system, traditional sexual morality has never brought
happiness to all who observed it, and a utopian vision of
social harmony built upon thoroughgoing restriction rather
than managed freedom is stifling for the human spirit.
Developing a sexual ethic that would maximize both social
and sexual harmony -- which would mean, by the way, the
demise of jealousy -- might be a worthy goal. However,
sexuality in its reproductive aspect is the stuff of the
here and now, of the non-utopian, wholly mortal present; it
is not eschatological but is rather, for our species, the
way to the future. In other words, sexuality is about some
things other than harmony; and so harmony is not the full
measure of sexuality.
Clearly
a thoroughgoing sensuality can both enslave the will and
detract from human ideals. However, human beings are by
nature sensual beings; and sensual contact with other human
beings contributes to healthy development, healthy
relationships, and psychological stability. Enslavement of
the will is evil, and the failure to pursue ideals can have
evil result; but there is nothing inherently evil in the
sensual aspects per se of sexuality.
The point
is that for any sex act as mere sex act to be evil is
extremely difficult, if not impossible. In every case that I
can think of (and the above does not exhaust my thoughts),
something else must enter into the picture before evil can
be effectuated; and it is such intrusion that sexual morals
must be designed to address. This conclusion should not
surprise people of the Book, since the Bible values
sexuality before placing any restrictions upon it. (See
below.)
It may be charged that this
analysis miscasts the issue. The issue is not evil, but
sin.
To sin
is to violate God's Law. Is the point of creating
prohibitions and injunctions an authoritarian one? If so, we
are faced with several problems:
- Authoritarianism explains
the wrongness of nothing; and we are denuded even of a
moral rationale for obedience to authority, being left
only with a self-serving one, such as:
- avoidance of punishment,
and
- gaining credit by
ostensibly showing love for God through irrational
action.
- An expectation of irrational
action is difficult to reconcile with the
Logos
(John 1:1ff), which many have understood to be the
operative rational principle of divine creativity, of
life-giving goodness, and of enlightenment.
- Furthermore and even more
significantly, God's nature is love; and upon love
depends the whole Law (1 John 4:8; Matthew 22:40; Romans
13:8-10).
Given the last point, sexual
morals must be explained relative to love. To love is to
will the good -- to give a partial description -- and so we
are back to the discussion of good and evil.
Following this line of thought,
I choose the second of the options at the top, namely that
sexual morals are to be defined by the idea of good and evil
-- however, with this caveat: Good and evil can work
themselves out differently in different environments, which
means that sexual morals may quite properly vary from group
to group. (See discussion of the Noachides
above.)
-- October 16, 2001
|
You wrote: "We should discuss
what is the 'tradition' of the Christian faith. I find we are in a
field where we should define our terms, if that is possible. I define
tradition as the momentum of the past imposed on the future."
The momentum of the past has no necessary relation to
truth.
Tradition means "what is handed down." but really it is
what is retroactively selected of the past to carry forward and to
find a life in the contemporary world, even if that means a (maybe
minimal, possibly much larger) degree of recasting. The dynamic may
involve reason, coercion, delusion, anachronistic misconception,
social evolution, or any number of other factors.
Traditionalism is attachment to what has been
retroactively selected and is first and foremost the domain of those
who have won past conflicts of power and persuasion. These days
religious traditionalism is associated chiefly with the conservative
elements in the main streams of Christianity. Secular traditionalism
tends to be associated with social conservatism.
Tradition
|
|
I gave just one of many
definitions of tradition that I use, the one that seemed
most appropriate in this context. (Another appears
below.)
Later
I read the following, which seems appropos although from a
source hardly acceptable to my interlocutor:
- "There is another danger
which you can scarcely hope to escape. It is the weight
of the past. Not only will you esteem material objects
because they are old -- I am not superficial enough to
reproach you for so harmless a weakness -- but, more
banefully, you will venerate ideas and institutions
because they have remained for a long time in force; for
so long a time as to appear to you absolute and
unalterable. That is real atrophy of the soul."
- -- The character Leonard
Anquetil to Sebastian, in:
The
Edwardians, [by] V.
Sackville-West (New York: Literary Guild of America,
1930): p. 76.
-- October 11, 2001
|
I wrote: "it became a stock saying with me that I live in the
rubble of my own systems." And you asked: "Is this trial and error as
a test of truth?"
Not exactly, not as in science. It is a questing approach on
the basis of faith, in fact, with the utter dependence on faith that
an open inquiry of this kind requires.
You asked: "Are you searching for something that you feel is
illusive?"
Yes, the truth of the matter at hand.
You asked: "You do know that you are a temple of the Holy
Spirit?"
Yes, and thank you for assuming so.
You asked: "Are there not Ten Points
that can summarize this?"
I'm thinking about that. Patience will be required, especially
as I am spending so much time on these responses.
You commented: "You could write a
robust book on Homorality considering your latent 'gut-level
emotion.'"
In my view, gut-level emotion has
absolutely nothing to contribute to a serious ethic.
You wrote:
"I am saying you are or seem to be inferring something has been wrong
by the way we have interpreted sin. If 'tradition' put the wrong
shine on the arguments on sexuality -- and specifically homosexuality
-- and lesbian actions -- then tradition must be the culprit,
certainly not God as expressed in the original autographs."
Definition of
Autograph
|
|
An autograph is the original
finished draft of a book of the Bible, as distinguished from
subsequent copies. None of the autographs are known to be
extant. Some books of the Bible have a complicated enough
history of composition to raise questions about the
"autograph" model itself. Many Christians take it as an
article of belief that the autographs were inerrant.The
terminology of "autographs" and "inerrancy" is most
associated with Evangelicalism.
-- October 18, 2001
|
A lot of faults can be identified in Christian traditional
thought regarding sexuality. I do not attribute these faults to God.
As for the meaning of sin in some big overarching sense, that's not
particularly my issue; but I engage it when doing so is important to
the issue at hand.
If sin is simply an apodictic matter,
as you seem to have asserted, then there would be no instructive
merit to it other than that of obedience and faultiness, which means
that the meaning of sin would have nothing to contribute to defining
what the scope of any homosexual prohibition should be.
You wrote: "I differ with you on this [the authority of
tradition]... there is that 'tradition' cultivated by the Holy
Spirit, and that 'tradition' cultivated by man."
Yes, we differ. If the [theological] liberals in the current
debate prevail, then their view will become the tradition. I think I
see God's hand in history, but not necessarily more so in
tradition.
[snip]
Sexuality and
Christian Spirituality
August 28, 2001, 2:57 p.m.
You wrote: "If this isn't true, then I am subject to a self
inducing psychic fraud."
You won't make much headway in your
debates if your bottom line is, "I know so because God told me so."
Anybody with the inclination can make the same claim.
You wrote: "why am I concerned about the
pro homosexual argument on sexual ethics? Because, simply, I believe
it disparages Scripture..."
One need not disparage Scripture to hold to a limited
application of its statements on homosexual practice.
As to disparagement of the unity of the
Spirit and the believer, I have several points to make:
1. The lives of Christians and the life of the church are a
commentary on Scripture, a commentary that, among other things, shows
how far its principles do and do not extend.
[Life as commentary is another meaning of tradition. --
October 11, 2001] That would apply also to Christian gay
couples. (I know that phrase sounds like an oxymoron.) If any of
their experience is one of unity with the Holy Spirit, that is
commentary. We may question it. I can think of endless critical
points to make, if their experience were to be regarded as conclusive
for the church. But ultimately the experience is theirs, and they are
responsible for interpreting it correctly. We
must receive their testimony with both critical acumen and humility.
2. In Paul's epistles, the relation of sexuality to the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit had to do with cultic purity, not
[necessarily] with a reasoned version of sexual goodness. It was
specialized. It applied to believer sanctity and priestliness; for
the believers to whom Paul was addressing himself were considered to
be members of the body of Christ, together comprising a living
temple. The heritage chosen for defining priestly sanctity (and the
sexual regulations that would apply) was that of Jesus' own people.
What did those particular regulations have to do with preserving
holiness? I don't know. Possibly some of those regulations were
irrational appeasements; for in ancient Near Eastern religions, a
person could offend the gods and have no idea why or how to avoid
doing so, unless a divine sign was received saying sacrifice this or
avoid this or correct this or accomplish
this.1
Possibly some were formed in reaction to the idolatrous practices
encountered by the Israelites. In fact a morality derived from an
anti-idolatry stance could be formidable, so long as the reasoning is
made manifest and shown to be secure. (In modern thought,
personalistic moralities may come closest to this idea.) But,
frankly, I am at a loss to explain the sexual regulations of the
Israelites that way, with one or two possible exceptions. Bottom
line: As best we can tell, the apostolic idea of purity was
specialized and irrational in nature. (By the way, I am using the
word "irrational" not in its pejorative sense, but in the scholarly
sense of being apart from reason. The same with regard to "cultic." I
am using it in the scholarly sense as referring to a community of
worship.)
3. The church broke with the
cultic purity scheme early in its history, probably within one or two
generations of the Apostles. It simply was not comprehended by the
Gentiles entering the church, it was associated with Judaizing, its
expressions were rationalized, and any elements of sacredness were
taken over by a new scheme of ritual purity, many elements of which
are familiar to us from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. In
other words, the whole scheme that gave rise to the sexual
regulations in the Bible was chucked and replaced with succeeding
rationales, the most recent suiting the religious temperament of
whatever party won the latest power struggle within the church. The
upshot is that the purity of which Paul spoke has absolutely nothing
to do with the moral purity of which we speak today and with which we
overlay his words. Furthermore, we are so removed from the context
that gave rise to the biblical idea of purity, we are so changed, and
we are so invested in other ways of thinking, that it is and may
forever be impossible for Christians to recapture the biblical idea
of purity with living force, all the more so since the church now
almost universally rejects the marital system of the Hebrews. On top
of that, it is exceeding difficult to discern the point of continuing
the sexual regulations of the Holiness Code into the Kingdom of God,
where there is "neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28), which is
another concept difficult to interpret. A great deal of theological
spadework has yet to be done regarding sexuality and the Kingdom of
God. (Whatever one thinks of the Oneida Community of the 1800s, it at
least attempted such
spadework.2)
4, I used to think that violations of the biblical prohibitions
regarding sexuality were violations of God's holiness. Now I no
longer think so. Here are some of the reasons why:
- God has created countless forms of mating, bonding,
reproduction, and intimate contact. Male hyenas, so I understand,
even have special biological provision for homosexual copulation.
God is the very author of sexual diversity.
- God is immanent everywhere, and so all sexuality is present
to God, this without God's withdrawal.
- God is spirit, not corporeal, and so, apart from creative
interest, has no investment in corporeal sexuality, except where
the spiritual principle of love is at stake. Otherwise, the
investment is all ours.
God is holy, but sexuality has nothing to do with that
holiness. Violations of the biblical prohibitions regarding sexuality
are instead violations of the special Hebrew construction of
holiness. A great deal of theological spadework has yet to be done
regarding the Hebrew construction of holiness as something more than
merely "man-made," and regarding its significance for the church
today.
5. The idea that human sexuality is repugnant and degrading
can, through a purification of attitudes, be transformed into the
idea that human sexuality is beautiful, dignified even in its freest
and most passionate moments, and worthy of celebration. The analogy
with an unregenerate and a regenerate perspective is unmistakable
(albeit not necessarily precise). However, the church has often made
the opposite association, promoting the idea of sexuality as dirty
and degrading, salvagable only by efforts at reproduction. This
attitude is contrary to the Hebrew view and to the whole tenor of
Scripture, including, in my view, the New Testament. I have often run
into people whose idea of moral purity is infused with repugnance
towards sexuality. I would suggest a serious reevaluation on their
part.
6. The psychological study of religious experience suggests
many ways in which a person might have a sense of unity with the
divine Spirit. If the purity necessary for such union that believers
speak of today is not the purity of which Paul spoke -- and I have
suggested that it is not -- then quite
possibly we are talking psychology rather than theology.
You wrote: "The sanctity of sexual
conduct is so basic, and its ethic is so simple, one does not have to
go very far in understanding its manifestation as a core issue of
Christian conduct."
Beware using the word "sanctity" in a sanctimonious way. Many
preachers throw around words like "sanctity" and "purity" in ways
that hobble the mind, but with null semantic content. I would advise
not imitating them.
Sexual ethics is basic, because, among other possible reasons,
sexuality may prove to be the greatest power that we humans can
wield, even greater than the power of the atom.
As for the simplicity of either sexual
ethics or a biblical sexual ethic, I hardly agree. Even to reduce the
whole matter to love is to leave the question of what love means and
how it is to be applied in different cases.
And as for "not" having "to go very far in understanding," I
couldn't disagree more; and I hope that such a statement does not
indicate a balking at intellectual labor.
You wrote: "Christ carries the
message here beyond the physical act to intent (Matthew 5:28). The
shadow of sinful thoughts darken the most noble stirrings of the
heart when a misused lust occurs. I know this. You know this!"
Your phrase, "misused lust," appears to be an interpretation of
Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:28:
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a
woman with lust [epithumesai] has already committed adultery
with her in his heart" (NRSV).
Many interpret epithumesai as
sexual desire; but, when pushed, that interpretation becomes
nonsensical. The saying is about another man's wife, not about all
women. (The word gunaika can be translated as either "wife" or
"woman.") And it is spoken in a polygynous context, which means that
the marital status of the male is irrelevant: A married man having
sexual desire for a single woman was not about adultery. In other
words, the focus of the saying is so narrow and sexual desire so
broad that it is clear either a severe qualification is needed or a
different meaning needs to be sought. I commend you for recognizing
that. "Inordinate sexual desire" (to use different wording from yours
but with a similar meaning) may indeed be a viable interpretation. As
to other possible meanings, epithumesai in this verse could
refer to the desire to wrest a wife away from another man or to
humiliate him by cuckolding him. [Epithumeseis, by the way, is
the word used in the Septuagint for "covet" in the Tenth Commandment.
See both Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21.] But I think it more
likely to mean the urge, arising from whatever source, sexual desire
included, to flout the Mosaic Law, in fact an urge that has matured
to intent (which is a word that you also use with apparent
thoughtfulness). So Jesus was not condemning human sexual biology or
mating patterns; he was equating the intent to rebel against God's
Law with the act of doing so. Little difference to God. This last
interpretation dovetails nicely with your interpretation of Romans 1
as a general condemnation of the wickedness associated with unbelief.
I often find Paul to be catching the precise nuance of Jesus.
By the way, this exegetical excursion into Matthew 5:28 is not
meant to justify men in monogamously defined relationships cheating
on their wives. There's always the danger, when attempting to do
honest exegesis of the Bible, that people will misuse the results for
self-justification. Ethical conclusions require a lot more work than
mere exegesis.
You wrote: "I am mistrustful of a
sexual ethic that becomes a self fulfilling rationalization for
sinful conduct."
Quite so, but again you are begging the question as to what is
sinful.
Bibliographical
Notes
|
|
1 See, for
example, the Sumerio-Akkadian "Prayer to Every God," in
Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, edited by
James B. Pritchard (3rd ed., with supplement. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969): pp. 391-392.
|
|
2 For a
summary, see: "That All may Be One: John Humphrey Noyes and
the Origins of Oneida Community Complex Marriage," in
Religion and Sexuality:
The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida
Community, [by] Lawrence
Foster (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984, c1981;
"An Illini Book"): pp. 72-122, 279-290.
|
Social Promotion of
Homosexuality
August 28, 2001, 5:00 p.m.
You wrote
that homoralist criticism of homosexuality is not homophobia "For the
simple reason that it is not based on hate or fear."
Exactly what I said [in the Berkshires to my friends].
You wrote that "The homosexuals are paying people like yourself
to write in support of their agenda."
You mean there's money in this!? In any case, I am not pushing
anybody's agenda. You still don't seem to have me figured out.
You excerpted the
Washington Times Culture
section:
- Gay Inc.
- "Gay magazines circulate information to businesses about
the spending power of their putatively childless, middle-class
readership [etc.]"
The point of business advertising is to separate a fool from
his (or her) money. Do you suppose that businesses would treat gays
any differently?
Wit In
Hindsight
|
|
In hindsight I see that this
witticism can be read as a joke at the expense of gays. It
is not meant to be read that way. It is a joke at the
expense of all who encourage others to treat them* as fools
and with a small dig at the advertising industry, large
portions of which frequently treat all of us as
fools.
* So as to eliminate ambiguity,
the antecedent of "them" is "all who encourage others
[etc.]."
-- September 24, 2001
|
Confession and
Assertion
August 28, 2001, 6:44 p.m.
I asked: "in your view the
prohibition of homosexual practice is apodictic, that is, it has no
evident reason except that it comes from authority?" And you
answered: "It is apodictic as a demonstration of sin."
This would seem to contradict your citing of the Roman Catholic
rationale against homosexual practice.
You wrote: "I confessed mine. The homosexual does not."
Um, in your view, if a homosexual confesses the sin of engaging
in homosexual acts, does he or she cease being a homosexual? I don't
mean cease engaging in those acts. Let's suppose that is just what
happens. I mean cease being a homosexual.
I wrote: "Ah, but you too are making
historical assertions! That is the very nature of interpreting sacred
text. I have many problems with the historical picture that Boswell
paints, but at least he presents evidence for evaluation, and
copiously so." And you responded: "I disagree here. There is no
better historical record than that which exists for Christianity. As
far as Boswell is concerned, he shines it to serve his ends. That's a
fact."
I don't know what you are disagreeing about. I'm interested in
evidence. How somebody uses it is a different matter.
Assertion
|
|
The word assertion can mean to
state positively, which is how I was using the term. It can
also mean to declare positively without support or attempt
at proof. In common parlance, the second meaning is
generally distinguished from the first by saying "mere
assertion." Nevertheless, my interlocutor apparently thought
that I was using the term in its second sense.
My point was that:
- In interpreting the
historical context, which to a large extent controls the
meaning of the biblical text, we must make the best
judgment we can on the basis of the evidence and declare
our judgment accordingly.
- Thereupon, in interpreting a
text, particularly one that is thousands of years old, we
cannot escape uncertainty, for we are plunged into the
uncertainties of the historical method itself.
This means that the
interpretation of Scripture is a searching enterprise, not a
dogmatic one. (This is true for other reasons as well.)
Obviously, I could have stated myself better.
-- October 15, 2001
|
Definitions
-- Agape, Christian, Bisexuality, Promiscuity,
Contradiction, One-Flesh --
August 29, 2001, 3:59 p.m.
You wrote: "Can
homosexuality be the basis for a loving relationship? I doubt it. I
believe homosexuality is like masturbation in its psychic
manifestation. It is a self seeking lust. That is not the love
expressed in 1 Corinthians 13, 'it does not seek its own.'"
Agape is not the only kind of love, and altruistic love is not
the only definition of agape.
Two questions:
- What, in your view, makes any sex something other than
self-seeking lust?
- So masturbation, in your view, is wrong too?
You wrote: "'A male lying with a female as with a male' is
sinful."
It is? You seem to be adding to the Law left and right.
You wrote: "Homosexual practice, as
with all sexual sin, offends God. That is what the inspired authors
state, and it is [the] expressed witness of God's will on the
subject."
"Offends" is not the word used. But if we are to put it that
way, why is God offended by homosexuality? Because God feels like
being authoritarian about it?
You wrote: "[Bishop] Spong and his camp
are not Christians! Have you read his ten points?"
Bishop Spong's "Twelve Theses" you mean? Yes, I have read them,
in his autobiography, Here I
Stand.1
But now you are defining away your opponents rather than truly
engaging them. Ideally in intellectual discussion, you meet an
opposing view in its strongest form and, if called for, you
strengthen it. Only after you have thus engaged it, taken all points
fully and honestly into account, and moved the discussion to the next
level have you truly overcome. Mere reaction does not succeed
intellectually, which is why reactionaries almost always require
recourse to power plays, unless someone else does their intellectual
labor for them.
You wrote that "retired Bishop Jack Spong [snip] champions the
thesis that the church and Christianity are broken, that the
Scripture has no application in the third millennium."
Have you read Bishop Spong's book, Rescuing the Bible
from
Fundamentalism?2
Your comment doesn't sound like a fair characterization of his views.
But he speaks for himself, and I'll speak for myself.
You wrote: "Dr. L. William Countryman who trashes the relevance
and applicability of
Scripture..."3
"Trashes" is inflammatory rhetoric.
You wrote: "Spong and his followers are not Christians! They
have crossed the line into apostasy and given up the faith once
held."
Calling people who consider themselves Christian not Christian
is inflammatory rhetoric as well. Go call a seminary or church
administrator unchristian or not Christian when trying to get
something done and see how far you get!
You wrote: "You call them 'Liberated Christians?'"
That is what they call themselves. As a group they have no
relation to liberation theology, so far as I know. They have a
presence on the Web.
You wrote
that Marco Vassi's "judgment on episodic incidents would make good
reading in Playboy but carries no credible weight."
Some regard Marco Vassi as the foremost [American] philosopher
of sex in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and many of his
insights derive from direct
experience.4 So
some assign him credible weight. To overcome him in their eyes, he
must be adequately answered. Unfortunately he can't answer back,
because, like Foucault and Boswell (if I recall correctly), he died
of AIDS. Myself, I think he was a mediocre philosopher of sex with
occasional startling insights. And as to weight, I'm not one looking
for authorities to cite.
You wrote regarding Louie Crew of the ECUSA and his partner:
"Neither one knows what true love is. They are egocentered in their
mutual quest to establish a new frontier in sexuality. Neither would
give up their quest to honor Jesus Christ."
Aren't you judging the heart here?
You wrote: "the prism through which I
view the issue is experiential. I trust my knowledge of the subject
and I am confident in the concept of the sinfulness of sin."
I am glad that you recognize that experience and not just
authority may contribute to knowledge.
You wrote: "I am not saying sexual
sin is the most serious. I am saying it is (forgive the term) the
most fundamental because we all are betrayed by sexual sin."
I can think of no passage of Scripture to support your
contention that sexual sin is the most fundamental;
and [for the people of the Book], Scripture defines
what is sin, doesn't it? As for "all" being betrayed by sexual sin, I
think that is difficult to prove.
I wrote: "You seem to be using the
term to mean promiscuous and having sex with one or more members of
each sex." And you responded: "That is what bisexualism means. It is
promiscuous, whether performed discretely, openly or by intent."
Oh, there's an interesting twist, the "intent" part of your
definition! However, mere sexual attraction is not the same as
intent.
I have seen quite a spectrum of definitions of bisexuality. The
one I gave was much like the one used by Michael Ruse in his book,
Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988), which I
just picked up at a library book sale. He says:
"I shall use the term [bisexual] in the sense
common to sexologists, namely as referring to a person erotically
attracted (not necessarily simultaneously) to members of both
sexes."5
The Complete Dictionary of Sexology (1995) gives
this definition:
"bisexualism, bisexuality (adj. bisexual) The
condition of being attracted to and enjoying sexual contacts with
both males and females. Bisexual contacts may be either concurrent or
sequential, heterosexual at one time and homosexual at another period
of
life."6
The entry continues, discussing, for instance, the
Kinsey Six Scale; but that is enough for
here.
In Ruse's definition sexual contact isn't necessary. The
definition of the sexology dictionary is ambiguous on that point. The
phrase, "The condition of ... enjoying sexual contacts" might mean
either a latent potential for such enjoyment or an active enjoyment,
possibly both. Even if active enjoyment is
meant, it is clear from the definition that
casual and indiscriminate sexual relations with multiple partners
(one definition of "promiscuity") is not a necessary characteristic
of bisexuality. For instance, serial monogamy would work.
You seem to be using the term "promiscuous" to refer to any
sexual contact outside of a strictly monogamous union. I would
suggest that a person can have two (or even more) long-term sexual
relationships either at the same time or serially and not be
promiscuous. After all, the biblical Patriarchs
would not be called promiscuous for practicing polygyny; and an
American who has had four spouses would not be called promiscuous for
practicing serial monogamy.
"Promiscuity" is not a term used in the Bible, not unless it
appears as a mistranslation in some recent version.
By the way, I occasionally wonder if we are working with the
same definition of homosexuality.
You wrote: "Promiscuous homosexuality combined with bisexuality
confirms their lie! Am I being a homophobe saying this?" I answered:
"No, you are simply being illogical. It confirms nothing other than,
possibly, that some people use specious reasoning." And you
responded: "Whoops. That is neither illogical [n]or specious."
The speciousness was meant to refer in the first instance to
the opponents you mentioned. But you picked up on the word-play in my
self-validating comment. :-)
You wrote: "My wife had an uncle who
was murdered for his bisexuality!"
How tragic! And what an outrage!
Last night (Monday, August 27th) I went with my wife to see the
movie The Songcatcher, which I liked. One of the
incidents portrayed was a crime directed against a lesbian couple for
being lesbian.
You keep worrying about creating a rationale whereby people
might justify their sexual sins to themselves. I am more worried
about doing the same with regard to the sin of oppression, which is
an issue not just of private morality but of social morality. It can
and much too often does entail murder.
This is the wrong context in which to bring it up, but you may
want to ask me sometime about the early Jewish concept of murder
applying to matters besides taking a life. [See
below.]
I wrote: "Amazing it is to me that so
many people who claim spiritual understanding from the Holy Spirit
contradict each other with such regularity!" Andyou asked: "How? In
interpreting Scripture? Or in their life as lived?"
In interpreting Scripture, in making theological statements, in
discussion generally. I am using the classic definition of a
contradiction: A cannot be both
A and not A in the same time, the same place, and the
same relationship. Logicians have refined that definition somewhat,
but it is good enough for our purposes.
[snip]
I wrote: "just as with your
attribution of lustfulness, there is nothing to differentiate the
supposed selfishness from heterosexual practices, even those of the
most benign sort." And you responded: "Again, I state there is no
difference. Lust directed at the wrong object by anyone is
wrong!"
The wrongness then is by definition? Whether defined by
revelation or makers of new Law?
You wrote: "All self centered sexual motivations are sinful and
not truly loving."
A certain amount of attention to one's own sexual needs and
desires is vital in a healthy sexual relationship. Or do you deny
that?
I wrote: "Many a homosexual wishes that
his or her kind of sexuality had been recognized in school and wishes
to save others from going through the struggles that he or she
endured. Ostensibly a Golden Rule ethic is at work there." And you
responded: "Sexuality or sexual conduct? But this is a different
issue than the one we have been discussing."
I was speaking to the issue of motivation.
You wrote: "The thin line between
being critical and hateful is the one where homorality comes home on
the issues."
A piece of tactical advice: I think that homorality would make
more headway if it uses a rhetoric that assumes the best motivations
on the part of its opponents.
I wrote that
"Paul made absolutely clear that a man could have oneness with any
number of women (1Corinthians 6 [i.e. 6:16])." You responded: "I
believe this instruction verifies a sinful situation juxtaposed with
the joining with Jesus Christ in 6:17. Paul was not instructing as
you conclude."
In the polygynous culture of the Israelites and early Jews, the
assumption was that one fleshness in Genesis did not refer to
monogamy but to the union that obtained between a man and each woman
he had. In order to teach monogamy-only, it would not have been
sufficient simply to reiterate the phrase "one flesh." The teaching
would have had to have been explicit, as it was in the sectarian
group of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Damascus Document 4:19-21 cited
Genesis 1:27 as establishing a creation principle that prohibits the
taking of two wives in a lifetime.
The Apostle Paul fit into a different hermeneutical tradition.
Citing the parallel in Genesis 2:24, which would seem to be more
attractive as a proof-text for the sectarians' principle, he
implicitly rejected the idea of "one flesh" as signifying
monogamy-only. In his view, a man becomes one flesh with each
prostitute he has. For any one of the believers to whom Paul was
addressing himself, visiting prostitutes was not detachable from
church life. It was tantamount to cultic pollution of the living
temple, for associating prostitutes with the Temple or the priests
that attended it was roundly condemned in the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus
21:7-9; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Samuel 2:22ff.; Hosea 4:14). But I
think that Paul was speaking of something stronger than just
association. I think that he was commenting upon Leviticus 21:7,
which has to do with a priest marrying a prostitute. For Paul, going
in to a prostitute is to become one flesh with her; and that is the
essential primeval feature of marriage.
You wrote: "The
recitation of authority is absolutely necessary where the authority
is relevant. Authoritative precedent may be challenged but must
always be respected."
Necessary?? I would see the necessity of authority in
intellectual discussion as being extremely limited. For instance,
citing authority as authority may be called for if the authority has
created the terms of the discussion. So it was that I referred to the
Bible earlier as definitive for the canonical
community with regard to what is considered sinful.
Given your attitude towards authority and Christian tradition,
why haven't you joined the Roman Catholic Church? That would seem to
be a necessary consistency.
You wrote: "It appears you are suggesting there is some hidden
bigotry behind the Scriptures' condemnation of homosexuality."
No, to the contrary, just as I have said with regard to Paul.
However, if the prohibitions are, in fact, to be interpreted broadly
and as purely authoritarian, I might reconsider.
You wrote: "homosexuality is a minor
sin compared to my womanizing.... Mine was referenced in the Ten
Commandments! Homosexuality was not! So was my sin the greater? I
believe so."
Giving the Ten Commandments preeminent status above all other
laws is not a New Testament idea. On the contrary, when asked which
commandment is the greatest (Mark 12:28-34 and parallels), Jesus
passed over the Ten and cited two all-encompassing commandments
instead, to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to love your neighbor
(Leviticus 19:18). Ancient rabbinic Judaism accorded the Ten a
special, core status, in large part because of their perceived close
association with the Noachides. Some Protestant groups today accord
the Ten preeminent status because they were spoken directly by God.
How those groups reconcile preeminence on that basis with the belief,
which they also hold, that the whole Bible is the Word of God beats
me; and this is not even to raise the issue of legalism. It
continually amazes me how Jesus and Paul eluded the intellectual
traps that so many others have fallen into since.
You wrote: "Well, then accept what
Scripture says as an authority."
We are debating the meaning of Scripture, not its
acceptance.
You wrote: "in the courts the law is proscriptive as to
evidentiary belief and is vulnerable with frontier questions. Because
there is often no precedent or basis of authoritative data."
The planets have revolved around the sun for a long time, and
yet Galileo was still convicted and confined to house arrest. He
contradicted authority.
Galileo on Authority
|
|
The following quotations are
from Discoveries and
Opinions of Galileo,
translated, with an introduction and notes, by Stillman
Drake (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957; "A
Doubleday Anchor Original").
"As to the mere
authority of ancient and modern philosophers and
mathematicians, I say that that has no power at all to
establish a knowledge of any physical proposition; the most
it may do is to incline one to believe one way or another."
-- Third Letter on Sunspots, to Mark Welser, December 1,
1612 (Drake translation, p. 132)
"In the sciences the authority
of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny
spark of reason in an individual man. Besides, the modern
observations deprive all former writers of any authority,
since if they had seen what we see, they would have judged
as we judge." --
Ibid.
(Drake, pp. 134-135)
"It is very pious to say and
prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak
untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I
believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and
may say things which are quite different from what its bare
words signify." -- Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine,
Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Concerning the Use of Biblical
Quotations in Matters of Science, 1615 (Drake, p.
181)
"In discussions of physical
problems we ought to begin not from the authority of
scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and
necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the
phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the
former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as
the observant executrix of God's commands." --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 182)
"Having arrived at any
certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the
most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible
and in the investigation of those meanings which are
necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant
with demonstrated truths." --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 183)
"We are unable to affirm that
all interpreters of the Bible speak by divine inspiration,
for if that were so there would exist no differences between
them about the sense of a given passage. Hence I should
think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone
to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to
maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some
future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary
reasons may show the contrary. Who will indeed set bounds to
human ingenuity? Who will assert that everything in the
universe capable of being perceived is already discovered
and known? Let us rather confess quite truly that 'Those
truths which we know are very few in comparison with those
which we do not know.'" --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 187)
"It is not in the power of any
created being to make things true or false, for this belongs
to their own nature and to the fact." --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 210)
"Any sort of falsehood is so
abhorrent to nature that it is as absent there as darkness
is in light." -- The
Assayer, Rome, 1623;
(Drake, p. 238)
"The testimony of many has
little more value than that of few, since the number of
people who reason well in complicated matters is much
smaller than that of those who reason badly." --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 271)
"Sarsi says he does not wish to
be numbered among those who affront the sages by
disbelieving and contradicting them. I say I do not wish to
be counted as an ignoramus and an ingrate toward Nature and
toward God; for if they have given me my senses and my
reason, why should I defer such great gifts to the errors of
some man? Why should I believe blindly and stupidly what I
wish to believe, and subject the freedom of my intellect to
someone else who is just as liable to error as I am?" --
Ibid.
(Drake, p. 272)
|
You wrote: "You have too good a mind for it to be wasted on a
bogus concept supported by a reasoning that is a self deluding
rationalization."
Thank you for the compliment.
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1
Here I Stand: My Struggle
for a Christianity of Integrity, Love, and
Equality, [by] John
Shelby Spong (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, c2000): pp.
453-454.
|
|
2
Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture, [by] John
Shelby Spong (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco,
c1991.
|
|
3 My
interlocutor may have been alluding to:
Dirt, Greed, and Sex:
Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications
for Today, [by] L.
William Countryman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, c1988).
|
|
4 Vassi has
been advertised as "America's premier erotic philosopher."
See The Erotic
Comedies, [by] Marco
Vassi; with an introduction by Martin Shepard (New York,
N.Y.: Masquerade Books, 1994, c1992; "A Richard Kasak
Book"): back cover of 1st printing, paperback. The book was
first published: Sag Harbor, N.Y.: Permanent Press,
c1981.
|
|
5
Homosexuality: A
Philosophical Inquiry,
[by] Michael Ruse (Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Basil
Blackwell, 1988): p. [1].
|
|
6
The Complete Dictionary
of Sexology, Robert T.
Francoeur, editor-in-chief; Martha Cornog, Timothy Perper,
and Norman A. Scherzer, coeditors (New expanded ed. New
York: Continuum, 1995): p. 69.
|
Idea for a Book on
Homorality
August 29, 2001, 3:59 p.m.
You wrote: "I wish I could persuade
you to write your book on Homorality. It would be a big seller!" I
asked: "What do you imagine such a book would look like?" And you
answered: "I think, above, all, an articulation of what this all
means in terms of a new statement on sexual ethics is much needed and
is a timely requirement. [Etc.]"
Well, you've planted a seed. Who knows if it will take root.
You didn't mention it, but a compilation of our correspondence would
make a book unto itself!
Holiness and
Sexuality
August 29, 2001, 3:59 p.m.
I wrote: "One need not disparage
Scripture to hold to a limited application of its statements on
homosexual practice." And you responded: "I do not agree. The
prohibition on homosexuality is not limited, nor is the doctrine of
sin."
Consider all the commandments and injunctions in Scripture that
appear on a first reading not to be limited, but which have been
limited for theological reasons. Each and every commandment is
handled theologically; and if Paul's theologizing about individual
commandments is any indication, theological handling may differ
considerably from commandment to commandment.
You wrote: "You say I beg the question on sin. I say you avoid
it."
I said earlier
that I am a pacifist in the culture wars. In ecclesiastical settings
where homosexuality is at issue, I am one who practices irenics
between belligerents. I am not avoiding issues. Rather I am urging
serious engagement of issues by all sides. Of the polemicized sides
in the debate over homosexuality, both have important points to make
and both have serious vulnerabilities in their positions. Of course,
nobody likes to hear that; so I don't make anybody happy.
I wrote: "In Paul's epistles, the
relation of sexuality to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit had to do
with cultic purity, not [necessarily] with a reasoned version of
sexual goodness. It was specialized. It applied to believer sanctity
and priestliness; for the believers to whom Paul was addressing
himself were considered to be members of the body of Christ, together
comprising a living temple. The heritage chosen for defining priestly
sanctity (and the sexual regulations that would apply) was that of
Jesus' own people." You responded: "An army of theologians will
dispute this point. If that is what you want, you will have it. For
your work will be stamped with a pro homosexual billing."
I'm not sure what you think I said.
I wrote: "What did those particular [sexual] regulations have
to do with preserving holiness? I don't know." You responded: "since
you plead ignorance on what this means in terms of sin, you have no
point but speculative wanderings. I think you have thought too long
about the wrong thing. Certainly, Jack Spong would embrace you."
I should have said nobody knows, not yet, not so far as I've
heard. And I'm not interested in who embraces my ideas. I am
interested in the historical truth of the matter.
I
wrote that "the whole scheme that gave rise to the sexual regulations
in the Bible was chucked and replaced with succeeding rationales, the
most recent suiting the religious temperament of whatever party won
the latest power struggle within the church." And you asked: "Can you
cite some authoritative works that substantiate this generalized
summary? I do not buy what you are selling. Nothing has changed that
would, in turn, change the lesson in Romans 1:18-32. Nothing has
changed the lesson in 1 Corinthians 5."
You'll just have to wait for my history of sexual ethics. :-)
Although the data are strewn about everywhere. Try researching, for
instance, the history of the interpretation of the Council of
Jerusalem.1
You wrote: "The issue is not purity; the issue is sin."
You have not yet given an explanation of the concept of sin
outside of misdirected lust, apodictic assertion, and what
I called mystical understanding. Perhaps you
would like to try your hand at a more comprehensive and coherent
explanation.
I wrote: "it is exceeding difficult to discern the point of
continuing the sexual regulations of the Holiness Code into the
Kingdom of God, where there is "neither male nor female" (Galatians
3:28), which is another concept difficult to interpret." And you
responed: "You give me the homosexual argument, again."
Huh? You seem to miss the point. It was not about a use (or
misuse) of Galatians 3:28 to justify homosexuality. It was about the
Holiness Code and the standing of its sexual regulations.
I wrote: "A great deal of theological spadework has yet to be
done regarding sexuality and the Kingdom of God." And you responded:
"I obviously disagree with you. Nothing has changed."
Nothing has changed?? What a refrain! Obviously the whole world
has changed and is continuing to do so, and our knowledge is both
expanding and deepening. But I would imagine that you mean God's
expectations of us haven't changed. That, however, is exactly what we
are discussing, what those expectations are. Merely retreating into
denials of an argument you don't like doesn't advance your
position.
You wrote that God "created guns too."
He did?
You wrote: "But the sinner may use that instrument [a gun]
against God's will. So too with sexuality."
Quite so.
I wrote: "God is immanent everywhere, and so all sexuality is
present to God, this without God's withdrawal." And you responded:
"And so is death. Physical and spiritual."
Exactly right! Which means that there is more to the issue of
holiness than we have touched on. [See
below.]
I wrote: "God is spirit, not corporeal, and so, apart from
creative interest, has no investment in corporeal sexuality, except
where the spiritual principle of love is at stake. Otherwise, the
investment is all ours." And you responded: "And the question of our
stewardship in handling this 'investment' is the issue."
Exactly right again!
You wrote: "Sexuality when misused violates his [God's] quest
for us to achieve His holiness. That is the core issue!"
Holiness has to do with the sacred as
distinguished from the profane. It is a specialness of the numinous
sort, and it can have diverse manifestations. When the Israelites are
enjoined to "be holy, for I the LORD your God am
holy" (Leviticus 19:2; cf. 20:7, 26), it had nothing to do with God's
sense of sexuality. It had to do with setting themselves apart from
other people by following practices that would evoke a sense of the
numinous.
I wrote: "I have often run into people whose idea of moral
purity is infused with repugnance towards sexuality. I would suggest
a serious reevaluation on their part." And you responded: "I would
too!"
I am glad that we agree. We seem to have precious few points of
agreement to build on.
I wrote: "Sexual ethics is basic, because, among other possible
reasons, sexuality may prove to be the greatest power that we humans
can wield, even greater than the power of the atom." You responded:
"I do not agree with this. Love is greatest."
I stand corrected. :-)
I wrote: "As for the simplicity of either sexual ethics or a
biblical sexual ethic, I hardly agree. Even to reduce the whole
matter to love is to leave the question of what love means and how it
is to be applied in different cases." And you responded: "True, but
we understand what true love is."
Excavate the idea of love and we find it cavernous. Practice
love and we find it increasingly intricate and perennially delicate.
This is to say nothing of results, which sometimes we can accept only
with hope and on the basis of faith. Despite the countless hefty
tomes on love, we have barely achieved an elementary understanding.
At least we have the very basic description of agapic love in 1
Corinthians 13, to which I suppose you are referring [cf. Romans
13:8-10].
You wrote: "I
will tell you what is one definition of sin in the context [of] our
discussion. A sexual desire directed at the wrong object. That
simple. A same sex person is the wrong objective of sexual desire! I
believe it, and the Scriptures confirm it."
I would point out to you that that is an interpretation. It is
not what Scripture itself says. Doesn't make you wrong. Just means
that the idea should be proffered with the same humility you would
expect of competing interpretations.
I find your interpretation intriguing but wanting. For one
thing, it doesn't explain the "why" of the wrongness.
Bibliographical
References
|
|
1 Four
out-of-the-way, not-to-be-overlooked studies on the Council
of Jerusalem's decree:
- Apologetic and Practical
Treatises, [by]
Tertullian; translated by C. Dodgson (2nd ed. Oxford:
John Henry Parker, 1854): pp. 107-109, note A. This note
deals with the history of interpretation of the Council's
decree.
- "The Prohibitions of the
Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv 28, 29)," [by] J. W.
Hunkin, The Journal of
Theological Studies;
v. 27, no. 107 (April 1926): pp. 272-283.
- "The Apostolic Council of
Jerusalem," by Kirsopp Lake, in
The Beginnings of
Christianity. Part I,
The Acts of the
Apostles, edited by
F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. Vol. V,
Additional Notes to
the Commentary,
edited by Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury (London:
Macmillan, 1933): note XVI, pp. 195-212. See particularly
"The Meaning of Acts xv. in General and of the Apostolic
Decree in Particular,"
§iii,
pp. 204-209.
- "Excursus: The Apostolic
Decree," in Acts of
the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, by Hans
Conzelmann; translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas
Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; edited by Eldon Jay Epp,
with Christopher R. Matthews (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, c1987; in series:
Hermeneia-A Critical
and Historical Commentary on the
Bible): pp.
118-119.
For discussion of the Council more
generally, for instance in relation to Galatians 2, a couple
of useful places to start, since they engage much of the
scholarly discussion, are:
- "The so-called 'Apostolic
Council' and Its Consequences," in
Acts and the History
of Earliest
Christianity, [by]
Martin Hengel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980): pp.
111-126; plus bibliography, pp. 145-146. The book was
"translated by John Bowden from the German
Zur urchristlichen
Geschichtsschreibung
published 1979 by Calwer Verlag, Stuttgart."
- "Excursus: The Apostolic
Council," in Conzelmann (1987): pp. 121-122.
|
Fame!?
August 29, 2001, 4:01 p.m.
You wrote: "You are famous among a very large list. Forgive me.
I have referred many to your web site."
I am delighted. But how far has our correspondence gone?
[snip]
Pain of Confession
August 29, 2001, 8:37 p.m.
You wrote: "when I became a believer, a Christian, I found I
was wrong. I was ashamed and I confessed and repented of this sin. I
in fact confessed to my whole family! .... I am confident you
understand the pain I experienced by this confession."
Yes, I can imagine.
[snip]
Exhaustion
August 29, 2001, 8:37 p.m.
You wrote: "I have enjoyed this. Let's stay in touch. Best of
luck in your endeavors."
Sounds like you are as exhausted as I am!
Critiquing a Letter to E. M.
Kaeton on Homosexuality in the Church
August 30, 2001, 1:45 p.m.
You wrote:
"The following answers your question on same-sex couples who are not
homosexual. This comes from an email to the lesbian priest
Rev.
Elizabeth M. Kaeton in July 1999:
"The formula I seek is a 'cake plan,' to 'have your
cake and eat it too.' That plan says the homosexual seeks Christ
while confessing the act of homosexuality is a sin, but pursuing in
love, and where the application is appropriate, a monogamous
relationship with a 'same sex companion.'"
Three points:
- Only those with a gift for sexual abstinence (a practical
state) and those specially called to celibacy (a committed state,
hopefully accompanied by a gift for it and by ongoing spiritual
guidance) should engage in the denial of sexual expression over
the long haul. Otherwise such denial is likely to be spiritually
destructive. Creating a third category, that of two people who are
attracted to each other, exclusively committed to each other, and
living together, but who, for purposes of living by an
ecclesiatical compromise, are denying to themselves sexual
expression seems to me to be fraught with a host of problems. Of
course there are many people of the same sex who live together
without any desire for shared sexual intimacy, but I don't think
that the issue we are talking about revolves around them.
- What is the point of monogamy in a
non-sexual relationship? What is this special attachment to
monogamy that has taken hold in both the liberal and conservative
streams of the church and which idealizes it even to the point of
urging it for both non-heterosexual and non-sexual relationships?
A desire for soulful intimacy? But that eludes many, probably most
monogamous relationships; and it is possible with more than one
friend or companion. There are dangers with the direction the
church is taking; for instance, the extension of monogamy to
non-sexual relationships extends the climate for the
rationalization of jealousy, which is contrary to agapic love (1
Corinthians 13:4).
- Is your proposal exhibiting a greater concern for the
formal idea of all homosexual practice being sinful than for sin
in the lives of individuals? Would that be good for the
church?
You wrote: "What that person or
couple does is between he/she or they [i.e. him/her or them] and
God."
This sounds like the U.S. military's
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which has left homophobia entrenched,
has scarcely dampened the ardor to prosecute homosexuals, has
deprived the country of many willing and competent defenders
sometimes even after a heavy investment has been made by both, has
embittered many, has created a hypocritical appearance of tolerance
on the part of the military, and, perhaps worst of all, has forced
homosexuals within the military to live lives of a denial of honest
and forthright self-expression, which, among other things, means that
the military is fostering within the ranks not courage but retreat.
Regarding forthright self-expression, even to attend a Metropolitan
Tabernacle Church puts a person's military career at risk.
I realize that your proposal is more nuanced, but I am doubtful
that the effect would be any better in the church than the "Don't
ask, don't tell" policy is in the military. In at least one respect
it would be worse, that is with regard to the avoidance of openness.
Not only would the church be engendering divided lives -- private
lives versus public personas -- when the church should be providing a
context and dynamic for full personal integration, but your proposal
could contribute to unfortunate tendencies in the church itself. Both
the church and its institutions tend to create a climate where
members must protect their vulnerabilities from each other. If one
thinks differently, feels differently, or acts differently, or if one
falls down or seems to, watch out! But if one is to live in
expectation of heaven, isn't it best to do so with those to whom one
is willing to bare the soul? After all, do we suppose that our souls
will not someday be bared (revealing surprises even to ourselves)?
When the church dampens people's ability to live with each other
openly and honestly, it is denying fundamental desires of the heart
-- the desire to live fully integrated lives and the desire for true
community -- and it is encrusting itself even further with its
tendencies of the past.
You wrote: "If the person wishes to
remain without obligation to another, the choice of chastity is one
of conscience, between the individual believer and God. That is the
way it is with heterosexuals."
I realize that I am tilting against a windmill, but I object to
the use of the word "chastity" to mean either abstinence or celibacy.
To my mind, "chastity" is best used to mean conducting one's sexual
life righteously. Using it the other way only fogs our minds,
suggesting, for instance, that celibacy is righteous whereas conjugal
relations are tainted; when, in fact, conjugal relations are more in
line with the very first commandment given to humankind, "Be fruitful
and multiply" (Genesis 1:28; [cf. 9:1]); with the bond that is to
subsist in the joined complements of humanity (Genesis 2:24); and
with the apostolic abhorrence of a teaching that forbids marriage (1
Timothy 4:3). I do not deny a place for celibacy, but I deny that it
is either more righteous than conjugal relations or the height of
cultic purity.
You wrote: "The extension of this
rationale would provide for relationship 'blessings' without
contesting the formal sanctity of marriage vows."
What would be the point of the "blessings," unless we are
talking about either a marriage or a substitution for marriage? Just
to have a moving-in-together ceremony? Maybe that's my Puritan
iconoclastic streak speaking.
You wrote that your proposal "would allow for ordination,
because all have confessed their sin, a matter between the individual
and God."
I agree that we should all confess our sins to God, but what
sets ordination apart as a necessary occasion for doing so? Many a
member of the clergy is an unconfessed sinner, so why should criteria
for becoming a member of the clergy differ from those for being one?
How would confession to God be enforced anyway? The theology of
ordination has a great deal to do with who should be ordained, and
not many Protestant denominations have anything like a well enough
developed theology of ordination to answer adequately the questions I
just posed.
You wrote: "I would call this the Anglican Compromise. If this
could not be fairly considered, then I can only conclude your
ministry [Ms. Kaeton's] is only driven by the secular agenda and its
ambitious 'corporate campaign to change the legal and cultural fabric
of society. Forgive me for trying."
I do not see the necessity of your conclusion, especially since
your proposal has a number of problems of its own.
You wrote: "I have advocated the
legal recognition of domestic couples, same-sex or otherwise. Many
people, women and men, have domestic, non-sexual relationships, such
as older people."
I commend your open-mindedness on the subject. Personally I
would prefer to think in terms of relationships and households, since
there are a lot of artificial constructs associated with the term,
"domestic couples."
Thank you for sharing your letter to Rev. Kaeton with me.
Oppression
August 30, 2001, 1:46 p.m.
You wrote: "All the homosexuals I
know are affluent. Their 'oppression' is of their own making. Besides
I know people who are really oppressed. Those who do not know Christ,
and especially those who are economically oppressed."
Their oppression is of their own making?? So the oppression of
the Kosovars was of their own making because all they had to do was
move out? So the oppression of Christians in China is of their own
making because they have the capacity to change and accept Communist
atheism? Sorry, I don't accept that reasoning!
Homosexuality
is different because it's a moral matter? Odd how it is that the
consumption of blood pudding, though prohibited from Noah to Moses to
the Council of Jerusalem isn't generating any oppression "of its own
making" [Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:20, 29]. Odd how it
is that most of the sins in our lives, even many serious ones, go
without any significant response from anybody. But we don't
categorize people as blood-eaters or as coveters, like we categorize
people as homosexuals. If we can group and marginalize them, then we
can persecute them -- as if our own souls were not full of far
greater sin.
Depriving homosexuals of the basics of life is oppression.
Ignoring the health concerns of homosexuals is oppression.
Gay-bashing is oppression. Murdering homosexuals for being homosexual
is oppression. Homosexuals want all this? Of course not! These are
matters of a vicious will on the part of the oppressors, and they
entail sins far worse than any homosexual act. The deficiency of love
is indefensible.
[snip]
Ten Points for a Sexual
Ethic
August 31, 2001, 5:20 p.m.
You shared
an anonymous person's Ten Points for a Sexual Ethic, the tenth point
being: "True sexual ethics of necessity need to be grounded in
procreation in love which is focused [on] God's image; all else is
gobbledeegook and misplaced wandering around."
The image of God idea is much overcited in
some ways and underutilized in others. Most ideas of what it means
are mere speculation. However, some early Jews apparently saw in the
biblical use of it as the reason for prohibiting murder (e.g. Genesis
9:6) a principle that would allow for a broadening of the
prohibition. Thus: "To take away a neighbor's living is to commit
murder; to deprive an employee of wages is to shed blood"
(Ecclesiasticus 34:26-27, NRSV). Now, obHomorality (to employ Usenet
lingo): Few things deaden the soul more than either the deprivation
of one's sexuality or alienation from the God of love. There is
considerable potential for the image of God idea as the principle
behind the prohibition of murder to be extended to the debate
regarding homosexuality.
As for sexual ethics being grounded in procreation: So
masturbation and contraception are both wrong? So non-procreative
genital stimulation between husband and wife is wrong? So we should
be maximizing our procreative efforts, avoiding the waste of even one
human ovum? (Not that the ancient Hebrews or early Christians even
knew about ova!) So post-menopausal women should give up sex? So
infertile people shouldn't have sex? I suppose that Abraham's wife,
Sarah, could be cited as an example of faith overcoming age and
infertility. But, as Jesus said, God is able to raise up children of
Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9 et par.). Are we really to rely on
the miraculous in our reasoning about sexual ethics? If so, where do
we stop and why? As you shall see below, I
find the principle of grounding in procreation alone unduly limiting
and, given our overpopulated earth, even contrary to a soundly
constructed biblically based ethic.
You asked: "How about giving it a try,
if this makes sense to you? What would be your Ten Points [for a
Sexual Ethic]?"
Very well, let me try a biblically derived ethic. I won't say
that I am doing exegesis below. I'm too serious about exegesis for
that. Nor are my points pure speculation. They are a little too
educated to be so characterized. Let's just say that the following
are hermeneutical notes, and incomplete ones at that.
Operative
Principles
|
|
A note on the operative
principles enunciated below: The need for understanding
operative principles is suggested by Jesus' statement
regarding the commandments to love God and to love your
neighbor: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law
and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:40, NASB; cf. Romans 13:8-10).
It may also be suggested by the Apostle Paul's rejection of
the letter of the Law in favor of life in the Spirit (Romans
7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6). In other words, the point of the
Law is not an authoritarian one; rather it is love.
Therefore, it behooves us to search for the principles that
connect any particular law to love and all the more so where
the cultural and historical context has dramatically
changed. It is those principles rather than the letter of
the Law that belong to life in the
Spirit.
-- September 28, 2001
|
Here goes:
1. The first commandment given to humankind was, "Be fruitful
and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28).
Among the operative principles:
- Continuance of the human species is to be
valued.
- Human sexuality and reproduction
are to be valued. Note well: This valuing precedes any
restrictions upon them and precludes any philosophy of sexual
negativity. Let Jacob's blessing upon Joseph be recalled for wider
use, "the blessings of the breasts and of the womb" (Genesis
49:25).
- We humans are to comfortably fill the earth, not depopulate
or overpopulate it; and that means we humans generally, not just
those of us who are Jewish or Catholic or Moslem or whatever. The
command is not meant to spur competition between population
groups.
- The command, which takes existential form as a biological
imperative, applies to the human species, not necessarily to each
individual.
The upshot: Celebrate your sexuality and be responsible about
its results.
2. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings
to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
Among the operative principles:
- Human sexuality is not
just about reproduction, it is also about initial and ongoing
bonding -- and that does not necessarily complete the list of the
functions of sexuality.
- Cultural variation is to be recognized, for often other
scenarios take place, even in the Bible, where it is common for
the wife to leave her parents and join the husband.
- Neither the state, nor the church, nor families make a
marriage; the individuals bonding themselves to each other before
God do. The institutions mentioned have other roles with respect
to marriage.
- Marriage is not about the creation of family units to be
cogs in an economic machine. Marriage is more basic than that; in
its fundamentals, it is strictly personal.
- In sexuality, the encounter is one of subjects, each with
needs, desires, aloneness, and much more. A person might be
treated as an object, but he or she is nevertheless a subject.
- Obviously two people do not become one organism. The idea
of one-fleshness is one of intangibles, for example, the
intangible of mutual obligation, although "obligation" is the
wrong word when two are functioning as if they were one
organism.
The upshot: Treat your sexual partner (spouse) with love and
respect; enjoy sexuality with that person whether it's about making
babies or not; and, if possible, grow deeply together.
3. "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy
5:18). "You shall not have sexual relations with your neighbor's
wife" (Leviticus 18:20; cf. 20:10).
Note well: The Leviticus passages
illustrate the operative definition of adultery for the Israelites:
For a man it was to have sex with his "neighbor's" wife. For a woman
(and the application is only to married women) it was to have sex
with a male "neighbor" other than her husband.
Among the operative principles:
- A wife is not to defraud her husband by risking
the carrying of another man's baby, which might lead to
misappropriation with regard to property and inheritance
rights. (This statement is not
definitional. To carry another man's baby is not necessarily to
defraud the husband. Similarly with other operational
principles.)
- A wife is not to defraud her husband by sexually bonding
with another man, thus bringing about divided loyalties.
- A man should not cuckold or humiliate another man in his
social group by having sex with that other man's wife.
- The use of the term "neighbor" limits the prohibition to
one's social group, whether that be one's kin, tribe, or nation.
However, Jesus pointed out in the parable of the Good Samaritan
[Luke 10:29-37] that one's neighbor can be a stranger, even one
that might be considered an enemy. Still, the implication is that
other customs might quite legitimately apply in other social
groups.
- There is a cultic purity aspect of the prohibition, as with
all of the sexual prohibitions mentioned in the Holiness Code of
Leviticus. This aspect is limited to those who are part of the
cultus (that is, particular worshipping community).
Obviously the definition of adultery
changed when it was applied in a monogamous context, so that it came
to mean, more stringently, a sexual relation involving a married
person outside the monogamous marital union. I suggest that since
individuals make the marriage and nobody else and since they choose
what sort of marital system to adhere to, they also have the power to
define together what adultery is.
The upshot: Faithfully keep the promises that you have made to
your spouse about the confines of your marriage. Also, do not defraud
your spouse. Further, if cultic purity is of concern, then keep to
either the Israelite or the modern monogamous definition of adultery;
that or provide theological justification for doing otherwise.
4. "You shall not covet ... your
neighbor's wife" (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).
Among the operative principles:
- This commandment is not about desire per se, but
about choosing to nurture a desire to wrest away another's wife,
even to the formation of an intent, perhaps even to the point of
acting upon that intent.
- This commandment is not about adultery, nor is it even
about a woman changing husbands; rather it is about the thought of
depriving another in order to add to one's own "belongings."
Despite being grouped with slaves, animals, and objects, a woman
is not a belonging; which is precisely why she should not be
treated as such, precisely why one should not covet her. (I do not
belong to the school of thought that thinks that the sexual ethics
of the Hebrew Bible are chiefly about possession.)
- This commandment is not about what choices the woman would
make of her own volition, but about what might be done to shake
her loose of her husband, the ultimate solution, should all else
fail, being murder and forcible possession.
The upshot: In relations between the sexes, people should not
be regarded as objects of possession to be seized or otherwise
acquired.
5. "He shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights
of the first wife" (Exodus 21:10). "The husband should give to his
wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband... Do
not deprive one another" (1 Corinthians 7:3, 5).
Among the operative principles:
- Sexual deprivation is to be avoided. (Side effect
of this principle: The implication for frustrated singles,
especially those pressured to delay marriage. Cf. 1 Corinthians
7:36.)
- When individuals commit their sexualites to one another,
they then become responsible for maintaining a balanced economy of
sexuality within the relationship.
The upshot: Be conscientious in taking care of the basic needs
of your partner, including his or her sexual needs, and do this in a
context of mutuality.
6. "None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover
nakedness," etc. (Leviticus 18:6; reaffirmed in 1 Corinthians
5:1).
Among the operative principles:
- "The rule of the gift": With regard to marriage,
one is to reach outward beyond the immediate family, not allowing
family bounds to be static, recognizing that love and intimate
alliances are not to be confined to the existing family.
[Insularity is precluded, but] this [principle] is not necessarily
to preclude endogamy.
- A wide range of choice for a marital partner is to be
respected. The limitations are to be few and well-defined. Again,
this is not necessarily to preclude endogamy, especially in other
cultures.
- Probably an anachronistic principle (one that is read back
into the text from a later time) is the freedom for most forms of
familial love to be uncomplicated by sex. Nevertheless this would
seem to be, in general, a healthy principle.
- A definite anachronism: the avoidance of genetic defects
due to inbreeding. Avoidance of genetic defects is a good
principle; however, it can be addressed in utilitarian ways.
- The operative principle or principles for the particular
choices of forbidden relationships is unknown. However, the
choices vary widely from culture to culture. The levitical choices
apply to the particular cultus.
The upshot: When looking for a sexual partner, reach outside
the family. If part of the cultus, observe the specific kinship rules
of the cultus or provide theological justification for doing
otherwise.
7. "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness
while she is in her menstrual uncleanness" (Leviticus 18:19; 20:18).
"It is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come
... they defile a person" (Mark 7:21, 23). "I know and am persuaded
in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (Romans 14:14).
["To the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15).]
Among the operative principles:
- The point of the prohibition [as literally
applied] was cultic purity, possibly with either mythical or
superstitious overtones regarding the significance of menstrual
blood. [Menstrual blood may have represented human life, and so
then the principle would be to respect human life.]
- When it comes to cultic purity of the purely physical sort,
the cultic purity and purification power of the body of Christ, of
which women are members, trumps any sense of cultic impurity
specific to the Israelites or, for that matter, specific to anyone
else.
The upshot: Christians and non-Israelites are morally free with
regard to the purely physical (as distinguished from relational)
aspects of sexuality.
8. "You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; cf. Romans 1:27).
Among the operative principles:
- A man should deny to himself the passion to
possess power over another male, a slave or a boy, for instance,
for sexual purposes.
- When it comes to sexuality, all men are to be considered
peers; there is to be no position (in the social sense) that is to
be considered subordinate or that carries with it rights peculiar
to women in the covenantal system.
- A man is not to humiliate another man by treating him
sexually as if he were not a man. To humble another so is to
degrade oneself.
Humiliation
|
|
Clarification of the
preceding operative principle:
- As stated
above,
these principles are not definitional: To treat a man
sexually as if he were not a man does not
automatically humiliate. If humiliation is not the
intent, then this principle does not apply.
- A woman asked, does this
principle imply that for a man to have sex with a
woman humiliates her? No, it merely means that
pressing a person into an uncomfortable role is
wrong.
- If this principle has to
do with humiliating another sexually, then why are
both participants condemned in the Bible (Leviticus
18:22; 20:13)?
- First, the Law applies
to willful acts, not to those one is forced to
engage in. So in many cases, a sexually humiliated
individual would not be condemned.
- Second, it is
conceivable that one could willingly engage in
one's own humiliation, deliberately defacing the
numinous in oneself either before oneself or before
others, and therefore be culpable.
- Third, this is not the
only operative principle at work. For instance, if
we reverse the others already mentioned, then a
male who places himself under the power of another
male for sexual purposes is culpable; and a male
who uses male/male sexual relations to usurp the
rights peculiar to women in the covenantal system
is culpable.
Note
well: When the operative principles underlying the
prohibition of a male lying with a male as with a woman
are enunciated, we have the beginnings of an ethics of
homosexual behavior. A remaining issue: whether there is
an operative principle that shows that all homosexual
behavior, at least between men, is contrary to
love.
-- October 15,
2001
|
The upshot: When it comes to sexuality vis à vis social
status, all human males are equals and should be respected
accordingly. In a post-patriarchal world, the same can be said of all
adults, regardless of sex.
9. "You shall not have sexual relations with any animal ... nor
shall any woman" (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16; cf. Romans 1:25-26,
as I have interpreted the passage).
Among the operative principles:
- Human sexuality in its relational aspects is to be
an enterprise between fully sentient moral beings capable of
sharing, in part through sexuality, deep subjectivities.
- The differential in sentience between humans and animals is
such that to use an animal sexually is to abuse it and thus, to
degrade oneself. Species of lesser sentience are to be respected
for what they are, and that means not interfering with their
sexualities for the sake of slaking our sexual passions.
- The first two principles might be anachronistic.
Postulating that the prohibition was about avoiding inter-species
transmission of disease almost certainly would be, although the
point is yet a practical one. The question is, what would not be
anachronistic? A taboo against mixing? A fear of generating
monsters? A fear of polluting sacrifices? A belief that God has a
separate covenant with animals?
The upshot: Neither human sexuality nor other species are to be
degraded; and using beasts to slake human sexual passion degrades
both.
10. "Your love is better than wine" (Song of Songs 1:2). "Each
of you should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her
husband" (Ephesians 5:33 [cf. Titus 2:4]).
Among the operative principles:
- In both of these passages and elsewhere in Scripture a
sacred analogy is drawn between the relationship of a man and a
woman and the relationship of God and his people. In these
particular passages, love especially is uplifted and celebrated;
and this love is more than a sanitized agape devoid of erotic
elements; it is full-bodied love, which in marriage happens to be
an expression of agape. The analogy, far from allowing a
purely spiritualized interpretation at the expense of the erotic,
instead, by its very nature, recognizes the beauty and value of
the erotic, inclusive of physical sexuality.
The upshot: Celebrate love. Enjoy romantic and erotic love
without guilt when they are in the context of agape.
****
Well, I could keep going. There are many other issues to
excavate that the Bible touches on, for example: religiously mixed
marriages, polygamy/monogamy, divorce, rape, eunuchs, lustful
intentions, prostitution, jealousy, and the concept of "neither male
nor female." But you asked for only ten points, and this is enough to
give you a sense of how I approach the texts.
I rather like dealing with the Bible on sexuality, for it is
primitive, it points me to the roots of things, and, contrary to what
seems to be the experience of many others, I encounter in it a deep
mellifluous humanity.
August 31, 2001, 5:29 p.m.
[Deleted. Content minimal.]
Oppressions Compared
August 31, 2001, 5:36 p.m.
You wrote: "All of the homosexuals I
know are not oppressed. They are in fact arrogant with their new
found success. The fact is they take criticism as oppression. They
consider such criticism as bordering on a hate crime. There are
thousands of kids who have greater oppression because of their
economic status by a 1000 to 1 or more compared to those professing
oppression because of their homosexual life style."
I am not denying that other people are oppressed. But I have
never seen any advantage in pitting one oppression against
another.
Countless examples can be cited for each form of oppression I
mentioned. The history of homosexuality, especially in the Twentieth
Century, is full of horrific incidents and hurtful policies against
gays and lesbians. I hope you are right, that oppression has let up
-- but incidents keep occurring.
September 1, 2001, 12:46 a.m.
[Deleted. Content minimal.]
Critiquing a Faculty
Advisor's Statement on Sexual Ethics
Spetember 4, 2001, 10:35 p.m.
You wrote: "Here is a statement by
the faculty advisor to the Gay/Straight Alliance at San Louis Obispo
High School as to his view on sexual ethics. Do you have any
comments?"
Yes, here goes:
Faculty Advisor: "What I think is homosexuality is a part of
our collective sexuality."
The word "collective" suggests a degree of mutuality, as in
sharing mutual responsibility. However, that seems not to be the
intent. The faculty adviser seems to be saying: Homosexuality is
among us, always has been, always will be; get over it!
Faculty Advisor: "As long as there have been heterosexuals,
there have been homosexuals."
Possibly true. Certainly the historical record for
homosexuality goes far far back. However, the mental construction,
"homosexual," is of much more recent vintage.
Faculty
Advisor: "As I have previously stated, I do not feel that promiscuity
is something society needs to concern itself with."
Society can understand itself as being somewhere on a continuum
between the corporate and the atomistic. Ancient Hebrew society
understood itself corporately. The sin of the individual polluted the
whole society. The idea of a purely private sin or of a sin not
hurting somebody else didn't make sense in that
context. [Cf. Leviticus 19:17 (Tanach,
the Stone edition):
"You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you
shall reprove your fellow and do not bear a sin because of him."]
The Hebrew idea still clings to the American spirit by way of
its Puritan heritage; but, in general, America has chosen an
atomistic approach, that is, a highly individualistic one. So the
basic belief is that a private sin, especially a sexual one, is
nobody else's business, and the effect of that sin is limited to the
individuals directly involved. Nevertheless, as a society we,
especially the religious and social conservatives among us, still
flog ourselves (metaphorically) for what are perceived by many as the
private sins of individuals; and in those sins we chronically see our
present and future decline as a society, whatever the evidence apart
from those sins.
The chief mitigating factor for atomization is the welfare
system. Even in an age of easy and readily available contraception,
many babies are born into welfare. So American society as a whole
carries a burden for sexual behavior that results in welfare babies.
Now that behavior may be an impoverished Catholic married couple not
practicing contraception (per obedience to the Pope) or it may be
unmarried teens having sex (a much villified practice), but either
way the effect is broadly social, hitting every taxpayer in the
pocketbook. The irony is that social conservatives, who tout
traditional family values and decry the (supposed) decline of America
due to sexual immorality, tend to oppose the welfare state thereby
undermining corporateness and promoting atomization. (This is not to
suggest that there aren't better ways of achieving corporateness or
that there aren't better mixtures of corporateness and
atomization.)
Now to address myself less obliquely
to the faculty advisor's comment that "promiscuity is [not] something
society needs to concern itself with": Society expresses itself
through laws, customs, shared attitudes, and burden sharing.
With regard to laws, particularly in a pluralistic
democratic society, it is my view that the mission of government at
all levels should be strictly limited so that it does not and is not
allowed to impinge upon sexual lives. Yes, it should concern itself
with coercion and violence and other undesirable matters that may
become mixed up with sexuality, but consensual sexuality in and of
itself should be off limits [generally speaking]. I probably go
further than most people here. For example, in my view investigators
should not be asking about Gary Condit's sex life. [Gary Condit is a
Democratic member of Congress from California who is reputed to have
had an affair with a young woman now missing, Chandra Levy. On second
thought, the police may have been justified up to a point in his
case, if by asking they were resolving a significant lead.] Nor
should a court be breaking up the Green family. [This year, Tom Green
of Utah, who has five wives and 30+ children, was sentenced to five
years in prison for practicing polygamy. My complaint in the Green
case is not with the state government seeking to rectify abuses, but
with its invasion into consensual relationships. --
October 16, 2001] The [routine] violation of personhood on the
part of the American justice system is abominable.
By the way, I know of no better than a pluralistic democratic
society, short of the direct reign of God on earth.
With regard to custom, the modern age has created a
period of adolescence during which time marriage is strongly
discouraged and abstinence -- read undesired sexual deprivation -- is
enjoined. We run contrary to nature and then decry teens being
sexually active and this outside the bonds of lifetime commitment!
Society has concerned itself with promiscuity by promoting it! It
does this deep within its very structure, which due to economics and
social complexity, demands delay. It does it also by utilizing the
most effective means at its disposal, namely, natural impulse. Under
these circumstances, for society to discourage promiscuity is a form
of hypocrisy. Perhaps the better part of wisdom would be, as the
faculty advisor says, for custom not to concern itself with
promiscuity; but in order to stop promoting promiscuity, custom
should at least do better at providing acceptable means for the
reduction of sexual deprivation. I am perhaps not as radical on this
as I may sound, since I don't have easy solutions ready to hand.
With regard to shared attitudes, stigmatizing people for
their sex lives hardly seems to me to be in line with an ethic of
love, all the more so when we are talking about unwed mothers and
their progeny. Furthermore, I see no social benefit in either
marginalization or cowering concealment. These are the twin results
of stigmatizing on a large scale. The first leads to enduring social
division and worse. The second often leads to drastic measures, such
as abortion; which is to say nothing of living lies. So I see no
point in society concerning itself with promiscuity in this way.
However, in a pluralistic society sexual values are likely to
be at odds and some accommodation has to be reached, so that, for
instance, people can shut out the propagation of contrary values in
their own homes. This, of course, is your area of political action;
and I expect that you have plenty to say about it. So I'll save my
ideas for another time.
With regard to burden sharing, the country reaps what it
sows and it had best complete the system, or it will only inherit a
rotten crop. By law, the country taxes marriage, makes the break-up
of a formally married couple much more costly than the break-up of
one not formally married, rewards having babies out of wedlock more
than in, and discourages some parents from living with their
families. Small wonder that sexual mores have taken the turn they
have! Society at large is hardly innocent of responsibility for the
social burden created by the widespread violation of traditional
mores, and therefore it ought not to balk at providing assistance in
the raising of children in single parent homes, for instance.
Personally, I think that a host of policy changes are in order to
change the dynamics that give rise to the burden; but even if the
policies were perfectly balanced, I think it a good thing on the part
of society to celebrate motherhood, whatever the circumstances, and
to welcome and nurture new life. To celebrate motherhood and new life
is not auotmatically to promote promiscuity. However, to leave
anti-marriage policies intact is to do just that. Beware lip service
on behalf of "family values"; look instead for substantive policy
changes that truly promote real families.
All this talk about promiscuity, and I don't even agree with
the idea behind the label! It is supposed to be a catch-all term for
most sexual immorality, as though it were:
- One of the chief evils underlying the biblical
prohibitions regarding sexuality. It's not. And,
- Plain and obvious how promiscuity is evil or otherwise
immoral. It's not obvious. Such a conclusion requires a large
matrix of ideas; and it requires a serious answer to scientists
who postulate that promiscuity, especially in tandem with domestic
bonding, has contributed significantly to the survival and
development of the human species.
In other words, the term "promiscuity" is a mask that obscures
serious values related to sexuality and that deflects from serious
ethical work.
Faculty Advisor: "People are sexual beings. Sadly, as we grow
older we place limits and pass judgments on this sexuality."
I suppose that the faculty advisor has thoughts like these in
mind:
- As people grow older, they tend to accumulate more and
defensively become more resistant to change. Hence they tend to
adopt socially conservative attitudes, including conservative
attitudes about sexuality.
- As people grow older their sexual vigor diminishes. It
therefore becomes easier to discount the power of sexual drives in
their reflections on sexual ethics.
However, it is also true that:
- As people come into their own in mid and late life, they
sometimes choose to throw off traditionalism.
- Sexual deprivation among the older generations is a potent
issue, especially given the increasing disparity in numbers
between the sexes as ages rise.
- Alternative sexual lifestyles have a heavy representation
of older people, according to news reports.
- Some people wrestle with sexual issues in many forms
throughout the course of a lifetime.
I suppose I am over-reacting because I have an innate aversion
to stereotyping. My point is simply that people can be old and still
think very very differently.
Faculty Advisor: "There is no need for a ten point treatise on
sexual ethics, for any sexuality is ethical as long as all parties
are consenting and no one is harmed."
There has been an emerging consensus within many segments of
Western society to the effect that consensual sex is okay so long as
no one is harmed. That is even part of the credo of some neo-pagan
groups. However ...
First point: When the statement is excavated, it becomes plain
to see that there is room for considerable disagreement as to what it
means. The issue of consent is touchy enough, but what constitutes
harm and how does one avoid it? Consider the following:
- Any sexual encounter, whether in the context of marriage or
not, is fraught with potential for hurt on the part of the
participants. A touch of emotional coldness, for instance, can be
like jabbing an icicle through a partner's heart. The hurt may be
intended, but more likely not.
- What about non-participants? If another person would be
emotionally upset upon finding out about it, does that make a sex
act wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving another person
manipulative power over one's own sex life?
- Is it harm to inseminate another man's wife against his
will (or to allow oneself to be inseminated by another against
one's husband's will)? How so or not so? On what basis?
- What if the harm attending a sex act is due to social
response? Who is responsible for the harm, the participants in the
sex act or those with the condemnatory social response?
It would be possible to work the idea of harm to cover so much
as to exclude almost all sexual activity or to cover so little as to
include almost any.
Second point: Many who have long
since abandoned traditional sexual morality are inventing new sexual
ethics, so that today we hear about lesbian ethics, polyamorous
ethics, and so on. Most of these ethics have to do with interpersonal
dynamics and acceptance and honesty and living in a way that is true
to oneself. Some actually become highly sophisticated. My point is
that many people have yet found it necessary to expand on sexual
ethics and not rely on a simple credo of do no harm and feel free to
go ahead where there's consent.
Third point: The credo takes no account of cultic purity
issues; and therefore it ignores many religious traditions, which, I
would suggest, is to ignore a treasure trove. So what if the treasure
is sunken, buried, and encrusted! There's gold there!
Despite this little critique, I expect that the
consent-and-no-harm ethic will prove to be the greatest competitor of
traditional Christian sexual ethics. In fact, I imagine that it
already dominates the West. So far, the Christian response to it has
been lackluster at best.
Faculty Advisor: "Therefore, I cannot even begin to extrapolate
10 points from sexuality. This is in no way intended to diminish your
10 points, because I agree with some of them."
Whose ten points? Not mine, I suppose.
Faculty Advisor: "Think about it, when you were young, you
experienced [experimented?] with your sexuality. Younger people are
drawn to new sexual experiences, because it is well ... new! Those
young people who adhere to strict sexual codes of conduct are missing
some of the most beautiful times in their lives!"
Beautiful for some, not for others. Early sexual experiences in
American culture tend to be of high intensity but poor quality; and
they are prone to trauma -- not only outside of marriage, by the way.
I applaud the faculty advisor's vision of the beauty of youthful
sexuality, in distinction from sexual negativism; but there's a lot
more to it.
I have seen a quotation to the effect that as we grow older,
our regrets are not for the sexual encounters that we had, but for
those that we missed. It sounds like that is the sort of sentiment
that the faculty advisor is addressing.
Faculty Advisor: "Read my words: 'I
do not advocate, NOR DO I CONDONE promiscuous sex -- whatever
standards for promiscuity you have set up. However, I will answer
your question. In our society, sex with a minor, or amongst minors is
against the law. There are many reasons for this, mainly to protect
minors because we feel it is unhealthy for them to engage in sex.
Therefore having legal and safe sex between consenting adults is what
constitutes correct promiscuity. A person may have as many partners
as they choose."
Sex between minors is against the law in California? I'm
surprised, if so. And a tad amused. It's rather like outlawing the
true value of pi and insisting that it be three. [I probably
misunderstood. He may have meant sex between adults amongst
minors. -- September 28, 2001]
The phrase "correct promiscuity" is too hard a phrase for many
people to get their minds around, and therefore it fails to
communicate as intended. Further, it suggests that legality has
something to do with the issues at hand, when we are discussing the
principles that might give rise to either law or the repeal of law --
the focus, however, being on ethics. Probably the phrase "adult
promiscuity" would serve better, although I'm not sure what the point
would be.
Faculty Advisor: "If a married person engages in sex outside
the marriage this would be adultery, which our society generally
accepts as wrong. Is it illegal to commit adultery? I don't know. Is
it wrong? Depends on who you ask. Is it correct promiscuity? I say
yes. Would I do it? I hope not."
Sounds like the simple principle of consensual sex being okay
so long as no harm is done is failing the faculty advisor here. It's
not helping him much in sorting out the issues of good and evil.
A second point: What's wrong does not depend on whom you ask.
It depends on reasons.
Faculty Advisor: "Is homosexuality
correct promiscuity? Yes. It is not illegal and both parties are
consenting. Is it wrong? Depends on who you talk to. I say no. Hope
this helps."
Homosexuality is not necessarily promiscuity at all. First, to
be homosexual, no partner is required, only a primary attraction to
the same sex. Second, one can be monogamous and homosexual. Third, a
homosexual can have long-term sexual relationships exclusively. All
of these circumstances would escape the usual
definition of promiscuity, and the first
would escape any exisitng definition of promiscuity that I'm aware
of.
You said that you replied to the faculty advisor this way:
"Well, it suggests to me that your sexual ethic advocates sexual
promiscuity except as precluded by the law, except homosexuality,
where all homosexual conduct is ethical. Have I correctly read what
you are saying? Can you embrace this in your version of Ten
Points?"
I read your interlocutor differently, but he can speak for
himself.
Critiquing a Review of
The Bible and Homosexual Practice
September 10, 2001, 1:22 p.m.
The following are excerpts, followed by
my comments, from the review that you sent by David W. Virtue of:
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and
Hermeneutics, by Robert A. J. Gagnon (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2001): 520 pages.
Gagnon: "The bible presents the
anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and
female as clear and convincing proof of God's will for sexual
unions."
No it doesn't! The Bible doesn't mix up presentation (or
generalization or mirror reflection) and moral proof in the way that
we tend to. And, besides, it does not speak directly to
"complementarity" vis-à-vis "God's will for sexual unions" --
particularly not in relation to its prohibition of certain homosexual
behavior. That is traditionalist inference and over-reaching. If it
is necessary to over-reach in order to "prove" a point, the
suggestion is that something is wrong with the point.
If Dr. Gagnon wishes to tease out implications of Scripture
passages in order to make a theological case regarding homosexuality,
that's fine; but he shouldn't have the Bible teaching what it
doesn't, without first recognizing the enormity and fallibility of
the mediational "teasing" process.
Gagnon: "Even those who do not accept
the revelatory authority of Scripture should be able to perceive the
divine will through the visible testimony of the structure of
creation. Same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion
against the intentional design of the created order."
This is anachronistic interpretation, reading back into the
Bible Scholastic philosophical ideas from the Middle Ages.
Gagnon: "It degrades the participants when they disregard
nature's obvious clues, and results in destructive consequences for
them as well as for society as a whole."
This is anachronistic interpretation, reading back into the
Bible today's social conservatism. In the Bible, "destructive
consequences ... for society as a whole" had to do with breaking a
covenant with God, that on the part of the holy people of Israel; for
sin was cultic pollution that extended to the whole of Israelite
society. That is not the sort of reasoning employed by social
conservatism, as becomes clear in Gagnon's next sentences.
Gagnon: "These consequences include
matters of health (catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life
expectancy) and morals (unstable and destabilizing patterns of sexual
behavior where short-term and non-monogamous relationships constitute
the rule rather than the exception)."
This is anachronistic interpretation, reading back into the
Bible a utilitarianism which simply isn't there, whether the motive
is health or social stability. In any case, a utilitarian rationale
cannot support the weight of absolute and universal moral demands;
for it evaporates as soon as a utilitarian answer comes along. If the
biblical writers had relied on utilitarian rationales, then we would
be justified in overturning them in favor of whatever works.
Virtue: "Gagnon takes us through the Old Testament witness;
same-sex intercourse as 'contrary to nature' in early Judaism, the
Mishnah, Talmud and Related literature, the witness of Jesus, the
witness of Paul and Deutero-Paul, the hermeneutical Relevance of the
Biblical witness, and a comprehensive index including modern authors
and ancient sources."
Good, that is the sort of thing that might lead me to pick up
the book some day for my library.
Gagnon: "in the few instances when
words that could be translated as tolerance or intolerance occur in
the biblical text, they generally appear in contexts that condemn
tolerance of wickedness and immorality in the midst of God's people.
Toleration of immoral sexual practices was a vice, not a virtue."
Exactly, "in the midst of God's people"! However, what
constitutes wickedness and immorality is precisely what is under
discussion; also the universality or non-universality of certain
sexual prohibitions in the Bible.
Gagnon: "No one on either side of the homosexuality debate
wants to be inclusive of harmful behavior or widen diversity to
include sin..."
Within all of society or just within the church? Of course we
want society to tolerate sinful behavior! Or else we'd all be in
prison or maybe decapitated, every last one of us. As for the church,
I'm afraid that both pews and pulpit would be empty if we were to
exclude those who had unrepentently mistreated their fellows or who
had unrepentently engaged in deception. We are often not even
conscious of the need for repentance for such sins.
Gagnon: "If a clear,
unequivocal, and pervasive stance in the Bible can be shown to
exist-across the Testaments and accepted for nearly two millennia of
the church's existence-then the burden of proof lies with those in
the church who take a radically different approach to the issue."
No, the burden of proof rests with those who would impose their
moral values on others, all the more so if any of those others have a
sense that living by such values has evil effect.
As for the premise of Gagnon's remark, I utterly disagree. I
see a major disjunction between the Bible and later church teaching.
[See above.]
Gagnon: "Is something outmoded
simply because it has a long pedigree? To the contrary, the antiquity
and durability of a given prohibition against immoral conduct often
indicates its workability, effectiveness and elasticity as a cultural
model rather than its contemporary irrelevance."
Good! Gagnon has put his finger on a logical flaw in one of the
arguments of his opponents. However, his wording suggests that as
soon as the homosexual prohibition becomes unworkable, ineffective,
or brittle it has outlived its usefulness. Gagnon's utilitarian
position is again undermining his argument for the universality and
absolutelness of the prohibition. [It also ignores the sort of point
made by Vita Sackville-West.]
Virtue: "Speaking to the issue of
violence against homosexuals that a book such as his might promote,
Gagnon argues that while antihomosexual violence deserves to be
vigorously denounced, it does nobody any good to ignore the dangerous
way in which isolated and relatively rare incidents of violence
against homosexuals have been exploited to stifle freedom of speech
and coerce societal endorsement of homosexual practice."
Nobody knows how many homosexuals world-wide were murdered
during the 20th century for being homosexual. Hitler alone was
responsible for a large number.
Virtue: "proponents of same-sex intercourse."
This is a prejudicial phrase, like calling pro-choice people
pro-abortion. Saying that we should let people be with regard to
their own sex lives is not the same as promoting same-sex
intercourse.
Virtue: "By that same logic, the US in
the 19th century should have endorsed the practice of polygamy."
Again Virtue (or is he quoting Gagnon here?) is using
prejudicial rhetoric. Tolerating or allowing polygamy is not the same
as endorsing it.
Virtue
or Gagnon -- quotation marks ambiguous: "statistically more
significant than hate crimes against homosexuals are the harmful
effects of various forms of homosexual behavior on homosexual[s]
themselves: serious health risks (such as AIDS) associated with anal
intercourse and rampant promiscuity; 'pick-up murders,' in which a
gay man kills an anonymous sex partner; and high rates of domestic
violence and sadomasochism among homosexual couples."
This is scare rhetoric and again utilitarian based. Further, it
fails to recognize all sorts of distinctions, many of which I have
addressed earlier; so here is an example of one I haven't: the
distinction between voluntary and involuntary participation in
sadomasochism. The voluntary sort is widely practiced by both
homosexuals and heterosexuals, with various safeguards in place.
Therefore the association of sadomasochism with domestic violence
falls flat on many ears, while it inflames the minds of the less
informed. Look, a case for an absolute and universal principle
against all homosexuality cannot be made on the basis of either risk
factors or associations thought to be unsavory. It just doesn't
work.
Virtue or Gagnon: "Societal tolerance of homosexual practice
results in a higher incidence of experimentation with bisexual and
homosexual practice among youth, with all its attendant negative side
effects."
I am highly skeptical. I have never seen any convincing
evidence of this. And common sense tells me that most youth are going
to do what they will with their own bodies regardless of the law,
particularly if they can conceal it.
Gagnon: "in a larger sense, Jesus was not silent about same-sex
intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear
about Jesus' perspective."
Jesus was not silent about same-sex
intercourse; for he spoke of porneia, which, in my view,
encompassed the sexual prohibitions in the Holiness Code of
Leviticus, including the prohibition of "a male lying with a male as
with a woman."
Virtue: "Jesus prioritized the law's core values and even
amended the law by closing loopholes and expanding its demands."
This is the common Protestant view, one which stems from the
reaction of much German scholarship, from Luther on, against Judaism.
I disagree. Jesus did not touch the Law: He didn't amend it. He
didn't close loopholes. He didn't add to it. He didn't abrogate it.
He understood it, including its limitations; and he called people to
a deep inner faithfulness to God. This doesn't mean that the Law is
to be understood as universally in effect. There is a lot more
theologizing to be done (for instance, regarding the fulfillment of
the Law; cf. Matthew 5:17-20). It just means that I am challenging
the presupposition.
Gagnon: "no first century Jew could have spoken of
porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden
sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, same-sex intercourse,
bestiality)."
This is the same point I made above,
except that the prohibition is narrower than that of "same-sex
intercourse." For one thing, it is not about females.
Virtue: "(Mk. 10:17-22). Jesus began by reciting portions of
the Decalogue, including the prohibition of adultery as a rubric
embracing the 'special laws' against incest, pederasty, bestiality,
prostitution, and other matters pertaining to sexual intercourse."
Pederasty? Is Virtue or Gagnon recognizing a limitation here on
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13?
Virtue: "Jesus' appeal to Gen 1:27 and
2:24 in his discussion of divorce (Mark 10:1-12) confirms his embrace
of an exclusively heterosexual model of monogamy."
I disagree. Jesus was not speaking to the issue of monogamy and
polygamy but to the issue of divorce and faithfulness. See my
book on the divorce sayings of Jesus at my
Web site.
Virtue: "Jesus understood that marriage was ordained by God
'from the beginning of creation'. He shows no awareness much less
acceptance of any other pattern."
An argument from silence. [A common fallacy.]
Virtue: "The creation texts authorized only one type of sexual
union."
Jesus did not use the creation texts to make that point, nor do
they explicitly authorize what Virtue or Gagnon says they do.
Virtue: "The whole point of Jesus' stance in Mark 10:1-12 is
not to broaden the Torah's openness to alternative forms of sexuality
but rather to narrow or constrain the Torah's sexual ethic to
disallow any sexual union other than a monogamous, lifelong marriage
to a person of the opposite sex."
I disagree. Jesus' point was to go inward. It was not to narrow
the Law.
Virtue: "Such a conclusion shatters the stereotype of a figure
[Jesus] who was completing [i.e. completely?] accepting and tolerant
of the behavior of others, especially the sexual behavior of
others."
The figure of Jesus cuts both ways.
Virtue: "Those, writes Gagnon, who find in the Gospels a Jesus
who is a prophet of intolerance, who forgives and accepts (except,
perhaps, the intolerant), regardless of behavioral change have
distorted the historical reality."
There is plenty of anachronistic interpretation employed by
Gagnon's opponents too. Between the anachronisms of both sides, I
sometimes feel like Alice in Wonderland.
Virtue: "the ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy
and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend
support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or
neutral approach to same-sex intercourse."
This begs the question of what Jesus actually considered wrong.
We do not know his interpretation of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. We do
know that he summed up the Law in the love of God and the love of
neighbor. Therefore members of the canonical community, those who
accept both Leviticus and the four Gospels, have to demonstrate the
connection of that homosexuality prohibition to love and to do so
without being anachronistic.
Virtue: "Gagnon concludes the witness
of Jesus by saying that with regard to the church's response to
practicing homosexuals, there must be a willingness to fraternize
with them in a spirit of humility."
Given Gagnon's approach to biblical interpretation, this
conclusion seems inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 5. However, the last
phrase of Virtue's review, "reintegrating them [homosexuals] fully
into communities of faith" after repentance, implies that Gagnon may
actually take into account removal from the body of believers.
Virtue: "Jesus did not confuse love with toleration of all
behaviors and neither should the church."
Quite so, but here Gagnon and Virtue's rhetoric is directed
against anachronistic interpretation on the part of their opponents.
They are not addresing the question of what is evil and what makes it
so. Nor are they addressing the limits of the Law and, in particular,
of that law about certain homosexual behavior.
General comment: The book as presented by the review represents
exactly the sort of heavily flawed hermeneutics and reasoning that
convinces me more of the opposite position than of its own. If that
is the best that the anti-homosexuality camp can muster, then its
case is lost intellectually, except among those already sharing its
prejudices.
Natural Law and Other
Matters
Septeber 12, 2001, 4:58 p.m.
You wrote: "Scripture speaks to me in
terms of the 'concept of Complementarity.'"
Scripture speaks to others differently. But I didn't think that
you wanted to conduct this discussion at a subjective level. I try to
keep my eye fixed on issues, evidence, and reasons.
You
quoted a teaching of the Catholic Church: "Basing itself on Sacred
Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine
affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they
be approved."
First, as I have argued, Scripture does not speak specifically
to the issue of lesbianism and it is debatable whether it even speaks
to all acts of homosexuality. My inquiry
into internal scriptural dependencies and operative principles
suggests not [but I am carrying the question forward].
Second, natural law theory is much
misunderstood these days and even where understood is seldom
convincing, especially when applied to the debate over homosexuality.
Among the problems:
- It reflects a particular, not necessarily the correct and
quite possibly an anachronistic interpretation of Scripture
passages like Romans 1:26-27 and 2:14-15.
- It is usually presumptive with regard to an order of
nature.
- It all too readily falls into is/ought fallacies.
- And, leaving aside definite harms to people caused by
nature, the way nature really is tends to overpower an ethereal
order of things as some suppose they should be.
You wrote: "Sorry, I think you are wrong on this point."
That's okay. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
The only thing is, I think that evidence and reasons count. Otherwise
a debate can descend into a puerile "Is too!" "Is not!!"
Gagnon wrote: "Even those who do not
accept the revelatory authority of Scripture should be able to
perceive the divine will through the visible testimony of the
structure of creation. Same-sex intercourse constitutes an
inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created
order." I commented: "This is anachronistic interpretation, reading
back into the Bible Scholastic philosophical ideas from the Middle
Ages." And you responded: "No, it is not.
Your spin on this may sell to homosexuals, but it is not truth as I
believe it. Gagnon's is a confirmation of what is truth."
I'm not trying to sell to anybody. I'm trying for genuine
understanding.
And there you go with authoritarianism again! Any
"confirmation" by Dr. Gagnon is no better than the evidence and
rationale that he presents.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Paul, was the
first of whom we know to develop a systematic synthesis of the Hebrew
Scriptures and Greco-Roman ideas. His approach flowered in the Middle
Ages. The preeminent example of one who synthesized Scripture (in his
case the Roman Catholic canon) and ancient philosophy (above all that
of Aristotle) was Thomas Aquinas. It was from Aristotle and his like
that medieval thinkers took the idea of an order of creation; and
this, they thought, fit naturally with and explained Paul in Romans
1-2.
But as much as Paul played off of Greco-Roman ideas, he was not
a synthesizer. He was, in my view, steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures
and Jewish hermeneutics. His conversion did not make him more
Gentile. Instead it made him christocentric, and thereafter his ideas
were turned to and found elevation in Christ.
Paul wrote:
"what can be known about God is plain to them
[suppressors of the truth], because God has shown it to them. Ever
since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature,
invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the
things he has made" (Romans 1:19-20, NRSV).
And he wrote:
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do
instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the
law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is
written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears
witness" (Romans 2:14-15).
Paul wasn't synthesizing. He wasn't
proclaiming an order of creation with fixed categories that everybody
and everything had better fit into or else be condemned. (It never
ceases to amaze me how Paul eluded fallacies so many of those who
came after him fell into, in this case the is/ought fallacy.) Nor was
he even suggesting that righteous Gentiles followed or should follow
all six hundred and some odd laws of the Torah. Written on their
hearts!? Heavens, not even most Jews could remember them! He was
presupposing the Noachides, not Mosaic Law (except, possibly, the
"strangers among us" parts of it); and he was supposing even
something more basic than that, a morally informing spiritual
attitude of faith, hope, and love; and here we are only beginning to
get the scent of the path that Paul was on. The Scholastics trampled
all over it and finally went off into another direction with their
natural law theory. But Paul was following ancient insights entailing
covenantalism and the depravity of idolatry.
You wrote: "We are talking about the totality of His
revelation, that is comprehensive in its declaration of the sin of
homosexuality (Romans 1:26, 27; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians
6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Genesis 19:1-9; Judges 22:19; 1 Kings 14:24; and
Jude 7)."
There are only twenty-one chapters in Judges.
Prooftexting
|
|
Earlier
I had warned my interlocutor of some of the dangers of
prooftexting, and here I decided to drive home the point by
bringing him up short. He had cited the same string of
references numerous times in our discussion, without ever
taking another look. If he had, he would have discovered
that the Judges passage he wanted was 19:22-24. Rather than
inquiring of the text with an open mind as our discussion
proceeded, he was using a string of references to bolster a
fixed position. In all fairness, however, we had not
discussed the Judges passage.
For my interpretation of these
passages, see
below.
-- October 15, 2001
|
You wrote: "If by utilitarian you
mean the ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill
that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people, then I understand your
comment."
Yes, I mean that exactly, except more broadly to encompass
Americanized versions of utilitarianism, such as William James'
pragmatism and John Dewey's instrumentalism, as well as
philosophically naive constructions of it, which are especially
rampant within the American public, for example, the emphasis upon
the practical at the expense of the theoretical, the artistic, the
pure, the relational, and ... well, you name it. I have nothing
against practicality or utility, just against them being turned into
"-isms" -- especially, in the context of our discussion,
anachronisms.
When I speak of utilitarian rationale
being anachronistically applied to biblical prohibitions, I am simply
objecting to (a) the idea that biblical prohibitions were about
practicality, whether social, medical, or other practicality; and (b)
the implied idea that practicality can support the weight of
universality and absoluteness.
Utilitarianism relies upon a view of evil as being in the
effect, not in the act. Using a utilitarian argument to maintain the
evilness of an act per se contradicts this basic principle. Therefore
using a utilitarian argument to uphold biblical prohibitions of
certain acts is not only insufficient as an explanation of those
prohibitions and insufficient as a Christian justification of the
idea of the universality and absoluteness of those prohibitions, it
is also out of line with utilitarianism itself. It creates a hybrid
satisfactory for neither position.
You wrote: "On the other hand, could they [have] had a form of
AIDS in those days?"
We have no evidence to the effect that a form of AIDS existed
during biblical times; and even if we did, we have no linkage to the
prohibition. In any case, how far do you really want to reach?
You wrote: "I reject that Christianity, in its amorphous
manifestation, is utilitarian. I see it as simply the 'one on one'
relationship of each person with the triune God. Achieving the
greatest good is not by optimizing His message to the 'greatest
number of people.' I believe it is the conversion of His predestined
elect based on His call."
Good! Then why continue using utilitarian arguments when
pressing Christian morals?
[snip]
You wrote: "Society is embraced in the
sin of disbelief, which, according to Luther, is the only sin. Martin
Luther advises the Christian Saint, in the introduction of his
commentary on Romans:
"'Hence Christ calls unbelief the only sin, when he
says, in John 16, 'The Spirit will rebuke the world for sin, because
they do not believe in me.' For this reason, too, before good or bad
works are done, which are the fruits, there must first be faith or
unbelief, which is the root, the sap, the chief power of all
sin.'
"Luther, as an Augustinian was not offering an anachronistic
speculation. It was an astute conclusion supported by Scripture."
Both Augustine and Luther were anachronistic all over the
place. For instance, Augustine read a spirit/matter dualism back into
Scripture; and Luther read a contemporary construction of legalism
back into Paul's opponents. However, both were also astute.
[snip]
You wrote: "Some say this is the discipline or fruit of
'orthodoxy,' meaning 'right thinking.' Can this simple thread of
truth through thousands of years of consistent testimony really be
wrong?"
By this logic, you should hold to Vedic Hindu orthodoxy! Yes,
of course orthodoxy can be wrong. That's not to say that it is. As
for truth, well, no, it can't be untruth -- not in the same time, the
same place, and the same relation (to allude to the definition of a
contradiction, which I gave you
earlier).
I wrote that "the burden of proof rests
with those who would impose their moral values on others, all the
more so if any of those others have a sense that living by such
values has evil effect." And you responded: "The commandment to
reprove the brother or sister is a command of Scripture: In both
situations (a) when we come to Christ, and (b) when we live in
Christ, we are held accountable and responsible for our actions."
The issue is not reproof but what is to be considered wrong. I
have noticed the same slipping off the issue in both the Virtue
review and in the discussion I have recently taken up with ...
[another]. Makes me wonder what is going on here. I suspect that to
take seriously the question of what is to be considered wrong is
threatening, for it opens the possibility that there might be an
answer other than the answer that one is comfortable with or invested
in.
I wrote: "As for the premise of Gagnon's remark, I utterly
disagree. I see a major disjunction between the Bible and later
church teaching." And you responded: "But that really doesn't dispute
Gagnon's findings."
*Smile* Quite so! Quite so!
But I have been presenting my historical views throughout our
discussion, more is to be found at my Web site, and still more is
coming in the books that I am writing.
I wrote: "Nobody knows how many
homosexuals world-wide were murdered during the 20th century for
being homosexual. Hitler alone was responsible for a large number."
And you responded: "But surely no more than a fraction of 1% of the
total murdered by Hitler's regime."
Not "surely." The estimates range widely. But percentages are
not the point. The reality of oppression is and the sense of
oppression based on that reality.
Generally speaking, Christians operate with a persecution
complex, even though only a minuscule percentage of Christians have
actually been martyred; and many of them sought martyrdom. A Jewish
friend of mine could scarcely comprehend Christians bearing the
emotional scars of persecution. For him, Christians are people in
fullest possession of the power to oppress, a power which (in his
view) they have often exercised. The fact is that many groups feel a
sense of oppression or bear the emotional scars of persecution, even
when the persecution is distant to them. Running down that sense of
oppression or disrespecting those scars rather than understanding and
appreciating them strikes me as picking at rather than healing wounds
and ultimately as an affront to human dignity.
So far, I have been speaking of extremes, like martyrdom. But,
of course, most oppression occurs at a lesser level, like being
called a nasty name, being excluded from the group, being the butt of
jokes, being beaten up while walking home from school, or perhaps
being accused of bad scholarship and denied a graduate degree because
you argued in a thesis that the New Testament spoke to a limited kind
of homosexual behavior. (I am referring to a real case, which was
kept quiet [the possible violation of academic freedom being one of
the concerns] but which was nevertheless revealed to me.) I think it
unwise to deny or minimize oppression until you have walked at least
several miles in the other's shoes.
Virtue used the phrase, "proponents
of same-sex intercourse." I commented that "This is a prejudicial
phrase, like calling pro-choice people pro-abortion. Saying that we
should let people be with regard to their own sex lives is not the
same as promoting same-sex intercourse." And you responded: "Ah! An
alleged semantical failure. :-)"
*Smile* Yup!
Levity aside, the fungibility of freedom and licentiousness is
a matter of serious concern to me; but I think I addressed that issue
earlier in our discussion.
You wrote: "I am not antinomial, but I do
think Marcion was correct in his views of the subordination of the
Law. Christ's view on the Law is expressed completely by Paul, and I
need not give you this lesson?"
I am not sure how this is a response to what I said about
Christ not adding to or taking away from the Law and how theologizing
yet must be done regarding the place of the Law. For my part, I don't
accept Marcion's scheme.
I wrote: "We do not know his [Jesus'] interpretation of
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. We do know that he summed up the Law in the
love of God and the love of neighbor. Therefore members of the
canonical community, those who accept both Leviticus and the four
Gospels, have to demonstrate the connection of that homosexuality
prohibition to love and to do so without being anachronistic." And
you responded: "You make the assumption that the rest of New
Testament Scripture is not Christ's testimony. I think all of
Scripture is Christ's testimony as guided by His Holy Spirit and our
understanding of it over time (1 Corinthians 2:12)."
1 Corinthians
2:12
|
|
"Now we have received, not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we
might know the things freely given to us by God"
(NASB).
|
No, such an assumption was not entering into what I wrote.
Virtue was talking about Jesus' ministry on earth, and I was
responding accordingly.
As for the rest of the New Testament on homosexuality, I happen
to think that it was precisely in line with what Jesus had taught.
But that is not to concede anything about the meaning of those other
New Testament passages.
And as for our understanding of
Scripture over time, that is what we are doing here, wrestling with
the meaning of Scripture for our time. We are part of the ongoing
process of tradition-making, if you will, and not necessarily any
worse at it than those who came before us. In fact, we have a number
of advantages.
By citing 1 Corinthains 2:12, I am hoping that you are not
pitting one person's guidance by the Holy Spirit against another
person's, or one church's against another church's, or one era's
against another era's. The Spirit's guidance is for us to search
Scripture and to practice love, both diligently.
You wrote: "The anachronistic
allegation in terms of homosexuality and love should be understood in
terms of the difference between love and lust. Scripture speaks to
this within the context of sin."
I'm sorry. I am not making heads or tails out of this
statement, so I can't respond. I have a feeling, though, that you and
I might not agree on the meaning of epithumia or on how it
relates to evil.
You wrote: "Christ's revelation is certainly not to be
considered a 'sex manual' to justify homosexual conduct through
rationalizing a homosexual's love motives when homosexuality is
consistently related to lust directed at wrong objects of
desire."
Again, whether or not a same-sex partner is a wrong object of
desire is the issue at hand.
As for justifying and rationalizing, I run scared of those
things too. But I am after understanding.
And as for love, of all motives this is the one I am most
reluctant to rush to judgment on.
[Regarding the "sex manual" component, see
above.]
Virtue wrote: "Gagnon concludes the
witness of Jesus by saying that with the regard to the church's
response to practicing homosexuals, there must be a willingness to
fraternize with them in a spirit of humility."
I commented: "Given Gagnon's approach to biblical
interpretation, this conclusion seems inconsistent with 1 Corinthians
5. However, the last phrase of Virtue's review, 'reintegrating them
[homosexuals] fully into communities of faith' after repentance,
implies that Gagnon may actually take into account removal from the
body of believers."
And you responded: "This olive branch, if that is what it is,
is consistent with the Catholic teaching:
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the
virtues of self-mastery that teach inner freedom, at times by the
support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace,
they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian
perfection."
I wasn't offering an olive branch. Just trying to figure out
Gagnon's stance. Possibly Gagnon was offering an olive branch.
As for homosexuals being called to chastity, I'm not sure what
sense of "chastity" is being used. From the quotation, it sounds like
the Catholic Church expects homosexuals to refrain from any sexual
activity; and, if homosexuals read it so, they might take it as an
attempt at recruitment for either the priesthood or a celibate
religious order. The Bible certainly does not associate a call to
celibacy with a homosexual orientation; nor is an expectation of
either abstinence or celibacy as a way of life to be securely derived
from the Bible.
I made this general comment regarding the book by Dr. Gagnon:
"The book as presented by the review represents exactly the sort of
heavily flawed hermeneutics and reasoning that convinces me more of
the opposite position than of its own. If that is the best that the
anti-homosexuality camp can muster, then its case is lost
intellectually, except among those already sharing its
prejudices."
You responded: "Of course, you must understand that in terms of
your statements on the prejudicial statements by Gagnon and Virtue;
and considering your own slant on the question, I wonder how reliable
your above assessment is? I think a judgment that Gagnon's work is
'flawed hermeneutics and reasoning' might please Bishop Spong but
certainly should require your reading the book before coming down
with the gavel."
I was responding merely to what you sent and doing my best to
use the words of Gagnon himself when possible and to read those words
fairly. If Dr. Gagnon or his publisher wishes to send me a
complimentary copy of his book, I'd be only too happy to read it and
adjust my comments accordingly. As for my responses so far, they can
stand on their own legs.
I would be interested in Bishop Spong's reactions to my ideas.
You can point him my way, if you like. However, I doubt that he has
time for the kind of discussion that you and I have had; and, if
experience with my friends at certain liberal seminaries is any
guide, I expect that he will find plenty to object to in my
hermeneutics. People at both poles in the debate have much invested
in their old argumentation.
You wrote: "I believe you must avoid being painted with the
brush of being a homosexual rationalist. So far, the arguments you
are presenting are not convicting to me. But I haven't read your book
either."
Painting me as a "homosexual rationalist" is to paint me into
the polemics, which I have repeatedly eschewed. Besides, I am not
homosexual, so what do I have to rationalize about? The issue is not
whose side I'm on but what the best understanding is.
Blaming Homosexuals
September 16, 2001, 5:32 p.m.
I read your letter [addressed to another, but apparently
circulated to a group of people, excerpted
below] to a conservative person and
elicited this reaction:
"At a time like this, to use the tragedy [of
September 11th] and crisis for one's own agenda is despicable. It
disgusts me. You should break off your conversation with him. It has
made me proud to see Americans pull together and unite and start
healing. This letter inflames and tears apart. Evil!"
Let me tell you, with statements
like those you made in your letter, you only do tremendous damage to
yourself and to homorality.
[snip]
You
wrote: "Homosexual activists are making disparaging claims that
equate Islamic Terrorists to the Christian Right. This claim is made
based on the unfortunate and untruthful allegation [that] the
Christian Right hates homosexuals the same way Islamic Terrorists
hate the United States. The key emphasis by homosexual activists is
religious intolerance based on hate."
So far so good.
You wrote: "This specious allegation
is a horrific example of the homosexual activist agenda to tear down
Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Lou Sheldon -- in the
name of homophobia -- who are rightfully critical of the homosexual
movement."
Jerry Falwell's
Controversial Remark
|
|
Following the attack of
September 11th, Jerry Falwell said to Pat Robertson on the
TV show called
The
700
Club:
"The pagans and the
abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the
lesbians... the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of
them who have tried to secularize America, I point the
finger in their face and say, 'You helped this
happen.'"
These are his words as I copied
them down September 25th from somewhere while perusing
dozens of magazines in the Concord (NH) Public Library --
from
Newsweek,
I think.
|
They may be rightfully critical, for they have the right to
criticize; but they are not rightly critical. I did not hear him
directly; but a statement that Jerry Falwell made, supported by Pat
Robertson, associating homosexuality with the terrible tragedy of
September 11th was, as reported, despicable. Undoubtedly it set off a
firestorm of highly emotional reaction.
You (you general and non-specific) can have a compassionate
loving heart and still be a hate-monger when your words fuel hatred
of others by others, in this case, hatred of homosexuals by
homophobes and by those being turned to homophobia. Please hear me.
If you learn nothing else from me, learn that.
You wrote: "This allegation by
homosexual activists is a reaction to the obvious realization by
Americans that they are fed up with Terrorism and all extreme liberal
causes -- such as amplified by the homosexual agenda -- to destroy
the cultural fabric of society."
What on earth are you talking about!? What makes you associate
terrorism with liberalism? or Osama Bin Laden with extreme
liberalism? or liberalism, extreme or otherwise, with attempts to
destroy the cultural fabric of society? or "the" homosexual agenda
with extremism? or "the" homosexual agenda with attempts to destroy
the cultural fabric of society? or Americans with turning on their
fellows, whether homosexual or otherwise? Are you trying to whip up a
backlash reaction against homosexuals out of the passions of the
moment? [snip]
You wrote: "Ironically, homosexuals have
made this claim while citizens flock to their Churches in grief over
the terrorists' crime."
Fine, then make your point without proving theirs! Show
compassion.
You wrote: "One fact is true in considering the homosexual
claim, however. And that is both Homosexual Activism and Islamic
Terrorists are stealth organizations, corporately endowed, fraternal
in purpose, that wish to undermine certain aspects of the civilized
culture of the United States."
Stealth?? Stealth??? Wishing to undermine?? American
homosexuals -- I've hated categorizing people as such, but I do it
for the sake of communication -- American homosexuals exercise the
freedoms of, enjoy the benefits of, and appreciate the American way
of life as much as anybody else. You had better buy new glasses. You
are picking up a wildly distorted view of the world.
You wrote: "The homosexual's attempt to
disparage Christianity should be noted in ECUSA, where Christianity
is truly disparaged by ECUSA's secularized apostasy in supporting the
homosexual cause. Is this affront against God by ECUSA a part of what
makes Islamic fundamentalists angry? One may seriously consider this,
for according to the ex Speaker of the House on TV today on Fox News,
there are now more Muslims in the United States than
Episcopalians."
Here you are renewing your attack, at this most inappropriate
moment, on another group of Americans, those who comprise the
Episcopal Church, at least those with whom you
disagree. And you do so by tarnishing American
Moslems, associating them with the angry Islamic fundamentalists.
(You may deny it, but read what you have written through somebody
else's eyes.) Making such an association is exactly the opposite of
Newt Gingrich's point. (I heard him.) I doubt very much that foreign
terrorists care about homosexuality in America. They have plenty of
homosexuals within their own territories. Besides, not one of the
September 11th targets would suggest any such symbolism; although
homosexuals were probably among the victims, in the usual
percentage.
You signed off, "In Christ."
As a Christian I strenuously object to your tacking "in Christ"
to the end of a message like that. It is anything but. I am biting my
tongue here, in part because I recognize that we are all feeling
especially emotional these days.
Two days after the tragedy, I was itemizing my emotions in
writing. One of those items was this: "Being involved at the time in
a moral discussion regarding homosexuality, I felt the poignant
pettiness of the unwillingness in our domestic 'culture war'
squabbles to let people be." How different emotional reactions can
be!
Let me urge upon you reasonableness, responsible expression,
and, most of all, compassion.
Disaster and Damnation
September 17, 2001, 4:00 p.m.
You wrote: "I do not agree with you. The homosexuals are making
the comments. Not me."
I am not sure what you disagreed with in my response to your
epistle. Reasonableness, responsibility, and compassion? In any case,
I was responding to your comments, not those of
homosexuals.
If you disagreed with my comment about Jerry Falwell, you may
have been justified. I carefully qualified myself by saying "as
reported." Mr. Falwell is articulate, principled, caring, and
experienced in the debate over homosexuality. And he has kept himself
relatively free of scandal. I have a great deal of respect for him,
however much I disagree with him.
The use of disaster to damn the sins of society has a long
history. Disasters played into the way the chroniclers and prophets
of the Hebrew Bible portrayed the Israelites' relation to God. The
portrayal was complicated, entailing sometimes comfort and sometimes
condemnation, but always in the context of covenantalism and cultic
purity. Disasters that befell non-Israelites were also frequently
explained as the judgment of God, from the punishment of Adam and Eve
(Genesis 3) and of Cain (Genesis 4) and eventually of the whole
ante-diluvian world (Genesis 6-9) to the death of Belshazzar (Daniel
5). The most notable example, in terms of our
discussion, would be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis
19), some citizens of which tried, most inhospitably, to humble the
bodies of angelic visitors to slake their own sexual passions (Jude
7). I should mention that Jesus, discussing the collapse of a tower
upon its victims, put a twist on the theme of judgment by disaster,
this in a way meant to put a stop to finger-pointing (Luke
13:1-5).
The Puritans that came to America (some of them my ancestors)
brought with them the idea that they could and should interpret
disasters as the judgment of God, arrogating to themselves both the
role of builders of a new Jerusalem on earth and the revelatory
insight of Hebrew prophets. So in the wake of devastating earthquakes
and epidemics, we find funeral sermons decrying the sins of the
people that had called forth the judgment of God and summoning the
people to repentance. I have myself transcribed one such sermon from
a colonial manuscript. The sermon was occasioned by the death of a
child during an epidemic.
Eventually scientists discovered that epidemics were caused by
germs, and earthquakes by the movement of tectonic plates; and many
Christians, even conservative ones, adjusted their view of the cosmos
accordingly. "The chroniclers and prophets of the Bible may have had
revelatory insight, but," it was implicitly if not always consciously
decided, "we shouldn't think that we do." This approach enabled many
Christians to accommodate the scientific world-view without
sacrificing their faith, and some found ways to go even further.
However, among Christians are still some throw-backs to a
pre-scientific world-view who cannot help but cite disasters as
evidence of God's judgment. This they almost always do:
- absent the complexities of the Hebrew prophets, and
- with all the self-arrogating impertinence of the Puritans,
- this stance all too often shorn of the Puritan penchant to
SELF-scrutiny (which was one of their noble features),
- leaving intact Puritan-like finger-pointing, and
- without the benefit of a Puritan-like consensus in favor of
building a new Jerusalem.
So AIDS is called the judgment of God upon homosexuals; and
September 11th is called a day of God's judgment upon the sins of
America, with special reference not to its exercise of power in the
world where some direct connection might conceivably be seen, but, of
all things, to the sexual practices of some of its people as measured
against a religious code in several ways stricter than that of the
Hebrew prophets -- measured so despite the fact that Americans live
in a secular pluralistic society, which espouses the disestablishment
of religion, and not in the new Jerusalem of the Puritans, which, as
such, failed miserably under the weight of its own intolerance.
(Forgive the Faulkner-length sentence!)
Thorton Wilder on Disaster
|
|
Discerning the mind of God in
the wake of multiple deaths is the problem of
The Bridge of San Luis
Rey, by Thornton Wilder
(New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1927).
"On Friday noon,
July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru
broke and precipitated five travellers into the gulf below"
(p. 15).
"'Why did this happen to
those
five?' If there were any plan in the universe at all, if
there were any pattern in a human life, surely it could be
discovered mysteriously latent in those lives so suddenly
cut off. Either we live by accident and die by accident, or
we live by plan and die by plan" (p. 19).
The book concludes with these
thoughts of one of the characters:
"'But soon we shall
die and all memory of those five will have left the earth,
and we ourselves shall be loved for a while and forgotten.
But the love will have been enough; all those impulses of
love return to the love that made them. Even memory is not
necessary for love. There is a land of the living and a land
of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the
only meaning'" (pp. 234-235).
|
I
wrote that: "You (you general and non-specific) can have a
compassionate loving heart and still be a hate-monger when your words
fuel hatred of others by others, in this case, hatred of homosexuals
by homophobes and by those being turned to homophobia."
One of the many ways this can happen is by utilizing a rhetoric
that taps into a pre-scientific world-view thus evoking the
irrational and superstitious in people -- all the more so when the
reasons once attached to that view and the context to which it
belonged have been stripped away -- and again all the more so when
either the speakers or the hearers are unconscious of what is going
on. Herein lies one of the faults of some on the religious right:
They utilize just such a rhetoric. To me it is no wonder that it
incites hatred on the part of some and strong, emotional, defensive
reactions on the part of others. To protest that the heart is
innocent is naiveté. If anyone is truly serious about
homorality, it must be scrubbed clean of any such rhetoric.
Recently you wrote that I haven't convinced you of my position.
I haven't been trying to and haven't expected to. I would have to go
to a level of much greater detail and much denser reasoning to
convince myself of anything, which means that I tend --
without much foundation, I suppose -- to expect the same with regard
to others; and, in any case, you and I have such different mental
climates that probably much more than evidence and reasoning would be
necessary to be persuasive -- deconstruction of a mindset, for
example. Besides taking the opportunity to articulate my views, I
have had other ends:
- I have attempted to show you the vulnerabilities in the
articulation of your position and, if not always explicitly at
least by implication, how to strengthen it.
- I have attempted to show that a Christian can reasonably
hold a position different from yours on homosexuality.
- I have hoped that a glimmer of light would turn on here and
there as you saw how I reasoned. And,
- I have especially hoped that you might become more
conscious of your rhetoric and how it might be defeating your
message and the dialog you seek rather than helping them. I wonder
whom YOU are trying to convince and how it is that you think the
sort of rhetoric you sometimes use will reach them.
You wrote: "Tell your 'conservative' friend that I stand on
what I say."
How unfortunate that your witness to the world is so
burdened!
Critiquing a Letter to the
LA Times
September 18, 2001, 21:21 p.m.
Good for you for writing to the LA Times!
You quote Earle Fox as saying:
"hardly a word has been spoken anywhere about the need for America
and Americans to repent."
People everywhere and at all times are called to repent of
their sins, disasters notwithstanding. However, Mr. Fox's subtext
seems to be that the government should be both overriding the
religious consciences of its people and exercising compulsion in the
most intimate and agonizing areas of their private lives. His point,
in that case, is not sin, but a political agenda. Frankly, I think
that America has little to repent of when it comes to limiting
governmental interference in our private lives. Privately, yes, we
each have plenty to repent of; but corporately sins of power are what
we must most worry about.
You continue the quotation: "That we have brought vulnerability
upon ourselves by (among other things) declaring legally that God is
not our sovereign, [etc.]"
Thank you for providing me with a paradigmatic example of
superstitious thinking. There is no demonstrable cause and effect
here. It is all supposition and self-arrogating "insight" into the
mind of God.
On top of that, the rhetoric far over-reaches. For instance, we
have not declared legally that God is not our sovereign. God doesn't
need declarations one way or another anyway, nor does a pluralistic
country. God simply is sovereign.
Insofar as Mr. Fox may be expressing a concern with the state
of spirituality in America, my reaction is this: That God is
sovereign is good enough for my spirituality, that is, rather than
getting government involved. And I have a hard time seeing why it
isn't good enough for anybody else's.
Mr. Fox speaks of "poisoning the minds and
hearts of our children with criminally abusive sexuality in our
public schools."
I suppose I should respond to this since it bears directly on
our homorality discussion.
"Criminially abusive"?? Such rhetoric goes nowhere, except to
stir up irrational passions and to elicit the counter claim that Mr.
Fox is advocating criminal negligence of sexuality in schools in a
day and age where sexuality is a life and death issue. Personally I
have no taste for either sort of over-heated rhetoric.
You wrote: "This is what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson are
speaking about. It is the truth as shared by Christians and Muslims
alike."
I thought you said that there is but one
sin, the failure to believe in Jesus Christ. So I ask out of honest
curiosity, how do you reconcile what you have said to me with what
you are here saying about Moslems?
You wrote, "God is offended by the liberal secularization in
American society."
Now how do you know that? God is pretty big, encompassing the
entire cosmos and countless forms within it. Harvey Cox once argued
in his book, The Secular City, that secularization is
the natural outcome of Christianity and not to be feared by
Christians.1 I have
all sorts of objections to his thesis, but you do not seem to have
taken it into account. I should add that I, for one, am glad for the
non-establishment of religion clause in the U.S. Constitution, for
which many of our religious forebears strenuously
argued.2
The Bill of
Rights, Article I, "The First Amendment"
|
|
"Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances."
|
Thomas Jefferson
on the Separation of Church and State
|
|
When Thomas Jefferson was
President of the United States, he sent the following letter
to Nehemiah Dodge and others, A Committee of the Danbury
Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, first
having it reviewed by his Attorney General, Levi
Lincoln.
"Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and
his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation
between Church and State."
-- Sent from Washington,
January 1, 1802.
The Supreme Court, in
Reynolds v.
U.S. (1879), remarked
that Jefferson's observations in that letter "may be
accepted as almost an authoritative declaration of the scope
and effect of the [First] Amendment."
|
Another point about that sentence:
Why do you keep attacking liberalism? What do you suppose liberalism
is? It seems to me that you are likely to find many homoralists among
liberals, so why do you persist in narrowing your base to certain
kinds of conservatives, among whom all you can do is share smirks and
self-boosting harangues against others?
You quote Mr. Fox as saying: "It is imperative that our
spiritual and political leaders guide us to take the log out of our
own eyes before we try to help the bin Ladin's with whatever is in
their eye."
It seems to me that whatever is in the eye of the terrorist is
more than a speck, and the offense is forcefully and terribly in the
social realm.
You wrote: "Getting the log out of our own eyes will give us a
clarity of spiritual and moral vision and a stability of soul which
will enable us to deal with terror, terrorism, and terrorists. It
will be the foundation of joy and peace, no matter what the enemy
attempts to do. And it will be the way of the cross for drawing
closer and closer to the Source of all life, so that we ourselves can
become the channels for life when all about us seems to be headed
toward death and destruction."
Guess what, I have no problem with this! You and I doubtless
will have different ideas as to what it means in detail. And if
"getting the log out" is supposed to justify the association of
disaster with an extra special need for repentance, I find it an
interesting twist but still irrational. And if spiritual strength is
to be associated with superstitious ideas, I have a big problem; for,
in my view, superstition dilutes true
spirituality. However, soul-searching is usually appropriate and all
the more so when we are facing the sorts of challenges ahead that we
are, challenges which will indeed test us spiritually.
Bibliographical
Reference
|
|
1
The Secular City:
Secularization and Urbanization in Theological
Perspective, by Harvey
Cox (Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Co., c1966).
|
|
2 Regarding
advocacy of the non-establishment of religion, see for
example:
- A Documentary History of
Religion in America to the Civil
War, edited by Edwin
S. Gaustad (2nd ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., c1993): pp. 114-117, 119-120, 130,
132-135, 210-211, 253-279, 317-321, 401-402.
- A Baptist Sourcebook:
With Particular Reference to Southern
Baptists, [compiled
by] Robert A. Baker (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press,
c1966): pp. 33-45.
|
Judgment and Humility
September 20, 2001, 5:29 p.m.
"Considering the publicity of Falwell's apology for his remarks
ascribing the present tragedy in NY to various liberal causes (Gays,
Lesbians, the ACLU, abortionist, etc.), I feel it is appropriate and
necessary to send you this email that I sent to David Virtue."
Thank you. I was wondering what you thought of Mr. Falwell's
apology, which I happened to see live today on Good Morning
America. I thought that his apology showed bigness of
character. It may have salvaged some of his witness to the world.
Oddly, Mr. Falwell seemed almost to be responding to our last
few exchanges. This was particularly the case when he spoke of not
being able to know wherein lies God's judgment.
Humility
Testifies: A Quotation from Augustine of Hippo
|
|
"Pride asserts. Humility
testifies. The proud want to seem what they are not. The one
who gives testimony does not want to appear what he is not
but to love what, in the full sense, is."
The Latin reads: "Sicut superbia
praesumit, sic humilitas confitetur. Quomodo praesumptor est
qui vult videri quod non est; sic confessor est qui non vult
videri quod est ipse, et amat quod est ille."
From: Augustine,
Enarrationes in
Psalmos 122 (121).8. As
quoted in: Christianity
Today; 7 (August 2000):
p.68.
|
It has been my repeated first-hand
observation that one of the most insidious of faults in theology is
failure of humility. It seems to generate as many errors as do
hermeneutical mistakes and logical fallacies, maybe more. Let me make
myself clear. I am not saying that using the mind and pushing it as
far as it will go is a failure of humility. On the contrary, for that
to be done right requires humility of spirit; and when done right, it
elicits ever greater humility. I am saying that we arrogate much to
ourselves that we ought not to, such as special "insight" into the
judgment of God. Part of the problem with Mr. Falwell's earlier
offensive statement was a failure of humility, and I am relieved that
he has at least realized that he was badly mistaken.
You wrote: "I do so with the understanding that any attempt to
ask ourselves to examine why we might be wrong in light of what has
happened is 'politically incorrect' and 'unpatriotic' in this time
where we are preparing to strike back at those who have caused this
great tragedy."
There is nothing unpatriotic about self-examination, whether
individual or corporate. The problem comes with how the
self-examination is conducted. It comes with finger-pointing and
finger-wagging. It comes with presumptions and false associations and
judgmentalism.
You wrote: "Nevertheless, even though those who have caused
this great tragedy are wrong, and must be dealt with severely, I
believe we must 'examine ourselves.' I do not have the
answers."
Nothing to disagree with here. I am all for self-examination
when we have the opportunity.
You wrote: "But I believe God is
offended by our once Christian nation."
I disagree with the mythology of a "once Christian nation." Is
it referring to the Spanish who waged war on, plundered, and enslaved
the inhabitants? Is it referring to the Jamestown settlers and
countless others who came here looking for wealth? Is it referring to
the Puritan settlers, who practiced intolerance, even of other forms
of Christianity, and whose religious social experiment failed? Is it
referring to the Founders, who espoused a wide variety of beliefs,
for instance deism on the part of Franklin and Jefferson and many
others? Is it referring to the Constitution, which, in the Bill of
Rights, explicitly rejects the establishment of any religion? As far
as I can see, all it refers to is the sometime domination of American
culture by diverse forms of Christianity, a domination which is still
arguably in place although being seriously challenged on many
fronts.
The Treaty of
Tripoli (1797)
|
|
The
Treaty
of Tripoli (concluded 1796,
ratified 1797); Article 11:
"As the government
of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of
Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into
any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it
is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from
religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the
harmony existing between the two countries."
This treaty between the United
States and "the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary" was
negotiated under President George Washington and ratified
under President John Adams.
The ironies, in the context of
the present discussion, are palpable.
--October 17, 2001
|
Personally I am disturbed by American Christianity's
intellectually feeble responses to the challenges that beset it. The
feebleness of those responses is one of the reasons why I encourage
fellow Christians to tighten up their thinking. Until they do,
Christianity's influence will continue to decline in America, I have
little doubt.
You wrote: "The following email speaks for itself. If any of
this offends you in any way, I ask for your forgiveness. I am just an
old grandfather trying to understand what God wants us to know about
all of this."
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. More of my
comments are interspersed with excerpts from your epistle to Mr.
Virtue.
<+><+><+><+><+>
In your quotation of Mr. Virtue, he mentioned that Falwell's
original statement gave "Jane Dixon a temporary high ground to bash
fundies." For my own reference:
- Jane Dixon
- Bishop Suffragan of Washington
- http://www.edow.org/news/window/special/generalconvention/0803dixonhonored.html
- http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bishops/0071.html
You wrote that God "didn't will what
happened directly, He did so permissively."
God's will, especially in relation to evil in the world, is a
huge subject; and I don't want to stray too far from the subject of
homorality; so let me simply say this: You seem to be working with an
authoritarian, father-figure, "up there" model of God. There may be
less unsatisfactory models within Christianity for grappling with the
question before you.
You wrote: "I believe, we have a large question before us that
is unanswered. Why would God even permissively allow such an awful
event to happen in a God fearing nation? My only explanation is the
truth that we are not God fearing. We may be partially religious in
different forms, but we are a secular nation with secular appetites
when it comes to having a thirst for God and particularly the
acknowledgment and worship of Jesus Christ as Lord."
This is soft logic. Why do evil things happen to good people?
They do, you know. Even to Jesus Christ. Why were we hit when less
religious and less Christian nations were not? Many nations are less
so, you know.
You seem unable to let go of the idea of disaster as
judgment.
You ask: "why would dedicated Muslims be motivated to give
their lives to injure the 'Great Satan' with such a huge personal
sacrifice and injury to others? We do not fully understand this. And
we should! For there are millions of Muslims (and Christians!) that
believe we are wrong -- even here in the United States!"
There is not a lot of consensus about how the United States is
wrong.
And again I object to your lumping the
views of such large numbers Moslems together, especially when you
include the terrorists.
You wrote that God "certainly is not pleased by what is
happening... particularly in the apostasy of ECUSA."
Beware of certainty when you think you
are reading the mind of God. It is wise to embrace humility in
theology.
You wrote: "we are an apostate
nation that separates our governing from the 'fanatic influences and
contesting cacophony' of organized religions."
Thank God!! Thank God that we insist religion be free of the
influence of government agendas! And vice versa! One agenda corrupts
the other.
You wrote: "We are a nation that has declared the exercise of
prayer invalid in government places."
No we haven't, not at all. Nor do we even prohibit prayer in
public places. We prohibit the use of governmental institutions,
including public schools, for the imposition of prayer.
You wrote: "We are a nation that invalidates the use of
Christian symbols of all types on government properties in the name
of separation of church and state."
Not exactly. We do not allow the symbols of one religion to
dominate or take a permanent place on properties owned by the
public.
You wrote: "We are not a Godly nation. We are not a Christian
nation."
That's right, we are not a Christian nation, although
Christianity is still the largest religion in the country. As for
godliness, well that calls for judging people's souls. Personally, I
would imagine that we have a great many godly people peppered
throughout this country; but only God knows.
You wrote: "And when we see the flagship
Episcopal Church crumble in apostasy while 'permissively' extolling
the deeds of Jack Spong, I personally am not surprised to see the
consequential manifestation of God's wrath either in the forms you
have expressed, such as AIDS, or in the form of the dramatic
convulsion that occurred on September 11. No, I am not
surprised!"
Pure superstition. Cause and effect in the natural world gone
by the boards. Finger pointing too.
You wrote: "Did God will it. No! Did He permit it? I believe
so, for that is the lesson the Bible teaches in so many ways. Are we
going to learn from this? I believe only on our knees begging for
forgiveness."
Should we seek forgiveness for our sins? Yes, of course. But we
are better off doing so without first turning to the superstitious
notion of disaster as God's judgment, whether in a permissive sense
or otherwise. The real world is quite
enough for spirituality to deal with without the detractions from
good sense of superstition, which so readily lead astray.
You wrote that "Falwell and Robertson have their finger on the
truth and are right in what they said."
So I take it that you disagree with Mr. Falwell's retraction?
You spoke of an "an unbelieving nation dominated by a cynical
non believing media that has no fear of God."
There are an awful lot of believers in this nation, including
many among the media, both religious and secular media. However,
corporately the nation, as represented by the government, is formally
not Christian and has been so ever since the Bill of Rights was
ratified.
I am never quite sure of your beef, whether it is that there
are too many non-Christians in the country; or whether it is that
there are too many people living lifestyles that conflict with
traditionalism (which would, I suppose, explain your recurrent appeal
to Islam); or whether it is the non-establishment of religion. You
keep shuffling around your attack so that the potential targets get
all mixed up. If your beef is in whole or in part with the
non-establishment of religion, then I wish you would just come out
and say that you disagree with the Bill of Rights. For my part, I
extol it.
I heard one preacher on TV -- two or three days after the
disaster, I think -- with a thesis almost the opposite of yours. He
said that America was attacked because it is a Christian nation. I
suppose that many Moslems, Jews, neo-pagans, secular humanists, and
other non-Christians were offended by that statement -- and
legitimately so. As a Christian, I felt embarrassed by it, because it
slighted others. Besides, I doubt that hatred of American
Christianity had much at all, if anything, to do with the motivations
behind the attack. At least his hypothesis is falsifiable; in other
words, evidence makes the difference as to whether it can be
disproved or is to be supported.
You wrote: "Please forgive me if these thoughts offend you in
any way."
Your comments this time were searching; and so I take no
offense, however strenuously I disagree and however strongly I
disapprove of the finger-pointing. Sometimes, though, I do wonder if
you take any of my points.
P.S. When I speak of finger-pointing, don't misunderstand. I
have no objection to your engaging, with critical acumen, the ideas
of particular individuals. In fact, I think that doing so is good
method.
Critiquing a Message by Earle
Fox
September 21, 12:27 p.m.
Thank you for the copy of the message you sent at 11:32 p.m.,
September 20, 2001 from:
- Earle Fox
- Emmaus Ministries - a School of Christian Apologetics
- [snip]
- Alexandria, VA
- [snip]
In a message earlier that day, Mr.
Fox wrote: "Apart from Fallwell [sic] and Robertson, I have heard
almost nothing but self-justification, and rejection of the notion
that we might in any way be responsible for the events of last
week."
If the United States had done away with the non-establishment
clause in the Bill of Rights and made Islam the established religion,
conceivably last week's attack might have been avoided -- but I am
none too sure of even that.
In the real world where effects follow physical and volitional
causes, the real world of which we are all an integral part, of
course the United States bears a measure of responsibility for
inflaming passions on the part of some Moslems. Since World War II,
its foreign policy with respect to Moslem nations has all too often
been disastrous; and, even where positive, the impact of the U.S. has
often reinforced hard feelings.
- The U.S. supported the creation of the state of Israel and
then for decades failed to address adequately justice for
Palestinians.
- It installed and propped up the repressive regime of the
Shah of Iran.
- It has shelled Lebanon, bombed Libya, been at war with
Iraq, and exploded cruise missiles over the Sudan and Afghanistan.
- Its projection of power in the Middle East, including,
among other things, its military presence in the Persian Gulf and
in Saudi Arabia, is like a thorn in the side to some in the
region, especially those who do not like the status quo, for the
U.S. supports stability.
- It has generally ignored religious concerns in its
relations with Moslem countries. ([To its own detriment, it has
been] failing even to collect religious intelligence at anything
other than a shallow level.)
- And its cultural exports, from its idea of freedom to its
capitalism to its fast food restaurants to its music and movies,
offend the close-minded sensibilities of people of a certain
mindset who don't care to engage pluralism.
(NEWS FLASH: Everywhere in the world,
pluralism is here to stay.)
There have been innumerable points in the history of U.S.
relations with Moslem countries where a more positive result might
have been had. Too bad we missed those opportunities!
A Brighter Side of
American Relations with Moslem Peoples
|
|
Of course, I was just bringing
out the darker side of American foreign relations with
Moslem countries in order to show how some Moslems might
take offense at U.S. foreign policy, thereby taking up Mr.
Fox's challenge regarding American responsibility. The
United States has, of course, defended Moslems in many parts
of the world, the Kuwaitis and the Kosovars, for
instance.
-- October 10, 2001
|
However, even if U.S. relations with all Moslem countries were
as rosy as could be, there is no guarantee that the attack of
September 11th would have been avoided. We are dealing with
close-minded fanatical bigots with no political legitimacy who are
perfectly willing to murder civilians en masse for their cause.
Whether that cause be to set up repressive fundamentalistic regimes
or to divorce the U.S. from its vital interests in the Middle East,
rationality has scarcely a role.
What has any of this to do with homosexuality? Not a straw. And
that's the point.
Mr. Fox wrote: "The blame belongs primarily on the
Christians..."
More finger-pointing! More blame game! More non-provable
non-falsifiable statements! More superstitious thinking! At least the
focus is on "us" rather than the non-terroristic "them."
He continued: "who have, for whatever reason, failed -- or
refused -- to stand up during the last two centuries to the steady
subversion of the Christian faith and culture, and retreated behind
church walls and Bible studies into a privatized religion which has
only marginal relation to [a] Biblical worldview or to the Gospel of
Jesus Christ."
To my mind, freedom, human rights, justice, and sensible
protocols for the functioning of society are Christian values for
public institutions [and, of course, not exclusively Christian]. When
I say (as I have said to others) that Christians have a
responsibility for converting the institutions of society, those are
the values I think that institutions should be converted to.
Religious beliefs and private moralities are matters for individuals.
The idea that American culture must be Christian to the exclusion of
pluralism sounds to me both unrealistic and repressive.
Mr. Fox wrote: "If Christians had voted against abortion, it
would never have become legal."
What version of history is this??
Mr. Fox wrote: "If Christians would insist on their own moral
purity, faithful marriages, and honesty in public affairs, we would
not be in the pornographic swamp we are in. If Christians had
insisted on educating their own children, we would not have an
ignorant and intellectually incompetent public."
This running down of America suits a certain eschatological
mindset, which insists that the world is going to become worse and
worse before Christ returns. The mindset interacts with a pessimistic
temperament until there is no end of badness that it can see. What if
the mindset were one of upward progress towards a realization of the
kingdom of God on earth, combined with an optimistic temperament?
Would there be no end of goodness that we can see? I expect so.
We must beware of letting mindsets and temperaments befog a
balanced vision of the way the world actually is.
Mr. Fox wrote: "The highest court in the land, with the tacit
(or open) agreement of the President and Congress, told God to butt
out in 1962, that our teachers and children in government run schools
were not to talk to God, and would He please be polite enough not to
talk to them when they were busy getting their education?"
This is silly characterization. The courts told publicly run
schools not to impose religion on students, which is one of the
natural implications of the non-establishment of religion clause in
the Bill of Rights.
I remember prayer in school from when I was a boy in Cavendish,
Vermont. I was made uncomfortable by it: I was being forced to
participate in civil religion, when my religion was not civil; I was
being forced to participate in religious ceremony with people who
were neither co-religionists nor sincere; and I was being forced into
a mockery of my own faith when my faith was everything to me. All in
all, I was being forced, ready or not. True, a lot of nonsense
followed the court decision, like school policies that
(unconstitutionally) prevented groups of kids from voluntarily
praying together on school property; but for the decision itself, I
am grateful. I have a dickens of a time understanding why all sincere
Christians aren't grateful for it.
But now I have definitely digressed from our original subject.
*Chiding self*
Mr. Fox wrote: "It is appalling to me that what unites us is a
tragedy which takes our minds off our own problems and allows us to
shift blame somewhere else. We are not united in truth,
righteousness, or love. We are currently united (so to speak) in a
common scapegoat."
Those who planned and participated in the attacks of September
11th are not scapegoats. They ARE the ones to be held accountable.
[Of course, I do not mean that we should ignore our own faults.]
Mr. Fox wrote: "And we think we have not offended God? We think
that God is really just a harmless 'nice guy' who does not take
offense at blasphemy and rebellion? Do we really think that God would
never take His protecting hand from us when we had told Him to butt
out? Butt out -- but protect us? That is taking the crucifixion of
the Son of God with absurd and abominable casualness. [Etc.]"
A revivalist flavor here: whipping up enthusiasm. But I am too
turned off by Mr. Fox's [previous] nonsense to feel even a tad caught
up in it. In fact, quite the opposite. Why, oh why don't more
Christians think better!?
Mr. Fox wrote: "Basic, rock-bottom Biblical principle: You
cannot help someone else with their sin except to the degree that you
have dealt with your own. No use trying to clobber bin Laden until
your own dark side has been crucified."
Right, that's to be found in Hezekiah 39:9.
A Stock Seminary
Joke
|
|
I later regretted this remark,
since it sounds sarcastic. It is a stock seminary joke
commonly used when someone claims that the Bible says
something when it does not necessarily say it, at least not
as the speaker has nuanced it. There is no book of Hezekiah
in the Bible. Mr. Fox was probably alluding to the Jesus
logion in Matthew 7:3-5 (= Luke
6:41-42):
"Why do you look at
the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log
that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother,
'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log
is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly
enough
to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (NASB).
This observation by Jesus does
not mean that one sinner cannot help another, or that a
person with minor faults cannot reproach a mass murderer, or
that a government should delay either executing justice or
defending the people until all citizens have repented of all
sins. For such exhortations, one must turn to Hezekiah 39:9.
:-)
-- October 28, 2001
|
Mr. Fox wrote: "What do you suppose would happen if the
President got on TV, called for a day of fasting and humiliation (as
have past presidents), and led the people in repentance? Is
repentance and humiliation anywhere on our radar screens? We might
then have a valid witness to those Taliban folks and bin Laden. But
not without."
As I say, I have no objection to self-examination; and God
always calls people to repentance from sins. I do have a problem,
however, with the President as President taking on the role of
religious leader.
With regard to the disaster, more to the point would be a
reevaluation of American foreign policy with respect to Moslem
countries.
Critiquing Another
Letter to the LA Times
September 26, 2001, 9:24 a.m.
You wrote to the LA Times:
"In his commentary, 'Is God on Our Side?'
Thatatmanil states, 'The Bible does offer us another vision of God -
a god who calls for justice but whose infinite love cares equally for
the unjust[?] and unjust.' This statement is wrong. God's wrath is
prominently stated in the Bible. (Rom 1:18-32) And that wrath is
applied in the manifested consequences of nonbelief involving the
people Robert Scheer defends in his articles attacking Falwell and
Robertson. These people are the pagans, the abortionists, feminists,
gays and lesbians that Falwell referred to. Falwell's mistake is he
apologized for the context of his remark.
"The editorial policy of the secular LA Times is guilty in
allowing a 'piling on' on the Falwell incident. Why? Because of its
pro homosexual, anti Christian stance."
Undoubtedly you will find others of like mind, but beyond them
I wonder how you can hang on to any credibility that you may have had
as an advocate of homorality as a principle of dialog. (Or do you
distance your advocacy of homorality from your other positions?)
I begin to think
that homorality is just a principle of defensiveness after all and
that its dialogical aspect is just a Trojan horse for releasing
heated attacks upon homosexuals. To my mind, either homorality must
be about sober dialog or it is a worthless principle. I can criticize
the opposing camp's blanket homophobia charge -- on the grounds that
hateful motivations are, in many cases, being falsely imputed and on
the grounds that it leaves practical and moral criticisms of
homosexual behavior begging -- without any need for a homorality
principle. Homorality's one and only honest value is as a principle
of genuine dialog -- which, by the way, implies other principles of
fairness and sensibleness.
I have warned you that opposing love
or even supposed love is a trepidatious matter. I have warned you
against superstitious thinking, which chronically
misleads the mind,
inflames the easily prejudiced, and
dilutes true spirituality. I have warned you
that failure of humility, such as
occurs when one supposes that he [or she] can read the mind of God
regarding judgment, leads to countless errors. Now I would warn you
against sounding the gong of the false prophet. I recognize that you
may feel certain and secure about the matters of which you speak. But
I also know that you cannot be certain and secure.
A significant correction to what you said: Jerry Falwell did
not apologize for the context of his remark. He apologized for the
remark itself. [See below.]
[snip]
The Falwell
Apologies
September 26, 2001, 9:11 p.m.
You wrote: "You confuse the issue of
homorality with the issue of Falwell's statement. I say you may ask
Falwell yourself if his statement of apology was contextual or word
specific in intent. I believe I understand what he said and the
context in which the statement was made."
As I understand it, Mr. Falwell's initial reaction to the
flurry of criticism was that his words were taken out of context and
misunderstood.
Mr. Falwell's
Early Written Apology
|
|
STATEMENT BY JERRY FALWELL ON
700 CLUB COMMENTS
Senior Pastor, Thomas Road
Baptist Church and Chancellor, Liberty University
Lynchburg, Virginia
September 14, 2001
Despite the impression some may
have from news reports today, I hold no one other than the
terrorists and the people and nations who have enabled and
harbored them responsible for Tuesday's attacks on this
nation.
I sincerely regret that comments
I made during a long theological discussion on a Christian
television program yesterday were taken out of their context
and reported, and that my thoughts--reduced to sound
bites--have detracted from the spirit of this day of
mourning.
Today, I join millions of people
throughout this nation and around the world in remembering
all those who died, and praying for our nation, the victims
of this travesty, and their loved ones.
|
He changed his tune on the TV show, Good Morning
America (ABC), September 20, 2001. When the reporter, Dianne
Sawyer asked him what conceivable context would redeem his words, he
said that he mispoke his own beliefs. He said that we cannot know
when a disaster is God's judgment upon us; that the terrorists are
the ones responsible for the tragedies of September 11th; and that
God is not responsible for them, nor are those individuals he had
mentioned, including gays and lesbians. He stated that what he said
was a mistake, that it was wrong, and that he takes full
responsibility for it, exonerating even Pat Robertson, who, he said,
misunderstood his remark. He has asked forgiveness of God, and he
asks it of us. However, he will go on opposing the secularization of
America and the rest.
You wrote: "I further understand
that you do not agree with this contextual assessment."
I don't know what you mean by "this contextual assessment." If
you mean I like both American freedom and the limitation of
government with respect to matters of private conscience and control
over one's own sexuality, then you are absolutely right.
You wrote: "Neither ECUSA nor the secular leaders of this
nation will come to terms with the idea that we are wrong. And what
are those wrongs? They are specified as you repeat them in your
email. These wrongs embrace the 'freedom' we seek and have found in
defiance of God's standards on sin. Yes, they include the freedom of
homosexual practice, abortion, to honor other religions other that
those that are Christian, etc. These represent a FREEDOM from God in
our secular nation led by apostate religions such as ECUSA, the
contractor through seminaries such as UNION [Theological Seminary in
New York] for pro homosexual argument and literature."
You have consistently evaded the questions I have put to you
regarding your political and legal philosophy. Do I take it that you
want to take away people's freedom of conscience and replace it with
legal coercion by the state? So far you are just spewing words [about
the freedom to sin]. Where are the teeth?
You wrote: "I believe that God's wrath is now evident because
of these massive transgressions."
Evident? Evident? God's supposed wrath is merely your
interpretation of events. It is not evident at all.
You wrote: "I asked my Bible study group this morning, are we a
Christian nation? The answer was given, 'No, we are a secular
nation.' I then asked, 'Does the direction in Jeremiah 18:5-10
apply?' What do you think the answer is?"
Are you suggesting that you and others like you are in the role
of the prophet Jeremiah, that the good you have done has been repaid
with evil, that therefore God should deliver the nation over to
evil??
You wrote: "I believe Falwell's statement is contextual
regarding the sins of our nation."
That comes across to me as a semantically null statement.
Perhaps you could restate.
You wrote: "The religious homoralist
acknowledges homosexual practice is sinful. The secular homoralist
only thinks it is wrong. Homorality does not address Falwell's
concern."
I am none too sure that it is so easy to distance homorality
from the idea of the recent disaster as being God's judgment on the
nation for tolerating homosexuality. I have already pointed out
several of the connections, for instance,
superstitious reasoning as inflaming
prejudices.
You wrote: "My concern is the sin of this nation denying
God."
When you say "this nation," who are you talking about? An awful
lot of people in this nation are affirming God.
You wrote: "I believe that is Falwell's concern. I am critical
that he backed down, that he did not explain the context of his
statement. I further believe he did not because he desired to be
'politically correct' in a nation inflamed by the offense against it.
He did not because only a few would understand that God may be --- is
angry with this nation."
I think you are misreading Mr. Falwell. Backing down for
reasons of political correctness is not consistent with his
character.
You wrote: "Again, the lesson in Jeremiah 18:5-10 stated before
applies as does the lesson in Habakkuk 1:2-6."
You didn't state the lesson you draw from Jeremiah. You merely
referred to it. So I don't know what it is. The same with regard to
Habakkuk.
Cognizant of Warnings
September 26, 2001, 9:13 p.m.
I wrote that "I have warned you that opposing love or even
supposed love is a trepidatious matter," etc. You commented: "Is this
man as receptive to receiving 'warnings' as he is eager to hand them
out????"
Oh, believe me, I am fully cognizant of the warnings you have
passed on to me, and many more besides.
Referring to A Few Words
for Americans
October 5, 2001, 9:48 a.m.
You sent a message entitled, "Must God Apologize to Sodom and
Gomorrah?" It is by Chuck Baldwin and dated October 2, 2001. He
begins: "It astonishes the mind to realize how many professing
Christians refuse to believe that acceptance of moral perversity
leads to divine judgment."
In response to tirades like Mr. Baldwin's, I have posted a
little piece called "A Few Words for Americans In the Aftermath of
September 11th, 2001." Take a look and tell me what you think. The
address is:
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/repent.html
The Fun is Gone
October 6, 2001, 3:47 p.m.
I referred you to my little piece called "A Few Words for
Americans In the Aftermath of September 11th, 2001." You replied: "I
think Balwin's was concise and to the point -- whether you agree with
it or not. Yours is too long and would be served if shortened."
You would have said the same, I suppose, to Obadiah?
Why is it so important to you to
think that the tragedies of September 11th have something to do with
a judgment of God upon America for tolerating homosexuality and
certain other behaviors, when there is no way in the world that you
can know that?
Shucks, whatever fun there was in our conversation seems to
have gone out of it. You haven't answered a comment or question of
mine substantively in quite a few exchanges now. Am I to conclude
that you have glued yourself to your positions out of mere
stubbornness?
Closing the
Conversation
October 7, 2001, 4:41 p.m.
I wrote: "Why is it so important to you to think that the
tragedies of September 11th have something to do with a judgment of
God upon America for tolerating homosexuality and certain other
behaviors, when there is no way in the world that you can know
that."
You responded: "I don't. But the
Muslims do! Besides this, I can know it. But I do not. You are a
homosexual apologist; best of luck in your attempt on lesbianism. I
want no part of it. See you later. I wish to stop communicating with
you."
<><><><><>
With a mixture of gladness and sadness, I
now bring our conversation to a close, per your wishes. Everything I
have written to you has been in response to what you yourself have
sent. In order to effect your expressed wish completely, I suggest
that you take me off your mailing list for those "copies" and
"forwards" that you have been sending.
You continue to peg me incorrectly. I am an apologist for
nobody. I am an inquirer after the truth; I am pro genuine dialog;
and -- politically, at least -- I am a
let-'em-aloner. In the course of our
discussion and my collateral research, I have moved a bit. I have
come to realize that the case for not regarding all homosexuality as
immoral is considerably stronger than I expected. In the past, I had
merely skirted the issue, since my focus had been elsewhere.
In answer to your original question,
I have decided in the end that I am not a homoralist;
for I have become convinced that the
central homorality principle, correct
as I deem it to be, is being used as just a cover and not as a
principle of genuine dialog. I will not align myself with such a
tactic.
You had an enviable opportunity a couple of years ago, when Ms.
E. M. Kaeton allowed you to engage her on the homosexuality issue and
she patiently and articulately explained herself to you. I wonder if
God had a purpose in that -- and, for that matter, in our
conversation as well.
Lest you think that I ducked your citing
of Scripture references on homosexuality, I should tell you that I
have been writing out my interpretation of all the passages you cited
(Judges 19 included), with the intention of sharing it with you. That
will now be used in other ways. [See
below.]
I hope you don't mind my sharing our conversation with others
as I see fit. I do ask that you request my permission for any use of
my words.
Let me leave you with this challenge: I don't particularly care
where you come down on the issues, but I suggest that you tighten up
your logic and encourage your allies to do likewise. If you do not,
then you simply cannot carry a case.
Peace. I wish you well in your future endeavors.
Dissection
After the conversation came to a close, I wrestled with my
interlocutor's last message, dissecting it and trying to figure out
what was going on in his mind. Hence the following.
-- October 11, 2001
October 8-11, 2001
I wrote: "Why is it so important to you to think that the
tragedies of September 11th have something to do with a judgment of
God upon America for tolerating homosexuality and certain other
behaviors, when there is no way in the world that you can know
that?"
He replied: "I don't. But the Muslims do! Besides this, I can
know it. But I do not. You are a homosexual apologist; best of luck
in your attempt on lesbianism. I want no part of it. See you later. I
wish to stop communicating with you."
"I don't."
This is ambiguous. Does it mean:
- "I don't think that the tragedies of September 11th have
something to do with a judgment of God upon America for tolerating
homosexuality and certain other behaviors";
- "I don't know that";
- "I don't think it is important"; or,
- "My position has nothing to do with my psychological
make-up"?
The last two meanings run against the syntax, but he was not
always careful with syntax, and the first two meanings would
represent a clear slippage from his repeated position.
"But the Muslims do!"
Maybe some Moslems do, but not all. Illogical thought here: an
over-extended premise.
And besides, so what?? Are we all to live the way certain
Moslems want us to live for fear of them attacking us?
I wondered if he was searching for connections to his
disaster-as-divine-judgment thesis in the real world of cause and
effect, so hybridizing his thought.
"Besides this, I can know it."
How? Is this the I-know-so-because-God-told-me-so syndrome,
which I suspected before?
"But I do not."
If able, then why not?
"You are a homosexual apologist."
He persisted in trying to fit me into a mold that is framed by
the polarities in the debate over homosexuality. Operating out of a
dogmatic mindset makes it next to impossible to understand how
somebody operating in a questing mode may have available completely
different categories.
Another point: He did not pick up that I
was still carrying forward the question of whether the Bible
prohibits all homosexual behavior.
"best of luck in your attempt on
lesbianism. I want no part of it."
Sarcasm. Hmmm. And I wonder what he meant by wanting no part of
it? Just that he disagrees?
"See you later. I wish to stop communicating with you."
Conflicting signals, an apparent contradiction as his last word
to me.
When I
responded to this remark, I thought that he
had merely taken a dislike to my constant prodding or maybe a dislike
to me. Upon reflection, his good-bye seems to be dripping with
disdain and detestation, this apparently related to my being a
"homosexual apologist." If it is, then that fact would underscore the
part of my response where I said that I am convinced that homorality
is being used as just a cover, meaning a cover for vituperative
attacks, and not as a principle of genuine dialog. However, I had
come to that conclusion earlier, when he ignored my
raising of the issue. In any case, he was no
longer willing to engage in genuine dialog, and any such willingness
had vanished long ago.
I suspect that at the end he was reacting in part out of his
strong tendency to defensiveness (which I had encountered
before), probably in response to my
question: "Am I to conclude that you have glued yourself to your
positions out of mere stubbornness?" I must have touched a nerve, for
he did not take kindly to the suggestion, even in question form. I
should have known better, for the
homorality principle functioned with
him in chiefly a defensive way.
I regret the strained tone of the last several exchanges. I
wonder if it is indicative of the changed times.
Excursus
on Male Homosexuality in the Bible
Earlier
I alluded to scriptural dependencies in the passages related to the
homosexuality debate. With regard to male homosexual conduct, five
strands are discernable.
<+><+><+>
Strand
One: Sodom
First is the Sodom strand. Genesis 19:4-5
(NASB):
"Before they [Lot and his two
guests] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded
the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and
they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men [two angels]
who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have
relations with them.'"
In the Genesis 19 narrative, some men of
Sodom, as I stated
earlier,
tried, most inhospitably, to humble the bodies of angelic visitors in
order to slake their own sexual passions. This is a reversal on the
story of Genesis 6:1-4, where the sons of God
(benê
ha-elohim)
took wives for themselves among the daughters of men. (Note the
allusion to the Genesis 6 story and the close association made with
the sin of Sodom in 2 Peter 2:4, 6 and especially in Jude
6-7.)
I should back up. Actually the
motivations of the men of Sodom are unclear from the passage. They
merely insisted on having relations with the visitors and accused one
of coming in from the outside and acting like a judge (Genesis
19:5-9). Possibly they were jealous, suspicious, or defensive. Their
intention could have been punitive, for example -- perhaps as
retribution for the activities of the sons of God in Genesis 6. Using
anal invasion as punishment was not unknown in the ancient Near East
(not that anal invasion is necessarily what the men of Sodom had in
mind or that the kind of physical acts they did have in mind were
what mattered to the line of moral reasoning). Here is Middle
Assyrian Law
A¶20:
"If a man sodomizes his
comrad and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty,
they shall sodomize him and they shall turn him into a
eunuch."1
However, more obvious intentions were
ferreted out in the Hebrew and early Christian traditions. Over time
the special nature of the sin of the people of Sodom was dissected
this way:
- In Isaiah 3:9, it was their
brazenness.
- In Jeremiah 23:14, it was their
failure of repentance.
- In Ezekiel 16:49-50, it was their
failure to help the poor and needy, namely the visitors; thus it
was inhospitality (unless the more general offense, mentioned in
Genesis 19:13, was being alluded to);
and
it was haughtiness and abomination.
- In Zephaniah 2:8-9 the indirect
implication is that their special sin was reviling and taunting
God's own.
- In Matthew 10:14-15 = Luke 10:10-12
(cf. Mark 6:11), by indirect implication, it was inhospitality
towards messengers that had come on behalf of the kingdom of God.
- In Matthew 11:20, 23 (cf. Luke 10:15)
it was non-repentance and arrogance.
- In 2 Peter 2:6-11 it was ungodliness,
sensual conduct, lack of principle, lawlessness, indulging in
corrupt desires, despising authority, and reviling angelic
majesties.
- In
Jude 7-8 it was seeking to debauch and pursuing yet again strange
flesh (the NRSV, deferring unduly to traditionalism, mistranslates
the latter part of the last phrase this way: "pursued unnatural
lust"); it was also, by indirect implication, polluting the flesh,
disregarding God's special dominion in the region, and reviling
angelic majesties.
- (Regarding dissection of the sin in
Judges 20:4-6, which is patterned after the Sodom incident, see
below.)
The slaking of sexual passions was a
relatively late interpretation, being brought out only in 2 Peter and
Jude and even in those passages as part of a panoply of wrongs
inherent in the sin of Sodom. Note well, however, that nowhere is a
homosexual component brought forward, even though the men of Sodom
sought to have sexual relations with angels who were described as men
(ha-anashim
in Genesis 19:5). Even in Jude, the issue is not
same-sexness,
but
strange
or
other
flesh -- in other words, that of visiting angels. (Regarding
strangeness in a similar sense, compare 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch
106:4-7.) Thus, in the Bible, the story of
Sodom and Gomorrah is not a morality tale about homosexual behavior
at all.
P.S. In reviewing historically how the
sin of Sodom has been dissected, two stages in Sodom's sin should be
distinguished: Sodom's sinfulness before the angels arrived and the
expression of Sodom's sinfulness in the incident with the angels.
However the result, with regard to the homosexuality issue, is the
same whether we sort out the two stages or not; and so I have left
them unsorted above.
P.P.S. For the story of Gibeah in
relation to this strand, see
below.
<+><+><+>
Strand
Two: The Levitical
(Some development of my thought on this
strand is to be found in the
Glossary
of Relationship Terms under
"As
with womankind." Note too the "see
also" references there. -- August 2, 2003)
Second is the
levitical strand. The fountainhead texts are found in Leviticus 18
and 20.
Leviticus 18:22, 26,
29 (NASB):
"You shall not lie with a
male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination .... you ...
shall not do any of these abominations,
neither
the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you ... For whoever does
any of these abominations, those persons who do
so
shall be cut off from among their people."
Leviticus 20:13 (NASB):
"If
there
is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of
them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to
death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
Before proceeding any further, let me
point out that in the New Testament it is the "cut off" penalty, not
the death penalty that is carried forward for sexual offenses; and
the "cut off" penalty applies only to fellow members of the cultic
community (1 Corinthians 5). Furthermore, even after the "cut off"
penalty was applied, forgiveness and reinstatement were possible (2
Corinthians 2:1-11; cf. the Jesus logion regarding the woman caught
in adultery, John 7:53-8:11). Henceforward, I will concern myself
with the Leviticus 18 "cut off" passage rather than with the
Leviticus 20 death-penalty passage, although what is said applies to
both. (For more on the death penalty, see my little essay,
"The Death
Penalty in the Bible and American
Society.")
Three other important points about this
passage have already been developed.
- The first is that the injunction has
application only to males. (See
above.)
- The second is that it has application
in the first instance to those within the limited covenant to whom
the Holiness Code of Leviticus applies, although there is the
possibility of broader application, at least in terms of some of
its operative principles, on the basis of the Noachides. (See
above.)
- The third is that the last phrase,
"as ... with a female" is a qualifier. (See
above.)
The biblical texts that harken back to
the Leviticus 18 passage are all to be found in the New Testament.
The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) carried much of Leviticus 18
forward for Gentile believers. So where Leviticus 18:22 is alluded
to, our presumption should be that that allusion is controlled by the
levitical text, as interpreted by the Council, as theologized by the
writer. Those texts include Romans 1:27; possibly 1 Corinthinas 6:9
(which condemns both
arsenokoitai
and
malakoi);
and possibly 1 Timothy 1:10 (which condemns
arsenkoitais).
Of the passages mentioned here, the last two are
Lasterkataloge
or vice catalogs -- at first glance, mere strings of words. Romans
1:27 is more substantive.
Romans
1:27 (NASB):
"Men abandoned the natural
function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another,
men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own
persons the due penalty of their error."
Now one of the interesting features of
this verse is the mysterious phrase, "receiving in their own persons
the due penalty of their error." To consider several of the possible
meanings:
- One would think that this penalty
would somehow relate to either the "cut off" or death penalty of
Leviticus, but the terminology hardly suggests so.
- One might then speculate about a
physical meaning.
- Semen? But semen is hardly a
penalty; and the sense would apply only to the receptive
partner, as would several other interpretations, such as pain
from intercourse.
- The transmission of disease? But
this would be an anachronistic interpretation, since the
transmission of disease was not understood in Paul's day.
- The prevention of progeny? But a
single homosexual act does not prevent a man from having
progeny. Besides, such an interpretation seems out of line with
the phrase "in their own persons" -- unless recourse is had to
the idea of subsuming progeny under the name of a progenitor,
as with Israel (= Jacob).
- How about a mythical meaning, such as
the incubation of monsters? But, unlike his Jewish contemporary,
Philo (see
above),
Paul indulges scarcely at all in mythical thought beyond what he
can justify on the basis of the Torah and the Prophets. (Let's
leave aside for now the question of whether his christology was
mythological.) And besides, this interpretation would again apply
only to the receptive partner.
Unfortunately for simplicity, neither a
levitical penalty nor a physical effect nor a mythical notion fits
the bill. A more abstract answer is required.
How about the profanation of sacred
progeny? In this interpretation, a homosexual act would desacralize a
man such that his progeny would no longer be sacred. Thus the penalty
would be profanation of him and his line. This is a possibility, but
we are into a large matrix of complex and sometimes problematic ideas
from desacralization to subsuming progeny to indirect guilt for
progeny. Even though the Epistle to the Romans touches on all of
these subjects, if a simpler, more elegant solution is available, it
should be preferred. Besides, it still seems a stretch to interpret
"in their own persons" as applying to progeny.
I have learned that in order to interpret
Romans 1 correctly, it is vital first to understand its structure.
Without understanding the structure, one cannot understand Romans
fully; and often the structure itself is suggestive as to meaning.
Romans 1:27 parallels the second part of
Romans 1:24: "to the degrading of their bodies among themselves
[auton en
autois]." But Romans 1.27 has an
internal structure as well, a chiastic one (here I will use my own
translation):
- A1
- Men, giving up natural intercourse with women,
- B1
- were consumed with passion for one another.
- B2-
Men with men committed shameless acts
- A2-
and received the due penalty for their error in their own persons
[auton en
heautois].
The structural emphasis is upon the men
and the reflexive nature of their acts -- "Men," "for one another,"
"men with men," "in their own persons." Abandoning women led to the
reflexive acts and the due penalty was the result. Thus
A2
parallels
A1
by adding information regarding the same topic. In the writings of
Paul, such a rhetorical pattern is common.
Now
A1
and
B1
easily parallel, in reverse order, the structure of Leviticus 18:22,
specifically the part that reads:
- "You shall not lie with a male [= B]
- as one lies with a female [= A]."
With the parallel structure of Romans
1:27 revealed, it becomes reasonably evident -- if the allusion is to
Leviticus, as it almost certainly is -- that both A segments are
interpretations not of the levitical penalty but of the levitical
qualifier, "as ... with a female"!
This means that Paul was looking deeply
into the operative principles of Leviticus 18:22. He asked himself,
just as I asked myself
above:
Just what does that qualifier mean? Just how does it violate the
principle of love? I answer that for a man to seek to possess another
man for sexual purposes or to seek to be so possessed is a violation
of love; that to foster the usurping or to usurp the rights peculiar
to women under the covenantal system is a violation of love, all the
more so when women are completely cut off; and that for a man to
humiliate another man sexually or to be complicitous in his own
sexual humiliation is a violation of love.
So what, then, is received within one's
own person? In the first instance, a failure of dignity -- a failure
to uphold God's image, the numinous in our humanity -- at the most
intimate level. In the second instance, a rejection of the covenantal
system and, hence, profanation. In the third instance,
humiliation. It is along lines like these,
if not precisely these, that I suspect Paul was thinking. At least
such an interpretation answers many of the questions that others
leave begging; and if Paul understood such principles to have
universal application, I can hardly fault him. In my view, it is the
genuine violation of spiritual principles that he is talking about,
not an authoritarian notion of sin.
Parable of the Sitting
Tigers
|
|
The troops were deep in the
jungle when they received this message from the field
commander: "Beware sitting @&$%*#!" The communications
officer radioed back immediately, asking for a repeat of the
message since it had come through partially garbled. But the
enemy was now jamming communications and had the troops
completely cut off. For the remainder of the day, the troops
puzzled over the meaning of the message. Their leader
finally decided that they had better obey what they could
understand of the order. So for the next three weeks they
never sat. They could scarcely lie down either, for the
ground was soaked ... when they could find ground and not
swamp. Each day fatigue engraved itself more and more deeply
into their faces. And then they started to disappear. Enemy
action could not account for the early disappearances; but
before long, enemy action claimed everyone's full attention.
Weary and sick, the troops could scarcely put up any
resistance; and they were decimated. Only a few escaped with
their lives, the leader among them. Back at headquarters he
finally learned what the message said: "Beware sitting
tigers." For the mishandling of his troops, he was later
court-marshalled.
Romans 1:27, the only text in
the New Testament that is indisputably about homosexuality,
is partially clear and partially obscure. Beware!
-- November 3, 2001
|
1
Corinthians 6:9-10.
Now on to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (in my
translation):
"Do not be led astray;
neither the sexually impure, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
malakoi,
nor
arsenokoitai,
nor thieves, nor the arrogant; not drunkards, not the abusive, not
pillagers -- none of these shall inherit God's dominion."
The question is: How should we understand
the two words,
malakos
and
arsenokoites?
The temptation is to treat them together; and so we immediately start
spinning off complementary pairs: passive/active, pursued/pursuer,
catamite/pederast, effeminate/macho, fellator/analist,
masturbator/analist, sex-for-free/sex-for-pay, client/prostitute,
transvestite/homosexual, and so on. Is there any justification for
treating them as a pair? Other items in the list are not mutually
exclusive:
- the sexually impure and adulterers;
- thieves and people who arrogate to
themselves what is not properly theirs and pillagers.
So why should we think that these two
words are complementary? Structure may provide a reason. Consider the
following
charts:2
Structure of 1 Corinthians
5:10
|
|
pornois = sexually
impure
|
A
|
|
pleonektais = grasping,
arrogant
|
B
|
|
harpazin = pillagers
|
C
|
|
eidololatrais =
idolaters
|
D
|
Structure of 1 Corinthians
5:11
|
|
pornos = sexually
impure
|
A
|
|
pleonektes = grasping,
arrogant
|
B
|
|
eidololatres =
idolater
|
D
|
|
loidoros = abusive,
reviler
|
E new
|
|
methusos = drunkard
|
F new
|
|
harpaz = pillager
|
C
|
Possible Structure of 1
Corinthians 6:9-10
|
|
pornoi = sexually
impure
|
A
|
|
eidololatrai =
idolaters
|
D
|
|
moichoi = adulterers
|
D (related to A) new
|
|
malakoi
|
G (related to A?) new
|
|
arsenokoitai
|
G (related to A?) new
|
|
kleptai = thieves
|
B (related to C) new
|
|
pleonektai = grasping,
arrogant
|
B (related to C)
|
|
methusoi = drunkards
|
F/E
|
|
loidoroi = abusive,
revilers
|
F/E
|
|
harpages = pillagers
|
C
|
The pairing of drunkards and the abusive
carries over from 1 Corinthians 5:11. The pairing of idolaters and
adulterers is a frequent motif in the Bible. The pairing of thieves
and those who grasp for what is not properly theirs seems natural.
That leaves
malakoi
and
arsenokoitai.
So the tentatively proffered structure above -- a structure that
follows associations of meaning -- is plausible. However, if
malakoi
has nothing to do with
arsenokoitai,
then this particular structure -- a beginning anchor followed by four
pairs and an ending anchor -- falls apart.
Malakos in 1
Corinthians 6:9. The basic meaning
of
malakos
is that of softness or, in its substantive use, one who is soft; so
malakoi
could be translated as "softies." But that rendering doesn't make
much sense in a vice catalog.
In the pejorative sense,
malakos
refers to someone who is yielding, cowardly, or morally lax. In
reference to a man, it might mean one who acts in a womanly or
unmanly manner. For instance, Dionysius of Halicarnasus (fl. 30-7
B.C.) relates that:
"The tyrant of Cumae at that
time [504-ca. 490 B.C.] was Aristodemus ... who was called by the
citizens Malacus ... either because when a boy he was effeminate
[theludrias]
and allowed himself to be treated as a woman, as some relate, or
because he was of a mild nature and slow
[malakos]
to anger, as others state" (Roman
Antiquities
7.2.4).3
To pick up on one element of that
quotation, for a person in authority, it might refer to one who is
lax with regard to the moral behavior of others. We find this example
in a fragment from Aristotle's
Politeia,
specifically his "Constitution of the Athenians," preserved by
Heraclides of Lembus (2nd century B.C.):
"After the Codridae, kings
were no longer chosen, since they seemed to be effeminate
[tryphan]
and soft
[malakous].
But Hippomenes, one of the Codridae, wished to check the slander.
After he captured an adulterer with his daughter Limone, he killed
him by yoking him to his chariot, and he shut her up with a horse
until she died" (Excerpta
Politiarum 1 = 371, V. Rose =
1:10,
Dilts).4
The word
malakos,
even as a vice, has no necessary relation to homosexuality, although
it could suggest either a predisposition to playing the receptive
role during sex (as in pseudo(?)-Aristotle,
Problems
4.26) or lack of sexual restraint (as in Aristotle,
Nicomachian
Ethics
7.4).5
It should also be said that homosexuality
had no necessary relation to
malakos
either. Thus, once again, to quote Aristotle, in this case his
"Constitution of the Cretans," as excerpted by Heraclides of
Lembus:
"In Crete boys live with one
another ... To a great extent they go to bed with one another.
According to custom they box and cudgel, and whenever they meet in
these contests, some play the flute and cithara for them. And they
are habituated to manliness
[andreian]
and perseverance. They only learn the rudiments of reading and
writing, and these in moderation. They seem to have been the first to
engage in pederasty [arrenas
erötikais homiliais], and this
is not shameful
[aischron]
among them. Whenever they make conquests, they lead (the boys) to the
mountains or to their own lands and feast there for sixty days, for a
longer period is not permitted. And the lover
[philétör]
gives clothes and, among other gifts, an ox."
(Excerpta
Politiarum 15 = 373-374, V. Rose
= 19:10-26,
Dilts).6
Now, in my view, whenever possible Paul
should be interpreted by the Hebrew Bible, the sayings of Jesus that
would have been available to him, and the decision of the Council of
Jerusalem (Acts 15). I say this not for dogmatic reasons, but because
he was heavily steeped in both the Hebrew Bible and at least some of
the Jesus sayings and because he grappled in such depth with the
issues resolved by the Council of Jersualem, this in a way consistent
with its decision.
If we turn to the Hebrew Bible, several
possibilities come to mind:
- It is obvious that general moral
laxity would fit the bill. (I am tempted to resort to Yiddish and
suggest that Paul was talking about failing to be a
Mentsh.)
Yet Paul seems to be speaking in more specific terms.
- Perhaps
Paul had in mind Deuteronomy 22:5, which prohibits a woman from
wearing a man's apparel and a man from wearing a woman's. However,
there are some problems, among them:
- First, the term
malakos
would refer only to the man, the effeminate one.
- Second,
this prohibition belongs to the Mosaic covenant and was not
brought forward by the Council of Jerusalem for Gentile
Christians, since it was not a "cut off" offense for strangers
among the
Israelites7
-- that is, unless
abominations were somehow regarded as either cut-off offenses
or violations of the Noachides (see
below).
Note: If the association of
malakos
with Deuteronomy 22:5 is adopted, beware of automatically
assuming that Paul would have interpreted Deuteronomy 22:5 as
referring
- to transvestites (the gender of
clothing being culturally defined)
and not simply
- to wearing clothes that had
been worn by a member of the opposite sex (the cultural
definition of male and female clothing entering into the
picture not at all), or
- to using clothing of the
opposite sex for purposes of deception or cowardliness
(ditto), or
- to the wearing of clothing
specifically assigned to a certain sex by the Torah (a
cultural definition but fixed).
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan section 49,
Titse 22 interprets the male "apparel" as "fringed robes" and
"tephillin." Targums Neofiti and Onkelos interpret it as
"armament." Sifre, Ki Tese 226 and Talmud Bavli, Nazir 59a,
while acknowledging the armament interpretation, suggest that
the basic concern had to do with confusion of
gender.
- Conceivably Paul had in mind the
homosexual offender who plays the part of the woman in Leviticus
18:22, in which case
malakos
might be translated as catamite or cinaedus or pathic -- in other
words, the receptive partner in a male homosexual encounter.
However, there are some problems, among them:
- This interpretation seems too
narrow for the term, especially when a plethora of other terms
were available to convey that or a closely related sense. Some
examples:
hapalos,
eromenos,
euruproktos,
katapugon,
kinaidos,
lakkoproktos,
leukos,
leios,
pathikos,
and
paidika.8
- This interpretation suggests that
for Paul the sexual part of a woman implied receptivity, when
we know from other passages that his focus with regard to
physicality was not on receptivity but instead on mutual
dependency of spouses, which included an active role for both
sexes (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, 14, 33-34; 11:11-12). And
insofar as differences between the sexes concerned him, they
did not have to do with active as male and passive as female or
giving as male and receiving as female, but with an order of
creation (1 Corinthians 11:8-9, 12; cf. 1 Tinothy 2:13-14),
with reproduction in a covenantal context (1 Corinthians 11:12;
cf. 1 Tinothy 2:15), with cultic purity regulations which were
different for men and women (1 Corinthians 7:11 as interpreted
above
contrasted with verse 39; cf. Romans 7:2-3), and possibly with
cultural attitudes (1 Corinthians 11:4-6, 13-14) and
practicalities (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; cf. 1 Timothy
2:11-12).
- Another possibility is that Paul was
using the term to round up the other crossing-the-boundary sexual
offenses mentioned in the Holiness Code of Leviticus that he is
not otherwise mentioning in the list, namely incest and bestiality
(assuming for the moment that
arsenokoites
refers somehow to "a male lying with a male as with a female"). He
is saying, "Don't be the sort of people who let those boundaries
go soft!" This interpretation has a few advantages:
- It fills out the pattern in a
complementary way.
- It carries forward, now in a
broader context and by way of one vice list cresting over the
previous one, the point that Paul just finished making, which
was that a violation of the part of the Holiness Code on incest
and so forth was not to be tolerated within the cultic
community.
- It fits the context, 1 Corinthians
5-7 being a christological midrash on Leviticus
18-21.
I find the last of these possibilities
the most tantalizing and the most satisfying, although the meaning
may be too sharp relative to the general vagueness of the term. And
how on earth is one to translate it!? How about "the lax with regard
to marital and sexual boundaries"?
Arsenokoites
in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The term
arsenokoites
is fascinating in that the Apostle Paul is our earliest witness for
it (unless there has been a recent lexical discovery). Since it
appears without either explanatory context or proximate lexical
background, we can, at best, only make an intelligent guess as to
what he meant by it. If we render it etymologically, it means
"male-copulator," with the same ambiguities as we have in English:
Does it mean a male who copulates, perhaps to excess, or someone who
copulates with males? If the latter, are we to assume that it refers
to a male who copulates with males? If the former, surely there must
be some specialized sense, or else what is the point of the
word? John Boswell argues that the word
refers to a male prostitute -- one whose job it was to
copulate.9
If he is right, then both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 would
belong to a different strand; but I have strong doubts, which I will
discuss
below.
I think it entirely
possible that Paul was rummaging around for a word to represent
exactly a male lying with a male as with a female, which is the
levitical formula -- a word free of the connotations of the
vocabulary of homosexually as normally bandied about in the
Greco-Roman world; a word to which he could assign specific content.
So his use of the word would have meant neither more nor less than
what is expressed in Leviticus 18:22 and in his restatement of that
passage in Romans 1:27. This interpretation keeps Paul firmly rooted
in the Holiness Code of Leviticus as mediated into Gentile
Christianity via the Council of Jerusalem, specifically in its
continuation of the prohibition of
porneia
(Acts 15:20, 29), which is exactly what 1 Corinthians 5-7 is
about.
Arsenokoites
in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NASB):
"law is not made for a
righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the
ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill
their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men [i.e. people]
and homosexuals
[arsenokoitais]
and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary
to sound teaching..."
Here again, looking at the structure may
be instructive.
Possible Structure of 1 Timothy
1:9-10
|
|
anomois = lawless
|
A
|
|
anupotaktois =
rebellious
|
A
|
|
asebesi = ungodly
|
B or A
|
|
hamartolois = sinners
|
B or C
|
|
anosiois = unholy
|
C
|
|
bebelois = profane
|
C
|
|
patroloais = those who kill
fathers
|
D
|
|
metroloais = those who kill
mothers
|
D
|
|
androphonois =
murderers
|
D
|
|
pornois = sexually
impure
|
E
|
|
arsenokoitais
|
E
|
|
andrapodistais = kidnappers,
slave-dealers
|
E?
|
|
pseustais = liars
|
F
|
|
epiorkois = perjurers
|
F
|
|
ti heteron te hygiainouse
didaskalia antikeitai = whatever else is contrary to sound
teaching
|
F
|
The author seems to be thinking in a
series of pairs followed by triplets, or possibly all
triplets.10
If so then
pornois,
arsenokoitais,
and
andrapodistais
would seem to have some topical relation to one another.
The terms need not be mutually exclusive.
As "murderers" would subsume "those who kill fathers and mothers," so
pornois
(understood as violators of the sexual part of the Holiness Code in
Leviticus) would subsume
arsenokoitais,
if it means, as suggested
above,
one of those involved in a male lying with a male as with a female.
However, if, as Boswell suggests,
arsenokoites
refers to a male prostitute, then
pornois
and
arsenokoitais
may be complementary, each referring to a different part of the Law
of Moses.
The key question here is this: How might
the relation of the three terms to each other shed light on the
meaning of
arsenokoitais?
In order to answer this question, we must first ask: What topical
relation would
pornois
and
arsenokoitais
have to kidnappers or slave-dealers, the two meanings of the third
term?
Two obvious answers come to mind, the
selling of slaves for sexual purposes and the taking of youths for
sexual purposes against the will of parents or guardians. Regarding
the latter, consider this passage from
The Maculate
Muse:
In the social context of
Attic comedy, "there was no particular shame involved in seeking
outlets for one's homosexual drives as long as one did not make it
the ruling passion of one's sexual life, and as long as one was
careful not to involve boys or young men whose company would be
denied by their parents or
guardians."11
In the Hebrew
Bible, kidnapping was not explicitly prohibited. In fact, Mosaic Law
assumed that capture could lead to marriage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14),
and kidnapping of women was utilized as a solution to the
depopulation of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 21). Nor was
slave-dealing prohibited; and Mosaic Law assumed that male masters
had exclusive sexual rights to their female slaves (Exodus 21:2-11;
Leviticus 19:20-22). Of course, the Tenth Commandment puts the kibosh
on, a bit, in that it prohibits the coveting of "your
neighbor's
wife or his male servant or his female servant ... or anything that
belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21). Since
kidnapping would be the culmination of such coveting, perhaps that
Commandment or the Noachide principle it was supposed to reflect
provided the moral root that is flowering in the vice list. This idea
has some plausibility, since several of the Ten Commandments are
alluded to in the list.
Now this line of thought is already
tenuous -- an aesthetically discerned structure (a series of doublets
and triplets) leading to an odd association (kidnapping with sexual
offenses), where the meaning of at least one of the terms
(arsenokoitais)
is unknown; that association leading to an emphasis on the sexual
overtones of another word
(andrapodistais),
a word that is not necessarily sexual at all. However, if words in
vice lists are short-hand ways of referring to more developed ideas,
as they generally are, we have at least found a candidate for the
idea that the word
andrapodistais
(kidnappers) was referring to, namely, the Tenth
Commandment.
In order to reap any fruit from this
tenuous line of thought, we need to go out on the limb a little
further. Could it be that the author was saying, in a way full of
sexual overtones, "Do not think to take for yourself your fellow's
young son or young daughter or male slave or female slave without
permision"? If so, it might be that the author was parsing the wrongs
that were occurring in some Greco-Roman homosexual relations this
way:
- sexual impurity, whether under the
Mosaic Law, if applicable, or under the Noachides (hence
pornois);
- the subordination of one male to
another for sexual purposes (hence
arsenokoitais);
and,
- the taking of a member of a fellow's
household without proper permission (hence
andrapodistais).
These wrongs were like three lines
intersecting in an asterisk
(*).
Sexual impurity was considered wrong on its own. A male lying with a
male as with a female was considered wrong on its own, albeit one
form of sexual impurity. And coveting a member of another household,
especially in a way that is brought to culmination in kidnapping, was
considered wrong on its own. But they all intersected in certain
offenses committed by some Greco-Roman people. Hence the triplet.
This line of thought, as I say, is highly
tenuous and could lead to a completely different conclusion. For
instance, it could be argued that the three words refer to three
different laws bearing on sexuality:
- pornois
to Leviticus 18 -- the law cluster related to marriage and
sexuality; offenses call for the "cut off" penalty;
- arsenokoitais
to Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (the law against cult prostitution); and
- andrapodistais
to Exodus 20:17 (the law against
coveting a member of another household).
However,
the other pairings and triplets in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 lend themselves
more to the parsing model. Furthermore, the parsing model does not
require us to go beyond a fair interpretation of the Noachides plus
the "cut off" offenses listed by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts
15:20, 29). So I think it the better model for interpreting the
triplet in which we find the word
arsenokoitais.
Before moving on, this must be said: The
line of thought presented here is no less tenuous than more typical
interpretations.
<+><+><+>
Strand
Three: The Male Cult Prostitute
Deuteronomy
23:17-18 (NASB):
"None of the daughters of
Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of
Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot
or the wages of a dog into the house of the
LORD
your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an
abomination to the
LORD
your God."
1 Kings 14:24 (NASB):
"And there were also male
cult prostitutes in the land [of Judah]. They did according to all
the abominations of the nations which the
LORD
dispossessed before the sons of Israel."
Revelation 21:8 (NASB):
"But for the cowardly and
unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and
sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake
that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second
death."
Revelation 22:15 (NASB):
"Outside are the dogs and the
sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the
idolators, and everyone who loves and practices lying."
Several observations:
First, the prohibition of male cult
prostitutes is tied to the Holy People and the Holy Land.
Second, the term "dog"
(keleb)
in Deuteronomy 23:18 is a sexual epithet, apparently referring to the
male cult prostitute of the previous verse, as the parallelism
suggests:
Parallelism of Sense in
Deuteronomy 23:17-18
|
|
None of the daughters of Israel
shall be a cult prostitute
|
You shall not bring the hire of
a harlot
|
|
nor shall any of the sons of
Israel be a cult prostitute
|
or the wages of a dog ...
|
Why male cult prostitutes were called
dogs, we can only speculate. Was it because they would slink around
temples the way dogs slink around ruins? Was it because they
copulated indiscriminately?
Third, the term "dog" was not just a
sexual epithet; it was also an epithet for those who would attack a
person, as in Psalm 22:16, 20 (cf. Galatians 5:15; Philippians 3:2).
The meaning in Revelation 22:15 could be either, however a comparison
of the last two vice lists in that book tips the balance:
Comparing the Last Two Vice Lists
in the Apocalypse
|
|
Revelation 21:8
|
Revelation 22:15
|
|
cowardly
|
|
|
unbelieving
|
|
|
abominable (ebdelugmenois)
|
dogs (kunes)
|
|
murderers
|
sorcerers
|
|
immoral persons (pornois)
|
immoral persons (pornoi)
|
|
sorcerers
|
murderers
|
|
idolators
|
idolators
|
|
liars
|
everyone who loves and practices lying
|
It appears from the comparison that
ebdelugmenois
("abominable") and
kunes
("dogs") are meant to have a close association, either one
encompassing the other or as synonyms. It so happens that the one
place where these two words are associated in the ancient Greek
rendition of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint (abbreviated
LXX), is in Deuteronomy 23:19(18) -- the same verse quoted
above,
albeit Englished from Hebrew above. Given the Book of Revelation's
frequent allusion in Greek to the Hebrew Bible, the strong likelihood
is that "dogs" in Revelation 22:15 refers to what Deuteronomy 23:18
is referring to, namely male cult prostitutes.
Fourth, conceivably the "abominable"
reference in Revelation 21:8 could range further to include
everything or, if delimitations apply, many things in the Hebrew
Bible called an abomination
(toebah;
LXX:
bdelugma);
but three abominations are spelled out in Revelation 21:8:
- pornois
in reference to violation of the Holiness Code on sexuality
(Leviticus 18:29);
- sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:10-12); and,
- idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:25-26;
12:29-31; 13:12-16; 17:2-7; 20:17-18; 27:15; 32:16).
Abominations mentioned in Mosaic Law not
specified in this vice list include:
- sacrificing a blemished ox or sheep
(Deuteronomy 17:1) -- might this be associated with unbelief in
the vice list?
- a woman wearing a man's clothing or
vice versa (Deuteronomy 22:5) -- might this be associated with
either cowardliness or deceit?
- taking back a wife under certain
circumstances (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) -- might this be associated
with the deeds of the
pornois?
- acting unjustly (Deuteronomy
25:13-16) -- might this be associated with either deceit or murder
(cf. Ecclesiasticus 34:26-27)?
Could it be that the vice list was
enunciating operative principles behind some of the abominations
mentioned in Deuteronomy? In any case, it is unnecessary to assume
that the "abominable" of Revelation 21:8 referred to anything more
than the "dog" of Deuteronomy 23:18, for the author may have been
giving his interpretation of how the abominations of the Torah apply
after Christ, that is, in a definite but limited way.
Fifth, the activities of the male cult
prostitute are not spelled out. Some clues:
- Deuteronomy 23:18: They received
wages.
- 1 Samuel 2:22 (NASB): The sons of Eli
"lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of
meeting." Were they acting as male cult prostitutes? We don't
know. The word is not used.
- 1 Kings 14:24 (NASB): Male cult
prostitutes "did according to all the abominations of the nations
which the
LORD
dispossessed before the sons of Israel." This is reminiscent of
Leviticus 18:27, which referred to all of the possible marital and
sexual violations of the Holiness Code of Leviticus. (Cf. 1 Kings
15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7.)
- Wisdom 3:12-13 (NRSV): The wives of
those who despise wisdom "are foolish, and their children evil;
their offspring are accursed. For blessed is the barren woman who
is undefiled, who has not entered into a sinful union; she will
have fruit when God examines souls." This is sheer speculation,
but could it be that one of the chief functions of a male cult
prostitute was to impregnate a woman who could not be impregnated
by her husband?
- (Regarding Judges 19:22, see
below.)
It is entirely possible that the male
cult prostitutes of Palestine engaged in homosexual practices some of
the time, but to regard that as their chief and characterizing
offense is to over-reach. Thus it is improper to translate the Hebrew
word for male cult prostitute,
qadesh,
as "sodomite" or "homosexual." Just to be a male cult prostitute
among the people of Israel or in the Holy Land was an offense unto
itself (Deuteronomy 23:17-18).
Sixth,
we must ask: On what basis was the prohibition of male cult
prostitution carried forward for the Gentiles in the churches
mentioned in Revelation 1:11? We may expect the answer to be obvious,
but it is not. An analysis of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
shows that it had asked itself this question: Beyond the Noachides,
which were understood to apply to all (cf. Romans 13:1-7), of that
which was expected of the Jews, what was to apply to Gentile
believers? The answer, if we follow
J. W.
Hunkin: Not circumcision and, in
fact, not much at all of Mosaic Law except for the offenses where the
"cut off" penalty applied to "the strangers living among us." So how
is it that the Book of Revelation is bringing forward a Mosaic law
that was not explicitly among the "cut off" offenses, namely the
prohibition of male cult prostitution?
Several explanations are
possible:
- The prohibition of male cult
prostitution was considered a Noachide, for it defiled even
non-Israelites (1 Kings 14:24). Weaknesses:
- The Noachides are vague on
sexuality.
- The reasoning in the Hebrew Bible
was tied to the Holy Land, and so the prohibition was not
necessarily considered universal.
- The Council of Jerusalem considered
all or at least some of the abominations mentioned in Mosaic Law
to be either covered under the Noachides or supplemental to the
"cut off" offenses. Hence a prohibition of
porneia
(Acts 15:20, 29) could be extended to cover not only the sexual
and marital offenses mentioned in Leviticus 18, but also some or
all of those elsewhere called abominations, including male cult
prostitution. Weaknesses:
- There is no clear concern
expressed in the Book of Revelation or anywhere else in the New
Testament about the "abomination" of wearing the clothes of the
opposite sex mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:5 (however see
above)
or the "abomination" of taking back a wife who has been through
the sequence of events outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. (With
regard to the latter, the
porneia
exception in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 may, theoretically, be
evidence of just such a concern.)
- A great deal of spade work has to
be done on the place of Mosaic abominations in early Christian
thought before we can discern their possible relation to the
decision of the Council of Jerusalem.
- Just as
Paul in 1 Corinthians 6-7 extended the
porneia
prohibition beyond the "cut off" offenses of Leviticus 18 to the
priestly offenses of Leviticus 21, perhaps the author of the Book
of Revelation was employing a hermeneutic that looked like this:
Referencing Leviticus 19:29; 21:7, 9, 14, if the body of Christ,
of which many men are members, is priestly and even an ordinary
priest is not to be defiled by the lewdness of his wife's or
daughter's harlotry, how much worse if a priestly male is himself
defiled by his own lewdness? So male cult prostitution is a
disqualification for priestliness. Weakness:
- There is no clear indication that
the vice lists of Revelation are referring to
priestliness.
- The author of the Book of Revelation
was at odds with the Council of Jerusalem.The Council counted only
"cut off" offenses. The author of Revelation counted also
"abominations."
- The Book of Revelation reflects a
strain of early Christian thought that was ignorant of the Council
of Jerusalem's careful exegesis, possibly because it had already
been forgotten.
- And the last possible explanation
that comes to mind: Hunkin's thesis is wrong.
Attempting to solve the issue of the
reasoning used for carrying forward for Gentile believers a Mosaic
law not explicitly among the "cut off" offenses would take us beyond
the scope of this excursus and become an excursus unto itself. For
our purposes here, it is enough to know that some such reasoning was
at work and that Hunkin's analysis of the Council of Jerusalem's
decision-making, which has served as part of my framework for
interpreting the New Testament on homosexuality, is not necessarily
threatened by the Book of Revelation, although supplementary work may
be called for.
Seventh,
as mentioned
above,
it is conceivable that the use of the word
arsenokoites
in the vice lists of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 belongs to
the male cult prostitution strand. The appearance of male cult
prostitution in the vice lists of the Book of Revelation lends a
measure of credence to this hypothesis. However, Paul and his school
seem otherwise to know nothing of the prohibition of Mosaic
abominations being carried forward for Gentile believers, at least
not in a clearly discernable way. (Hebrews 12:16 contains another
possible reference.) If we interpret
arsenokoites
as belonging to the previous strand, that which is dependent upon
Leviticus 18:22, we need not venture beyond the Noachides and the
"cut off" offenses to understand Paul here; and so Paul is more
simply explained.
To summarize this strand: The prohibition
is of male cult prostitution; and this prohibition was reiterated in
the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation at least. Such
prostitution may have encompassed male homosexual acts among other
things, but the prohibition was not about those acts. It was about
cult prostitution itself.
<+><+><+>
Strand
Four: Gibeah (Judges 19-21)
I will quote only three verses out of a
story that is three chapters long: Judges 19:22-24 (NASB):
"While they were making
merry, behold, the men of the city [of Gibeah, the men of the place
being Benjamites], certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house,
pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old
man, saying,
'Bring out the man [a Levite] who came
into your house that we may have relations with him.'
Then the man, the owner of the house,
went out to them and said to them,
'No, my fellows, please do not act so
wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this
act of folly. Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please
let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them
whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against
this man.'"
The similarities to the story of Sodom in
Genesis 19 are striking.
Comparing Sodom and Gibeah
|
Sodom in Genesis
19
|
Gibeah in Judges
19-21
|
|
Visitors are angelic (19:1)
|
One of the visitors is priestly, a Levite (19:1)
|
|
The visitors are planning to stay in the square
(19:2)
|
The visitors are left only with the open square
(19:15)
|
|
Hospitality is extended by Lot (19:2-3), who was
originally from Ur of the Chaldeans (11:26-31)
|
Hospitality is extended by an old man, who was
originally from Ephraim (19:16-21)
|
|
Men of the city surround the house (19:4)
|
Men of the city surround the house (19:22)
|
|
They insist that Lot bring out the male visitors "that
we may have relations with them" (19:5)
|
They insist that the old man bring out the male
visitor "that we may have relations with him" (19:22)
|
|
Lot goes out to them and pleads, "Please, my brothers,
do not act so wickedly" (19:6-7)
|
The old man goes out to them and pleads, "No, my
fellows, please do not act so wickedly" (19:23)
|
|
Lot offers his two betrothed daughters to the men of
the city, saying, "do to them whatever you like; only do
nothing to these men," that is, to the visitors (19:8)
|
The old man offers his daughter and the visitor's
concubine to the men of the city, saying, "do to them
whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly
against this man" (19:24)
|
|
Sodom is condemned for outrageous behavior (19:13)
|
Gibeah
is condemned for rising up against the visiting Levite, for
murderous behaviour, for lewdness, and for disgraceful
conduct (20:5-10)
|
|
Lot and his relatives are given a chance to escape
(19:12-17)
|
The Benjamites are given a chance to escape
destruction by delivering up the "worthless ones"
(20:13)
|
|
Sodom is destroyed (19:24-29)
|
Gibeah is destroyed (20:29-48)
|
|
Lot escapes to the mountains (19:30)
|
Six hundred Benjamites escape to the rock of Rimmon
(20:47)
|
|
Lot's daughters devise an unconventional plan to carry
on the family line (19:31-38)
|
The sons of Israel devise an unconventional plan to
carry on the tribe of Benjamin (21:1-23)
|
As canonically presented, the sin of
Gibeah post-dates the Mosaic laws regarding marriage and sexuality.
(Elsewhere
I have made some preliminary notes that bear on the dating of some of
those laws.) Yet, amazingly, except for the general prohibition of
lewdness (compare the Hebrew word
zimmah
in Judges 20:6 to Leviticus 18:17, for instance), the story draws not
at all upon those Mosaic laws:
- not the law against adultery (Exodus
20:14 = Deuteronomy 5:18; Leviticus 18:20 = 20:10); although the
men of Gibeah had relations with a fellow Israelite's concubine;
- not the law against coveting a
neighbor's wife (Exodus 20:17 = Deuteronomy 5:21); although
pressure exerted by the men of Gibeah resulted in their taking
another man's concubine;
- not the prohibition of male cult
prostitution; since the visitor was a priest, it would seem that
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 could have been brought to bear;
- and not even the prohibition of a
male lying with a male as with a female; since the visitor was not
an angel as in Genesis 19, but a mere man, it would seem that
Leviticus 18:22 should have been operative.
Instead the moral rhetoric and dynamics
of the story are essentially the same as they are in the story of
Sodom, except for three things:
- In this story a woman is ravished to
death, and so murder is added (Judges 19:26-29; 20:5).
- The nature of the sin is spelled out
a bit more in the story itself (Judges 20:4-6). Note: Later
canonical interpretation is actually less specific than it was
regarding Sodom (Hosea 9:9; 10:9).
- This story seems to be explaining a
situation or justifying a custom that pertained to the Benjamites
(Judges 20-21).
Possibly the rhetoric remains the same,
that is without bringing out a homosexuality or cult prostitution
component at all as part of the offense, because the Levite shared
with the angels the characteristic of having been set apart for
sacred work. His host, besides offering hospitality to a fellow
Israelite, was sheltering a sacred personage and so pleaded with the
men of Gibeah not to "act so wickedly" or to "commit such an act of
folly" (Judges 19:23-24). Even so, it is rather amazing that
homosexual conduct is not part of the dissection of offenses (Judges
20:4-6).
It is conceivable that Judges 19 reflects
an amalgamation of two or three of the strands discussed above, for
instance, the form of the Sodom strand and the purity content of the
Leviticus 18:22 strand. (That possibility and my original expectation
that that would be the case are the reasons that I am treating Judges
19 separately.) However, I find no compelling evidence that either
the Leviticus 18:22 strand or the cult prostitution strand is present
here; and so I assign Judges 19 to the Sodom strand exclusively and
conclude the same about the story of the sin of Gibeah as I concluded
above
about the story of the sin of Sodom: It is not a morality tale about
homosexuality at all.
<+><+><+>
Strand
Five: David and Jonathan
1 Samuel
18:1-4 (NASB):
"Now it came about when he
[David] had finished speaking to Saul [the King], that the soul of
Jonathan [Saul's son] was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan
loved him as himself. And Saul took him [David] that day and did not
let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant
with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan stripped
himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his
armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt."
2 Samuel 1:26 (NASB):
- "I am distressed for you, my brother
Jonathan;
- You have been very pleasant to
me.
- Your love to me was more
wonderful
- Than the love of women."
A simple remark: Whether there was a
sexual component to the relationship between David and Jonathan, we
do not know. However, this
was
a love relationship between two males on equal terms, one of the
males being raised to relative social parity with the
other. It was not an exclusive
("monogamous") relationship, for David had three wives during
Jonathan's lifetime -- Michal, Abigail, and Ahinoam (cf. 1 Samuel
18:20-30; 19:11-17; 25:38-42; 25:43; 25:44; 27:3). The relationship
between David and Jonathan included intimacy, a common domicile
(apparently), a formal covenant, and pleasurable enjoyment one of the
other. Furthermore, the relationship w