|
Presentation to WV-WMD Synod and
the Upper Susequehanna Synod
by the Rev. Dr. Brooks Schramm
Associate Professor
of Biblical Studies (Old Testament)
Lutheran Theological Seminary at
Gettysburg
The task before the ELCA
The 2001
ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Indianapolis placed three
tasks before the church. The first task was a call for
the development of a study document on homosexuality by
the year 2005. This study document is to include
concrete proposals for action on the part of the ELCA.
The second task was the request for a plan and a
timeline, again by the year 2005, that will lead to a
decision about allowing gay and lesbian persons in
committed relationships to serve on ELCA ministry
rosters. The third task was the authorization of the
development of a social statement on human sexuality, to
be completed by approximately 2007. It is for these
reasons that your Bishop has asked me to address the
topic before us today, namely that of “the Bible and
Homosexuality.” I do not pretend to be an expert on
this particular issue. Prior to the last two years or
so, I hadn’t really even done much thinking about it.
But I have been thinking about the issue of late, and I
intend this afternoon to provide you with the raw
materials of my own initial thinking on the subject. I
have no particular axe to grind. With respect to
homosexuality, I think I have held a fairly traditional
position, and have articulated that in the context of
our seminary faculty discussions on the topic. But I
also want to emphasize that I consider myself to be a
persuadable person. I am open to having my mind
changed, on this topic, and on others as well. The
sections of my paper are as follows: 1) “The task
before the ELCA”; 2) “Against emotionalism”; 3) “Luther
on the word of God”; 4) “the homoerotic in classical
antiquity”; 5) “the Old Testament”; 6) “the New
Testament”; 7) “Important criticisms of the biblical
view.”
About a year and a half
ago now our Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, appointed the
director for the Task Force that is to address the issue
of homosexuality. The Task Force director is Dr. James
Childs, a theological ethicist from Trinity Lutheran
Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. I have spoken with several
colleagues who know Dr. Childs well. They all agree
that, in addition to his scholarly qualities, he is
level-headed, rigorously fair, and eminently
trustworthy. He has a difficult task in front of him,
to say the least. But those who know him well say that
he will meet the challenge and meet it with
distinction. Considering the neuralgic character of the
topic before us, can you imagine what it would be like
to be in his shoes?
Subsequent to the naming of the director, a 13 member
Task Force has now been appointed. The first meeting of
the Task Force was held in early May 2002. For your
information, the members of the Task Force are as
follows:
--The Rev. Margaret Payne, Bishop of the ELCA New
England Synod, is the
Task Force chair
--Ms. Erin Clark, Student at Luther College, Decorah, IA
--Dr. Julio Fonseca, Psychologist, Puerto Rico
--Dr. Terence Fretheim, Professor of Old Testament at
Luther Seminary, St. Paul,
Minn
--Mr. Louis Hesse, farmer, Moses Lake, Wash
--The Rev. Lucy Kolin, Pastor, Oakland, Calif
--The Rev. Gary Liedtke, Pastor, Brookfield, Wis
--The Rev. Kevin Maly, Pastor, Denver, CO
--Dr. John Prabhakar, Surgeon, Rochelle, IL
--The Rev. Peter Strommen, Bishop of the ELCA
Northeastern Minnesota Synod
--Dr. Nancy Walker, Psychologist, Charlotte, NC
--Dr. Timothy Wengert, Professor of Reformation History
at Lutheran
Theological Seminary at Philadelphia
--Dr. Diane Yaeger, Professor of Theology at Georgetown
University,
Washington, D.C.
In late April of 2002
during Spring Convocation at Gettysburg Seminary, I had
the opportunity to visit with Dr. Childs over lunch, and
I learned from him that his primary goal as Task Force
director is to maximize participation in the study; in
other words, to get as many members of the ELCA actively
involved in the process as possible. He is also
concerned to address early on the many rumors that are
already swirling around the church, particularly rumors
to the effect that the end-result of the process is
already a done deal. Dr. Childs is adamant that nothing
has been decided in advance. I want to repeat that,
because that is indeed the case, in spite of what you
may have already heard. Nothing has been decided in
advance. Over the course of this process, there are all
kinds of ways in which you as members of this church can
be involved and make your arguments known. It is
important to realize that the nature and degree of your
involvement, and the involvement of others just like
yourselves, will have much to do with how this process
comes out.
I am aware that there
is a strong sentiment in the church to the effect that
the topic of homosexuality is being forced upon the
church, and that there are many more important things
that we ought to be spending our time, our energy, and
especially our money on. Whether that is true or not, I
think that this is a topic whose time has come. We can
deal with it now, or deal with it later, but deal with
it we will. My only real concern about the mandates
that have been placed before the church is a concern
that was expressed by the Presiding Bishop back in
January 2002 when he addressed a joint gathering of ELCA
Bishops and Teaching Theologians in Chicago. At this
gathering the Presiding Bishop pointed out the obvious
problem that the church is being asked to deal with the
specific issue of homosexuality prior to dealing with
the broader question of human sexuality in general. I
share Bishop Hanson’s concern, and I think it is a real
problem for obvious reasons. Logically the order should
be reversed. Aside from this one major concern, my hope
for the process is that the ELCA will produce a document
that is impeccable in its ethical reasoning. In other
words, a document that commands respect for the quality
of its ethical reasoning.
Against Emotionalism
Let’s face it folks.
Anything relating to human sexuality is difficult to
talk about in public, much less in the church.
Homosexuality is an even more difficult topic. In fact,
I can think of few other topics that cause as much
discomfort as this one does. That fact in itself is
worth our consideration. What is it about homosexuality
that makes people, that makes heterosexual people, so
uncomfortable? My hunch is that our discomfort level is
caused by the fact that homosexuality raises deep and
troubling questions about the nature of masculinity and
femininity, and that’s why it makes us so uncomfortable.
I would put it this
way. If we as a church are going to say anything that
matters, if we are going to say anything that might even
matter to society at large, then it is imperative that
we ELCA Lutherans speak and act soberly and that we
avoid sensationalism. This topic calls for reason and
careful argumentation. Name calling and temper tantrums
accomplish nothing helpful when it comes to doing
ethics. This is a very good time to remember Paul’s
council to the Philippians:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in
humility regard others as
better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to
your own interests, but to the
interests of others. (Phil 2:3-4)
This is also a very good time to
remember Luther’s explanation to the 8th
commandment, “You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor.” What does not bearing false
witness against our neighbor mean?
We should fear and love God, and so we should not
tell lies about our
neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their
reputations. Instead we are to
come to their defense, speak well of them, and
interpret everything they do in the
best possible light.
Perhaps we could begin by asking
ourselves what it would mean to approach this topic in a
neighborly manner, rather than in an
adversarial manner. Wherever you are on this issue,
I urge you, as we move through this process, to be on
guard against emotionalism, sensationalism, and slander,
and in their place to keep three words in mind: reason,
sobriety, and neighborliness. If emotionalism,
sensationalism, and slander rule the day, nothing good
will come of this, no matter who “wins.” But if reason,
sobriety, and neighborliness rule the day, then many
good things are possible. This is a hot issue folks.
For many people. On both sides of the issue. For lack
of a better way to put it, we need to control the way we
behave over the course of this process. But please
understand, there is nothing wrong with forceful
argumentation, written or oral!
Luther on Word of God
In 1525, Martin Luther
preached a sermon entitled, “How Christians Should
Regard Moses.” In the background of the sermon was the
infamous Peasants’ Revolt. From his writings, we know
that Luther was horrified by this revolt. He was
horrified by the way in which passages of Scripture,
particularly passages of Old Testament Scripture, were
being used to justify various social atrocities, both in
the name of God and in the name of the Bible. Here is
just a sample of what he said:
One must deal cleanly with the Scriptures. From the
very beginning
the word has come to us in various ways. It is not
enough simply to
look and see whether this is God’s word, whether God has
said it;
rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken,
whether
it fits us.
He then goes on to speak of
sects and factions, slavering among the rabble and into
the raving
and uncomprehending people without any distinction,
saying,
“God’s word, God’s word.” But my dear fellow, the
question is
whether it was said to you.
Luther’s point is that the Bible
says a lot of things, and just because something is in
the Bible does not make it automatically applicable to
us. The all important task is in discerning what is
applicable and what is not. I must remind you that for
Luther, there were huge portions of the Bible that he
regarded as inapplicable to Christians of his day.
God’s word? Yes. Applicable? Not necessarily. And
certainly not automatically.
For the
most part, Lutherans have learned this lesson well. At
our best, Lutherans have never been proof-texters. And
this is also why Lutherans in the United States have
been highly resistant to fundamentalism. I grew up in
Texas. I know fundamentalism quite well. I know all of
the arguments. It’s why I’m a Lutheran. One of the
most common bumper stickers of my childhood was: “The
Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” But
this is precisely the attitude that Luther was
critiquing in his sermon. The fact that “the Bible says
it” settles absolutely nothing for Lutherans. The fact
that the Bible says something on a particular topic is
the beginning point of theological discussion,
not the end point.
It may
sound simplistic to say this, but I think it is worth
saying as we embark on this study process. The ELCA is
not now, has not been, and will never be, a
fundamentalist denomination. All ELCA seminary Bible
departments operate with what are called
historical-critical assumptions. We make the
all-important distinction between what a text meant
in its original context and what it means or
might mean in our contemporary context, and we try
our best not to confuse these. We also make
distinctions between texts, and in standard Lutheran
fashion we openly acknowledge and argue that not all
biblical texts are equally important. Luther himself,
of course, is well known for having argued this very
thing. Not all biblical texts are of equal importance.
We also take with utmost seriousness something that
Christians have always known, and that is that the Bible
did not fall fully formed out of heaven. Traditional
Christianity did not claim for the Bible what
traditional Islam claimed for the Qur’an. The Bible
comes to us through real human beings, who lived and
thought and spoke and wrote in light of reality as they
understood it. The writers of the Bible were people of
their times, and their writings reflect those times.
When one studies the history of the interpretation of
the Bible, one thing is very clear: as times changed,
and as people’s understanding of reality changed, so did
their interpretation of the Bible. When I teach
biblical interpretation, I teach students what I regard
as a fundamental dictum: people interpret the Bible in
light of reality as they know it. This is always the
case. To be sure, the Bible has the power to shape and
influence our understanding of reality, but it is at
least as true to say that our understanding of
reality shapes and influences how we interpret the
Bible. It is a 2-way street, and we are better off when
we can acknowledge this up front.
The Homoerotic in Classical
Antiquity
One of the problems we
have when we try to study the topic of homosexuality in
the ancient world is that the term, homosexuality, did
not exist in the ancient world. The term,
homosexuality, was not coined until the late 19th
century; it’s barely 100 years old. When the term does
appear in the context of the modern scientific study of
human sexuality, it appears as one of three categories
developed to describe human sexual orientation as
either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. So far as
we know, the ancients did not categorize people in this
fashion, and it is a real question as to whether such a
3-fold distinction would have made any sense to them at
all. The ancients talked about, and were interested in,
sexual actions and particularly sexual roles,
but the notion of sexual orientation was
apparently foreign to them. We can ask what the
ancients thought about same-sex erotic activity,
but the question of what they would have thought about
the modern category of homosexuality, and the whole
notion of sexual orientation, is difficult if not
impossible to answer.
I’ve
tried to think of an analogy that might be helpful in
illustrating this problem. Asking the ancients what
they thought about homosexuality would be like asking
Luther what he thought of, say, women’s ordination.
It’s just something that would never have occurred to
him. This is why when speaking of the ancient world,
many modern scholars prefer to use the term “homoerotic”
rather than “homosexual;” the point being precisely to
distinguish activity from identity or
orientation.
Actually we know quite
a bit about attitudes toward the homoerotic in classical
Greece, particularly in terms of the male-male
relationship. Though female-female relationships were
known and written about, we know far less about it.
Martti Nissinen, a Finnish Lutheran biblical scholar,
has recently written about the classical Greek attitude
toward love, and this has obvious relevance for our
topic: “The Greeks regarded it impossible for a man to
have a deep, all-encompassing love relationship with a
woman.” (Nissinen, 64) The highest goal, spiritual
love, was only possible between two men, because women
were regarded not only as physically weaker but also as
spiritually weaker than men.
So far as
we know the most common form of homoerotic expression in
classical Greece went by the name of pederasty (paiderastia),
a word literally meaning “love for boys.” Pederasty was
a kind of rite of initiation in classical Greece “in
which a boy [usually between the ages of 12 and 17],
with the guidance of an adult, would mature into a man
in both sexual and social senses” (Nissinen, 58). As
strange as it sounds to our ears, the practice of
“pederasty aimed to develop youths into brave,
cultivated men who would defend and serve their
community in a manly way…The central idea is that love
[between a man and a boy] would inspire a man and a boy
to compete in courage and virtues; the older one was to
serve as an example, to win the admiration of the
younger, and to give his protecting affection to the
younger. In return, he would gain admiration and sexual
satisfaction from the young man” (Nissinen, 58-9). The
practice of pederasty was praised by no less a figure
than the great Plato.
If we
were to categorize the practice of pederasty according
to the modern categories of liberal and conservative, we
would say that such a practice was extremely liberal or
even libertine. But it should be noted that this
practice was governed by very conservative internal
principles that were closely guarded: 1) the partners
in the pederastic relationship had to come from the same
social class; 2) the partners had to be of different
ages, one older and the other younger; 3) the older
partner took the active (male) role and the younger
partner took the passive (female) role; 4) sexual
satisfaction was reserved for the older, active partner;
in other words the relationship was not characterized by
sexual mutuality. The important point here is that
the Greeks believed that men were perfectly capable of
falling in love with either sex. Whereas in our
culture heterosexuality, or heteroeroticism, is
considered the norm, in classical Greece something like
bi-sexuality was more likely the norm.
We owe to the Greeks
our word “gymnasium” (gymnasion). The word is built off
of the Greek root word, gymnos, which means “naked.”
The gymnasium in classical Greece was the place where
teenage boys exercised, and they did so gymnos, naked.
It was the primary place where men and boys met, in
order to initiate a pederastic relationship. Martti
Nissinen has written as follows: “Because upper class
women stayed away from public places, young boys
performed the role that in modern culture belongs to
models and cover girls” (Nissinen, 65). He also notes
that in this atmosphere, the “ideal” boy was the
athletic type, not the effeminate type. This of course
is directly contrary to the most common modern
stereotype of the homosexual male.
Things were a little
different in the Roman world, and Roman philosophers did
not celebrate homoerotic love to the same extent that
the Greeks did. On one important point, the Romans were
in complete agreement with the Greeks as far as the
homoerotic was concerned, and that was that such a
relationship required an active partner and a passive
partner. We need to understand what is meant by active
and passive partners. In antiquity, what this meant in
a sexual relationship is that one partner always
took the active role and the other partner always
took the passive role. And what is crucial to note is
that these active and passive sexual roles were exactly
reflective of the social roles of the persons involved.
In other words, sexual relationships had to reflect
societal structures. (There is much to discuss on this
particular issue, because it just might be true to say
that sexual relationships in all times and in all places
are reflective of larger social realities, and when
those larger social realities change sexual
relationships will change as well). The major point on
which the Greeks and Romans were different in terms of
homoerotic relationships is that in Rome such
“relationships normally occurred between a slave and a
master,” rather than between members of the same social
class (Nissinen, 71). This was something that the
Greeks did not tolerate. In addition, in Rome the
passive partner in the homoerotic relationship was
expected to have a feminine appearance. Again, an
important difference from Greek practice.
Although the homoerotic
was well known and tolerated in both Greece and Rome, it
was not without its critics. These critics focused on 4
specific points. 1) They opposed same-sex prostitution,
or more specifically the same-sex prostitute. Such
prostitution was tolerated in slaves, but not in free
citizens. A free citizen who functioned as a same-sex
prostitute was criticized for having sold his
manliness. 2) A man who took on the female role in a
sexual relationship, that is the passive role, was
criticized for his lack of masculinity and virility. 3)
They opposed the notion that loving a woman could only
be physical love. 4) They opposed male-male sex because
it did not lead to procreation, and also because it
challenged the standard social structure in so far as
the passive partner was seen to be adopting a feminine
role. It will be interesting to compare these points of
criticism that emerge from within the Greco-Roman world
with the biblical passages that treat the same subject.
The Old Testament
The Old Testament does
not say a word about female-female sexual
relationships. Why it does not is a really interesting
question. It does not say much about male-male
relationships either, but what it does say is
profoundly negative. And on this point, we are able
to see a rather stunning distinction between the Old
Testament on the one hand and the Greco-Roman world on
the other. The two important texts are Lev 18:22 and
Lev 20:13. The texts can be translated as follows.
With a male you are not to lie (after the manner of)
lying with
a woman, it is an abomination. (Lev 18:22)
A man who lies with a male (as one) lies with a woman—
abomination have the two of them done, they are to be
put-to-death, yes, death, their bloodguilt is upon
them! (Lev 20:13)
The fact that the death penalty is
required for a male-male sexual act indicates what a
grave offense this activity was considered to be. It is
worth noting, however, that the capital offense of
male-male sex is discussed in the context of other
capital offenses as well: incest, adultery, bestiality,
and the insulting of parents. All of these things were
considered to be egregious, grave offenses, worthy of
death. Deut 22:5 also considers cross-dressing to be an
abomination, that is, men who wear women’s clothes and
vice versa.
The Old Testament’s
extremely negative attitude toward male-male sex
continues in the Intertestamental period. It is
inescapably clear that Jewish thinkers in the time just
before the rise of Christianity considered male-male sex
to be a repugnant phenomenon characteristic of the
Gentile world. They have nothing positive to say
about it. Just as the Gentiles were regarded as
idolators, so male-male sex was considered a typical
perversion engaged in by idol-worshippers. From a
Jewish perspective, it was just the kind of thing that
one would expect idolators to do. Why did these Jewish
thinkers of the Intertestamental period oppose male-male
sex? It is very interesting that they didn’t just quote
Scripture. In other words, they didn’t just quote Lev
18 and 20, and then be done with it. They were
concerned to give reasons for their opposition, and thus
Jewish thinkers gave four reasons for opposing male-male
sex. 1) Male-male sex does not lead to procreation. 2)
Male-male sex was contrary to the rule of anatomical
complementarity. The creation story in Genesis speaks
of the man and the woman becoming one flesh. Jewish
thinkers in the Intertestamental period interpreted this
passage in literal fashion, as meaning that man and
woman were literally made for one another, that
they were literally made or created to fit one
another. 3) Male-male sex was understood to derive from
an excess of passion. In other words, males who engaged
in sex with other males were seen as those who were
unable to be satisfied with a woman, and thus needed to
seek something more. In other words, their sexual
appetites were out of control. 4) An argument from the
world of nature: even animals reject male-male sex.
The New Testament
Contrary to popular
opinion, sex in general is simply not a very common
topic in the Bible, and same-sex relationships are even
less common. Having said that, it is nevertheless clear
that the New Testament is consistent with the extremely
negative attitude of the Old Testament and
Intertestamental Judaism toward same-sex relationships.
There are three pertinent texts: Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor
6:9; 1 Tim 1:10. I will hold the Romans text for a
minute, because it requires more extensive treatment.
Briefly, listen to 1 Cor and 1 Tim.
Do you not
know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters,
adulterers,
male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the
greedy, drunkards,
revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom
of God.
(1 Cor 6:9-10 NRSV)
Now we know
that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.
This means understanding that the law is laid down not
for the
innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
godless and
sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill
their father
or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites,
slave traders,
liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the
sound teaching
that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
which he
entrusted to me. (1 Tim 1: 8-11 NRSV)
There are two important Greek terms
here, which are difficult to translate. The first is
the word, malakos, translated by the NRSV as
“male prostitute,” and the second is arsenokoiteis,
translated by the NRSV as “sodomite.” The literal
meaning of malakos is “soft.” The literal
meaning of arsenokoiteis is difficult. Paul was
evidently the first to use the word. It does not appear
in the Greek language prior to Paul’s use of it. It is
made up of two words, the word for “male” and the word
for “bed.” Thus “male-bed.” Although the meanings of
malakos and arsenokoiteis continue to be
debated, there is an emerging consensus that the terms
refer to the specific roles of the partners in a
male-male sexual relationship, with malakos
(soft) referring to the passive partner and
arsenokoiteis (male-bed) referring to the active
partner. If this is the case, and I think this is
likely, then Paul would be referring to the most common
form of the male-male sexual relationship known in
antiquity, and he would be referring to it in thoroughly
negative terms. It is, however, well worth noting that
Paul speaks every bit as negatively about greed and
lying. Greed and lying might be things for us to keep
in mind as we engage in this study of homosexuality over
the next several years.
In expressing the ideas
that he does, Paul is perfectly consistent with the
Jewish tradition of which he was a part. Paul does not
bring anything new to the subject, nor does he bring
anything specifically Christian to the subject.
I turn
now to Romans 1, which is probably the crucial text in
so far as the biblical discussion is concerned. In
Romans 1, Paul is describing the state of the Gentile,
that is the non-Jewish, world. His famous words are:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts
to impurity,
to the
degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped
and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.
Their women exchanged natural intercourse for
unnatural,
and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse
with women, were consumed with passion for one another.
Men committed shameless acts with men and received in
their own persons the due penalty for their
error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should
not be done. They were filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree,
that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet
they not only do them but even applaud others who
practice them.” (Rom
1:26-32)
The first thing to note about this
text is that it is the only text in the Bible that
speaks of female-female sexual relations. In Romans 1,
Paul speaks of both female homoerotic relationships and
male homoerotic relationships, and he condems them both,
regarding both as para physin, “unnatural” or
“contrary to nature.” Many scholars have noted that
here in Romans 1, Paul gives pride of place among his
list of Gentile sins to homoerotic relationships. One
could even argue that Paul views homoerotic
relationships as the quintessential example of Gentile
depravity. For Paul, everything in this long list of
vices is the outgrowth of the primary Gentile sin of
idolatry. Because the Gentiles chose to worship idols
instead of the Creator God, God gave the Gentiles up to
various depraved behaviors, the first of which, and the
most egregious of which, is homoerotic activity.
Gentile women exchanged “natural” intercourse for
“unnatural,” and likewise Gentile men.
It would be hard to
overestimate the significance of this text for Christian
thinking on the topic of homosexuality or
homoeroticism. Because of Paul’s teaching that such
relations are “unnatural” or “contrary to nature,” the
church has throughout its history rejected homoerotic
relationships. (It should be noted that this is also
the case for traditional Judaism and traditional
Islam). It is really only recently that significant
calls have gone out in the church to re-open the
question and to re-examine the basis of the church’s
traditional condemnation of the homoerotic. If you
think about it, it is not really a matter of re-opening
the question, but rather of opening it for the first
time.
Important Criticisms of the
Biblical View
While there can be
differing nuances, I see three major arguments or three
differing positions on this whole issue that is now
facing the church.
Argument #1: The position of the Bible is clear,
that homoerotic activity is either an abomination (Lev
18 & 20), or contrary to nature (Rom 1), or both.
Therefore the church today should do as it has always
done, and that is to reject homoerotic activity as
inconsistent with Christian life. Those persons who
experience themselves as homosexual should either seek
ways to change their orientation, or should lead a
celibate life.
Argument #2: Homoerotic activity is sinful behavior,
and it represents one aspect of a fallen, sinful
humanity of which we are all a part. However, it is no
worse a sin than numerous other sins that Christians
manifest. While it does not represent the optimum of
what could be hoped for Christian life, nevertheless it
is something that the church can and ought to
tolerate, much in the same way that it tolerates
Christians who gossip and lie.
Argument #3: Homoerotic activity, contrary to the
traditional teaching of the church, should no longer be
regarded as sinful behavior at all, as long as
such activity takes place within the context of a
“committed” relationship. The argument here is that,
within a committed relationship, same-sex sex can be,
and often is, an expression of genuine love, and is
therefore something for the church to celebrate, not
reject.
(A
fourth argument that ought to be mentioned is the
one which says that the church should simply stay out of
people’s bedrooms altogether).
The basic
situation we find ourselves in is this: what the Bible
has to say about same-sex erotic activity, limited
though it is, is uniformly negative, and the position of
the church throughout its history toward same-sex erotic
activity has been negative as well. What then are the
possible grounds on which the church might be convinced
to change its position? What are the grounds on which
one could support Arguments #2 or #3 that I just
mentioned? Robert Gagnon, in a new book entitled,
The Bible and Homosexual Practice, has listed the
seven most common criticisms that have been leveled
against the biblical position. I will list these
criticisms and make only a few brief remarks about
each. No matter where you are on the issue of
homosexuality, these criticisms are crucial to hear,
because much of the discussion in the ELCA, in some
shape or form, will be centered on them in the coming
years. By knowing what these criticisms are, you will
be able to locate yourself in the debates that are to
come. It will also be interesting to see which of these
criticisms emerge as the really important ones, and
which fall away as less important.
CRITICISM #1: Yes, the Bible does indeed condemn
homoerotic activity of some sort, but what it is
condemning is an exploitative, pedarastic form of
homoerotic activity. The gist of this criticism is
that the Bible speaks negatively about only a specific
form of homoeroticism, a form in which one person is
seen to be taken advantage of by another person (as in a
pederastic relationship). The implication of the
argument is that a mutual, loving homoerotic
relationship between consenting adults in a committed
relationship is a different kind of relationship
altogether, and should not be lumped in with
exploitative relationships of any kind. The church can
and ought to support and celebrate mutual,
loving, committed relationships, be they heterosexual or
homosexual, and oppose exploitative
relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual. It
should be noted that this criticism is dependent on the
notion that homoeroticism in the ancient world and
homosexuality in the modern world are two completely
different phenomena, that they are not really related at
all. But more to the point where the Bible is at issue
is the question of what Paul was objecting to. Was it
really the problem of exploitation that led Paul
to speak like he did about homoerotic sex, or is it not
more likely that Paul’s problem was with the act itself,
exploitative or not?
CRITICISM #2: Yes, the Bible does condemn homoerotic
relationships, but it does so primarily because of the
threat such relationships pose to the societal dominance
of males. This argument has been raised
particularly by feminist scholars, who have taken a
leading role in discussing how sexual relationships are
reflective of broader societal and cultural structures.
This is a subtle argument, and a very complex one. Of
the 7 criticisms that I am enumerating, this is probably
the one that provokes the most heat. But I would say
that it is for precisely this reason, that this
criticism provokes such a negative reaction in those who
oppose it, that we should pay careful attention to it.
It is a pretty good rule of thumb that when something
provokes an immediate, intense, negative reaction, that
something significant is being tapped into. There is no
question in my mind but that homosexuality does in fact
raise all sorts of questions about the nature of
masculinity and femininity.
CRITICISM #3: The Bible has no category for
“homosexuals” with an exclusively same-sex orientation;
same sex passion was thought to originate in over-sexed
heterosexuals. In other words, this criticism
claims that the biblical writers did not know, or
conceive, of men who were only sexually attracted to
other men, or of women who were only sexually attracted
to other women.
CRITICISM #4: Homosexuality has a genetic component that
the writers of the Bible did not realize. This, of
course, is a very hotly contested issue. What if
homoerotic desire is a genetic phenomenon? What if an
individual is predisposed by his or her genes to be
sexually attracted to persons of the same sex? All that
we can say right now is that the genetic evidence is
mixed, ambiguous, and inconclusive. This may change
over the coming decades, but my hunch is that this will
likely not be the case. There are scientists who think
that homosexual orientation is genetic, but that we have
just not been able to prove it yet; while there are
others who think it results from various cultural,
social, and familial factors. This is the so-called
Essentialist-Constructionist debate, better known as the
nature-nurture debate. But what if we have to reckon
with the possibility that it is both? What we do know
is that human sexuality in general and human sexual
attraction in particular are extremely complex
phenomena, highly resistant to simple explanations. My
hunch is that sexual attraction is every bit as complex
as our personalities are.
CRITICISM #5: There are only a few biblical texts that
speak directly to homosexuality, and Jesus said nothing
about it. I find this criticism to be the least
interesting and the least compelling. Because one could
also say that there are only a few biblical texts that
speak about bestiality (i.e., sex with animals), and
Jesus said nothing about that either. But does the
paucity of words about bestiality somehow mean that it
was of no great concern to the biblical writers, or does
Jesus’ silence on the subject imply that he might have
smiled on the practice of bestiality?
CRITICISM #6: We do not follow all of the ethical
injunctions in the Bible now, so why should those
against same-sex sex be binding? It is a fact that
numerous ethical injunctions in the Bible have either
been altered or simply ignored by the church throughout
its history, particularly injunctions that have to do
with sexuality. A few examples would be: the
prohibition against sexual intercourse during
menstruation, changing definitions of what constitutes
incest, changing definitions of what constitutes rape, a
significantly changed understanding regarding the
marriageable age of young women, women wearing veils
during worship, much more liberal views on divorce, and
the list could go on and on. There are all sorts of
precedents for the church going in a direction different
from clear biblical teachings.
CRITICISM #7: Since we are all sinners anyway, why
single out the sin of same-sex sexual relationships?
Robert Gagnon says of this criticism: “this is a very
tempting, final fall-back argument: let the person
without sin cast the first stone. Maybe homosexuality
is a sin after all. Yet since we are all sinners, with
equally broken lives, and equally in need of God’s
grace, heterosexuals have no right to come down so hard
on the sin of homosexuality” (Gagnon, 469). While
Gagnon does not think much of this particular criticism,
I think we would do well to pay particular attention to
it, whether we consider same-sex sex a sin or not. We
are all sinners. We are all egregious sinners. And we
Lutherans ought to know very well about the dangers of
the sin of self-righteousness, which can poison even the
best of intentions. In the debates over homosexuality,
there is more than enough self-righteousness to go
around, on both sides of the issue. Why don’t we back
off of it a bit? Why don’t we dial it down a notch or
two?
Conclusion
These seven criticisms that I have enumerated will be a
significant part of our discussion over the coming
years. These are not the only criticisms that can be
raised, but one could say that they are the most
common. As things stand right now on the issue of
homosexuality, all of our poll information indicates
that the ELCA is sharply divided on all of the key
issues, like ordination and gay and lesbian unions. I
really do not know where this process is going to end
up. I know that some people are very nervous, I know
that some people are very excited, and I know that some
people are very angry. Feelings on the subject run very
deep, and things have the potential to become volatile
very quickly. But things don’t have to become
volatile. We can talk about this subject effectively.
We can debate this subject effectively. But in order to
do so, we must refrain from one thing, and that is from
demonizing those who disagree with us.
_____________________________
Sources:
Nissinen, Martti. Homoeroticism
in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective.
Translated by Kirsi Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1998.
Gagnon, Robert A.J. The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
|
