I've just finished a new book (so new I think it's only easily obtainable as a Kindle download) by David Gushee, a pre-eminent US evangelical ethicist, entitled 'Changing our mind'. It's a very accessible read and highly recommended.
I also thought this article by Walter Wink might be helpful............
Homosexuality and the Bible:
Walter Wink
Sexual issues are tearing
our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens
to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did one hundred and
fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance and find ourselves
mired in interpretive quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on
this issue?
The debate over
homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially
acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous
others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how
Scripture informs our lives today.
Some passages that have been
advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant.
One is the attempted gang
rape in Sodom (Gen. 19: 1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males
intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus
de-masculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges
19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether
genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate
or not. Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it
most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility
rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately
labeled him a “sodomite.”
Several other texts are
ambiguous. It is not clear whether I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 refer
to the “passive” and “active” partners in homosexual relationships, or to
homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether
the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and “sex-for-hire.”
Unequivocal Condemnations
Putting these texts to the
side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn
homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: “You [masculine] shall not
lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13)
adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon
them.”
Such an act was considered
as an “abomination” for several reasons. The Hebrew pre-scientific
understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no
knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only
the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any procreative purpose —
in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation
— was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and
masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate
how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were
outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered
questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.
In addition, when a man
acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a
degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The
patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the
commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual
acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just
that it was deemed unnatural, but also that it was considered un-Jewish,
representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On
top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for
acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of
the same response in many cultures.)
Persons committing
homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of
scripture.
Whatever the rationale for
their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons
committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command
of scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her
beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and
demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may
seem extreme, but there are actually some “Christians” urging this very thing today.)
It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to
death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to
be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul’s unambiguous condemnation of
homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
For this reason God gave
them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural, and the men, likewise, gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men
and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of
the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very
little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume
that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to
nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual
orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern
psychological understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is
fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be
contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their natural sexual
orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he
condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were
unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was “straight.” He had no
concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. Is this true?
There are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically,
or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such
a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a
person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, the relationships
Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting
adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity
as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision.
Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment
for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every
stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with
AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine
punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.
And Paul believes that
homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is
manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the
pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural
mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical
conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul
here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is
“natural” is therefore relevant to the case.
Hebrew Sexual Mores
Nevertheless, the Bible
quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few
instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the
problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual
attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but
which we no longer accept as normative:
† Old Testament law strictly
forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev.
18:19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be “extirpated,” or “cut
off from their people (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution
by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits
this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during
menstruation and think nothing of it. Are they sinners?
† Nudity, the characteristic
of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (II Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa.
20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah’s sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed
(Gen 9:20-27). To a great extent, this taboo probably even inhibited the sexual
intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of
people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude
beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old
swimming hole or in the privacy of one’s home as an accursed sin? The Bible
does.
So if the Bible allowed
polygamy and concubinage, why don’t we?
† Polygamy (many wives) and
concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were
regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New
Testament (with the questionable exceptions of I Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6).
Jesus’ teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he
quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become “one
flesh”), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A
man could become “one flesh” with more than one woman, through the act of
sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be
practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So,
if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don’t we?
† A form of polygamy was the
levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was
to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male
heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.) I am
not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of
Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior
preserved?
† The Old Testament nowhere
explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults, as
long as the woman’s economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to
say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that
eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have
often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical
interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different
attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some
Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for
marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to
produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single
adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to “biblical” practice,
while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage.
Which is right?
† The Bible virtually lacks
terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as “foot” or
“thigh” for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such
as “he knew her.” Today most of us regard such language as “puritanical” and
contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don’t
follow Biblical practice.
† Semen and menstrual blood
rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev.. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered
one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven
days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely
natural and only at times “messy,” not “unclean.”
† Social regulations
regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament,
determined largely by considerations of the males’ property rights over women.
Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity
of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh.
2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the
prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Even Paul must appeal to reason in
attacking prostitution (I Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of
adultery (vs. 9). Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a
high but necessary cost toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social
arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We
are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual
respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in
changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind
patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the
Bible?
† Jews were supposed to
practice endogamy — that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. Until
recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against
interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of
many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage
and the gradual change in social attitudes towards interracial relationships.
Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
† The law of Moses allowed
for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt,
19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a
command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people
consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and
ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than
the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned
homosexuality, but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why
not homosexuals?
† The Old Testament regarded
celibacy as abnormal and I Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy.
Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some
Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a
vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by
divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other
in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God’s intent in
creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests
and nuns would be in violation of God’s intention in their creation. Those who
argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. Are they prepared
to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly
heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not
normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through
people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most
people to the marriage of everyone. In I Cor. 7:7, Paul goes so far as to call
marriage a “charisma,” or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He
preferred that people remain as he was – unmarried. In an age of
overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
† In many other ways we have
developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible: “If men
get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her
husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals,
you shall cut off her hand” (Deut 25:11 f). We, on the contrary, might very
well applaud her for trying to save her husband’s life!
† The Old and New Testaments
both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of
that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual
toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which II
Samuel 5:13, Judges 19-21, and Numbers 31:17-20 permitted — and as many
American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other
Scripture passages as their justification.
The Problem of Authority
These cases are relevant to
our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic
prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in
Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of
two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they
fall among the moral commandments of the Scripture. Clearly we regard certain
rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we
regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not
mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?
For example; virtually all
modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:
- incest
- rape
- adultery
- intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the
Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors
which we generally allow:
- intercourse during menstruation
- celibacy
- exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
- naming sexual organs
- nudity (under certain conditions)
- masturbation (some Christians still
condemn this)
- birth control (some Christians still
forbid this)
And the bible regarded semen
and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not.
Likewise, the bible
permitted behaviors that we today condemn:
- prostitution
- polygamy
- levirate marriage
- sex with slaves
- concubinage
- treatment of women as property
- very early marriage (for the girl, age
11-13)
And while the Old Testament
accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here,
we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would
recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in
Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to
disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many
of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in
this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion,
because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even
though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing
ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every
commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom.
10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old
written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these
Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot
then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to
pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing
just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of
liberals and mainliners.
Judge for Yourselves
The crux of the matter, it
seems to me, is simply that the
Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead it
exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the
thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted
by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow,
and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is
constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any
given country, culture, or period.
The very notion of a “sex
ethic” reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we
increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off
from the rest of life. No sex act is “ethical” in and of itself, without
reference to the rest of a person’s life, the patterns of the culture, the
special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply
sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating
bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witness the shift from
the ideal of preserving one’s virginity until marriage, to couples living
together for several years before getting married. The response of many
Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
I agree that rules and norms
are necessary: that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to
be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form
of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual
mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus.
Such a love ethic is non-exploitive (hence, no sexual exploitation of children,
no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence, no patriarchal
treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving.
Augustine already dealt with this is his inspired phrase, “Love God, and do as
you please.”
Our moral task, then, is to
apply Jesus’ love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given
culture. This doesn’t mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be
critiqued by Jesus’ love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with
laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad
experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual
intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal
to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and
straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements
of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best
interests of the other and of society as a whole.
Christian morality, after
all, is not an iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing
the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a
manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of
same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual
mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to
discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Morton Kelsey goes so far as
to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more
than left-handedness does. It is simply the way some people’s sexuality is
configured. Morality enters the picture when that pre-disposition is enacted.
If we saw it as a God-given-gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get
beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the
unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.
Approached from the point of
view of love, rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now
the question is not “What is permitted?” but rather “What does it mean to love
my homosexual neighbor?” Approached from the point of view of faith rather than
of works, the question ceases to be “What constitutes a broach of divine law in
the sexual realm?” and becomes instead “What constitutes obedience to the God
revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?” Approached from the point of view
of the Spirit of the rather than of the letter, the question ceases to be “What
does Scripture command?” and becomes “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks
to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology,
psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?” We can’t continue to build
ethics on the basis of bad science.
In a little-remembered
statement, Jesus said, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?”
(Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many
Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul
himself echoes Jesus’ sentiment immediately preceding one of his possible
references to homosexuality: “Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How
much more, matters pertaining to this life!” (I Cor. 6:3). The last thing Paul
would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved
on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to “judge for himself what is right.”
If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not
obligated — no, free — to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all
available data and decide, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical
freedom for obedience which the gospel establishes?
Where the bible mentions
homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant all that.
The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible
sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacks it as unjust. Are we prepared
to argue that slavery today is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty
years ago when the debate over slavery was raging, the bible seemed to be
clearly on the slave holders’ side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify
their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask
Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone
would agree that it does not.
How do we account for such a
monumental shift?
What happened is that the
churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture
to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the
Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus’
identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and
outcast and poor. It is that God suffers with the suffering and groans toward
the reconciliation of all things. Therefore, Jesus went out of his way to
declare forgiven, and to reintegrate into society in all details, those who
were identified as “sinners” by virtue of the accidents of birth, or biology,
or economic desperation. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our
position on gays, the gospel’s
imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is
unmistakably clear.
In the same way, women are
pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades
Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out,
however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop and
interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation
in Jesus. What Jesus gives
us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be can be
turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own
correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is
restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a
Person, not a book.
“With the interpretive grid
provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism,
patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the
Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our
time of God’s domination-free order.
An Appeal for Tolerance
What saddens me in this
whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been.
It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and
which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the
Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion
and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps
back, and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of
what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an
airtight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others’. The
truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or
homosexuality. Rather than tearing at each others’ throats, therefore, we
should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting
God’s word for us today? How do you? Wouldn’t it be wiser to lower the decibels
by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be
wrong?
I know a couple, both well
known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the
issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their
behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each
other’s company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same
bed. [He is speaking of the Campolos. See
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm for a debate between Peggy and
Tony Campolo.]
We in the church need to get
our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on
the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are
commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers, who
are often sitting besides us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are
involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiable agree
to disagree. We don’t have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to
air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to
embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
Walter Wink is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological
Seminary in NYC. He has taught at numerous seminaries. He is a United Methodist
minister, works for a Presbyterian seminary, and attends Quaker meetings. His
books include ‘Unmasking the Powers’,
‘Engaging the Powers’, ‘The Powers That Be’, ‘The Bible in Human Transformation’,
and many more.
