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 a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible
for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand.
Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
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),
since that was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent
on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women,"
thus demasculinizing 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 adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise
Deut. 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 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 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 alone, or promiscuity
and "sex-for-hire."
Unequivocal Condemnations
With these texts eliminated,
we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally
condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle:
"You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
it is an abomination" (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds
the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put
to death; their blood is upon them."
Such an act was regarded as
an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific
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 non-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 were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not
mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). 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 uncontrolled
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 unJewish,
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.)
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 clear 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 actually are some Christians today urging this very
thing.) Even though no tribunal is likely to execute homosexuals
ever again, a shocking number of gays are murdered by "straights"
every year in this country.
Old Testament texts have to
be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation
of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece
of any discussion.
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.
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 seems 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
psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation
is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases.
For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting
contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up"
or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation.
Likewise, the relationships
Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships
of genuine same-sex love. They are not relationships between consenting
adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with
as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. Again, some people
assume 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 the world around 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:
1. Old Testament law strictly
forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual
period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation 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. Should they be "extirpated"?
The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery
was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22),
but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman.
A married man in the Old Testament who has intercourse with an
unmarried woman is not an adulterer-a clear case of the double
standard. A man could not commit adultery against his own wife;
he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually
using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin
is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity
at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities
of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates
far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than
homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more
adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling
for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And
we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic
of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 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 nudity 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 surroundings. 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.
4. Polygamy and concubinage
were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever
condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions
of 1 Tim. 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, 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 allows polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. 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 homosexuality preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere
explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting
heterosexual 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 requisite 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. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. 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 do not follow Biblical practice.
8. 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 completelynatural and only at times "messy,"
not "unclean."
9. 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. Paul must appeal to reason in
attacking prostitution (1 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?
10. Jews were supposed to
practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve 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 toward interracial relationships. Sexual
mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. 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?
12. The Old Testament regarded
celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 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. One argument
is that since God made men and women for each other in order to
be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation.
Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married--or,
for that matter, why Jesus, who incarnated God in his own person,
was single. Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the
race would die out. But it is not normative. Otherwise, childless
couples, single persons, and priests and nuns would be in violation
of God's intention in their creation--as would Jesus and Paul!
In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially
sound ecologically!
13. 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; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.).
We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her.
14. The Old and New Testaments
both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemn
it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines
and captives as sexual toys or breeding machines by their male
owners, which Lev. 19:20f., 2 Sam. 5:13 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and
as many American slave owners did some 130 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. Clearly we regard
certain things, 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, modern readers
agree with the Bible in rejecting:
But we disagree with the Bible
on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following
behaviors which we generally allow:
And the Bible regarded semen
and menstrual blood as unclean, which we do not.
Likewise, the Bible permitted
behaviors that we today condemn:
And while the Old Testament
accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it.
Why then 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 issues?
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. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against
polygamy exists.
The problem of authority is
not mitigated by the doctrine that the cultic requirements of
the Old Testament were abrogated by the New, and that only the
moral commandments of the Old Testament remain in force. For most
of these sexual mores fall among the moral commandments. If we
insist on placing ourselves under the old law, then, 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 biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit.
We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new Law. Fundamentalists
themselves reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they
will keep, though they seldom admit to doing just that.
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 knows only a love
ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual
mores are dominant in any given country, or 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 witnessed 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.
Our moral task, rather, is
to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent
in a given culture. 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 a 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, 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 as such, any more than left-handedness. It is simply
the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters
at the point of how that predisposition 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 works,
the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine
law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What
constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover,
Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit
rather than 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?"
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!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). 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 the available data and decide, under God, for ourselves?
Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel
establishes us?
It may, of course, be objected
that this analysis has drawn our noses so close to texts that
the general tenor of the whole Bible is lost. The Bible clearly
considers homosexual behavior a sin, and whether it is stated
three times or 3,000 is beside the point. Just as someof us grew
up "knowing" that homosexual acts were the unutterable
sin, though no one ever spoke about it, so the whole Bible "knows"
it to be wrong.
I freely grant all that. The
issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.
The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked 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 sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed.
God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation
of all things. 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 an 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 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 most 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 been sharing with you. But I must acknowledge
that it is not an air tight 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 for Christians
to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our cases,
knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know of 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.
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 beside
us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved
in this debate. 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 all can do so.