How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 19. Conclusion

I started this series by enumerating some obstacles to changing my mind on the received Christian understanding of same-sex attraction and the possibility of blessing same-sex unions. Those obstacles are real. I have tried to address some of them and offer a case for rethinking the Church’s understanding in a way that I hope is faithful. But, I admit that the case is not straightforward. If you are unpersuaded, that is OK. I have no illusion that mine is the only faithful understanding.

But, as I have pointed out repeatedly (here and here), much depends on how we engage scripture and tradition. All of us need to be wary of imposing our biases and prejudices onto both. We need to be wary of selective readings. Just as importantly, we need to be conscious of the “rules” we use to interpret both and how we incorporate what we have learned about the world – and the people around us.

I have argued that the testimony and example of faithful gay and lesbian Christians must be taken into account – that means all gay and lesbian Christians not just the ones who say what we want to hear. It is such testimony that has persuaded me to rethink this topic. I find the evidence of brother and sister Christians who live lives of self-control and self-sacrificial love in committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships compelling

I have sometimes heard people say they would love to find an acceptable case for rethinking sexuality. Why? Of course it could be because of the power of personal desires that they want affirmed. It could be because of the social pressure to affirm what many in our society seem unwilling to condemn. But, couldn't it also be that we have been shaped by the Church's story – rooted in Jesus and the rest of the New Testament – of self-sacrificial love in the context of mercy and grace; and, given what we now know about same-sex sexual attraction, the prohibitions against it seem incongruous to that story? This series has been my attempt to demonstrate why I think the last question can be answered in the affirmative.

This is not a matter of mere "inclusivity," an ideal that is inadequate as a Christian principle. The issue, it seems to me, is whether or not entering into a committed, monogamous, permanent Same-sex Union provides a fertile context for the cultivation of redemptive, sanctifying disciplines that lead to deeper love of God and love of neighbor as exemplified by Jesus. It is about pursuing the holiness of God-centered, self-emptying, cross-bearing, other-oriented love incarnated by Jesus Christ and cultivating the disciplines that enable us to embody that love in thought, word, and deed. If so, do they not build up the community? I have come to believe the answer to that question is "yes."

When I started this series, I did not expect it would take exactly one year to complete. But, I am done.

"As long as Christian morality is thought to be mainly about whether and when people should go to bed, no bishops are going to be crucified. And this is depressing."

– Herbert McCabe (Roman Catholic Dominican priest, theologian and philosopher), Law, Love, and Language

Previous:

Part 18. Creation and New Creation

Part 17. Abomination (ii)

Part 16. Abomination (i)

Part 15. Sodom

Part 14. The Rest of the New Testament

Part 13. Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex

Part 12. Romans 1 (iii) Natural and Unnatural Sex

            Self-Control: Neglected Fruit of the Spirit

Part 11. Romans 1 (ii) Unnatural Passions

Part 10. Romans 1 (i) Context

Part 9. Jesus on Marriage and "God made them Male & Female," (ii)

Part 8. Jesus on Marriage and "God made them Male & Female," (i)

Part 7. What Did Jesus Say?

Part 6. Back to the Bible

Part 5. Why I Am Disinclined to Vote for Revising the Marriage Canon

Part 4. Some Thoughts on Interpreting Scripture

Part 3. Positive Testimony

Part 2. Negative Testimony

Part 1. Obstacles

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 18. Creation and New Creation

I have argued that the Old Testament story about Sodom and Gomorrah is not relevant to Christian reflection on gay and lesbian sexual relations (more accurately, I linked David Gushee’s argument to that effect). I have also argued that the labeling of male homosexual behavior as an abomination in Leviticus might be more complicated than often assumed. The more significant passages of the Old Testament to the discussion are the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1:26-28 says humans are made in the image of God, created with “sexual difference” as male and female, and commanded (blessed) to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and “subdue” it. Genesis 2:18-25 depicts God’s recognition of the loneliness of the original man and his need for a helper/companion/partner; taken from the man’s rib, this partner is woman. The final two verses function etiologically to explain the origins of marriage, as the first man and woman are called “man” and “wife.”

– David Gushee, God made them male and female

In the first chapters of Genesis, we have the first scriptural installment of a doctrine of humanity set before is “in the form of a story” (Gregory of Nyssa).

In two earlier posts in this series, I offered some thoughts on maleness and femaleness and marriage in relation to same-sex unions. I’ll just refer back to them here:

  

1. Maleness and femaleness are essential aspects of humanity. Marriage between male and female with the resulting potential for biological procreation is a blessing of our creation. It is a fundamental good. But, is it the only good? I have argued that one can embrace the distinctive goodness of that estate, while also embracing the possibility that monogamous, covenanted same-sex unions can be a distinct, parallel, and similarly blessed state.

(See, Why I Am Disinclined to Vote for Revising the Marriage Canon)

2. Maleness and femaleness are essential aspects of humanity. But, maleness and femaleness are not primarily about marriage and marriage is not the essential location of their coinherence. 

Jesus emphasized the new community that became the Church over other forms of community. He identifies himself the Bridegroom of that community. For Christians the basic social unit is not the married man and woman. It is not the individual. It is not the biological family. It is not the country/nation. For Christians, the basic social unit is the Church.

In the Church, as the body of Christ made up of married couples, children, singles, monastics, etc.; humans, male and female, live in communion with one another reflecting the image of God.

(See, Jesus on Marriage and "God made them Male & Female," (ii))

Besides referring back to those two posts, I refer you to David Gushee’s post from which I quoted above: God made them male and female

And this one in which he offers three proposals for responding to the very important claim that God’s design in creation rules out any same-sex relationships, a claim derived from Genesis 1-2:

Creation, sexual orientation, and God’s will

Next: Conclusion

Previous: Abomination (ii)

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 17. Abomination (ii)

In the last post, I listed most of the passages in the Old Testament where something is is declared to’evah – an abomination.Various sexual behaviors were listed:

·         cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5)

·         remarrying a woman you divorced who has subsequently remarried and been divorced (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

·         adultery (Leviticus 18:20; Ezekiel 22:11, Ezekiel 33:26)

·         incest (Leviticus 18:6-18)

·         sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 18:19)

·         bestiality (Leviticus 18:23)

·         male temple prostitution (1 Kings 14:24)

·         male homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13)

It is safe to say that we do not consider all of these behaviors equally abominable. Is sex between a husband and wife during the woman's menstrual cycle equal to incest? Bestiality? If we do not consider all of the behaviors listed above as equally abominable, why not? Personal taste? Cultural conditioning? Our understanding of how to interpret scripture responsibly and faithfully? 

The abomination of cross-dressing

A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent [to’evah] to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

Is it an abomination when a woman dresses in jeans and a sweatshirt or a button-down flannel shirt? Why not? Nowhere in the New Testament is Deuteronomy 22:5 revised. If anything, in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 Paul reinforces the idea and he appeals to nature to do so. Paul’s concern is about the length of women’s hair and that of men, but the concern to distinguish male from female is similar to that of Deuteronomy. Is it a sin for women to have short hair? Paul thinks so. and he thinks it is unnatural.

Should the Church insist that women wear skirts and dresses? When women first began to wear slacks, it was a scandal partly because it contravened Deuteronomy 22:5. Some Christians still argue that faithfulness to the Bible requires that women wear skirts (see here).  Women cutting–"bobbing"–their hair short was not that long ago similarly a scandal and the topic of sermons and religious tracts (see here and here). Is our willingness to ignore these injunctions evidence that we have simply accommodated secular culture? What is the “rule” for interpreting scripture that allows us to understand this as no longer an abomination? Is it just the fact that it does not offend us any more? That it is inconvenient? There is nothing to indicate that this falls under the traditional distinction between ritual and ethical laws in the Old Testament. If we do not now take the plain meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 (and, for that matter, 1 Corinthians 11:3–15) as being as applicable today as it was when it was written, it will be because we interpret that verse in light of cultural and historical analysis and in light of other parts of scripture that we consider more important.

Remarrying the wife you’ve divorced

Tom and Meg fell in love and married. Meg developed an alcohol problem. Tom tried for several years to help Meg get sober but she would not. Though he still loved her, Tom felt he had no choice but to divorce Meg. She subsequently married Jack – another alcoholic. Meg eventually got sober. But, her new husband would not. Unhappy with Meg’s new sobriety, Jack divorced her. Some time passed. Meg encountered Tom at a party and their love was rekindled. Tom and Meg decided to remarry. It would be a wonderful story. But, according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, it would be an abomination:

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent [to’evah] to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.

It is not clear why God would forbid this in such strong terms. Why is it an abomination? Is it still today? Granted that most churches are prepared to allow divorced people to remarry ( (but, see Jesus on Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage), should we allow a couple such as Tom and Meg to remarry, given that such a remarriage is declared to’evah – an abomination (or abhorrent or a detestable thing depending on the translation)? If we no longer find the idea abhorrent or an abomination is it just because it does not offend our own sensibilities? Is it because we have surrendered to the prevailing culture? Or is it because we interpret this passage differently in light of other scriptures and our understanding of the historical and cultural context?

Male homosexual behavior

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

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. (Leviticus 20:13)

These two verses make it clear that male homosexual behavior was forbidden under the Old Testament law. Here are some things to note, though:

1.      There is nothing in the Old Testament prohibiting female homosexual behavior. Why is that? Would lesbian sexual encounters have been OK in ancient Israel?

2.      Is the abomination in these two verses worse than other behaviors declared an abomination in the rest of the Old Testament which were listed in the last post? Given how much more of the Old Testament focuses on the sins of idolatry, economic injustice, cheating in business, arrogance, dishonesty, and violence; why is it that the abomination that is only listed in these two verses the one that seems to matter most to some Christians?

3.      Given that food that was once an abomination is so no longer and we do not object to the abomination of women wearing men’s clothing or keeping their hair short, might there be room to reconsider whether male same-sex relationships are inherently and always an abomination?

4.      All of this raises the question of how the law of the Old Covenant applies under the New Covenant.

There is one other place in the Old Testament where same-sex behavior is declared an abomination:

there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. (1 Kings 14:24)

It seems plausible to conclude from this that a main reason for forbidding male homosexual behavior was its association with idolatry and pagan temple worship (as we saw in Romans 1). If it is no longer associated with idolatry, it becomes possible to engage the testimony of faithful gay and lesbian Christians differently and entertain the possibility that not all homosexual behavior is inherently and always to’evah. In the context of what we have seen in the rest of this series, I am suggesting that there is room to do just that. Doing so does not necessarily mean that everything else that is declared an abomination in the Old Testament is up for grabs. 

While it is a main reason male homosexual sexual relations are forbidden in the Old Testament, idolatry is not likely the only reason. We will consider another in the next post.

See also: Leviticus, abomination and Jesus 

Next: Creation and New Creation

Previous: Abomination (i)

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 16. Abomination (i)

Abomination in the New Testament

Toward the end of John’s vision of the New Jerusalem, we read that “nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21:27)

In the immediate context there is no indication what the practice of abomination refers to. But a few chapters earlier in chapter 17 there is another reference to abomination in reference to “Babylon, the prostitute” (Rome) in league with the Beast (Satan). Again, it is not entirely clear what the abominations refer to. Prostitution and adultery are common biblical metaphors for idolatry – of which Rome was guilty in spades.  Rome’s persecution of “those who bore testimony to Jesus” would also qualify as an abomination.

The Greek word βδέλυγμα (bdelugma), translated “abomination,” occurs only a couple of other times in the New Testament. In both instances, idolatry is clearly the issue. In Mark 13:14/Matthew 24:15, Jesus warns of “'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong.” This is an apparent reference to an idolatrous desecration of the Temple.

Idolatry is also the point in the only other place something is called an βδέλυγμα/abomination in the New Testament. In Luke 16:13, Jesus warns, “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [wealth].” He goes on to tell those who love money, “God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.”

Abomination in the Old Testament

Abomination shows up more frequently in the Old Testament. More than one Hebrew word gets translated as “abomination”, e.g., sheqets in Levitcus 11 and pigguwl in Leviticus 7. The Hebrew word most commonly translated “abomination” is to’evah (but also sometimes translated “detestable” or “abhorrent”). In Genesis 43:32 (Egyptians eating with Hebrews) and 46:34 (Egyptians’ attitude toward shepherds) to’evah refers to something a particular culture finds offensive. Most well-known, of course, “if a man lies with a male as with a woman” is declared to’evah. Before we look at that, here is a list of things the Old Testament declares to’evah:

1. As with abomination in the New Testament, to’evah most commonly refers to idolatry and behavior related to idolatry

·         idolatry or idols (Deuteronomy 7:25-26;  13:14; 20:18; 27:15; 32:16; 1 Kings 11:5; 14:24; 2 Kings 21:1-11; 23:13; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 36:14; Isaiah 41:24; 44:19; Jeremiah 32:35; Ezekiel 6:9; 7:20; 11:18; 14:6; 16:36; Malachi 2:11)

·         child sacrifice is wrong for lots of reasons, but is related to idolatry (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3;  Jeremiah 32:35)

2. Idolatry is false worship. To’vah also refers to wrong worship

·         sacrificing an animal with a blemish (Deuteronomy 17:1)

·         sacrificing and worshiping with a wrong relationship with God (Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 21:27; Isaiah 1:13; Ezekiel 5:11; cf. Proverbs 28:9)

·         payment at the Temple for a vow using money related to prostitution or Gentiles (Deuteronomy 23:18)

3. Magic and witchcraft are related to idolatry and wrong worship and are to’evah

·         magic and witchcraft (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

4. To’evah also sometimes refers to actions and attitudes we would more readily recognize as matters of morality

·         arrogance (Proverbs 16:5)

·         dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22)

·         dishonesty and cheating in business (Deuteronomy 25:13-19; 20:10-23)

·         usury, violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezekiel 18:10-13)

·         violence (Proverbs 3:31-32; Ezekiel 8:17; 18:12)

·         stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants (Jeremiah 7:9-10)

·         Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things which are also abominations: "haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

5. Animals declared unclean are also to’evah

·         don’t eat unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14:3-21) Leviticus 11 refers to eating unclean animals as sheqets, usually translated as an “abomination” synonymous with to’evah

6. Various sexual behaviors are also declared to’evah

·         cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5)

·         remarrying a woman you divorced who has subsequently remarried and been divorced (Deuteronomy 24:2-4)

·         adultery (Leviticus 18:20; Ezekiel 22:11, 33:26)

·         incest (Leviticus 18:6-18)

·         sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 18:19)

·         bestiality (Leviticus 18:23)

·         male temple prostitution (1 Kings 14:24)

·         male homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)

General observations

.

To’evah most frequently refers to idolatry and wrong worship which is a betrayal of God reflecting and leading to a breach in our communion with God. That leads to betrayal, abuse, and injustice – a breach in our communion with one another as represented in the fourth list of verses above. Communion with God and the communion with other humans (indeed, with the rest of creation) are integrally related. This is demonstrated in the Hebrew word, tzedakah, which is usually translated “righteousness” or “justice” and refers to both.

Abomination is not always forever – “unclean” food

The Old Testament food regulations primarily serve as markers setting the people of Israel apart from their neighbors. Eating “unclean” animals is declared to’evah – an abomination. Abomination is a strong word. One might expect that it refers to something that God finds inherently and eternally repulsive. But, in the New Testament, Jesus is understood to have declared all food clean (Mark 7:19) and Peter has a vision (Acts 10:9-16) in which he is commanded to kill and eat all sorts of animals and to “not call anything impure that God has made clean.” So, what was once declared an abomination is no longer an abomination and apparently not inherently and eternally repulsive to God.

There is an exception, though. The Council of Jerusalem asserted that while other laws about food did not apply to Gentile Christians, they were still to abstain from consuming blood (see Genesis 9:2-4, Leviticus 17:14, Ezekiel 33:25-26) and from eating meat from what is strangled (Acts 15:29). How many Christians worry about obeying the plain meaning of that rule? Not many. Why not?

It is also significant that the main point of Peter’s vision is not about food. It is about recognizing that Gentiles were no longer to be considered impure. This vision allowed Peter to recognize the faithfulness of those he had considered incapable of faithfulness, even though doing so called into question many of his assumptions of what faithfulness meant. When he made this case for Gentile inclusion, Peter appealed to the evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit – do not call anything impure that God has made clean. What are we to do if people we have considered incapable of faithfulness demonstrate faithfulness even though doing so calls into question many of our assumptions of what faithfulness means?

Next: Part 17. Abomination (ii)

Previous: Part 15. Sodom

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 15. Sodom

The Old Testament story of Sodom and its egregious sin has long been so associated with same-sex behavior that “sodomy” has been used as a synonym for homosexuality. But is that really what the sin of Sodom is about? To answer that, I am again going to refer to an essay by Evangelical theologian and ethicist, David Gushee:

Sodom and Gomorrah, their sin and God’s punishment, became resonant symbols. When cited within the rest of Scripture, even the names of these towns become a byword for total human evil and devastating divine judgment (Dt. 29:23, 32:32; Isa. 1:9f., 3:9, 13:19; Jer. 23:14, 49:18, 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ezek. 16:46-50; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Mt. 10:15/Lk 10:10-12, Rom. 9:29, 2 Peter 2:6-10, Jude 6-7; cf. Ps. 11:6). The starkest way to warn Israel or the Church of impending judgment was to drop in a Sodom reference. But never once in these intra-biblical Sodom references is their evil described as same-sex interest or behavior. In Isaiah 1:9-23 a host of sins are named but mainly related to abuses of public justice. In Jeremiah 23:14 it’s adultery, lying and unwillingness to repent. Ezekiel 16:49 describes their sins as pride, excess food, prosperous ease and lack of care for the poor. In Amos and Zephaniah the issues are pride, mocking and oppressing the poor. Intertestamental works Sirach (16:8), 3 Maccabees (2:5) and Wisdom (19:15) still talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, and still don’t connect their sin to sexuality at all.

The only biblical references to Sodom with any possible suggestion of same-sex behavior are Jude 6-8 and the parallel text in 2 Peter 2:6-7, with their references to unholy interest in “other flesh” (Jude 7). In the context of an interpretation of Genesis 19 that was already convinced the story is about same-sex behavior, these two late New Testament texts were read as confirmation. But look closely. They represent fragments of tradition referring to unholy human interest in sex with angels, a theme derived from the book of Enoch, with reference back to the mysterious Genesis 6 story about the Nephilim.

(the rest of Gushee’s essay is here)

The story of Sodom is problematic for another reason. Whatever evil the story intends to condemn – breach of hospitality, sex with angels, violence and rape, or even homosexuality as such which seems a stretch to me – there is at least the implication that it would be less evil to gang rape Lot's daughters who he offers to the men of Sodom. I cannot imagine offering my daughters to be gang raped by a mob (see the similar passage in Judges 19-20). The whole text seems a dicey passage to make too much of in terms of drawing moral instruction.

Next: Abomination (i)

Previous: The Rest of the New Testament

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 14. The Rest of the New Testament

Jesus said nothing directly on the issue of homosexuality. There are references to same-gender sexual behavior elsewhere in the New Testament. The most important of these is Romans 1. But, as we have seen, it is not clear that what Paul was concerned about in his context is the same thing we are talking about in ours. There are two other New Testament passages where Paul (or in the case of 1 Timothy, likely someone writing in the spirit of Paul) refer to some sort of same-sex sexual behavior. They are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. A lot of scholarly ink has been spilled regarding just what the Greek words in these verses mean. Rather than rehashing all that myself, I refer you to this written by Evangelical theologian and ethicist, David Gushee:

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul (in the second case, probably a pseudonymous “Paul”) deploys two “vice lists” — a common enough rhetorical strategy in the Greco-Roman world — to communicate to his readers condemnation of sinful behavior. With regard to 1 Corinthians, most scholars agree that Paul is dealing with an especially unruly congregation, some of whom have fallen prey to moral laxity, including in sexuality. Paul writes to correct that, and to make it perfectly clear that the salvation offered by grace does not also offer an exemption from basic moral requirements. Then follow 10 types of people who, Paul warns, will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” In 1 Timothy 1, the context for the vice list is more obscure. It falls under a discussion of “the law,” and the author’s concern about false teachers apparently focusing overmuch on the law. Paul says that the law is mainly intended for the godless. Then follow seven examples of such godlessness.

In both vice lists the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. In the first list, the word malakoi is directly in front of it. A vast, highly contested scholarly literature exists to parse out the meaning of these two odd little words.

(Continue reading Gushee here)

Previous: Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex

Next: Sodom

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 13. Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex

Having taken a bit of  a detour, let’s return to Romans 1. 

Paul’s Logic

In Romans, Paul lays out the dire situation of all humanity in bondage to Sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are caught in that bondage. In Chapter 1, he focuses his attention on Gentiles. From a Jewish perspective, Gentiles are, by definition, guilty of idolatry. Though Paul asserts that there is sufficient evidence in creation for them to know better, they neither honor God as God nor give thanks to him (1:21). Instead, they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” (1:23).

Of course, in the ancient world literal idolatry was pervasive. There were statues and images of gods of all sorts everywhere. But, idolatry is more than worshiping images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. We can exchange the glory of the immortal God for almost anything: Family, money/Mammon, Nation/Flag/Patriotism, Political Ideology, Fame/Reputation, Violence, Vengeance,  Race, Security, Pleasure, Sex, the Mirror, etc. When we give such things our ultimate allegiance and allow them to shape our imagination we make gods of them. And that distorts our thinking and disorients us morally.

When people exchange the worship of God for the things God created, they lose moral perspective and self-control (see Wisdom 12:23-13:10 and 14:9-31). They become “futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds are darkened” (Romans 1:21). They are thus subject to “every kind of wickedness” (Romans 1:29).

The sexual licentiousness Jews attributed to Gentiles was part of this. And it was not hard in the Greco-Roman world to see a connection between idolatry and sexual licentiousness. Images of the phallus were ubiquitous (here). And all sorts of sexual goings-on were common in and around pagan temples (see the first comment below taken from “But the Bible says...”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1 by James Allison). The evidence confirming that Gentiles were sexually out of control was everywhere.

Paul points to same-sex sexual encounters as a particular example of this:

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. (Romans 1:26-27)

As we saw in the last post, such behavior was evidence of the out of control behavior that results from idolatry. Same-sex intercourse was seen as one extreme example of licentiousness.

But, let’s be clear. Paul asserts that idolatry leads to "every kind of wickedness":

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 towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Romans 1:28-31)

Verses 26-31 should be read as a whole. The attitudes and behaviors Paul lists are all similar in his mind.

Application

So, how might this passage of Holy Scripture apply to us today?

Though literal idolatry is rare in our context, idolatry (as in the examples in the second paragraph above) is no less pervasive here and now than it was there and then. It is just more subtle. Partly because it is more subtle it is easier to fall into and because it is less obvious we can fool ourselves into thinking we are not guilty. But, it still can lead us to accept and do things that are contrary to the way of Jesus and fill us with every kind of wickedness. It is not the point of this series, but I think Christians would do well to take more seriously the temptation of idolatry and the possibility that we are more idolatrous than we would like to think.  

It is also a reminder that in the New Testament and the early Church, self-control was understood as a fundamental mark of faithfulness to the Christian way of life (see, Neglected Fruit of the Spirit). That is about as counter-cultural and scandalous as it gets in a society such as ours with its self-indulgent, consumerist pursuit of more and more money and stuff, more comfort, and more pleasure. 

More specifically, what does this passage teach us about the phenomena of same-sex sexual attraction?

First, allow me to repeat again that every reader of scripture reads with a perspective that includes rules, conscious or unconscious, which determine how they interpret what they read. I laid out some of my basic approach to interpreting scripture here: Some Thoughts on Interpreting Scripture. Among other things, I pointed out that according to the official teaching body of the Catholic Church, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Catholic readers of the Scripture have a positive duty to avoid certain sorts of what the authorities call ‘actualization’ of the texts, by which they mean reading ancient texts as referring in a straightforward way to modern realities. One does not have to be Roman Catholic to find this a valuable guide to interpretation:

Clearly to be rejected also is every attempt at actualization set in a direction contrary to evangelical justice and charity, such as, for example, the use of the Bible to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the part of men or of women. Particular attention is necessary... to avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes to the Jewish people”. (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, IV.3)

While there are plausible – maybe even probable – interpretations of scripture “contrary to evangelical justice and charity,” i.e., that endorse slavery, racism, anti-semitism, sexism, etc., they are to be avoided. Interpretations that reflect and reinforce justice and charity are more faithful to the Good News of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that this principle makes space for asking whether or not we should be wary of reading biblical texts about homosexuality as referring in a straightforward way to what we are talking about now.

I believe that, given the logic of Romans 1, we should indeed be wary of 'actualization' of the text as referring in a straightforward way to modern realities. In the previous two posts in the series we saw the importance of self-control for Paul and his contemporaries and the common understanding that homosexual behavior was a matter of out of control sexual desire. Is the reality Paul is talking about necessarily the same thing we are talking about regarding same-sex relationships in our context?

How should we now understand gay and lesbian Christians who are no more idolatrous than the rest of us and give every evidence of faithfully worshiping God in Christ and honoring God as God and giving thanks to him? And who love God and neighbor? And demonstrate self-control and self-denying discipline in their desire to follow Jesus and be formed in his image? Who are not dominated by passions and who build up the body of Christ? And who resist the evils listed in Romans 1:28-31 and elsewhere? And give testimony to their experience of same-sex attraction being different from that described in Romans 1 and elsewhere? And that it is not a matter of their choosing or lack of self-control, but an ingrained part of their personal identity?

It doesn’t work to say that in spite of all that, their same-sex attraction is itself idolatrous. That is not the logic of Paul’s argument. His argument is that idolatry leads to loss of perspective and self-control which leads to out of control sexual behavior among other things. But, what if gays and lesbians demonstrate that they are no more out of control than anyone else and that their same-sex attraction is an inherent part of them?

Another common approach is to argue that indelible same-sex attraction is a product of the brokenness resulting from the Fall. But, that also does not fit Paul’s logic. For Paul, the out of control sinful behavior he is talking about is the result of the prior decision to turn from the glory of God and worship something less than God. As we have seen, the assumption was that homosexual behavior was just such out of control behavior. As such, it was an extreme example of fornication to which all are similarly tempted. We know that gays and lesbians, like heterosexuals, can choose to be licentious, promiscuous, and adulterous. But, given the apparently fixed nature of most same-sex attraction, it is different from those. It is not a consequence of choosing idolatry over honoring God. And gays and lesbians, like heterosexuals, can and do also demonstrate self-control and sacrificial faithfulness.

Gay and lesbian Christians are not essentially idolatrous. If they honor God and give him thanks and demonstrate self-control that leads to love and the building up of the congregation, then it is hard to see how what Paul is writing against in Romans 1 actually applies to Christians who are gay or lesbian. The out of control sexual behavior Paul is talking about is not what we are talking about given how we understand the phenomena of same-sex attraction. It is not what we are talking about when we talk about committed, self-sacrificial same-gender unions that reflect all the disciplines and commitments of traditional marriage. I suggest that that opens space for the Church to rethink its teaching on the matter.

Previous: Looking at Romans 1:

Romans 1 (i) Context

Romans 1 (ii) UnnaturalPassions

Romans 1 (iii) Natural andUnnatural Sex

Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex

Next:

Same-sex behavior in the rest of the New Testament

How I Came to Change My Mind on SSU: Part 12. Romans 1 (iii) Natural and Unnatural Sex

In the last post in this series, we saw that according to the early Church indulging in excess in anything beyond what is necessary was considered unnatural and a fundamental obstacle to holiness. Both the New Testament and the early Church insist that self-control is the foundation of holy living, i.e., communion with God.and one another.

So, eating is good. But eating in excess is unnatural and gluttonous. The things of this world are good. But, accumulating more than is necessary is unnatural and greedy. Anger that empowers us to resist and “renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God and the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 302) is good. But, anger toward other people is unnatural and sinful.

In each case, self-control is key, both in the sense of controlling our desires and of channeling them to their proper end which is the love of God and love of neighbor. This was also true when it comes to sexual behavior.

Unnatural Sex and Self-control

It is important to note that a general cultural suspicion of material/physical reality and suspicion of the female, plus Paul’s ambivalence about sex and marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7) influenced leaders and teachers in the early Church when they reflected on sex and marriage. Most contemporary Christians would likely be more affirming of material reality, more affirming of femaleness, and more affirming of the goods of marriage than were many of our ancestors in the faith. Even so, the scriptures and the early Church have things to teach us. One of those is the significance of the spiritual discipline of self-control. This is true in all areas of life, including sex.

The theme of self-control and its challenges has been central to the Church's thinking in the area of sexual desire. As with gluttony, greed, and anger, out of control or “excessive” sexual desire and behavior – lust – was considered unnatural. One early Church theologian observed that most other creatures only mate seasonally or that their females are only occasionally “in heat.” Only humans copulate year round, day and night. In his view, this is surely evidence that human sexual behavior tends toward an unnatural, out of control obsession.

One of the most important theologians of the early Church, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), wrote at length about sexual desire and self-control. For Augustine, the involuntary nature of physical sexual response is evidence of our loss of control due to the Fall. A man should be able to choose whether or not and when he has an erection. But, the body and its desires do not always respond to the will and sometimes responds against it. Augustine sees this as a serious problem. It is contrary to what is supposed to be our natural state in which our flesh is subordinate to our reason. He is also concerned with the way reason is abandoned in the midst of sexual passion. He compares it with being drunk, which is a surrendering of self-control. Unlike most of the theologians before him, Augustine did believe that Adam and Eve were meant to have sex in the Garden of Eden. But, it would have been controlled and willful, quite unlike most people experience and enjoy it. He argues that sex without the Fall would have been as voluntary as a handshake. And no more passionate or pleasurable. And the only reason for doing it would be for willed reproduction. Augustine argued that marriage (while inferior to celebate singleness or monastic life) could be a good thing characterized by fidelity, procreation, and the sacramental bond. But, he is also clear that even within marriage, sex is only for procreation. Further, given the population of the earth, Augustine believed that the injunction in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply" had been fulfilled and thus even procreation was no longer necessary.

(see City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26; On the Good of Marriage, On Holy Virginity)

Augustine believed that marriage is about more than procreation (the faithfulness each spouse to the other and the sacredness of the unbreakable, 'sacramental', bond), but he was convinced that procreation is the only natural purpose of sex. Sexual desire and pleasure were both inherently rooted in sin – lust. And he was not alone in this.

If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.

– Saint Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.

– Saint Jerome (347-420)

Eve in paradise was a virgin . . . understand that virginity is natural and that marriage comes after the Fall.

– Saint Jerome (347-420)

These are not insignificant theologians and their attitudes are not unusual. They are typical of the early Church and common throughout most of the Church’s history. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had a slightly more favorable view of sexual pleasure (Summa Theologica II.2.Q153.2, Milhaven, John Giles, Thomas Aquinas on Sexual Pleasure, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall, 1977), pp. 157-181). But Aquinas was just as emphatic that the only natural end of sex was procreation – thus any artificial birth-control is unnatural and analogous to murder (Contra Gentiles.3.122).

I have argued against completely separating sex from the potential for pregnancy and procreation, but, that it is not the necessary or only natural aim of sex (See here).

I do not share the above to suggest that the early Church theologians were silly or that their teaching is now irrelevant. I write as one who reads, appreciates, and has been shaped by their wisdom. They desired a peace that transcended the agitations and anxieties of this life. And, as we saw in the last post in this series, it was not just sexual agitations and anxieties that concerned them. If we decide Augustine and others sometimes misdirected or misapplied their concern for a life of self-control and deep peace governed by reason, the concern is still a legitimate one for Christians.

But, their suspicion of physical pleasure – especially sexual pleasure – and their suspicion of the female are sometimes at odds with the creeds and much of scripture. Further, it sometimes leads them to flirt with the anti-material heresies of Manichaeism and Gnosticism.

It is instructive to note how differently these major figures of the early and medieval Church understood what is ideal and natural vs. unnatural in sexual behavior and its purpose compared to most Christians today. Most of us would – I certainly would – want to affirm a more positive Christian understanding of sex and sexual pleasure. And of marriage more generally. And it is important to note that in their context these theologians were more positive about both than many non-Christians of their day. And there are others in the Church's tradition – a minority report, so to speak – who have been more positive about marriage and sex.

Our Christian forebears rightly recognized the power of sexual desire and the potential for it to wreak havoc as well as joy in our lives. And, thus, the concern for self-control as a basic virtue. Self-control is a central New Testament virtue (and a fruit of the Spirit) that we should reclaim. And not just in sexual matters. I’ve written more on this here: Self-Control: Neglected Fruit of the Spirit.

Self-control and homosexual sex

The theme of self-control and its challenges in the area of sexual desire was central to the thinking of the early Church (and much of pagan philosophy of the period). Excessive pursuit of sexual pleasure, along with other pleasures of the senses, was considered sinful. And this is how homosexual relationships were understood. The ancients did not think of homosexuality in terms of orientation. Rather, they saw it as out of control, excessive sexual desire – lust. Here are some examples:

Soranus of Ephesus, a Greek physician in Rome first half of 2nd century AD, asserted:

No one readily believes that effeminate or sexually passive men (whom the Greeks call malthacoi) are actually suffering from a disease. For this behavior does not arise naturally in humans; rather, when modesty has been suppressed, it is lust that coerces to obscene usage body parts that have their own specific function, although there is no limit to desire, no hope of satisfaction when their allotted roles do not suffice for individual parts. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed. p. 463)

Dio of Prusa (Dio Chrysostom), a Greek orator, philosopher, and historian of the Roman Empire (AD 40-115) wrote:

Is it possible that this intemperate race [men engaging in same-sex sex] would hold off from abuse and corruption of males and impose upon themselves the clear and sufficient limit decreed by nature? Wouldn't they rather seek another greater and more illicit form of outrage once they had become in every way sated and full of their unrestrained pleasure with women? . . .  The man who is boundless in such desires finds nothing rare or resistant in that race, despises what is easy and devalues female Aphrodite, since it is readily available and truly altogether feminine. Instead he will cross over to the male side, desiring to commit shameful acts with those who in the near future will be rulers, judges, and generals, finding here a difficult and rarely acquired pleasure. He experiences the same thing as hard drinkers and winos, who after long and uninterrupted binges of drinking don't want to drink any more, but intentionally create thirst through steam-baths and the serving of salty or spicy foods. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed. p. 448)

In his commentary on Romans, St. John Chrysostom seems to share this perspective:

You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy [excess] which endures not to abide within its proper limits.

(The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. XI, p. 356)

The assumption is that these men naturally desire women, but, because their desire is out of control and excessive, they “cross over” for new sexual pleasures with other men. It is the excess that is unnatural. This seems to me to be significant. And I believe it can inform our reading of Romans 1. I will return to that in the next post.

Next: Part 13. Romans 1 (iv) Idolatry, self-control, and same-sex sex

Previous: Part 11. Romans 1 (ii) Unnatural Passions