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

Get up I’ve got something for you to do

From the reredos of the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle, Fond du Lac, WI

Sermon for Easter 3, Year C, 

Acts 9:1-20, Revelation 5:11-14, John 21:1-19

St. Thomas, Menasha; April 10, 2016

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

(The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia1)

If it’s true it changes everything. 

If it’s not true, we might as well get on with business as usual.

Saul was still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord. Still. He hadn’t yet realized that everything had changed. He was still operating under the old way. The old way is that when what is good and right and true is threatened you meet that threat with counter-threats. What Saul knew to be good and right and true was threatened by these crazy people of “the Way” – the way of Jesus who had recently been executed as a security threat. But the threat had continued with his followers. They had to be stopped. And Saul was going to stop them.

But, on his way, Saul himself was stopped. Surrounded by a flash of light, he fell on the ground. He had been sure Jesus was the enemy of God and of all that was good. But now he is confronted by that same Jesus back from the dead. Under the old way, the way of the world, Saul knew what to expect – he was toast! But, Jesus does not fry Saul. Instead, he forgives him, just as he had asked his Father to forgive those who crucified him. And he says, “Get up. I’ve got something for you to do.”

Try to appreciate how mind-blowing this is. Saul, who had been sure that what he was doing was right and pleasing to God, discovers he is doing exactly the opposite. Instead of doing the good he wants, he is doing the evil he did not want to do. He is opposing God! How wretched. No wonder everything went black. No wonder a chastened Saul, now Paul, would later write, “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand” (Romans 7:21). It is a statement of humility that he learned the hard way – by dying to his own comfort and certainty. It is the wisdom of humility we would all do well to take to heart.

But there is more. Saul’s falling on the ground is not just an act of fear, it is an act of humble repentance and conversion. Then, amazingly, in spite of Saul's finding himself, contrary to his best intentions, to be the enemy of God, Jesus reconciles him and says, “Get up. I’ve got something for you to do.” I hope you are able to hear the good news, the grace, in that. I hope it shapes the way you understand God. And yourself. I hope you are able to hear Jesus saying the same to you when you find yourself to have been opposing God in one way or another. “Yes, you’ve blown it. Yes, you are in the wrong. You are right to repent. Just the same, get up. I’ve got something for you to do.”

What Saul had not realized was that with the death and resurrection of Jesus everything had changed. Like a Japanese soldier hiding in the jungle long after peace had been declared, Saul was still breathing threats and murder after God had declared the war over – offering amnesty to all comers. The Lamb that was slaughtered is now the sign of "power and wealth and wisdom and honor and glory and blessing." If the Lamb that was slaughtered is now the sign of such things they mean something different. Not power as the world exercises it. Not wealth as the world measures it. Not wisdom as the world understands it. Not honor or glory or blessing as the world recognizes those things. Not the way of the world. No more business as usual. Those things – and all other things – are now measured by the love and forgiveness, reconciliation and peace, humility and gentleness of Jesus. Now that Saul believed in the resurrection, he dared to live the new Way.

“Get up. I’ve got something for you to do.”

Saul’s conversion was sudden and dramatic. Ananias’ was more of a process. He was already a Jesus follower. He knew that Jesus was the Way. But he still needed to live into the Way Jesus is. He had every reason to reject Saul or at least to suspect his sincerity. Saul was one of the bad guys – someone to be suspected and rejected as an enemy. His threats should be met with counter-threats and retaliation. Or at least avoidance. But that is still thinking the old way. That is business as usual. The Way Jesus is is a way in which there are no real enemies, but only potential brothers and sisters. As Augustine preached, “Most of the time, when you think you are hating your enemy, you are hating your brother without knowing it.” That is the Way of Jesus. That is the Way of the Lamb that was slaughtered to absorb all our violence and hate, all our sin and suffering, and transform it into reconciliation, mercy, and grace. Jesus called Ananias to live that way. And because Ananias knew that Jesus was risen, he dared to do it.

Get up. I’ve got something for you to do.

Peter had a similar experience. Like Saul he had done exactly what he did not want to do. He had denied Jesus, not just once but three times. Again, under the old rules Peter had every reason to expect that when Jesus showed up raised from the dead he would be angry, threatening retribution. Peter – and the other disciples – should have been toast. That would be business as usual. But that is not the way of the Lamb that was slaughtered. Instead, Jesus fixes them breakfast – toast included. And he speaks directly to Peter. He addresses the three denials by inviting Peter to affirm his love three times. And he gives him something to do, “Feed my sheep.” And he did it. He did it even after Jesus told him it would get him killed. Because Peter knew Christ was risen, he dared to do it.

Get up I’ve got something for you to do.

We worship the slaughtered Lamb. If we really believe the Lamb that was slaughtered is also risen and at the heart of it all, how might that change the way we live? It seems harder to meet threats to my security, or to things I hold dear, with counter-threats and violence. If the way of the One who is the Way is the way of self-emptying, self-sacrificing love, the way of the Lamb that is slaughtered, do we want to still be about business as usual? If, like Saul, we know ourselves to have received mercy and grace, shouldn’t we be humble agents of that mercy and grace? If, like Ananias, we can see enemies as potential brothers and sisters, shouldn’t we seek reconciliation? If, like Peter, we know Jesus loves us in spite of everything, shouldn’t we love him and, for his sake, love and feed and tend all his sheep? If we believe the Lord is risen can we dare to follow in the way of the Lamb that was slaughtered? Can we dare to live the radical way of love?

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

(The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!)

Everything has changed. No more business as usual.

Get up. I’ve got something for you to do.

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