"So, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?"
It is, of course, no surprise that sexual ethics has become the issue for our non-Christian friends. It is the issue on which we are most visibly distinct from our world. That this is the case is something of a tragedy - there are many more issues on which we have much more to say (and many more on which we should be obviously different) - but that is another post.
Young Westerners have been taught to choose their ethics, and then find a worldview which fits. Islam oppresses women (or so we are told), and so Muhammad must be wrong. The Bible calls active homosexuality (and much more loudly, rampant hedonistic consumerism) a sin, so Christianity must be wrong. This assumes that there is no truth that can be known which precedes and supercedes our personal preferences.
There is real merit in assessing a principle by its ethical implications. Christianity does not produce suicide bombers; on the other hand, it does lead to charity. However, what if we've got our ethics wrong? What if, after all, our axiomatic affirmation of homosexuality is just a product of a culture at war with the truth?
So, when I was asked by a bright, confident young woman in year 12, 'what about homosexuality?', I should have pointed her to the God of Jesus Christ, the God whose ethics contradict our world. This God hates sin enough to require (life)blood as its payment; and yet he is merciful enough to his enemies to shed the blood of his Son on their behalf (Mt 26.28; Jn 6:53-56; Eph 1:7; and many more besides). These are not our ethics - they are utterly alien to the self-absorbed libertarianism which surrounds us.
In other words, if we are to move from the ethics of Jesus' teaching to Jesus himself, and in doing so meet the real Jesus, we ought to be suspicious if we like what we hear from the start.
7 comments:
Not sure you actually answered the question there, Mike. What I have read of the Bible's view on homosexuality is steeped in the culture of the time when there was no concept of a loving, monogamous, non-exploitative homosexual relationship. Paul in particular writes in a Greek context when most if not all homosexual relationships were of an older man and a much younger man, so of course were not right by God. I am always curious why we as a Church ignore the cultural and context of the statements about homosexuality, yet apply very different interpretive standards when we look at areas such as women's status in Church, and references to slavery.
Welcome, Mungo! Great to have your thoughts.
I hadn't imagined for a moment I'd answered the young woman's question. Sometimes we can use questions not to get to know each other better (out of love) but as a weapon to dismiss the other. In this context, questions aren't about understanding the other person by understanding why and what they believe, but confirming our prejudices.
I think the question about the biblical teaching about homosexuality is just that.
I'd like to interact a little with your first claim, though: that is that because the Bible's teaching is shaped by its cultural context, in which there was 'no concept no concept of a loving, monogamous, non-exploitative homosexual relationship', it cannot justify a position on homosexuality today.
You are really making two claims here, of course. Firstly: that the cultural conditioning of Scripture compromises our access to its divinely-inspired content. Secondly: that the cultural context of Paul's teaching on homosexuality was, indeed, as you describe.
Now, as to the second, it may be true that many, even most, homosexual relationships in ancient Greece involved pederasty. Of course, even in heterosexual relations, and even in Jewish culture (see the book of Ruth and the marriage between Boaz and Ruth), marriage often involved a much older man and much older woman - so it's hard to see this would constitute much of a problem to Paul. Furthermore, even in Greco-Roman circles, pederasty was regarded with some distaste by the first century, when Paul was writing.
All this aside, when Paul critiques the practice of homosexuality, there's no evidence that he is concerned about age difference or power assymetries. Nor is he concerned about casual sex. As a good Jew, Paul's issue is with the unnaturalness of the expression of sexual desire between two men (Rom 1:27). He's a good Jew, because biblical teaching on sexuality (not just homosexuality) begins with Torah.
In Gen 2, it is a man and a woman who are to 'cleave together' by uniting sexually and in marriage, a covenanted 'loving, monogamous, non-exploitative' relationship (to borrow your words). It is because of God's creation purposes for human sexuality that God detests homosexual practice (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
So when Paul teaches on homosexuality, he describes it as idolatry, because it involves a basic rejection of God's purposes for our lives. To quote John Piper: 'We act out externally and bodily in our sexual relations a dramatization of the internal, spiritual condition of the fallen human soul, namely, the horrendous exchange of God for man and the images of our power.
Now, it's possible that both first century Christians and Jewish law are simply expressing similar opinions because their cultures happen to have conditioned them in the same direction. In this case, we have no way of sorting our what is timeless truth from timebound dross. The Bible becomes a record of Christian responses to God, and little else - certainly nothing normative.
And yet Jesus seems remarkably confident in the very same Torah which condemns, among many human sins, homosexuality (Matt 5.17-18). And none of the NT authors treat the OT text as a cultural artifact, but as timely truth.
I don't argue that the Bible has around seven references to prohibitions on homosexuality - the Westboro Baptists are particularly fond of Lev 18, 20 and use those words to justify their behaviour, closely followed by Rom 1. My confusion lies in why we treat these references so differently to the references to women's status in society, and slavery. These two issues relate very much to the culture of the time, yet most Christians would disagree that slaves should not attempt to leave their masters and that women shouldn't speak in Church.
Why do we interpret areas such as these so differently to the references to homosexuality? I just can't help feeling our literal interpretations of these passages contribute to prejudice and discrimination towards a vulnerable part of society that would benefit far more from our love and acceptance than from our condemnation.
I'm not entirely sure that the issues are as undifferentiated as you suggest, Mungo.
Let me begin with slavery. This is a very present issue for us today, as there are at least 12 million slaves across the world today. The Bible does not specifically condemn slavery in its various references (Deut 15:12-15; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), but rather regulates it. Slavery was a means by which people resolved economic debts, and in Israel, had fairly strict provisions regarding the treatment of slaves and their families. To be a slave in Israel was a very different situation, therefore, than to be slave in a modern Thai brothel - so different, in fact, that the use of a common noun is simply unhelpful. In the Roman world, slaves could occupy positions of power and influence. For these and other reasons, I'm not sure that I would want to absolutely condemn all forms of slavery outright.
Paul does seem to assume that there will be no slave-master relations within the church (Philemon 16). However, when he deals with slavery in 1 Cor 7 (along with marriage and circumcision), Paul does not assume, as we do, that slavery must be escaped at all costs. The Christian is free in a manner which cannot be compromised by his or her physical circumstances. As Stanley Hauerwas wrote; 'what we must fear as Christians is not our death at the hand of an unjust aggressor but how as Christians we might serve the neighbour without resorting to unjust means'. I am loath to dismiss the biblical teaching on this topic just because it contradicts my left-wing liberalism. It is where the Bible and I differ most that I have most to learn from God.
This leads us to the status of women. And while I'm happy with your assertion that 'most Christians would disagree...that women shouldn't speak in Church', that's mainly because it is a terrible misrepresentation of the biblical teaching on the roles of men and women in the community of God's people.
What I would point out is that at Barneys we are entirely on board with the biblical understanding the authoritative teacher of a church, under Christ - in our case, the rector or senior minister - is to be a man.
Which means we've got two strikes already to your notion that we have selectively abandoned biblical attitudes to social ethics. In other words, I don't agree with your premise that we treat these areas so very differently. And where we do, I'd suggest that we in fact follow the principles demonstrated in the New Testament.
Finally, though: do our 'literal interpretations of these passages contribute to prejudice and discrimination towards a vulnerable part of society that would benefit far more from our love and acceptance than from our condemnation'? Actually, I'd suggest that it's not our literalism, but lack thereof, which is the problem. We don't take literally enough Jesus injunction in: Mark 12 'To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.' I think that the church has often got this tragically and wickedly wrong.
If we truly love every sector of society, then we will walk alongside them in compassion and empathy and we will share our lives with them and hope to share their's. We will proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to anyone who will listen, and welcome them into our communities without requiring they accommodate their lifestyles to our sensibilities.
However, love is not on about simple affirmation. If God says that he hates greed, then there is no love in approving and emulating the lives of the obscenely rich. If God says that he hates adultery, then we must speak courageous words to businessmen in their 'affairs'. There is no love in turning a blind eye to the kind of rebellion which will send our fellow human beings to hell. You cannot be a Christian and continue to sin with a high hand. There is no future in unrepentant envy, malice, selfishness, pride, adultery, pornography - or, yes, homosexuality.
I've often heard discussions where homosexuality is paralleled with paedophilia or alcoholism to make a point - a disastrous and dehumanizing approach, I think. Maybe a better example is polygamy. I've noticed a growing trend for polygamists to go public. They argue that they simply are not biologically designed to be in one sexual relationship at time. Instead, they maintain two or more loving, committed relationships. Our society looks on this with some bemusement. Yet the Bible is just a clear that we are to have one, lifelong sexual partner in the context of marriage as it is that it is to be heterosexual. Is it our error in reading the text too literally which alienates this vulnerable part of society? Or are compelled to gently tell the truth in love?
I am afraid that I could never agree with your statement that "I'm not sure that I would want to absolutely condemn all forms of slavery outright." This to me seems a completely amoral statement, and I can't help but think it is one that you are making because to take another view would mean you would have to reassess the way you interpret scripture.
Slavery is wrong, Mike, and morally completely unjustifiable and for you to suggest that in some forms it is acceptable is an extremely problematic position to take and seems to me a very "slippery slope" argument.
I think there comes a point at which one's own personal morality and conscience has to step in and say 'this is simply incorrect' and this is where I stand, and will always stand on these sorts of issues. I know I am new to this faith, but I can't believe that being a Christian means I have to blindly follow dogma, even when it conflicts with my conscience. God gave me a moral code and a sense of right and wrong for a reason.
Well, Mungo, while I understand where you are coming from, I think you might just want to hold your horses for a moment there.
Firstly, let's deal with this practical issue of slavery. You believe in bankruptcy law, right? The idea that what a bankrupt earns from his labour belongs to his creditors, with the exception of a living allowance? And the bankrupt is bound until he is he discharged? This is 'debt slavery'. It arises from a very humane principle in the OT law.
If a man had run his family into serious debts, to the point where they were effectively insurmountable, he could sell his family into slavery. The period of slavery could be no more than six years, after which point he and his family were free (including debt-free) once more (cf. Ex 21.2). There were very strict rules on a slave's care and rights, as well.
This kind of slavery is one of the most humane constructs of our financial system, and in both OT and modern times provides the opportunity for a new start as well as genuine accountability. So I'm hoping that your declaration of this as a completely amoral position was just a little bit rhetorical and a swing more from the gut that from the head.
Which leads us to some of your slightly more rhetorically loaded calls about conscience and blind obedience to dogma, a nice little handful of conversational incendiary grenades... Given that Jewish law made its way into modern law and became highly regarded as a humane and generous way to treat the foolish or just plain unlucky, I wonder if there are other areas which bear a little more reflection, too.
I don't for one moment believe that thoughtful Christians have *ever* advocating blindly following dogma. Anselm, a pretty impressive guy and former Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century - an Anglican before Anglicanism, and Italian to boot - described the Christian task as fides quaerens intellectum ('faith seeking understanding').
In the sexual revolution of the '60s, it was widely held that the sexual mores of the the previous generation - and, in particular, lifelong marital monogamy - were ridiculously antiquated and, stifling freedom, destructive to the development of the individual. What a terrible imposition, the commands of God! How clearly alien and repressive to the individual conscience! And yet, a generation later, a host of psychosocialogical studies have uncovered the destruction wrought by sexual infidelity.
I'd want to be a little more cautious, therefore, in elevating the individual conscience very high. In fact, our consciences can be 'defiled' (Titus 1.15) - scarred by sin in such a way as to obviate or at least undermine their usefulness as an internal compass. Our consciences still function intermittently (see Paul's treatment of the conscience of Gentiles in Rom 2), but are meant to be shaped and informed by Scripture.
I think we need to define our terms. Slavery is defined by Wikipedia (that font of all knowledge) as "The institution or social practice of owning human beings as property, especially for use as forced laborers...A condition in which one is captivated or subjugated, as by greed or drugs" This is what I am talking about when I refer to slavery, not someone who is an undischarged bankrupt. There is no ownership of a person there, and a bank does not compel someone to work against their will, which is the case in slavery. Comparing being bankrupt and being a slave I think does not really work in a modern context, except in maybe a poetic sense.
I do concede your point about personal conscience though, it can be corrupted or influenced for the worse. I certainly know of decisions that I made before coming to faith that I would not make now.
Coming back to slavery, though, surely you would not, in a modern context, condone the societal practices of debt slavery that took place 2000 years ago? I believe (all incendary rhetorical grenades aside) we have come a fair ways in terms of human rights and it doesn't make sense to me to endorse practices that took place before modern democracy and the bill of human rights existed.
Post a Comment