A couple weeks ago, during the flap over Duck Dynasty, a member of my parish asked me to dig a little deeper into my claim that I have never heard a compelling argument for why same-gender partnering is categorically wrong. I've written several hundred pages about this in a variety of college and seminary research projects... but they're dense and long and not very interesting. So I'm going to try to be brief (which still requires a 3-part series - see Part 2 and Part 3):
The question I pose is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 1):
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ...the Bible doesn't really help...
1a. ...because it's full of crazy sex talk. Scratch the surface of scripture, and you'll find a whole host of commandments, stories, and models for sexual behavior that any 21st century Christian would find abhorrent. Polygamy, dowry, incest, rape, easy divorce, no divorce at all, handing women off from brother to brother (and all manner of other expressions of misogyny)... it's not good stuff. Folks who claim the inerrancy of scripture and a literal, fundamental reading of the Bible have to do cartwheels to explain why the stuff about same-gender sex is eternally binding, while all the other (much more abundant) stuff about sex just isn't. Interesting to watch, but not convincing.
1b. ...because this "issue" barely (or, even, never) comes up. There is only one place in scripture where both male-male and female-female sexual partnering gets even a mention. One. The rest of the "clobber passages" deal only with male-male sex. Now, having different rules for men and women was quite fashionable in biblical times, but I have trouble understanding how we could build a sexual ethic for today that baldly treats men and women differently. Nevertheless, let's talk about the Bible and dudes:
Leviticus 18:22 - straightforward enough: it's an abomination. And according to Leviticus 20:13, the punishment is death. (Welcome to Uganda.) Of course, everyone with a Bible and some time on her hands will point out that Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, and Exodus...) are full of such straightforward injunctions and punishments, and virtually no one takes most of the other ones at face value. Christians, in particular, have a different approach to "the law" altogether. Regardless, until everyone who uses these passages can also show me he avoids cotton-poly blends, bacon cheeseburgers, and mixed-use farming (to name only a few)... well...
Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah. The issue here is gang-raping visitors rather than showing the open hospitality that has always been the trademark of God's people. The visitors, btw, are angels (not dudes), which is why Jude 6-9 talks about the sin of Sodom as going after "strange flesh" (another passage about "unnatural lust" that inanely gets applied to this debate). If this story is about sexual ethics at all, it's meant to link the men of Sodom to the angels who came down and made weird monster babies (Nephilim) with the women of earth in the time of Noah, leading God to decide to send a flood so we could all just start over (Genesis 6). So there's that.
1Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1Timothy 1:10 - lost in translation. Corinthians uses the Greek word malakos ("soft") and both passages use the term arsenokoitos ("man-bed"). Trouble is, no one really knows what these words actually meant for Paul and his readers. The majority report is that this might be a reference to pederasty, a common practice in 1st century Greco-Roman culture in which older, wealthy men would "tutor" young boys and exploit them sexually as a symbol of privilege and honor. I believe we can all agree that this is morally wrong - then and now - not because of gender, but because of the nature of "consent." Nevertheless, this is clearly not the same thing as what my denomination clumsily calls "publicly-accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships" (PALMSGRs, if you can believe that).
That's it, folks. All the male-male sex talk you can find in scripture.
Now, on to Romans 1:24-32, the only place where the lesbians get some play:
To begin, let's be clear: It is very likely that Paul found sexual activity between people of the same gender (men or women) to be abhorrent and morally wrong. He was a Pharisee - and he knew his Bible. He also grew up in a Roman context where the sexual mores of his pagan neighbors were horrifying to his Jewish sensibilities. Of course, same-gender sexuality in Paul's day was most likely completely different from what my lgbtq neighbors are living today. Nevertheless, anyone who argues that Paul didn't really disapprove of same-gender sexual expression is reaching... too far... and: they don't have to.
Paul's argument relies on his understanding of "nature." They "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" and "degrading" passions (v. 26). Interestingly, he doesn't argue from scripture - but, rather, nature. (We'll take up "nature" more fully in Part 2.) And when he does, he groups a whole bunch of other "degrading" and "unnatural" offenses together with same-gender sex - like "envy...strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander...rebellious toward parents..."- you know, like middle school, the most unnatural environment in creation.
Intriguingly, Paul uses the "nature" argument elsewhere, too: In 1Corinthians, he argues that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for a man to wear his hair long (11.14). So unless you're ready to burn all the pictures of the long-haired Swedish Jesus that adorn nearly every Sunday School room in the U.S., then let's agree that Paul's understanding of what is "natural" and "unnatural" - "degrading" or "glorious" - might just be different from ours. And there is no good reason to assume that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is more "binding" than the one about hair in 1Corinthians 11; the language is identical.
Having had long hair myself, I disagree with Paul on this point. I also disagree with him about whether it is - or is not - "natural" (or "morally acceptable") for two men or two women to express their love for each other with their bodies... and his feelings about celibacy... and his (disciple's) idea that "wine" is the best treatment for an upset stomach (1Timothy 5:23)... and his (disciple's) idea that women should remain silent in church (1Corinthians 14:33b-35)... and on and on.
We can disagree with Paul (and his disciples) - indeed, almost all of us do, at least some of the time. Some of us are just more honest about it.
In the case of Romans 1, I argue that we can disagree with Paul's examples without throwing out his whole argument.
Paul is at least as wordy as I am. It takes a while to get to his point. In this case, it takes three whole chapters... and that's just the beginning. It takes fifteen whole chapters to really get at what Paul is saying. So to focus exclusively on these few verses in chapter 1 is to miss the whole point.
Here's the short version of Paul's main argument in Romans:
A. Gentiles suck. They do all kinds of things that make no sense and violate our deepest sensibilities as Torah-reading, kosher-keeping Jews. They deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapter 1)
B. Jews suck, too. We (Paul was a Jew, after all) love to judge others (especially Gentiles) based on our laws... even though they never had those laws in the first place... and (more importantly) we aren't very good at keeping those laws either, which means we, too, deserve judgment and condemnation (Chapters 1-2).
C. So: we all suck. No one is righteous. No one deserves grace. But - thanks be to God! - that's what "grace" means: All fall short, but all are being saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Chapter 3).
D. Thus: Get over yourselves. Stop judging each other. No one has a "right" to be here, but all have been "gathered in" by the grace of God. And nothing - nothing at all - can stand between God and those whom God has called and chosen (Chapter 8).
E. "Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (15.7).
Context matters. We don't have to agree with all of Paul's examples of Gentile "sin" in order to agree that Gentiles, Jews, and Klingons alike are all under the power of sin... and, therefore, we are all equally in need of God's grace - and equally called to welcome one another - since none of us "deserve" to be here in the first place.
So that's what the Bible says. That's all it says. If you want to make a purely negative argument from scripture, you're standing on really thin ice. Even appealing to Paul will require appealing to his understanding of "nature" - and that's a whole other bag. (Again, see Part 2).
The Bible can be helpful in a positive way in this and in all ethical deliberations - providing principles and structures for moral argument. And we'll get to that in Part 3. In the meantime, if all we're doing is cherry-picking scripture in order to cloak our prejudice in some kind of divine garment, we're fighting a losing battle. Not only do fewer and fewer people find scripture to be a meaningful source for reflection (which is sad to me, but true); but even those who take it seriously have to eventually admit that the biblical witness on this point barely even merits the term "shallow."
Two postscripts:
I. The Bible clearly assumes opposite-gender coupling (although not monogamy or consent, which might be troubling for some of us) as the normative expression of sexuality. There are three main reasons for this: procreation (continuation of the species), passing on faith (continuation of the promise), and transference of property (continuation of the family name and all the natural, manufactured, and human resources associated with it - including, of course, women, children, and slaves). Romantic, isn't it? Not at all. In Christian practice, the continuation of the promise is not dependent upon heterosexual marriage (like it or not, gay folks are having babies, and gay Christians are having them baptized...and besides, in Paul's time, having babies was frowned upon). And while some still argue from "procreation" (see Part 2), I'm hopeful that most of us have moved beyond the whole property thing. In other words: we're talking about a wholly different world, culture, and phenomenon.
II. There is very little "romance" or "love" involved in scripture when talking about coupling. (Try picking scripture for a wedding... it's almost never about marriage at all, and when it is, it's downright creepy.) Interestingly, the most tender and compassionate relationships in the Bible are between two women (Ruth and Naomi), two men (David and Jonathan), and a man and woman who aren't necessarily married (Song of Solomon). So there's that. Not defining, of course, but interesting nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment