Christians with possessions face a problem, at least in theory, because they are living in direct disobedience to an explicit command of Jesus, found in Luke 14:33. But several interpretative options to get around this have long been used. It is generally considered enough to give up some possessions, or unnecessary or superfluous ones. Alternatively, some (in particular rich Christians, which includes most Christians in the United States considered in a global context) would say that what matters is to not be attached to possessions, rather than literally giving them up.
For the sake of equity, it is only fair that homosexual Christians be given these same interpretative options when it comes to passages that may raise questions for them. If gay and lesbian Christians simply give up superfluous sex with a person of the same gender, or they surrender their attachment to it, that should be enough to satisfy any Christian who owns possessions.
Don't you agree?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Nice simple way of putting it. Others have still to give up their judgment. No commandment is more explicitly shared in the NT (Gospels, Paul, James) than the one to stop judging your sibling.
It sounds like a good apology for gay marriage, doesn't it?
I think where this is helpful is that is asks for an equal application of how one understands ethical norms that are shaped by Scripture. Scholars like Gagnon are so opposed to even the idea that the kinds of homosexual relationships for which James and I are advocates are just and can be holy, that they will subvert all other interpretations to support that one thesis. For example, if we do not read Paul with the understanding that idolatry is the primary concern among the churches in the diaspora, then we have missed a crucial master image to support an injunction against a specific instance of relatedness. We have to look at why certain restrictions are made in the bible and then have to ask if those reasons make sense with our context.
Angie, I originally included an attempt at humor along the lines you suggest - something to the effect that if learning to do with decreasing amounts of possessions (and thus by analogy sex) is the real meaning, then that's an argument for gay marriage.
Then I decided that I wasn't sure the joke was clear, and it might distract from the main point. Thanks for bringing it back into the discussion! :)
i have a similar post at my blog as well.
http://becoming-peresh.blogspot.com/2008/09/church-homosexuality-and-texts-that.html
Very successful reductio ad absurdum, James.
Your argument is not likely to gain much traction, of course, because that isn't how people, generally speaking, interpret Scripture. That is, they don't take a single passage, absolutize it, and run with it despite many other passages which suggest "other options," as you say.
The demand for gay civil unions, and the marriage-like rights that attach to them, is something that many Christians might support, so long as they were not also compelled to treat such unions as on a par with a marriage between a man and a woman, as a like means of grace as it were to be celebrated by the faithful.
Though I remain convinced that homosexuality is an example of intrinsically disordered behavior, and I want to protect the right of both syntonic and asyntonic homosexuals to get on with their journeys into or in contradiction with their orientation of departure (the rights of asyntonic homosexuals are not adequately protected at the moment) - regardless of my personal beliefs on the matter, I have also seen how faithful gay and lesbian unions are a curb on chaos and a bulwark of stability, in short, a civic good.
That being the case, there is room for compromise. Not that gay rights people are interested in compromise. They prefer polarization. Extreme right-wingers are happy to oblige. So far, I don't think it has worked out too well.
I firmly believe, and as a pastor serving a United Methodist congregation, I am called to uphold, the teaching that disallows the celebration of same-sex unions. Furthermore, the ordination of "practicing" gays and lesbians is not allowed.
A few denominations, two in particular, the Episcopal Chruch USA and the UCC, have taken the kind of position you seem to push for. 50 years from now, we'll see what comes of the experiment, and we will have a better idea of what the true underlying issues are.
Right now, in my view, the experiment is not going terribly well.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those who divide everything into two kinds of things and those who don't. Homosexual preference, orientation, dis-ease, acceptance, and so on is not divisible into two. One can distinguish violence and non-violence, equality and inequality, consensual engagement vs non-consensual engagement - to some extent. One can distinguish lust from desire, perhaps. But we have no condemnation in or from Jesus Christ - so the 'experiment' must be measured in terms of justice, pragmatics, weighing what is best for the individual and what is best for the covenants and groups he or she is a part of, and mercy - attempts to recover from 1000 years of abuse and ignorance.
The cross of Christ can accomplish this healing - but he will not necessarily turn a consecrated homosexual into a heterosexual for most people who struggle with this condition - whether it arose from an abusive parent, or genetics, or whatever. And our God is not obliged to follow the cultural conditions we have refused to consecrate in his death.
Can we tell the difference between judging and not judging? This too is very difficult.
The demand for gay civil unions, and the marriage-like rights that attach to them, is something that many Christians might support, so long as they were not also compelled to treat such unions as on a par with a marriage between a man and a woman, as a like means of grace as it were to be celebrated by the faithful.
Would you be O.K. with treating them as on a par with my wholly civil marriage, performed by a Justice of the Peace in a restaurant?
Marriage is a CIVIL contract between two people to share their lives together. There is nothing written about making babies ... a great need out there! If reproduction is a requirement, then sterile/barren people aren't allowed to marry, nor people over the child-bearing age. Have a baby within year or divorce is automatic!
So long as what is done before a justice of the peace is called "a civil union," not a marriage.
That's because marriage, for most Western Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, has come to be defined as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman, something holy.
Of course marriage was defined more broadly at one time, and might involve having more than one wife, or a concubine, or, in Greco-Roman antiquity, compatible, for the male, with having a teenage male lover on the side.
But not anymore. Culturally, to call a same-sex union "marriage" is inflammatory, even if that is what it is from a number of points of view.
Of course, if your goal is precisely that, to poke traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others in the eye, by all means, go ahead and promote gay marriage. You will succeed in offending them greatly.
I realize that some gays, particularly gay Christians, regard the refusal to call their unions "marriages" a form of discrimination.
I understand that point of view, but I also understand the other point of view.
Trying to use the Bible to discuss what is fair today is crazy.
All the good Christians want to go back to Biblical marriage, do they? They want to adhere strictly to the Bible?
Well then, women should be property. They should be forced to marry their brother-in-laws if their husbands die and they are childless. We should allow polygamy and men to rape their slaves. We should monitor sex during the menstrual cycles of women.
All those thngs are part of God's plan in the Bible. If we must be bigoted against gays, they should have the courage to adopt all those other positions.
Of course, no one would because they don't really believe what they say.
pf
Pf,
I think you missed something. If we went back to the Bible in the sense you suggest, we might very well have polygamy and a lot of other things almost no one, Christian, Jew, and atheist alike, are interested in seeing permitted today.
There really aren't very many people who have such a crude hermeneutic today. The Mormons themselves wised up more than a century ago.
I understand your line of thought, but most Christians today - it's been a growing process - are not bigoted against gays anyway, at least not in the West. But they continue to consider gay sex to be intrinsically disordered behavior.
They continue to see marriage as a culturally and religiously well-defined institution not to mess with.
Perhaps you find those distinctions too subtle for your taste. Fine, but you might try to understand why other people make them. It's not because they are idiots, as your rhetoric seems to assume.
john:
If you don't think that many Christians are bigoted against gays .... well, that is stunning. I guess you haven't been in many evangelical or fundamentalist churches, or listened to Christian radio or TV.
Nonetheless, you say that Christians see gay sex as "disordered behavior." That is inherently bigoted. You think you have to beat someone with a stick in order to be bigoted?
Christians today don't have a "crude hermaneutic" only to the extent that they don't apply logic to their ideas. They pick out gay sex as evil because it says so in Leviticus, but they ignore the many other things that Leviticus (and other books) say is evil. Like wearing two fabrics and eating pork. Or social injustice. Yes, they have developed a dispensational "hermaneutic" that allows them to pick and choose what they want to take seriously, but that theology is itself irrational.
And you say marriage is well-defined. Again, that is absurd by any historical standards. A few decades ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states, and Christians defended that as Biblical. My point is that what Christians say is Biblical marriage and what Biblical marriage is in the Bible are wholly different things.
pf
Pf,
By your definition, I see now that not only are most Christians bigoted, but so am I.
You don't have a single issue with Christianity. For you, the whole thing is one big rotten contradiction, and its adherents total louses.
I can assure you: those who think like you and talk like you are winning friends and influencing people by the millions. The result, however, may not be exactly what you intended.
"Winning friends and influencing people" - Sarcasm alert.
So long as what is done before a justice of the peace is called "a civil union," not a marriage.
Absolutely not. I am a partner in a marriage. I file my taxes 'married filing jointly.' If you no longer want to share the term 'marriage' with the civil conception, it is on YOU to rename the religious conception 'religious unions.' Not to take it away from others.
I would be happy to share the term myself, but I am completely unwilling to forego it. My marriage is not a lesser 'civil union.'
That's because marriage, for most Western Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, has come to be defined as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman, something holy.
Not to me, and not to the law.
I realize that some gays, particularly gay Christians, regard the refusal to call their unions "marriages" a form of discrimination.
They're right. Here's the first, most commonly used definition of marriage at dictionary.com:
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
See how the same word applies to both legal marriages and religious marriages? If you no longer want to share the word, then start referring to your religious ceremonies as celebrating 'religious unions.' You don't get to tell people who don't share your religion that they don't get to use the word any more.
I know personally a married gay couple with children. It is as stable a family as you would find anywhere. I find myself having to allow this choice even though it is not my choice. The adopted children would not have a home otherwise - they were being shunted around foster care. The couple are well supported by a local Anglican church and have often conferred with my wife and me over adoption issues. It is a marriage - as much as my marriage to Christ. I regard the you in Romans chapter 7 as you severally, not you collective. I do not see why my gay friends cannot be Christ to each other in their intimacy. I do not say that they 'understand' this theologically, but I have confidence for them that they are doing the truth in love. And whoever does such instruction will in due time understand it.
So are they Christian and are they gay? - yes - and are they committed to each other? - yes. Are they married and allowed then to be each other's legal heirs and to care for the children? - yes. This is a greater justice than frustration and it is a better outcome than secrecy and lies.
It was and is not my choice. But I must allow it to be theirs. Who knows that the Spirit is not teaching them a charism that I cannot fathom even as they will not be able to fathom mine. To each is given a particular gift from God, some one way, some another (1 Corinthians 7:7).
There is a great mystery in our necessary separateness - and a great mystery in our sufficient unity in Christ.
I too have friends and even family who are gay and with a partner are raising a family. Some of them are excellent parents. Some are not.
I am not about to belittle them in the least, or pretend for goodness' sake that they are somehow lousy parents because they are gay. But that doesn't mean that I have to call them spouses, husband and wife, and so on.
I know parents who aren't married at all and proud of it who are excellent parents. That doesn't change my definition of marriage, though it may yours.
It certainly is possible to accuse people of being discriminatory and evil if they don't agree with you about the definition of marriage. There are countries in which the law says that polygamy is permissible and it is considered a privilege and an honor to have more than one wife.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with the law or with the understanding of marriage which it implies.
So many non sequiturs here. Except for Bob - who always says something that deeply resonates with me, even if I am not in total agreement - I'm hearing mostly the hot breath of fire-breathing dragons out to melt away purported villains.
Well, I'm not melting. If instead my views were taken a little more seriously, genuine dialogue might take place.
But that would be a shame, wouldn't it?
I am not about to belittle them in the least...But that doesn't mean that I have to call them spouses, husband and wife, and so on.
You just contradicted yourself.
If instead my views were taken a little more seriously
If by 'taken seriously' you mean other commenters listening carefully to what you say, your views have been taken seriously.
John, for the record, between a man and a woman, I think that marriage is in the consummation, and that the public celebration is the wedding. I was taught this 40 years ago by the then Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Montreal. The consecration in the prayer book service we used does not suppose that the couple have not already come together. 'Marriage is for the hallowing of the union between a man and a woman'.
Other traditions support this - that lack of consummation justifies annulment. Therefore as to pre-marital sex - impossible by my definition, I have no problem with it for committed partners. As to common law marriage, that too is normal, and accepted here in Canada at least. As to consummation of a same-sex relationship - it is impossible by these rules. What is possible is commitment to mutual support, commitment to mutual inheritance, and the ability to assume family roles. And I repeat - if people of any stripe take seriously their death in Christ, they cannot help but learn from the living Spirit of the Lord raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. To call this marriage is a metaphorical use of the term just as it is in Romans 7 or as it might be for someone to say they are married to their work.
As for those who are not in Christ I will also accept such on human grounds and because I do not know or limit the extent of God's covenant mercy, but I would encourage in such persons a serious investigation of the problem of existence without redemption (something I don't think the Bible even contemplates - it seems that von Rad may be on to something when he implies that the doctrine of creation is only used in the context of a doctrine of redemption and presence).
Then of course there is Paul's warning that if you marry you will have trouble in this world - too true - but the trouble is worth while by the same mercy.
Benjdm,
It's obvious to me that you do not respect my point of view, unless it agrees with yours.
In areas where religion and ethics and law overlap - there are plenty of these - disputes of this kind are normal. Personally, I find your use of highly charged language offensive.
I imagine that someone who is in favor of partial-birth abortions, were I to call him a butcher and an accomplice to murder, would feel pretty offended. Such language at some level might very well describe my take on the matter, but I would still refrain from using it, out of a sense of common humanity with the person I disagree with.
I sense that you follow a different set of rules when engaging people you disagree with. Suit yourself. As I said, you are winning friends and influencing people by the millions.
Bob,
There is a tendency in the law of some secularized Western nations to erase or minimize any legal differences between various kinds of relationships which involve sexual intimacy and/or the raising of children. As a Christian, you clearly see this as an example of love and grace of the same kind that Jesus teaches working itself out - finally! in our culture. You heap theological praise on this trend.
I am not as sure about this as you. Indeed, I have grave doubts. For example, I see all kinds of differences between "common-law marriages" as you call them and marriage in the classical Jewish or Christian sense. In my experience as a pastor, it almost always turns out to be the sign of growing maturity when an unmarried couple finds the confidence and faith to be united in holy matrimony. It is a step up, a coming home, a public witness. They see it that way, and so do most other people. Indeed, it is so. To say that these differences mean nothing is preposterous in my eyes.
Personally, I find your use of highly charged language offensive.
?
Recap: You're the one who is saying my wife and I shouldn't be considered married, not the other way around.
Benjdm,
Recap: you're the one who has bought into the redefinition of the terms, not me. And then, with great rhetorical emphasis, you act all surprised and offended that someone might take issue with the redefinition. Furthermore, you accuse all who disagree with your redefinition of being moral morons.
Who do you think you're fooling? Your approach is no way of having a reasonable discussion. You might try a lighter touch in the future. Consider using understatement and captatio benevolentiae. Just trying to be helpful.
It might actually be fun to talk with you about the issues. But, since you go for the jugular at the first opportunity, and every one after that, consider this conversation finished. It's boring.
Recap: you're the one who has bought into the redefinition of the terms, not me.
And then, with great rhetorical emphasis, you act all surprised and offended that someone might take issue with the redefinition.
Well, yes, I do accept modern legal definitions of terms. I accept black people as full citizens as opposed to 3/5 of a person. I accept interracial marriages as full marriages. I accept marriages performed by clergy as full marriages equal to those performed by justices of the peace. I accept that people cannot be considered property. Generally, I assume people accept the rule of law, and am very surprised when they don't.
Considering human marriage predates recorded history, I would ask how you discover the original definition and why it is relevant?
But, since you go for the jugular at the first opportunity, and every one after that, consider this conversation finished.
Right, because telling someone they're not married is 'a light touch.' Who would expect someone to take that otherwise? All that stuff about forsaking all others, to love and honer and cherish, 'til death do us part, was nothing as serious as a real marriage. That's not confrontational at all.
So, wherever you are, if the law gets redefined again in a way you disagree with, you will accept that, because you accept the rule of law?
I didn't realize you were so low on arguments. All you have is this and a string of guilt-by-association comparisons and false innuendos? I could make a better case for gay marriage than you. Far better.
I could make a better case for gay marriage than you.
I'm not making a case for gay marriage. I'm making a case for civil marriage as it exists in all 50 states. Basically, you're arguing against something that was settled (I think) in the 1700s or 1800s.
So, wherever you are, if the law gets redefined again in a way you disagree with, you will accept that, because you accept the rule of law?
Sure. I will try and get the law changed, I may engage in civil disobedience, etc. But I don't deny the current state of affairs exists. Currently, same-sex couples cannot be married in most states, even though I think they should be able to. If they tried to tell the IRS they were married, for example, they would be wrong.
Nor did I ever deny any particular current state of affairs.
BTW, though we disagree on the substance, I support your right to engage in civil disobedience in the case of laws you disagree with. I would hope you would support my right to do the same.
However, your over-heated rhetoric gave the impression that if you had the power, you would use every means at your disposal to eliminate the free expression of my point of view. Indeed, if I were in certain parts of Europe, or in Canada, the free expression of my views would in fact be severely curtailed.
As a gay rights activist, you will have to decide if the "it's my way or the highway" approach that was almost forced on the Boy Scouts, for example, is the way you want to go. It is my impression that the scorched earth techniques favored by gay militants damages their own cause.
Nor did I ever deny any particular current state of affairs.
Hmmm....I can read it with that interpretation, yes.
I would hope you would support my right to do the same.
Of course.
However, your over-heated rhetoric gave the impression that if you had the power, you would use every means at your disposal to eliminate the free expression of my point of view.
? Absolutely not.
If you wanted to argue that in the views of the Catholic / Protestant / Muslim / whatever church, I am not married, I would agree with you. I don't care about those organizations' recognition. But civil marriages do exist, and I am in one. My point about 'religious unions' still stands.
It is my impression that the scorched earth techniques favored by gay militants damages their own cause.
'Scorched Earth' policy on the BSA? Only if you consider requiring a private discriminatory organization to forego government support. In any case, the gay community has been succeeding admirably with their tactics. Homosexuality has gone from being a mental disorder in the 1950s to having majorities support opening up military service to them, etc. Whatever you want to label what they're doing, it's working.
A-ha! Finally found some history. Apparently, at least in North Carolina, wholly civil marriage has existed since 1778. You're seriously trying to overturn this?
...After the American Revolution, couples could choose a clergyman or a Justice of the Peace to solemnize their marriage. The laws of 1778 provided that, in addition to the Anglican clergy, “all regular ministers of the Gospel of every Denomination,” as well as Justices of the Peace were “empowered to celebrate Matrimony…”
You will not be surprised if I say I see the BSA matter in a different light. Not surprisingly, so do most people in the BSA.
Within the bounds of the Constitution, yada, yada, the states have the right to define marriage, civil unions, etc., as they wish. And I have the same right as the next US citizen to help define the limits of what civil marriage actually covers.
It's time for me to call it a night. Too bad. The conversation was taking a more pleasant turn.
And I have the same right as the next US citizen to help define the limits of what civil marriage actually covers.
True. You're not trying to define the limits of civil marriage, though, you're trying to reject civil marriage altogether.
Not surprisingly, so do most people in the BSA.
Whenever I've talked to a BSA scout leader or parent, they have expressed opposition to or disapproval of the National BSA policies. Like this.
I think Christian tradition is too often left out of this conversation. It seems to me that most of these conversations only happen in Protestant groups where there is liberty to interpret with whatever hermeneutic seems best to justify the ends of what we experience to be true in life - in this case: the apparent goodness of homosexual relationships. Like any other Westerner I would like to accept the goodness of homosexual relationships because most of those I know seem loving and are not harming anyone (I could say the same about many other more abnormal sexual expressions). Anyways, as a Christian I am in conflict with what my Western culture half of me wants to support (feels a bit like Romans 7). Anyways, I tend to think that one cannot use the bible to support homosexuality, but then again one can point to a lot of other examples of things condemned in scripture that we no longer pay attention to and then make the move to relevantize the culturally bound condemnation of homosexuality. I suppose there is liberty for this in "back to the bible" protestantism. However, I think anyone making this move must admit that they are probably moving beyond Christian tradition, which I imagine is unanimous on its interpretation of the homosexual cause as immoral. Since tradition functions to give "Christian" boundary lines for the interpretation of Scripture (e.g. one cannot believe in a spiritual resurrection and still think of themselves as Christian in the historical sense). All this to say, I think that anyone supporting the gay cause has to admit that they are in some sense using parts of Christianity as a starting point but are then moving beyond Christianity in their attempts to grapple with the issue. I think John Milbank calls it the prophetic voice.
John,
Thank you for a gracious contribution to the discussion.
Of course, there is both true and false prophecy according to the Bible. Jeremiah wanted peace in his day as much as anyone, and accused God of abusing him because God sent him to predict the opposite. But God gave him to see that those who cried, "Peace, Peace," when there was no peace, were wrong all the same.
Without wanting to make a direct comparison with Jeremiah - it is the other side that claims to be prophetic, not me - this captures in a sense the predicament that many of us find ourselves in.
BTW, I am a Protestant of the paleo-orthodox variety. Tradition matters a lot for my breed.
The Bible only ever talks about sexual acts, never about sexual orientation. Not once, not ever. Romans 1 is talking about people exchanging their "natural lusts" for "unnatural" ones as a consequence of having walked away from God (Paul is so keen on making this point he says it three times), not homosexuals enacting their natures within loving unions. The passages in Corinthians and Timothy are vigorously disputed amongst scholars, not least because they are based in part on ancient Greek for which we lack a complete understanding and have no English equivalent. That pretty much leaves Leviticus.
OT marriage is, not surprisingly, primarily about social stability and protecting male property rights (women and children are property, something reflected in Anglo secular law until not much more than a century ago). Men are allowed multiple wives (Gen 29:17-28; 2 Sam 3:2-5), men are allowed concubines (2 Sam 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chr 11:21), the marriage is only valid if the bride is a virgin and if she isn't she must be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21), marriage with unbelievers is forbidden (Gen 24:3;Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30), etc. Women are worth half a male (Lev 27:1-7) and giving birth to a female makes the mother doubly unclean (Lev 12:1-5), etc. Adultery was only wrong for a man if the woman was married (and hence another man's property) and while men are prohibited from visiting temple or cult prostitutes they are not prohibited from visiting ordinary prostitutes.
Even in the OT marriage changed form. Levirite marriage (wherein a man was obliged to marry his brother's widow), for example, was sometimes required (Deut 25:5) and sometimes prohibited (Lev 20:21). Over time the Jews tended towards monogamy, which is why you don't see Jesus praising concubinage, for example, even though it is entirely Scriptural. Divorces also became frowned upon, hence the theological argument between Jesus and the Pharisees in Mt 19 about Deut 24:1-2, even though, once again, divorce (under certain circumstances) is again Scriptural (Deut 24:1-4; Lev 22:13; Num 30:9; 1 Chr 8:8).
Marriage changed again in the NT. While Jesus endorsed it (cf Mt 19), Paul clearly saw it as a second-best option to celibacy (1 Cor 7:8-9), possibly misinterpreting Mt 19:10-12. The church went on to misinterpret Mt 5:31-32, Mt 19:3-9, Mk 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 as meaning divorce was never acceptable which is not what Jesus said, the adultery in remarriage occurring in God's eyes if the previous divorce had not been granted on the strict grounds of "uncleanliness", which meant sexual impropriety. It also turned Mt 19:4-6 into an impediment to marriage, for not only was consanguinity prohibited (Scriptural) but because the "two were made one flesh" both familities were subsequently deemed related and thus any marriage between them was impossible (not Scriptural). Getting around this mess led to the fatuous distinction between divorce (impossible) and annulment (possible) in order to dissolve marriages.
Ironically, while the complicated church laws regarding consanguinity, affinity and spiritual affinity gave clergy a huge role in determining who could and could not get married, it was not until the 13th century that priests became necessary to the act of marriage itself. Until the 9th or 10th century the marriage act occurred outside the church, with the couple subsequently going to the church for their union to be blessed. Marriage did not become a sacrament until the 12th century. That means that for most of the history of the church marriage has not been a sacrament. Something to think about.
So-called traditionalists should also take note of the subsequently prevailing distinction between marriage as a secular institution and as a sacrament. Martin Luther, for example, said in the 16th century that marriage was "a worldly thing... that belongs to the realm of government." The English Parliament passed a law in the 17th century declaring "marriage is no sacrament" and therefore entirely secular (a law passed by the Puritans, no less). The marriage impediments like affinity were eliminated and consanguinity reduced.
The Catholic response to the Reformation, the Council of Trent in 1563, must be seen in this light. It was only then that the RCC instituted the requirement not only for a marriage to be conducted by a priest but also in the presence of two witnesses, thus eliminating not only secret marriages but also the common law marriages that had prevailed in Europe since Roman times. It is only in this period that marriage began to be seen foremost as sacramental (the CoE followed suit in 1753), the form that is the so-called "Biblical marriage". But this form was not only contingent, it was never unopposed. The French Revolution in 1792 made civil marriage compulsory. Newly united Germany under Bismark followed suit in the 19th century.
The point that marriage has for most of the church's history been seen as secular and that it has changed form many times should by now be obvious. When bigots like John Howard thus change secular law to overtly privilege heterosexuals in the name of "traditional marriage" they are ignoring or are ignorant of the fact that there is not and never has been any single "traditional marriage" and that as marriage has changed before, sometimes in light of changed understanding of Scripture, so shall it change again.
Furthermore, privileging heterosexuals in this way is unambiguously homophobic. Civil unions are "separate but equal", which is called apartheid and can never be acceptable to anyone who truly believes in equality. Marriage, said the California Supreme Court recently, "contains within itself many intangible benefits." Marriage thus has a meaning that goes beyond merely sorting out things like inheritance rights. As the mother of a gay man said in the California hearings, "My friends don't understand civil unions or domestic partnerships. They understand marriage." Marriage, ultimately, means equality and no-one here has given the slightest sound reason why the God who is Love would have it any other way.
---------------------
Mt 19:4-6 is part of a theological debate between Jesus and the Pharisees. The text in dispute was Deut 24:1 ("When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house."), centering on the interpretation of "uncleanness". The Pharisees were trying to force Jesus to chose between the doctrinaire and unpopular view of Rabbi Shammai, who held that divorce could only be granted on the most severe grounds of matrimonial offense, and Rabbi Hillel who held the broader and more popular view that a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatever. As usual, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If he held to Hillel's view they could accuse him of taking a permissive view of Scripture, but if he held to Shammai's view he risked losing followers.
Thus, the question: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" (Mt 19:3). Instead of answering directly, Jesus counters with his own question: “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So, they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mt 19:4-6). He's changing the terms of the debate from divorce to marriage, in such a way as to emphasize its spiritual character rather than its social one.
The Pharisees don't understand this. In v.7, "They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" to which Jesus replies, "He said to them, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery." (Mt 19:8-9). Jesus is saying that the Pharisees have misinterpreted the law. This is clear from the form of their question, "Why then did Moses command..." His response is that God never commands divorce, although he does permit it "because of the hardness of your hearts" (said hardness may be on the part of offender, the offended or both). He then takes the view of Rabbi Shammai, that "uncleanness" means sexual immorality, but in a way the Pharisees were not expecting. (Note: the Greek for sexuality immorality, "porneia", went beyond just adultery, and thus is translated as "marital unfaithfulness" in the NIV).
Now, getting back to v.4-6, Jesus didn't quote from Genesis 1:27 in order to shore up some sort of crumbling heterosexuality. He was concerned with here, as in so many other places in the Gospels, human dignity and worth. As usual, the Pharisees were concerned with legalistic interpretation of Scripture, the "new idolatry" Jesus takes them to task for many times. The traditional Jewish view of marriage was that it was a contract between families and it was badly lopsided. Divorced women, who were essentially considered property within the marriage, would frequently become destitute upon being discarded.
Jesus was overturning the lopsided social contract in favour of a more balanced spiritual one, binding before God and therefore not to be lightly entered into or discarded. If the "two [became] one flesh" then marriage could not only not be abandoned at whim but the status of the wife necessarily rose within it, for Jesus was collapsing the husband-wife dyad (hi, Kyle!). He was in no small part putting a brake on patriarchal selfishness by saying that once a man was married he had to be committed to making it work and he couldn't just throw his wife out with the garbage because he was in a grump.
The disciples, at least, didn't seem terribly impressed with the idea of having to do their share: "The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry." (Mt 19:10). Marriage was now hard! Next comes one of the more unusual and interesting passages in the Gospels: "Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. “For some are eunuchs because they hers have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Mt 19:11-12).
-------------------------------------------
Eunuchs?
Lacking as they did a clear conception of an afterlife the Jews placed a premium on fertility, for that was a form of immortality, and consequently had a great fear of infertility. Thus, under Jewish law a man had to have intact genitals to enter the Temple (Deut 23:1; cf Lev 21:17). Having lots of children was a sign of God's favour (Ps 127:3-5; 128:3-6) and there are plenty of examples of women asking God to "open their wombs" (Ps 113:9; Gen 30:1; 1 Sam 1:10). Isaiah 54 uses barrenness as a metaphor for Israel when it felt abandoned by God. Is 56:3 uses a traditional female metaphor of barrenness, "dry tree", for eunuchs, and prophesies that both eunuchs and foreigners who keep the Lord's ways will be accepted by God (Is 56:4-8). Eunuchs, prophesies Isaiah in v. 5, will be given "a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters."
So, the very same eunuchs who are excluded from the heart of Judaism, the Temple, are to be included when God "gathers the exiles of Israel." (Is 56:8). Mt 19:11-12 is the fulfillment of that prophesy, and in so doing, Jesus collapses yet another category of Otherness. As Jesus made clear, one did not have to be castrated to be a eunuch. Eunuchs included the impotent, the functionally infertile (homosexuals) and the voluntarily celibate. Moreover, in contradiction to Jewish law and tradition, he advocated this mode of being for those "who can accept it." The great irony is that by dying without heirs Jesus was, in the Jewish understanding, a functional eunuch himself. However, the Resurrection means eternal life is redefined, in that it no longer requires producing children.
That's worth stating again: the Resurrection means eternal life is redefined, in that it no longer requires producing children.
"Infertility" is no longer a bar to being part of God's kingdom. Jesus foreshadowed this new understanding in Mark 3:31, "For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." He has blown the old understanding clean out of the water. And in that light I suggest you revisit my brief history of the way the understanding and practice of marriage has radically changed over the centuries, this time remembering that as it has changed in the light of new understanding so it will change again (as is already happening in some countries and churches).
consider 1 Cor 6:9-10:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
The semantics of "arsenokoitais", translated in the NIV as "homosexual offenders", is non-trivial. Passages like these are used to condemn homosexuals, so if they in fact have a different meaning it must be brought to light. So, what did "arsenokoitais" mean in Paul's time? The scholarly answer is that no-one knows. The only other text in which it is used is 1 Tim 1:9-10 (an almost mirror image of this passage), a text also attributed to Paul. Many scholars believe Paul actually invented the word.
The root of the word, "arsen", simply means male. "Arsen-o-koitais" literally translates as "the male who has many beds". Anyone who wants to use this word to condemn homosexuals - which includes lesbians in our understanding - must show how they equate to "the male who has many beds". The word "koitais" is found elsewhere in the Bible and other ancient Greek texts to refer to promiscuity. On the face of it, "arsenokoitais" seems to simply mean a promiscuous male.
That is consistent with the passage. If Paul had wanted to refer specifically to men who had sex with men he had every opportunity to do so but he did not. Promiscuity is not a homosexual preserve.
How then did it come to be translated variously as "homosexual offenders" (NIV 1 Cor 6:9), "perverts" (NIV 1 Tim 1:10), "homosexuals" (NAS 1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10), etc? The earliest English translations, such as the KJV, translated it either as "sodomites" or "abusers of themselves with mankind". According to the Blue Letter Bible's Hebrew lexicon a sodomite ("qadesh"; Strong's H6945) was a male temple prostitute consecrated to Astarte or Venus. A female sodomite ("qadeshah") was translated as harlet. Funny how we keep bumping into temple prostitutes in the Bible.
Interestingly, the Hebrew "qadesh" ("sodomite") bears no linguistic relation to "Cĕdom" ("Sodom"; Strong's H5467). IOW, there is no Biblical link between the sin of Sodom and "sodomites". Even so, bearing in mind the urban myth that the sin of Sodom is somehow linked to homosexuality and the principle that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) let us see what the Bible says about it. The term "sin of Sodom" is used 48 times in the Bible but most are references in passing which assume the reader already knows what it means. The most extensive comment on it comes from Ezekial:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Eze 16:49-50).
Jesus referred to Sodom once, when he sent the disciples out to preach:
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Matt 10:14-15).
The only reference to the sin of Sodom having any connection to sex at all is Jude 7:
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
Sexual immorality and perversion is certainly consistent with a town that not only sought to pack-rape Lot's guests but whose sins generally were so grievous that God intended to destroy them utterly. All three references have two things in common. The first is that they all involve sins of selfishness. The second thing is these sins are universal. There is nothing particular to male to male sex in any of them.
At this point, we have two important observations. The first is that, in the Bible, sodomites are not homosexuals. They are temple prostitutes. The second is that, in the Bible, the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. It was selfishness, pride and inhospitality.
In fact, no pre-1st century AD Jewish scholar equates the sin of Sodom specifically with male to male sex. That radical departure from the traditional Jewish understanding came primarily from Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, which reflected the growing Jewish distaste for the Greek practice of "paiderastia" (adult male love for a post-pubescent youth; note that we moderns distinguish between homosexuality per se and pederasty). It is notably absent in Jesus' teaching, but it is pertinent to note that Jude was written post-Philo.
That still leaves open the question of how a Greek word which means a promiscuous male is today rendered as homosexual. The most polite answer, surely, is bad scholarship. It takes no great imagination to conceive how all "deviant" sex became demonised within a framework of doctrines predicated on a rigid, teleological misunderstanding of sex. That does not excuse the modern scholars, of course, but it is a mark of the continuing power of homophobia in the church that they feel pressured to cling to outdated and non-Biblical understandings even though they certainly know better (you should read up on some of the behind the scenes arguments in the various translation teams).
Is this a semantic argument? You bet! Does it matter? You bet! All interpretation of a text is ultimately about semantics - the meanings of words. When the text is Scripture then those meanings assume ultimate importance. If anyone wants to condemn anyone else on the basis of Scripture then they had best be on sure ground, but I assert to you that the Bible does not, anywhere, condemn loving same-sex unions and I defy you to show me otherwise. And I say that on the authority of the Bible.
I'm absolutely exhausted by the debate of whether or not homosexuality is morally up for interpretation or if it is a blatant sin against God. I personally adhere to the latter, and would plead with other christians to take the same stance. However, I am enraged to see christians mocking, insulting and having a generally ignorant opinion of the gay community. How in the hell can you expect to love a group of people if they are disgusted by you? At the end of the day you are accountable to God, there is no way around that. If you think that God is going to pat you on the back because you made a cutting remark to a gay "for Jesus" than i suggest a Christian struggling with homosexuality pray for you, because your clearly in need of repentance. Why do you picket one mans sin of homosexuality and not anothers of gluttony? I guarantee gluttony is a further reaching epidemic in the Western World than homosexuality will ever be! Who made this "to do list" of sins that need to be stopped? A list that has not one thing checked off! Love God and love man, and don't make Gods love out to be mans love.
Post a Comment