On Religious News Service there was an article drawing out some parallels between the “Gay debate” taking place in the North American church today and the slavery debate that took place 150 years ago.
- One side argues for the plain reading of the Bible while the other argues from a grand narrative of freedom and inclusive love.
- The argument reflects the split visible in the larger culture.
- Denominations split.
- There’s almost no neutrality.
Although such generalities can pack a rhetorical punch, they lack substance.
The particular place where they fall short is that homosexual activity is consistently labeled sinful, or listed with vices to be repented of, throughout the Bible. Thus, the correspondence is not direct, even if a similar hermeneutic might take a person to condemning 
slavery while endorsing homosexuality. In my estimation, accounting for the fact that homosexual activity is always condemned as sinful when discussed in scripture is a hurdle that must be met directly, and not through appeal to “parallels” such as slavery or women’s ordination.
Also, while the regulating of slavery reflects a perhaps tacit biblical endorsement of the cultural norm, biblical condemnations of homosexual practice are exactly the opposite: a condemnation within the community of something that was generally an acceptable cultural practice (within certain socially approved frameworks). This gives me some pause with the arguments from analogy.
The church appears to have always seen itself as standing against the sexual mores of the surrounding culture, testifying to a particular sort of divinely-appointed alternative. I do often wonder if the pro-homosexuality position carries such weight because the church has forsaken its sexual ethics more generally–and too many of us are baptizing our pasts as divinely approved rather than seeking forgiveness for our missteps?
These two concerns come hand in hand. The arguments I hear in favor of homosexuality, by parallel with issue of freedom and justice, or parallels with those included within Jesus’ ministry, too often lack the category of sin, too often neglect that we are people fully in need of transformation and restoration.
Are homosexuals modern-day lepers? Perhaps–but Jesus included the leper by touching, healing, and removing the leprosy, not simply by embracing him as he was.
Would Jesus tell us to only cast stones if we are without sin? Likely–but then he would also turn to the sinner and bid her go and sin no more.
Hmmmm….you say that “…while the regulating of slavery reflects a perhaps tacit biblical endorsement of the cultural norm, biblical condemnations of homosexual practice are exactly the opposite: a condemnation within the community of something that was generally an acceptable cultural practice (within certain socially approved frameworks).” This in in itself implies a choice made by the community (scribes perhaps) who transcribed God’s words to text?. Help me understand? Tacit approval of slavery and rejection of homosexuality by whom exactly?
I’m thinking of the biblical arguments, and how the issues are similar and/or different in the Bible. The biblical texts that speak on slavery seem to have such a regulating and sometimes tacitly approving function (though there is a counter voice that’s tremendously important); the texts that touch on homosexual practice are uniformly against, in contrast to the views of the surrounding culture.
I wonder if the issue of homosexuality facing the church isn’t so much about the sin and failure of the homosexual but about the failure of the church et al to demonstrate love for people struggling in or overcome by sin and sinful desires. You write that jesus cured the leper which he did. But out of what motivation? Love. Our communities cannot expect to be able to help this population as long as we display the vitriol we have in the past. Jesus welcomed the leper before offering him a new life. We must do the same. This should be our focus. Not to the exclusion of the fact that it is sin, but out of christ like love for the people. Would live to go on but my trains almost to my stop. Forgive typos, typing on my cell phone.
Amen.
Statements like these are so refreshing. Thank you!
Good thoughts, I handn’t though of the “sin” theme in particular when comparing slavery/gender/homosexuality issues before. That’s helpful.
In a similar vein, would you say that there is significance to the fact that gender identity/roles are often grounded in God’s original intention in creation, whereas slavery is–as you put it–viewed as a cultural (and I would say fallen) institution that is regulated only in retrospect of the fact? Whereas the NT writers seem to argue that the differences they ascribe to men and women are divinely designed, I can’t imagine any of them saying that God’s original purpose in creation was for some to be slaves and some to be masters.
But, Daniel, isn’t the real question whether homosexuality is a sin or was just considered so by those with an ANE culture? Understand, I, too, believe it’s a sin, but I continue to wrestle with the issue of contextualization, how to take Paul, the former Pharisee and son of a Pharisee, etc.
Robert, I’ll offer two problems I see with the “contextualized” approach you mention as a possibility for approaching the issue of homosexuality today. On the one hand, why limit such a hermeneutic to homosexuality or other hot topic issues today (not to say you suggest this, just to wonder why we particularly connect it to this issue)? Why shouldn’t every single ethical issue be subjected not to the standard of clear biblical teaching, but to advancing cultural insights since the closing of the canon? And if so–how do we avoid a functional natural theology usurping God’s revelation? I’m not saying, to be sure, that the issues are easy–they are amazingly complicated–but just to point out that the “contextualization” model opens, I fear, a huge can of worms that will do far more than its original practictioners want it to, who can only avoid the relativistic implications it seems to have by a brute force of will. And how about the possibility that many “advances” of Western culture in the past centuries are actually the immoral symptoms of idolatry, not the emergence of light out of the primitive darkness? How can we tell the difference?
Second, I would recommend Robert Gagnon’s lengthy, erudite tome on homosexuality, which demonstrates quite clearly how acceptable the practice was in many situations in many ANE cultures. The absolute Jewish avoidance of it is actually quite unique. As Daniel alluded to, the same contrast between the attitude found in the people of God and in the surrounding cultures is clearly present during the NT era, too. Whatever we make of their prohibitions of homosexuality, it cannot be reduced to a cultural origin.
Amen.
Nick — why do you put “contextualize” in scare quotes? Are you opposed to context?
By the way, I do not think we should limit hermeneutical questions to homosexuality, and I assume you agree with me. But maybe I’m wrong. Do you believe it’s a sin to eat shellfish, for a woman to speak in church or cut their hair, do you think it’s a sin to gather sticks on the sabbath? If you don’t, well then, I’d have to say you’ve done a little contextualization of your own.
– Wyatt
And by the way, what is “clear biblical teaching” is not necessarily clear to others.
Correction: “And by the way, what is “clear biblical teaching” to you is not necessarily clear or biblical to others.
Wyatt, I put it in scare quotes just to indicate that I was picking up your language from the previous comment
No one I know would deny that contextualization is both important and necessary. Yet when it comes to overturning clear biblical teaching–and I agree with Daniel that the cumulative biblical evidence on this issue is overwhelmingly one-sided from start to finish–then I’m just raising a question I perpetually have for those who appeal to the changing cultural milieu of our day vs. that of the 1st century (or earlier) as grounds for side-stepping scriptural injunctions. Again, that’s not to say it can’t be done–but I think many who practice it need to develop a more ruthless honesty and self-consistency both in how they apply it, and what the real reasons/motives giving rise to their convictions often are.
Nick — I’m not side-stepping anything. I have legitimate questions about how we are to understand, and apply, if warranted, the teachings of people who lived in a distinctly different culture thousands of years ago.
The issue of homosexuality is tangential to the larger question of how we read and interpret Scripture. As I said, what you may consider as clear biblical teaching may be viewed by others as inscrutable.
Are we obligated to regard every word written by Paul as ex cathedra, or is it permissible to ask whether at least some things were the product of his culture, his Judaistic roots, his Pharisaical upbringing, etc? I think those are legitimate questions.
By the way, I’m not looking for an excuse. I’m just looking for the truth.
Surely everything Paul wrote was the product of his culture and his roots, as well as his Christian conversion? He could not have written anything that was not. So I think to try to separate out his words (or those of any other biblical author) into ‘eternally and absolutely true’ and ‘contextually bound’ (my paraphrase of what I think you are saying) is a false task. The point about the bible is that it is both. It is God’s absolute and authoritative word and it is the product of human authors who were men of their own time and place. Certainly I believe that God conveys his word in and through those contextually bound human words. I just don’t think there’s any justification for picking some words to be God’s and others to be Paul’s.
Those are definitely important questions, Wyatt. But I think at this point the focus distinctly moves to the doctrine of Scripture, thenature of inspiration and revelation, etc., and not so much hermeneutics and interpretation anymore. I would hold a very classical view of inspiration overall, that however culturally-bound the biblical writers were, they were also at the same time moved by the Spirit to communicate God’s truth to His people authoritatively and perfectly.
Therefore, given that Scripture consistently identifies homosexuality as a result of rebellion against God, as a dim echo of our previous spiritual idolatry, and given that wherever this conviction came from, it certainly did not arise from merely parroting or reflecting the cultural attitudes towards homosexuality in either the ANE or the Greco-Roman world (both of which are actually more similar to our own society today on this matter), I do actually see this as a very clear, unambiguous issue as a Christian.
I just can’t see how the Scriptures can be taken seriously and submitted to in obedience, in any historically orthodox sense, and yet conclude the exact opposite of what the Word of God teaches. I don’t mean to be harsh or uppity by saying this–I know it is difficult to convey tone on blogs between people who don’t know each other–but I am worried that much of the contemporary overturning of the church’s universal conviction on homosexuality throughout the ages is not really based on sound hermeneutics or expanding awareness of the cultural situatedness of the Scriptures, but rather simply from capitulating to an increasingly pagan, spiritually darkened society. It is difficult for me not to conclude that many discussions about homosexuality aren’t really all that concerned about what the Scriptures actually say, and that minds are made up and convictions formed well before the Bible is opened, on distinctly other grounds than Christ.
BTW, I would highly recommend Richard Hays’ chapter on homosexuality in his magnificent “The Moral Vision of the New Testament.” Probably the best single resource I know of on the topic.
Nick wrote: “I am worried that much of the contemporary overturning of the church’s universal conviction on homosexuality throughout the ages is not really based on sound hermeneutics or expanding awareness of the cultural situatedness of the Scriptures, but rather simply from capitulating to an increasingly pagan, spiritually darkened society.”
I agree with you. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A525946) But that’s not where I’m coming from. As I say, I wrestle with the proper way to interpret scripture. I don’t subscribe to the “inerrancy” view, and my ideas about “inspiration” aren’t what they used to be. Homosexuality is just one of a whole host of issues that are involved here.
(I love Richard Hays. I also have Moral Vision of NT, but haven’t read it yet.)
Besides R. Gagnon’s work (see link below), I’d also recommend the “Two Views” book he did with a Christian scholar of a much more liberal bent:
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279908197&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Bible-Robert-J-Gagnon/dp/080063618X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279908197&sr=8-2
Daniel
By your authority as a biblical scholar, do you assert that all possible texts in the bible condemn homosexuality?
I.e., David and Jonathan aren’t lovers, Moses and God aren’t engaging in gay sex on Sinai (see ‘rabbi Douglas Rushkoff), or whatever else someone comes up with.
As a biblical scholar, I am fully aware that I have no authority whatsoever to assert pretty much anything.
But no, I don’t see homoerotic stuff going on with David and Jonathan or Jesus and the disciples alone on the mountain or God and Moses or the rest. One reason I’m not able to affirm the “inclusive” position on homosexuality is that I see the biblical evidence as rather uniform and with no strong counter-indications.
BTW, good helpful post and discussion.
Ros wrote: “So I think to try to separate out his words (or those of any other biblical author) into ‘eternally and absolutely true’ and ‘contextually bound’ (my paraphrase of what I think you are saying) is a false task.”
I disagree. The very fact that we are having this conversation is proof to the contrary. There are ongoing conversations going on about the role of women in the church, drinking alcoholic beverages, sex, heaven, defining “The Gospel,” immigration, capitalism — all of these things are tied to the question of contextualization in some degree.
Hello Daniel,
I appreciate your thoughtful reflection on this issue. I think you bring up an important consideration…namely there is a more general confusion…with regards to what it means to strive to live chaste lives.
Ros is onto something important here. People on various sides of this debate (and related ones) often betray a complex of assumptions about how the Bible is authoritative. Apparently something is authoritative or eternally prescriptive (for how we should live now) if it somehow pertains to “eternal” and “non-cultural” things or principles. Conversely, if something is “cultural” it need not be authoritative and/or part of the “eternal” and “non-cultural” prescriptions of God…even the Gospel itself.
How many times have you heard someone talk about X issue or passage in the Bible and ask “Is that what God wants for us or is it just ‘cultural’”? Think of discussions about women’s head coverings in 1 Cor 11, a passage that, interestingly, links the prescribed practice to “creation” (to use the categories often invoked in related debates). Both traditionalists and more progressive folks in the homosexuality debate tend to, at least tacitly, operate with this kind of assumption about the Bible and its authority. To the extent we demonstrate something to be “cultural” we somehow remove it from the “essence” of the Gospel or God’s ethics for us today.
We probably need to move beyond this way of construing the Bible’s authority. If only the “non-cultural” aspects of the Bible are authoritative or get us to the real deal of the timeless Gospel, then…well, there’s no Gospel or “authority” left in the way we evangelicals generally ponder these topics. Heck, Paul’s discourse about union with Christ is inseparably bound up with demonstrably “cultural” assumptions about science, what people are made of, and the structures of the universe (i.e., some of the “physics” of his time). We are united to Christ materially by his material pneuma. Paul’s hybrid of Stoic and middle-Platonic positions about physics and moral-psychology (“anthropology”) combined with his Hellenistic Jewish Apocalyptic positions are not some separable and secondary “cultural” element from some “non-cultural” and “timeless” notion about Uniion with Christ that Paul entertained separately.
This, btw, is where theological issues about the Bible and homosexuality raise their heads in a more profound way. Paul’s statements about “homosexuality” (and women for that matter) remain inseparably bound up with certain ancient Mediterranean notions about women, gender, masculinity, “physics,” and the like that NO ONE on any side of the theological debate wants to or will accept. This does not solve the theological debates, but it does, however, indicate a different level for them that we all should take seriously.
I think, though, that by focusing on the whether the three are logically analogous you end up missing the point that’s being made by the folks who raise the objection in the first place. Most laypoeple aren’t making theological arguments, and are uninterested in theology.
I think what the argument (that the church has repeatedly used its favored interpretation of Biblical texts to support, at various times in history, different systems of oppression toward political and social minorities) is intended to bring to light isn’t an inconsistency in interpretation or reading of the text per se but rather an argument about the church’s general ethos in such matters.
More plainly put: given its history, even in recent years, of supporting systems of oppression rather than acting as a prophetic voice against them, until, really, it’s much too late, I am suspicious of the church’s motives and ability to act as an in-good-faith interpreter of the text at all, because history shows that the church’s favored readings of Biblical texts tend toward supporting the politics of conservative rich white males.
It has come to the point that when I hear any argument about social mores or politics coming from evangelical or post-evangelical circles I assume bad faith on the part of the theologian or author or pastor. That may not seem fair, but my experience has been that the theology and interpretive lens serve the worldly political projects of the speaker and his/her community, rather than some transcendent, kingdom-of-heaven-ly goal. (* this gets complicated — see below)
For example, the majority of the same voices that are anti-homosexual marriage *also* tend to read the Bible in such a way as to tone down or ignore altogether the communalist or socialist-leaning economic theologies in the Old and New Testaments.
That’s a different argument than the one you’re addressing here, which is about whether or not the same *logical* mistake is being made. It’s not. Each of these instances (regarding black people and slavery, regarding women, regarding gay people, regarding economics, etc) uses a completely different and unique interpretive mechanism. What’s similar about them is that they all consistently serve the political ends of political conservatives and neoconservatives. What it presents to the general public is a church that says whatever it will take to get at a certain set of end goals — a church that is willing to employ internally inconsistent interpretive logics if they will result in a particular kind of society. Like the person we all know who is willing employ great contortions in logic to hold to a particular idea or set of ideas.
The problem is that this makes them seem incredibly untrustworthy and desperate. To remix Samuel Johnson: “The Bible says so” is the last refuge of a scoundrel. If the *only* recommendation an idea has is that a small set of people believe the Bible commands it, I’m going to remain highly suspicious of both the idea and the small group promoting it, and if that small group also happens to be the same small group who used that same defense to promote *other* oppressive politics in the past, then I’m doubly suspicious.
————————
* Ok, so this is the complicated stuff, and maybe only interesting to some people, but, of course, i think that’s what we *all* do — create theologies ad hoc, after acting, in order to present narratives to ourselves and the world that makes our choices and projects seem desirable, sensible and coherent. So why do I think it’s bad that evangelicals tend to do this?
Mostly because their master narrative pretends that they *don’t.* The common assumption of most evangelical theologies and pastors is that their theologies exist outside the morally contingent set of circumstances that form the rest of our language-use. Whereas I’m perfectly willing to say that my preferred interpretive methods favor my personal idea of a good society and are employed toward that project, evangelicals tend to argue the opposite — that their theologies are mirrors to the natural and supernatural order or are closer to being such than anything offered up by their political/social/theological rivals.
It’d be better if they were honest about the whole thing : that they, like everyone else, uses language to get the things done they want in the world, and that their theologies exist to further their own temporal projects. But I doubt that’ll happen anytime soon.