Posts

What if I’m Wrong?

/0 Comments/in /by

First off, a blessed Holy Week to each of you!

Again, I want to thank Julie and Jessica for their insightful and honest input in this writing project. I know personally it has made me a better pastor and more importantly, a more faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Thank you!

The assignment for this round of entries was to look back on ourselves and our processes and ask, “Would you have done anything different if you did it again?” The answer is, “Of course!” It is impossible to go through a discernment process and not see how you could have alleviated some of the struggle, shortcut some of the hours spent, or taken advantage of some of the opportunities missed. I know in the case of SPC, in hindsight we could have had better communication with our congregation throughout the process itself. I am so impressed by Jessica and her church’s approach involving their entire church througout the process, as well as Julie and Eastern’s ability to have the entire university community take part in discussions during their discernment. As I look back now, our strategy was a little like Willy Wonka – lock yourself up in a Chocolate Factory for a few years until you come out with something to show to the world. While we did a good job at inviting our congregation into the conversation once we had done the hard work, I will admit we could have done a better job at bringing them along all along. That being said, once we started the public conversation, we had hundreds of our people involved in the conversations and, for the large majority, the feedback was that they felt heard and honored in the process. Thanks be to God.

In answer to one of Julie’s questions, I believe we did allow all types of evidence to have a hearing in our group work. In my estimation, we turned over pretty much every rock we could—how could you not in a 3 year process! We wanted to hear as many “voices” as we possibly could, and we certainly did. The key however, was the spirit of openness, learning and growth that the group had through the process. It helped to have an inquisitive group that was comfortable in their own skin and their ability to articulate their own growing vantage point in love.

But the big learning for me was what Julie suggested for both her experience at Eastern as well as her question for Jessica and I; we could have done a better job at engaging people in the LGBT community in our conversation as a group. The reality was that while each of us individually had our own experiences (which I will discuss in a moment), and while together we set about engaging them through articles and books, we never actually sat down with a member of the LGBT community in our group and heard their story. Why didn’t we do this? I’m not quite sure, but I wish we had, because while reading stories and discussing theological propositions work are helpful, there is nothing that can substitute for face to face relationships and conversation. As Julie said, “We do not know what we do not know because of the limitations of our experiences and perspectives.”

I know this to be true because for me, my epiphone came when I had the chance to meet with a married gay couple who had started to attend our church. They had come to SPC because they were followers of Jesus and felt like this was a place where they sensed Jesus was present and active (the kind of compliment every pastor loves to hear!).

But let me tell you a secret—I was nervous to meet with them, mostly because I had never actually met with a married gay couple and heard their story before. As we sat down at the local Starbucks, one of the men told me of his lifelong self-hatred because of his sexual orientation and his belief that God’s hatred for him matched his own. This was a man who had given up a decade of his life serving Christ by playing in a music ministry that traveled the globe–yet all the while living in despair and without much hope. And yet now, through many years of study, prayer and discernment, he had come to a place of peace that God loved him as he was, warts and all, and that even if this was not God’s original intention for mankind, it was God’s way of wholeness for him in the midst of his brokenness. Here was a man who was sincerely committed to the Scriptures and desired to live them out; who saw his fidelity to his husband as an extension of that devotion.

I must say, that conversation changed me. Let me be clear—it didn’t convince me of the Biblical/hermeneutical lens that my friend was using to arrive at his conclusion, but it changed me, nonetheless. I still had my questions, but as I left the Starbucks that day, a new question was germanating and sprouting with me—a question that has turned out to be a great help in my own coming-to-terms with our church’s decision to be more inclusive towards the LGBT community. The question is this…

Which way would I rather be wrong?

That question started ringing in my ears and it continues to this day. I realize this may appear to be an unorthodox way to do theology, but hear me out.

If we assume that none of us has the corner on the market on the total and complete understanding of the Scriptures (which we must assume with the wide variety of emphases and interpretations of the Book throughout the Christian world); and if we also assume that this particular issue of homosexuality is not a salvation issue but really an issue of discipleship (which I realize is not a universal belief but was a conclusion I had already come to in my own life), then I had to ask myself a deeper question: What if my viewpoint is wrong? If my stance is wrong, what does it cost me and, more importantly, what does it cost those who are on the other side?

As I thought this through, I came to some sobor conclusions. If I was right and my gay married friends were wrong, then they would not be living in the fullness of God’s design (like I fail to do in many parts of my life as well, I am sure). As their pastor then, I should admonish them to break up or at least remain celibate for the rest of their lives if they wanted to most faithfully follow Jesus Christ. This is a plausible conclusion and is widely accepted by many in the Christian world. It is the classic God’s will versus humanity’s will, the desire to live consistent with the text and tradition of Scripture versus adopting a new or popular cultural interpretation. Holding to this line may have been the right answer.

But then I started to get nervous…What if I’m wrong? What if, as a growing group of disciples in the Christian world believe, the few Scriptures concerning homosexuality aren’t really aimed at this current understanding of same gender marriage that is possible today? What if like gender issues and slavery (to name a few) our current context forces us to reinterpret our understanding of God’s Word on this issue? If that was the case, then I (as their pastor) would be robbing these followers of Jesus a chance to be in a covenanted relationship that they believed imaged the relationship of God and his church. I would be hamstringing these disciples of Jesus with a burden they shouldn’t have to bear (possibly like Paul’s admonition to the Galatian believers regarding the Gentiles and circumcision). Worst of all, if these disciples experienced this prohibition as my new friend had experienced it for decades—a rejection by the living God—then what if they went into eternity believing in that rejection? The words of Jesus, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,” rung in my ears. What if I was keeping these children from God because I was so committed to my belief in what amounted to a non-essential doctrine that doesn’t affect one’s salvation?

It made me nervous.

With that in mind, I started to consider the very real question of which way I would rather be wrong. When I stand before God’s judgment seat someday, would I rather have God say, “You were way too open and accepting on this issue” or would I rather have him say, “Through your actions, some of my children, in their despair, never knew my love”?

In the end, I decided for myself that I’d rather error on the side of grace on this issue and be ok with an open posture of acceptance. I realize many of my beloved colleagues and friends find themselves on the other side. For them, this issue is much clearer and black in white. For me, however, through this process and through this conversation done in community, I am much less certain than I ever was before–mystery abounds–and ultimately I believe we made the hard right decision (even though I still have my questions). Jessica echoed my thoughts exactly at the end of her essay, “I think the fullest of what we are called to do as a community of Christ is to pour ourselves out on the behalf of others, to regard ourselves and our positions as less than our own. If each person could live in such a manner we would be able to exemplify an alternative to the polarized world we live in. This is the mission we are called to.”

Do we still have a long way to go at SPC? Of course. We haven’t even brushed the surface of other gender issues that continue to be explored. But one thing I am confident of–If we come at every conversaton with love and respect, we can accomplish what Julie so eloquently said at the end of her essay, “I am left wondering if Christianity might be more attractive to outsiders if we seemed more clearly like we were “figuring it out” rather than seeming to have “figured it out.”

Amen to that.

The Harder Right

/0 Comments/in /by

First, I want to thank Julie and Jessica for telling their stories and the stories of the ministries they help to lead. It is encouraging for me to know that I am not alone in trying to lead these hard but important conversations, and that other sisters and brothers in Christ are leaning into the same conversations with care, intentionality, and grace.

As I read both of your entries, I found myself nodding my head over and over again in agreement. Julie, I’ve admired Eastern University from afar, and while I never knew the University’s mission statement (“faith, reason and justice”), it seems to fit perfectly. One of the things I most appreciate about the conversation you all are having is the maturity of the President and the Administration to allow the hurt and concerns of students and faculty to come to the forefront and the willingness of the President to both apologize and to lean into the conversation. That to me is a sign of a great leader. I also appreciated your insights on the first event where your community came to realize that the faculty and students had a different filter for how to have this conversation. That is one of the things I’ve learned through our process as well—unless the entire body is brought in on the conversation on a regular basis with their filters, fears, and even ages taken into account, the leaders (or in your case, the faculty) can leave the rest in the dust. I appreciated how you all tried something, learned from it, and moved forward.

I also empathize with the sticky situation Eastern is in trying to balance ideologies. While our church didn’t do a formal poll, our congregants (like your donors) are a varied bunch. One fear that haunted me as a leader was what the financial backlash would be from the decision we were having to make. The challenge, of course, is that while you don’t want dollars to drive faith decisions, there is still ministry to do and it is people (and their generosity) that fund it. It sort of reminds me of the Super PAC conversations our nation is having right now—who are we (or our leaders) beholden to? I know there were multiple times people wanted us to just poll our congregation and figure out what decision we should make on these issues.

But the reality is that the harder right decision (which it sounds like Eastern is choosing to engage in)–the long, slow, listening discernment that just takes time–is always the right decision. The harder right is always the way to go, and I commend your community for taking this path.

One thing we found was that while the topic was at its anxious peaks (for example, right after our Denomination made its decisions on ordination and same gender marriage), if we waited a little bit, the anxiety would dissipate and we could have more rational, thoughtful discussions. I wonder how that is going for you and your community—if the anxiety is slowly lowering the more conversation and light is shed on it? Has the fear you so honestly talked about leveled out as the conversation has continued? I’m impressed with the amount of events you all have hosted, and the commitment of the University to have a balanced, honest conversation.

It is against my nature to criticize other people’s stories, especially when the circumstances are such that each community is just doing the best they can in the wake of anxiety and crisis. That being said, I would share your critique of not having the ability to have LGBT voices at the table when making these big decisions. I suppose in some ways this is natural—if the question to be asked is “Should a group have full communion with us?” one would assume that there are no voting representatives at the table for the decision. It reminds me a bit of James and the Jewish-Christian leaders voting for Gentile inclusion at the Council of Jerusalem. To move from a closed to a more accepting and inclusive society takes the work of the insiders predominantly. That being said, I wonder if it is hard in your system to get a fair hearing for the LGBT community when both history and conservative theology are on the side of those in structural power.

I also hear your concern on the disappointment of different groups not feeling like their perspectives mattered. In the end, it seems to me that what people need to know the most is that they are heard, valued, and have a place to stand in the community. I wonder if there is an implicit flaw in the University structure that makes it a challenge for those needs to be met perfectly. While it sounds like (and I believe) Eastern is a close knit community, it is likely different than a local church, where people live and work together for decades, not just 4 years of college, or from afar as alumni and donors. I also wonder if your community is rushing the decision a little bit. Steven Sample in his leadership book The Contrarians Guide to Leadership says,

“Never make a decision today that can reasonably be put off to tomorrow.” 

In other words, sometimes we rush decisions out of anxiety or just because we want to close a loop, rather than being willing to wait and let the conversation run its course and we discover the right answer. I wonder if after this relatively short season of conversation at Eastern, the issue has been discussed adequately. These are not really questions I can answer, but just ponderings as I hear your story.

With all that said, I am pulling for and praying for Eastern as you finish your discernment! It sounds to me like your President and community have turned a challenging situation into something our Christian world desperately needs–faithful, loving, theological dialogue on a contested cultural issue. Nice work!

 

Jessica, I also found myself nodding my head in agreement at your story as well. We operate and serve in similar communities, and the blend of congregants that range from newcomers to established locals in a more affluent area was a familiar one to me. One of the things I really appreciated about the process you and your colleague Jeff took your congregation through was the way you located the conversation in the broader Mennonite context. It seems to me that any time we can say, “This conversation is natural because our ancestors have done this before us,” it lowers people’s anxiety and puts the congregation in a hopeful, positive frame of mind. That positioning unlocks the past (our theological tradition) in order to unlock the future (our congregation’s path going forward). I thought you and Jeff located the heart of the issue—Scriptural authority and hermeneutics—and used this opportunity to teach your people some important, foundational lessons that we often assume our people understand but don’t. One of the things I learned in this process is how important it is for us as pastors to take the opportunities life and culture affords to teach simple truths. I personally came to enjoy this conversation at our church, even if it was often tense and had big stakes. I think that happened because there was a refreshing joy in talking about simple truths with faithful people. Not only that, but I know I learned a lot in the process as well. It seemed to me from hearing your story that you took away the same joyful learnings.

I also loved it when you said that you quickly figured out that your people assumed everyone was on the same page on LGBTQ issues when they were really all over the board. For me, there was such a relief in having people I trust and love (like my brothers and sisters in the local church) who can talk to me about how they see Scriptures–maybe even disagree with me–and believe they will not walk away at the end of the day. This “aha” is a huge one, and you and Jeff orchestrated it masterfully. I also appreciated the fact that you didn’t mandate a certain ideology or position, or expect people to see things as you do. As a leader, that is often very hard to do. Instead, you provided room at the table for everyone to be where they were at and make their own discoveries. That inductive type of teaching and learning is the best kind, in my opinion.

I also really appreciated how you involved the whole congregation in your conversation, and yet required people to commit to be there for both sessions. When involved in tense discussions, it is important for leaders to set the playing field and protect the players for a clean and energizing engagement. Without that setting of the table, I wonder if you would have been as effective as you were.

If I were to offer one critique it would be that there was no official decision that was made on the subject of LGBTQ inclusion. While no decision is essentially a decision (for the status quo), I wonder if this will just rear its head later on and if in fact the anxiety is still underground since there is still no official position of the church on the issue. For us, Washington State’s legalization of gay marriage forced our hand somewhat to make a decision regarding these issues. While I don’t believe Ohio has that same state law in place, I wonder down the road if (or likely, when) it does, if Zion will have to face this issue again. I suppose the same Stephen Sample quote I used before could apply here—why make a decision when none is needed to be made. In fact, if I was in your position, I may have made a similar leadership move, but I wonder if this issue is done for your church family. All that being said, I so admire the process you went through, especially the way you dealt with an anxious issue and neutralized it, all the while growing your congregation in love, grace, and truth.

Thanks to both Julie and Jessica for their faithful leadership in the body of Christ! Well done!

God’s design for human sexuality

/3 Comments/in /by

Issues related to same-sex attraction are without a doubt the most difficult and volatile issue facing the church today. In the context of these Respectful Conversations, I have been asked to address the question of the Bible’s teaching on this issue from the traditional perspective that same-sex sexual relations are outside God’s design for human sexuality.

I have to admit from the beginning that I am torn on this issue.  Like many other Christians, I find that my positive personal experiences with those who identify with the LGBT community are often at odds with the Bible’s apparent teaching on this issue. While I respect those like James Brownson and David Gushee whose personal experiences have provoked them to return to Scripture with new eyes and to change their mind, I personally have found it impossible to reconcile a high view of Scripture and a consistent hermeneutic with this revisionist perspective. I bear no animosity toward any person who is gay or toward anyone who holds an inclusive perspective. I will continue to seek to love all people and live in gracious tolerance toward everyone, even (and especially) those who treat me with animosity or who view my beliefs as insensitive, bigoted or offensive.

On certain issues I am still firmly settled. There is no doubt in my mind that monogamous heterosexual relationships represent God’s design for human sexuality. I firmly believe that homosexual desire (like my own heterosexual inclination toward lust) arises from fallen human nature and is not part of God’s will for human sexuality.  This seems to me the clear teaching of Scripture and also makes the most sense emotionally, socially, and psychologically. We live in a fallen world and should not be surprised to see evidence of this brokenness in ourselves and those around us.

At the same time there are many issues on which I am unsettled. At what point does homosexual desire become a sin?  My inclination is to say at the same time as heterosexual inclination: when such desire becomes lust. But when does a same-sex relationship become sinful? Can people with same-sex attraction share intimacy? Is homosexual “romance” in and of itself wrong? To what degree should churches welcome same-sex couples? As attenders? Into membership? Into leadership? These are difficult questions, regarding which full agreement among Christians is proving elusive.

 

Some Points of Agreement

I would like to start with several areas I think we can agree on. First, those involved in this forum agree on the authority and inspiration of Scripture. We believe that the Bible is God’s Word. There are two basic ways to approach the Bible. Some view the Bible as merely human reflections about God. From this perspective, the text is subjective, multivocal and fallible. It represents many voices communicating different and often contradictory messages about the nature of God, his purpose for the world and how human beings ought to live in relationship to God and to one another.  It may be inspiring, but it is not divinely inspired. Those on this forum, however, consider the Bible to be God’s Word, a divine message from God to humanity. It is authoritative and infallible, communicating God’s will, plan and purpose for his creation.

Second, however, we agree that the Bible is contextually given. God has revealed himself and his will through limited human agents in diverse cultural contexts and situations. Though God’s nature does not change, his purpose and intention for specific groups or individuals may differ depending on time and place. The most obvious example of this is the old covenant laws that were given to Israel. These commands were meant to regulate and order Israel’s civil and religious life in the Old Testament period and do not necessarily apply to the church. The Old Testament sacrificial system—though explicitly commanded in Scripture—was always intended to be temporary, pointing forward to its ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross.

Even new covenant commands are contextual and potentially limited in application. Most Christians today recognize that commands related to head coverings for women, greeting one another with a kiss, and washing feet as an act of service were given in specific cultural contexts and do not necessarily apply directly to the church today. The point is that biblical commands forbidding same-sex sexual relations are potentially within this category, applying only to certain historical contexts and situations and never intended to forbid faithful and monogamous same-sex sexual relationships.

This brings up what I believe is a third point of agreement. All participants in this discussion affirm that God’s design for human sexuality is for loving, faithful, self-sacrificial, monogamous sexual relationships. Though many within the gay rights movement (as well as the heterosexual community!) claim they have the right to complete sexual freedom and multiple sexual partners, this forum is about whether God ever blesses faithful, monogamous and lifelong same-sex unions.

 

The Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis

If God’s commands are sometimes limited to specific persons, groups, times and places, how do we determine God’s will for us at any point in time? The answer is by establishing and consistently applying sound principles of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science and art of determining the original meaning of Scripture (through “exegesis”) and how it applies in diverse cultural and historical contexts (through “re-contextualization”). I have elsewhere suggested a variety of criteria for determining whether and how culturally-embedded commands apply to believers today (see my How to Read the Bible in Changing Times [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011], ch. 8). I would consider three of these to be most important and will briefly summarize them here.

(1) Criterion of Purpose: The purpose, or rationale, behind a command determines its application. We might say that the purpose of a command is more important than the command itself. For example, when Paul commands believers to greet one another with a kiss, his purpose is not to make sure that there is a lot of kissing in the church. It is to encourage believers to practice family affection. Whatever way a particular culture expresses family affection would be an appropriate fulfillment of this command.

With reference to our present topic, it will be essential to determine the purpose behind biblical commands related to same-sex relationships. Are the purposes for these commands related to sexual purity per se, or to something else, such as exploitation, abuse, inhospitality, ritual impurity, etc.?

(2) Criterion of Cultural Correspondence: The closer the cultural or historical context to our own, the more likely we should apply the command directly.  Many commands in Scripture are related to cultural practices that have direct parallels today. For example, Paul’s command to avoid drunkenness (Eph. 5:18) has direct relevance today. Alcohol abuse causes the same kinds of personal, social and societal problems today that it did in the first century.  Other commands, like head covering on women, may not have the same cultural significance today that they did in the first century world.

One of the major questions of debate around our topic is whether the homosexual acts condemned in the Old Testament and in Paul’s writings are analogous to same-sex relationships being advocated by some Christians today.

(3) Criterion of Canonical Consistency: Ethical imperatives that remain consistent throughout the Bible are more likely to reflect God’s universal purpose and will.  This criterion relates especially to fundamentally moral commands, which relate to more or less absolute standards of right and wrong.  Commands such as those against murder, stealing, lying, cheating, coveting, adultery, exploitation of the poor, and idolatry remain consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments and so are almost certainly God’s will for all time.

Conversely, biblical commands that vary significantly across time and space are not necessarily binding. This criterion can be helpfully applied to various controversial areas that many see as parallel to the same-sex debate, such as the role of women and men and the issue of slavery.  It is certainly true that Scripture allows practices like slavery, polygamy, and the subordination of women when they were part of the social fabric of the biblical world.  I often tell my students that we do not necessarily have an absolute ethic in Scripture on many issues. God is working in and through fallen human cultures and sometimes allows less-than-ideal institutions to govern life in certain cultural situations.

While many passages in the Bible affirm a patriarchal system and call for male leadership and female submission (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), there are many others that affirm the equality of women as divine image bearers (Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28) and depict women in various leadership roles (Miriam [Exod. 15:20]; Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]; Deborah [Judg. 4–5]; Priscilla [Acts 18:26]; Phoebe [Rom. 16:1]; Junia [Rom. 16:7]; Euodia and Syntyche [Phil. 4:2–3]). While all these passages are debated as to their significance, it is hard to argue for complete canonical consistency on this issue.

Similarly, although the Bible allows slavery (or indentured servitude) in various cultural contexts (Lev. 25:44–45; Eph. 6:5–6; Col. 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18), there are many indications that slavery is not God’s ideal for human relationships (Gen. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24; Philem. 15–17). Consider, for example, the Exodus deliverance as the OT paradigm of God’s salvation and the eschatological promise of freedom for those in bondage (Isa. 61:1–2).

By contrast, whenever same-sex sexual acts are mentioned in Scripture, they are consistently and univocally forbidden. There is never a hint that these acts are part of God’s design for human sexuality. God surely knew that this issue would become controversial in the church of the twenty-first century. Yet I have found it impossible to read Scripture in any normal or straightforward manner and reach the conclusion that, contrary to all appearances, God blesses such unions. To be sure, Scripture is not always simple or easy. But what puzzles and confounds me is that, if God in fact intended us to understand Scripture in this way, he could hardly have chosen a more confusing and contradictory way of communicating this.

This argument can be extended throughout church history. For three millennia the people of God have understood Scripture to teach that same-sex sexual activity is outside God’s will for human sexuality. Are we really to believe that even the most Godly and sensitive of believers have for millennia radically misunderstood and misapplied the Spirit’s voice on this issue and are only now coming to the light?  Isn’t it more likely that today—as throughout history—sinful human culture is placing pressure on the people of God to compromise God’s standards of righteousness? There are many Godly believers throughout history who have affirmed the value and dignity of women as divine image bearers and who have viewed slavery as an evil and fallen human institution. Yet there is no such historical precedent for those affirming same-sex unions.

 

Some Key Biblical Texts

Genesis 1-2.  Genesis 2 establishes monogamous heterosexual relationships as the pre-Fall standard for human sexuality. While up to this point in the Genesis narrative all of creation is identified as “good,” here we learn that, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”  So from the man’s own body God creates a “helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18). Eve is brought to Adam and the narrator announces the establishment of the marriage relationship: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). The union is between one man (ʾı̂š) and one woman (ʾiššā).

Advocates of same-sex relationships often claim that this text is not speaking about gender complementarity but about companionship, which can be equally fulfilled in a same-sex relationship. While no doubt companionship is a key component here, in the near context both procreation and gender complementarity are also emphasized. In the first (summary) creation account in Genesis 1, God creates humanity in his own image as male (zāḵār) and female (nᵉqēḇāh) and commands them to procreate: “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it” (1:27–28). God could not have told marriage partners to procreate if he had in mind same-sex partners.

Similarly, gender complementary is emphasized in chapter two.  Eve is created as “a helper suitable for him” (2:18 NIV). The rare Hebrew word kᵉneg̱dô, translated variously as “suitable for him” (NIV), “who is right for him” (God’s Word), “who corresponds to him” (NET), “as his complement” (HCSB), could be more formally rendered as “like opposite him.” In context it clearly carries the sense of both similarity and difference. Eve is like Adam and distinct from the animals because she was created from him. She is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (2:23). Yet she is also different from him and is his perfect complement. He is man (ʾı̂š); she is woman (ʾiššā). He is male (zāḵār); she is female (nᵉqēḇāh). She was created from his side to be at his side as his equal and partner. In the marriage relationship, the two complement each other and together become “one flesh” (2:24). This binary complementarity and suitability is most clearly evident in the sexual union (male and female body parts fit together) but also likely refers to complementary emotional, psychological and social traits.  Though it is true that male and female gender qualities and stereotypes vary somewhat across cultures and between individuals within a particular culture, it is hard to deny that men and women are indeed different—and wonderfully complementary.

As the foundational creation account, these passages establish God’s purpose and parameters for human sexuality. God meets Adam’s need of companionship by creating a woman. The result is a monogamous heterosexual marriage relationship. The foundational and paradigmatic nature of this text suggests that it represents God’s design for human sexuality.  By implication, any form of sexual behavior outside of this relationship—whether premarital, extramarital or homosexual—is beyond the bounds of God’s design. Jesus, of course, cites these passages when discussing the fundamental nature of the marriage relationship (Matt. 19:3-12//Mark 10:2-12).

While indicative of God’s ideal, the Genesis account alone would be insufficient to rule out same-sex sexual acts as sinful. Yet such behavior is explicitly forbidden elsewhere in both the OT and the NT.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The most explicit commands against homosexual behavior in the OT come in the holiness code of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 reads, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV). Leviticus 20:13 identifies the penalty for such actions as death.

Some claim that these commands relate merely to purity issues rather than to overtly sinful behavior. But the imposition of the death penalty shows that this is far more significant than a purity issue. Purity issues are resolved through the passage of time, ritual washing or offering sacrifices, not through capital punishment. The death penalty is reserved for serious violations of God’s character, his created order, and the covenant between Yahweh and his people. Similar punishments apply to sins like adultery, incest, and cursing one’s parents. Our point, of course, is not that Christians should advocate for capital punishment for any of these sins (these are old covenant punishments related to Israel), but only that they are clearly in a different category than purity concerns.

Others argue that these passages concern not sexual relationships per se, but cultic prostitution, thus violating God’s commands to be separate from the nations. But there is nothing in the context to indicate this. The surrounding laws govern sexual matters generally, not cultic prostitution. The language associated with cultic prostitution used elsewhere does not occur here (cf. Deut. 23:17-18).

Further evidence that these Levitical commands are inherently moral comes from two references to homosexual behavior in the letters of Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.  Both are in lists or catalogs of sins common in the pagan world. Some argue that Paul is not here referring to homosexual behavior per se, but rather to pederasty, slave prostitution or other form of exploitation. Yet the primary term Paul uses in both passages (arsenokoitai) is a compound word combining “male” (arsēn) and “bed” (koitē), a euphemism for male with male sexual activity. Since 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the first appearance of arsenokoitēs in Greek literature, it seems likely that Paul coined the term in intentional imitation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the Greek translation (the Septuagint) uses these same two terms. “With a male [arsēn] do not lie on a bed [koitē] as with a woman; for that is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22; authors’ translation; cf. 20:13). If this is the case, Paul takes the general Levitical prohibition and applies it in a new covenant context.

Romans 1:26-27. Romans 1:18-32 is the beginning of Paul’s argument that all human beings are sinful and fallen, deserving God’s condemnation. Although God has revealed himself in creation, human beings have suppressed this knowledge. “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…” (1:25).  As a result “God gave them over to shameful lusts” (1:26a), illustrated with reference to homosexual behavior:

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (1:26b-27 NIV).

Paul here identifies homosexual behavior (females with females; males with males) as “unnatural” (para physin), an example of the distortion that results from humanity’s rejection of God. Paul probably singles out same-sex behavior not because it is unique or a greater sin than others, but because it is perceived by most people (i.e. heterosexuals) as unnatural, contrary to their own sexual desires. Having made this point, Paul subsequently lists many other sins that result from our fallen state, including envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, etc. (1:29-31). 

Some advocates of same-sex relationships claim that Romans 1:26-27 only condemns “perversion” (acting contrary to one’s natural sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual). But this cannot be right.  Paul does not say that “certain men abandoned their natural sexual inclination” but rather that “males” (arsenes) abandoned “the natural use” (tēn physikēn chrēsin) “of the female” (tēs thēleias)” (v. 27). Unnatural is explicitly defined as males with males and females with females—i.e., homosexual activity.

Others argue that Paul is here referring only to oppressive and exploitative behavior, like temple prostitution or pederasty, not faithful, loving homosexual relationships. While these practices were well known in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, the immediate context makes it unlikely that Paul is limiting his discussion to these. First, Paul’s reference to lesbianism would make little sense in these kinds of exploitative and abusive relationships. Second, Paul’s reference to mutual desire (“inflamed with lust for one another”; v. 27) rules out an oppressive or exploitative relationship.  Most importantly, allusions to the creation account throughout this chapter suggest that Paul has Genesis 1–2 in mind. Paul’s distinctive use of thēlys/arsēn (female/male) instead gynē/anēr (woman/man), echoes the language of Gen. 1:27 (LXX) —“male and female he created them”—supporting the view that “natural” here refers to God’s created order of human sexuality as expressed in Genesis 1–2. Same-sex sexual acts are “unnatural”—that is, contrary to God’s created order.

 

Conclusion

I’m afraid that this brief essay has just begun to delve into the complex exegetical and hermeneutical issues surrounding these texts. Yet I also fear that since this round is about “biblical understandings,” my post sounds more like a theology paper than a real conversation.  So in closing let me just affirm my own desire to learn and grow through dialogue on this issue and most of all to exemplify through it the two greatest commandments—to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself.

Mark Strauss