There has been a lot going on in the Northeastern Iowa Synod lately. Most recently a conference of the Synod has passed a resolution which, if accepted by the Synod Assembly, would bar those holding membership in Lutheran CORE from Synod office. Lutherans Concerned/North America has issued a statement opposing the resolution.
Read about it at Pretty Good Lutherans. The links following the story provide valuable background information. Obie Holmen's post on the story includes a poll that you can vote in.
My editorial comment: Well done, LC/NA. You have shown true commitment to your principles.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Would You Lie for God?
The late M
orris J. Niedenthal, professor of homiletics (preaching) at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, used to ask his students, "Would you lie for God?" The question is paraphrased from the Book of Job, but I can never find the exact reference. It is a question to haunt a preacher or anyone who would dare to speak on God's behalf.
The question "Would you lie for God?" is open-ended. It can be understood in many different ways. I think Dr. Niedenthal intended it to be so. Let me explain how I understand what it means to lie for God.
I think that we lie for God when we misrepresent what the Bible says. For example, I would be lying for God if I were to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior. The five biblical passages that speak of homosexual behavior are all negative. This is a fact that every exegete concerned with homosexuality must deal with.
We also lie for God when we misapply the Scriptures. I would be lying for God if I said that those five biblical passages add up to a universal condemnation of homosexuality or gay sex. As I have written in earlier posts, the Old Testament condemns homosexual sex for the men of Israel. The New Testament texts probably condemn pagan temple orgies and pederasty. None of those five passages condemns homosexuality as we now understand it.
Yet another way to lie for God is to deny plain fact in defense of the Bible. I am not churlish enough to suggest that every Young Earth Creationist is a deliberate liar. In fact, I believe most Young Earth Creationists to be quite sincere. They are also mistaken. The physcial evidence indicates that the world is much older than the 6000 years that the biblical texts suggest. So while I do not believe that Young Earth Creationists are lying, I know that I would be lying for God if I were to endorse a literal understanding of the Bible's creation accounts.
By the same token, I would be lying for God if I were to deny what research, science and experience tell us about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a normally occuring subset of human sexuality. The Bible's condemnations of gay sex do not apply in light of our current knowledge.
There are people of good faith who disagree with my stance on homosexuality. I do not believe that they are deliberate liars, but neither will I lie for God by misrepresenting or misapplying Scripture. I will not lie for God by denying plain fact. I do not believe that the God of truth would want me to lie for God.
How about you?
On the news front, the ELCA Conference of Bishops have proposed a process for the seventeen pastors who were ordained by Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries to be rostered in the ELCA. ELM has agreed! Read about it here.
The picture accompanying this post is one of William Blake's illustrations for the Book of Job. I found it here.
orris J. Niedenthal, professor of homiletics (preaching) at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, used to ask his students, "Would you lie for God?" The question is paraphrased from the Book of Job, but I can never find the exact reference. It is a question to haunt a preacher or anyone who would dare to speak on God's behalf.The question "Would you lie for God?" is open-ended. It can be understood in many different ways. I think Dr. Niedenthal intended it to be so. Let me explain how I understand what it means to lie for God.
I think that we lie for God when we misrepresent what the Bible says. For example, I would be lying for God if I were to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior. The five biblical passages that speak of homosexual behavior are all negative. This is a fact that every exegete concerned with homosexuality must deal with.
We also lie for God when we misapply the Scriptures. I would be lying for God if I said that those five biblical passages add up to a universal condemnation of homosexuality or gay sex. As I have written in earlier posts, the Old Testament condemns homosexual sex for the men of Israel. The New Testament texts probably condemn pagan temple orgies and pederasty. None of those five passages condemns homosexuality as we now understand it.
Yet another way to lie for God is to deny plain fact in defense of the Bible. I am not churlish enough to suggest that every Young Earth Creationist is a deliberate liar. In fact, I believe most Young Earth Creationists to be quite sincere. They are also mistaken. The physcial evidence indicates that the world is much older than the 6000 years that the biblical texts suggest. So while I do not believe that Young Earth Creationists are lying, I know that I would be lying for God if I were to endorse a literal understanding of the Bible's creation accounts.
By the same token, I would be lying for God if I were to deny what research, science and experience tell us about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a normally occuring subset of human sexuality. The Bible's condemnations of gay sex do not apply in light of our current knowledge.
There are people of good faith who disagree with my stance on homosexuality. I do not believe that they are deliberate liars, but neither will I lie for God by misrepresenting or misapplying Scripture. I will not lie for God by denying plain fact. I do not believe that the God of truth would want me to lie for God.
How about you?
On the news front, the ELCA Conference of Bishops have proposed a process for the seventeen pastors who were ordained by Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries to be rostered in the ELCA. ELM has agreed! Read about it here.
The picture accompanying this post is one of William Blake's illustrations for the Book of Job. I found it here.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Office of the Keys
A REPLY TO DR. NESTINGEN, PART 2
Do other Christians have a doctrine of the Office of the Keys or is it just a Lutheran thing?
Luther's explanation of the doctrine appears in some editions of his Small Catechism. The 1979 edition published by Augsburg and Fortress (they were separate concerns back then) translated it this way:
Luther cited
John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18 as supporting texts for the Office of the Keys. In Luther's day, this doctrine had a polemical function. It denied that the Pope alone held the keys to the kingdom.
As I understand it, the authority to forgive or retain sins belongs to the Church, but is entrusted by the Church to its pastors. The Office of the Keys is exercised in the declaration of forgiveness in private and corporate acts of Confession.
In my last post I began to address some of the concerns raised by Dr. James Arne Nestingen's article in the latest issue of the WordAlone Network News. Elsewhere in that article, Dr. Nestingen claims that the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly decisions undermine the Office of the Keys. Nestingen writes:
In other words, the Office of the Keys may be exercised in a case where a pastor is counseling a married couple when one spouse has hurt another. If the offender is penitent, they are to be forgiven. If they are not penitent, their sins can be retained. Nestingen continues:
Nestingen's assertion here seems to flow out of his assumption that non-procreative sex acts are intrinsically sinful. He would like to apply the Office of the Keys moralistically by wagging a finger at anyone who engages in gay sex. I have already argued that gay sex is no more intrinsically sinful than straight sex.
The ELCA Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality do not undermine the Office of the Keys. They have not placed "homosexual behavior beyond assessment." They simply require a more discerning assessment than the naive formula "boy/girl = good. Boy/boy or girl/girl = bad." Pastors are free to bind and loose the sins by which same-sex partners damage their relationships to one another or to God, just as they are in cases involving heterosexual couples.
Christianity, especially in its Lutheran expression, is not a religion of Law. The Office of the Keys is not about a moralistic application of "shalts" and "shalt nots" concerning sexual acts. It is about the care of souls in their relationship to God and one another.
Obie Holmen has a good post about Nestingen's article at www.theliberalspirit.com. Concerning the Scriptural basis for the Office of the Keys, I like the way Eugene Peterson deals with John 20:23 in his paraphrastic Bible translation The Message: "If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"
The detail from Perugino's painting of Christ handing the keys of the kingdom to Peter came from this website.
Do other Christians have a doctrine of the Office of the Keys or is it just a Lutheran thing?
Luther's explanation of the doctrine appears in some editions of his Small Catechism. The 1979 edition published by Augsburg and Fortress (they were separate concerns back then) translated it this way:
What is the "Office of the Keys"?
It is that authority which Christ gave to his church to forgive the sins of those who repent and to declare to those who do not repent that their sins are not forgiven.
Luther cited
John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18 as supporting texts for the Office of the Keys. In Luther's day, this doctrine had a polemical function. It denied that the Pope alone held the keys to the kingdom.As I understand it, the authority to forgive or retain sins belongs to the Church, but is entrusted by the Church to its pastors. The Office of the Keys is exercised in the declaration of forgiveness in private and corporate acts of Confession.
In my last post I began to address some of the concerns raised by Dr. James Arne Nestingen's article in the latest issue of the WordAlone Network News. Elsewhere in that article, Dr. Nestingen claims that the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly decisions undermine the Office of the Keys. Nestingen writes:
Married people can and do sin against one another sexually, even while remaining in the bonds of fidelity. For this reason, in the pastoral care of those caught in marital difficulties, pastors must be free to use the power of the keys to bind and loose—to challenge inappropriate behaviors and forgive the penitent.
In other words, the Office of the Keys may be exercised in a case where a pastor is counseling a married couple when one spouse has hurt another. If the offender is penitent, they are to be forgiven. If they are not penitent, their sins can be retained. Nestingen continues:
The churchwide assembly action and the policies following, protecting the class of behaviors, does not make any similar realistic assessment. Instead, by prohibiting judgment, it places homosexual behavior beyond assessment, undercutting the office of the keys. Where there is no sin, there is no need for forgiveness; similarly, where there is no sin, there is no need for repentance.
Nestingen's assertion here seems to flow out of his assumption that non-procreative sex acts are intrinsically sinful. He would like to apply the Office of the Keys moralistically by wagging a finger at anyone who engages in gay sex. I have already argued that gay sex is no more intrinsically sinful than straight sex.
The ELCA Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality do not undermine the Office of the Keys. They have not placed "homosexual behavior beyond assessment." They simply require a more discerning assessment than the naive formula "boy/girl = good. Boy/boy or girl/girl = bad." Pastors are free to bind and loose the sins by which same-sex partners damage their relationships to one another or to God, just as they are in cases involving heterosexual couples.
Christianity, especially in its Lutheran expression, is not a religion of Law. The Office of the Keys is not about a moralistic application of "shalts" and "shalt nots" concerning sexual acts. It is about the care of souls in their relationship to God and one another.
Obie Holmen has a good post about Nestingen's article at www.theliberalspirit.com. Concerning the Scriptural basis for the Office of the Keys, I like the way Eugene Peterson deals with John 20:23 in his paraphrastic Bible translation The Message: "If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"
The detail from Perugino's painting of Christ handing the keys of the kingdom to Peter came from this website.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Ethics of Sex and Sabotage
A REPLY TO DR. NESTINGEN, PART 1
The latest issue of the WordAlone Network News showed up in my mailbox this week. Its centerpiece was a lengthy article titled "The Necessity of Resistance in 2009" by James Arne Nestingen, professor emeritus of church history, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
Dr. Nestingen's arguments are a bit convoluted, but he seems to be counseling his readers to perform a sort of economic sabotage against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Objecting to the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) decisions allowing for the ordination of same-sex partnered clergy, he suggests that withholding benevolence in ways that target "people, programs and ... specific missions" is an appropriate strategy.
In a pull quote from the article Nestingen says, "In fact, the passive-aggressives--those who withhold themselves, backing off from participation--are generally, as pastors commonly know, the most dangerous." Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was once a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) used by mental health professionals. Like homosexuality, it has been dropped in recent editions. Still, I question whether passive-aggression and deliberate sabotage are ever appropriate ways for Christians to express disagreement.
Predictably, Nestingen refers to the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans:
I have addressed Romans 1 in previous posts here, here and here. It seems to me that Dr. Nestingen has reversed the flow of Paul's argument. Paul states quite clearly that idolatry causes homosexuality. Here, Nestingen argues that homosexuality causes idolatry.
He also suggests that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual relations. This is a disservice to heterosexual couples living in childless marriages. Yes, procreation is one function of sex, but sex is also an expression of loving intimacy.
Dr. Nestingen also does a disservice to homosexuals whom he characterizes as "self-seeking." Ethical gay sex, like ethical straight sex, gives consideration to the other partner.
Perhaps Dr. Nestingen does not realize that homosexuality, in the end, is about whom one loves and desires intimacy with. It is not all about sex acts.
There are other flaws in Nestingen's arguments. In my next post, I will take up his discussion of the Office of the Keys.
The latest issue of the WordAlone Network News showed up in my mailbox this week. Its centerpiece was a lengthy article titled "The Necessity of Resistance in 2009" by James Arne Nestingen, professor emeritus of church history, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
Dr. Nestingen's arguments are a bit convoluted, but he seems to be counseling his readers to perform a sort of economic sabotage against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Objecting to the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) decisions allowing for the ordination of same-sex partnered clergy, he suggests that withholding benevolence in ways that target "people, programs and ... specific missions" is an appropriate strategy.
In a pull quote from the article Nestingen says, "In fact, the passive-aggressives--those who withhold themselves, backing off from participation--are generally, as pastors commonly know, the most dangerous." Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was once a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) used by mental health professionals. Like homosexuality, it has been dropped in recent editions. Still, I question whether passive-aggression and deliberate sabotage are ever appropriate ways for Christians to express disagreement.
Predictably, Nestingen refers to the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans:
In Romans 1 Paul moves beyond the sexual hunting to address the grounding offense evident in homosexual behavior. The sexual relationship that embodies the love of husband and wife, and that God generally blesses with children, is taken out of that context and made an end in itself for purposes of self-gratification.
This self-seeking, which can take over hetero- just as well as it does homosexual relationships, involves a covetousness that turns into idolatry.
I have addressed Romans 1 in previous posts here, here and here. It seems to me that Dr. Nestingen has reversed the flow of Paul's argument. Paul states quite clearly that idolatry causes homosexuality. Here, Nestingen argues that homosexuality causes idolatry.
He also suggests that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual relations. This is a disservice to heterosexual couples living in childless marriages. Yes, procreation is one function of sex, but sex is also an expression of loving intimacy.
Dr. Nestingen also does a disservice to homosexuals whom he characterizes as "self-seeking." Ethical gay sex, like ethical straight sex, gives consideration to the other partner.
Perhaps Dr. Nestingen does not realize that homosexuality, in the end, is about whom one loves and desires intimacy with. It is not all about sex acts.
There are other flaws in Nestingen's arguments. In my next post, I will take up his discussion of the Office of the Keys.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Universalist Heresy
THE ELCA IS NO MORE UNIVERSALIST THAN MARTIN LUTHER WAS
One of the criticisms being leveled against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the disaffected and dissidents who are storming the exits is that it has embraced the heresy of universal salvation. “Evidence” for the charge typically cites two sources, a page on the ELCA website dealing with salvation and a footnote on Matthew 28:16-20 in Lutheran Study Bible published by Augsburg Fortress.
An example of the charge can be found here. (Warning: Click that link at your own risk. Viewing the site requires a high tolerance for tiresome alarmism and shoddy theology).
The ELCA web page quotes extensively from Dr. Carl Braaten, who has written very critically of the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly decisions on homosexuality. As I understand Dr. Braaten’s statement, it is a declaration of the universal scope of Christ’s saving act, not an endorsement of a doctrine of universalism. That's a fine distinction. Let me see if I can make it clearer:
You who charge the ELCA with universalism, tell me, did Jesus die for all people or not?
As for the Lutheran Study Bible footnote, it was written by Dr. Duane Priebe of Wartburg Theological Seminary. Dr. Priebe himself gave a lengthy explanation of that footnote on Erik Ullestad’s blog. It is thoughtful and well-worth reading. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
For myself, I have a strong commitment to the theology of God’s grace. I believe that Jesus died for all people. All means all, but there is one thing that keeps me from being a universalist. I believe just as strongly in God's sovereignty. I believe that salvation is God’s business, not mine. God can, and will, save whom God desires. I am no more a universalist than the man who wrote:
I understand that the rhetorical flourish of charging the ELCA with heresy is useful to those who wish to leave the church and take others with them. The charge of universalism, however, is plainly false. It’s time for the disaffected and dissident to adopt a new tactic. Spouting nonsense will not help your cause.
I'm still a big fan of the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible. I still don't like Concordia's similarly named The Lutheran Study Bible. Don't be confused by the two. Look for the baby blue Bible.
One of the criticisms being leveled against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the disaffected and dissidents who are storming the exits is that it has embraced the heresy of universal salvation. “Evidence” for the charge typically cites two sources, a page on the ELCA website dealing with salvation and a footnote on Matthew 28:16-20 in Lutheran Study Bible published by Augsburg Fortress.An example of the charge can be found here. (Warning: Click that link at your own risk. Viewing the site requires a high tolerance for tiresome alarmism and shoddy theology).
The ELCA web page quotes extensively from Dr. Carl Braaten, who has written very critically of the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly decisions on homosexuality. As I understand Dr. Braaten’s statement, it is a declaration of the universal scope of Christ’s saving act, not an endorsement of a doctrine of universalism. That's a fine distinction. Let me see if I can make it clearer:
You who charge the ELCA with universalism, tell me, did Jesus die for all people or not?
As for the Lutheran Study Bible footnote, it was written by Dr. Duane Priebe of Wartburg Theological Seminary. Dr. Priebe himself gave a lengthy explanation of that footnote on Erik Ullestad’s blog. It is thoughtful and well-worth reading. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
Christians have never assumed that only those who know and believe in Jesus in this life will participate in salvation in the next. On the most obvious level, that would exclude everyone in the Old Testament.
For myself, I have a strong commitment to the theology of God’s grace. I believe that Jesus died for all people. All means all, but there is one thing that keeps me from being a universalist. I believe just as strongly in God's sovereignty. I believe that salvation is God’s business, not mine. God can, and will, save whom God desires. I am no more a universalist than the man who wrote:
God forbid that I should limit the time for acquiring faith to the present life. In the depths of the divine mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future state.Martin Luther, Letter to Hansen von Rechenberg, 1523
I understand that the rhetorical flourish of charging the ELCA with heresy is useful to those who wish to leave the church and take others with them. The charge of universalism, however, is plainly false. It’s time for the disaffected and dissident to adopt a new tactic. Spouting nonsense will not help your cause.
I'm still a big fan of the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible. I still don't like Concordia's similarly named The Lutheran Study Bible. Don't be confused by the two. Look for the baby blue Bible.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Keep Talking?
MANIFESTO V. PROPOSAL
I s
tarted this blog to show how one person can consider himself a faithful Lutheran Christian, and one who recognizes the authority of the Bible, and still favor same-sex marriage and ordination of pastors living in committed same-sex relationships. I am not so naive as to think that everyone reading these little essays will magically agree with my point of view. I hope that I have struck a reasonable tone in a debate that so often degenerates into unreason, finger-pointing and even name-calling. I hope that my readers, whether they agree with me or not, are able to understand my position and how I have derived it. I further hope that I have not mischaracterized the positions of anyone who, in good conscience, holds an opposing opinion.
Last October, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong published his Manifesto. It began:
I am also aware that in my beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, there are some who find the idea of Communion with those who would ordain partnered homosexuals intolerable. They are leaving to join the LCMC or NALC. If their consciences are so bound, then they should be allowed to go graciously. There are others who, though they may not agree with the CWA decisions, are willing to stay in conversation. For their sake it is not time to stop talking.
Earlier this month, Mary Hinkle Shore from Luther Seminary, Minneapolis, published a "Proposal for Engagement" on debating sexuality issues. She suggests concrete ways in which people on both sides of "the Gay Divide" can actually hear one another. The essay is worth reading in its entirety. Here are two excerpts:
When I first read Spong's Manifesto, I found myself thinking,"It's not time to end conversation yet." As I read Hinkle Shore's Proposal, I find myself thinking, "I hope it's not too late."
The illustration for this post is part of Storm Thorgerson's album artwork for Pink Floyd's The Division Bell. The felicitious phrase "the Gay Divide" is borrowed from Susan Hogan's website Pretty Good Lutherans.
I s
tarted this blog to show how one person can consider himself a faithful Lutheran Christian, and one who recognizes the authority of the Bible, and still favor same-sex marriage and ordination of pastors living in committed same-sex relationships. I am not so naive as to think that everyone reading these little essays will magically agree with my point of view. I hope that I have struck a reasonable tone in a debate that so often degenerates into unreason, finger-pointing and even name-calling. I hope that my readers, whether they agree with me or not, are able to understand my position and how I have derived it. I further hope that I have not mischaracterized the positions of anyone who, in good conscience, holds an opposing opinion.Last October, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong published his Manifesto. It began:
I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired....So much of Spong's rhetoric resonates within me. A part of me would like to adopt his stance. But I am aware that while many Christians have taken a strong view, pro or con, concerning homosexuality, there remain many in the muddled middle who have not made up their minds. For their sake it is not time to stop talking.
I am also aware that in my beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, there are some who find the idea of Communion with those who would ordain partnered homosexuals intolerable. They are leaving to join the LCMC or NALC. If their consciences are so bound, then they should be allowed to go graciously. There are others who, though they may not agree with the CWA decisions, are willing to stay in conversation. For their sake it is not time to stop talking.
Earlier this month, Mary Hinkle Shore from Luther Seminary, Minneapolis, published a "Proposal for Engagement" on debating sexuality issues. She suggests concrete ways in which people on both sides of "the Gay Divide" can actually hear one another. The essay is worth reading in its entirety. Here are two excerpts:
Within the church--for example, within congregations whose members are deciding to leave or stay in the ELCA, or to give or withhold giving to a synod or churchwide ministry--are people trying to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, their Savior and Lord. If you do not believe that someone is trying to be such a disciple, ask them. Figure out first that you all name the same name. Understand that this person on the other side, whose opinions may puzzle or repel you, is a brother or sister in Christ....
Do you believe that the other people in this conversation (the present conversation, there in your church basement, or the Sunday school classroom, not a "conversation" in the abstract) are Christians? If you do, what implications does this have for how you listen and talk to them? If you do not, what would they need to do to convince you that they are brothers and sisters of yours in Christ? Do others believe you are a Christian? What do they need from you to agree that, in Christ, you are in this together?I have heard that both faculty and students at Luther are polarized over the CWA decisions. It is nice to hear a moderating voice coming from the midst of division.
When I first read Spong's Manifesto, I found myself thinking,"It's not time to end conversation yet." As I read Hinkle Shore's Proposal, I find myself thinking, "I hope it's not too late."
The illustration for this post is part of Storm Thorgerson's album artwork for Pink Floyd's The Division Bell. The felicitious phrase "the Gay Divide" is borrowed from Susan Hogan's website Pretty Good Lutherans.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A New Lutheran Church Body
"LOCAL OPTION" AND THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
The recommendations about sexuality and ministry standards adopted by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly (CWA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America were an attempt at compromise. Realizing that not everyone would accept clergy living in committed same-sex relationships, the Task Force created what has been called a "local option." Congregations that want to call same-sex partnered pastors are free to do so. Those that do not want to be served by such pastors are likewise free not to call them.
The "local option" has really always been in effect in the ELCA. Congregations have always had the right to call any qualified individual to serve as their pastor, or not. The difference is that the definitions of "qualified" individuals has changed to include those living in same-sex relationships.
It was a noble attempt at compromise, but like all compromises it was sure not to please everyone. Some of those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBT individuals in the church at every level have criticized the CWA decisions as creating a second class of pastors. On the other side of the issue are those who find it intolerable to be a part of a church body that would ordain partnered homosexuals.
Lutherans did not invent church-splitting, but we may have perfected it. In the aftermath of the 2009 CWA, some congregations have left the ELCA. Others are still in process of leaving. Some of them have joined Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a group that moved out of the ELCA 11 years ago over the issue of full Communion with the Episcopal Church.
This week Lutheran CORE, a group that has worked within the ELCA to oppose the ordination of partnered homosexuals, announced that it is forming yet another Lutheran church body, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). NALC distinguishes itself from the LCMC by a less congregational polity.
Obie Holmen found this interesting tidbit in NALC's document, "A Vision and Plan for the North American Lutheran Church."
In other words, NALC is proposing a compromise on the issue of women's ordination. It smells a lot like a "local option" to me. Good luck with that.
I had lunch today with a group of my pastoral colleagues. One of them predicted that within a generation NALC and LCMC would stop ordaining women. Personally, I will not prognosticate. I will simply recall what someone said about those who forget the lessons of history.
The recommendations about sexuality and ministry standards adopted by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly (CWA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America were an attempt at compromise. Realizing that not everyone would accept clergy living in committed same-sex relationships, the Task Force created what has been called a "local option." Congregations that want to call same-sex partnered pastors are free to do so. Those that do not want to be served by such pastors are likewise free not to call them.
The "local option" has really always been in effect in the ELCA. Congregations have always had the right to call any qualified individual to serve as their pastor, or not. The difference is that the definitions of "qualified" individuals has changed to include those living in same-sex relationships.
It was a noble attempt at compromise, but like all compromises it was sure not to please everyone. Some of those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBT individuals in the church at every level have criticized the CWA decisions as creating a second class of pastors. On the other side of the issue are those who find it intolerable to be a part of a church body that would ordain partnered homosexuals.
Lutherans did not invent church-splitting, but we may have perfected it. In the aftermath of the 2009 CWA, some congregations have left the ELCA. Others are still in process of leaving. Some of them have joined Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a group that moved out of the ELCA 11 years ago over the issue of full Communion with the Episcopal Church.
This week Lutheran CORE, a group that has worked within the ELCA to oppose the ordination of partnered homosexuals, announced that it is forming yet another Lutheran church body, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). NALC distinguishes itself from the LCMC by a less congregational polity.
Obie Holmen found this interesting tidbit in NALC's document, "A Vision and Plan for the North American Lutheran Church."
The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.
In other words, NALC is proposing a compromise on the issue of women's ordination. It smells a lot like a "local option" to me. Good luck with that.
I had lunch today with a group of my pastoral colleagues. One of them predicted that within a generation NALC and LCMC would stop ordaining women. Personally, I will not prognosticate. I will simply recall what someone said about those who forget the lessons of history.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Gay Sex Is Intrinsically Sinful
NO, REALLY, IT IS.
For the time bei
ng, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) is the second largest Lutheran Church Body in North America. We will see if this remains the case when the various splinters from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are done breaking away. It is fair, in a general way, to say that the LC-MS is more conservative than the ELCA, though I am not sure that the categories of conservative and liberal are the best way to understand our differences.
I am a Lutheran, born, bred, baptized, Sunday-schooled, confirmed, educated and ordained. I expect that I will be buried a Lutheran. Still, I say in all honesty, that if the LC-MS were the only Lutheran Church body, I would have to seek another denomination. If the LC-MS were the only Christian denomination, I would seek another religion. There is no place for me in the LC-MS and I think that most Missouri Synod clergy would agree with me on that.
So, it may surprise readers of this blog to learn that I agree with at least one thing that the LC-MS says about homosexuality. This statement comes from the LC-MS website:
I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "homophile behavior." Same-sex hand holding? Kissing? (These things look different depending on one's cultural context). Feeling aroused looking at a Calvin Klein ad? It really does not matter, though. I appreciate that the LC-MS is careful to distinguish act from orientation. I will take "homophile behavior" to be an inelegant circumlocution for "gay sex."
And I agree with the Missouri Synod that gay sex is intrinsically sinful.
As you probably suspect, that is not the whole story. You see, I also believe that every human sex act is intrinsically sinful. Even sex between husband and wife in the context of a lawfully constituted and church-sanctioned marriage is intrinsically sinful. In fact, every human act is intrinsically sinful.
Human beings are sinners. We live in a state of sin, separated from God. Apart from God we can do nothing good. I would venture to say that there is always a human, selfish, sinful component to sexual expression.
So yes, gay sex is intrinsically sinful, but in that way it is no different than straight sex, or any other human act.
The illustration accompanying this post is a portion of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is Michaelangelo's depiction of Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden. An advance reader of this post asked what it adds to the conversation. I replied, "What I hope to do with this post is advance the understanding of sin as the human condition, and to counter the assertion that gay sex is somehow more sinful than other human sex acts."
For the time bei
ng, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) is the second largest Lutheran Church Body in North America. We will see if this remains the case when the various splinters from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are done breaking away. It is fair, in a general way, to say that the LC-MS is more conservative than the ELCA, though I am not sure that the categories of conservative and liberal are the best way to understand our differences.I am a Lutheran, born, bred, baptized, Sunday-schooled, confirmed, educated and ordained. I expect that I will be buried a Lutheran. Still, I say in all honesty, that if the LC-MS were the only Lutheran Church body, I would have to seek another denomination. If the LC-MS were the only Christian denomination, I would seek another religion. There is no place for me in the LC-MS and I think that most Missouri Synod clergy would agree with me on that.
So, it may surprise readers of this blog to learn that I agree with at least one thing that the LC-MS says about homosexuality. This statement comes from the LC-MS website:
...the [Missouri] Synod recognizes homophile behavior as intrinsically sinful.
I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "homophile behavior." Same-sex hand holding? Kissing? (These things look different depending on one's cultural context). Feeling aroused looking at a Calvin Klein ad? It really does not matter, though. I appreciate that the LC-MS is careful to distinguish act from orientation. I will take "homophile behavior" to be an inelegant circumlocution for "gay sex."
And I agree with the Missouri Synod that gay sex is intrinsically sinful.
As you probably suspect, that is not the whole story. You see, I also believe that every human sex act is intrinsically sinful. Even sex between husband and wife in the context of a lawfully constituted and church-sanctioned marriage is intrinsically sinful. In fact, every human act is intrinsically sinful.
Human beings are sinners. We live in a state of sin, separated from God. Apart from God we can do nothing good. I would venture to say that there is always a human, selfish, sinful component to sexual expression.
So yes, gay sex is intrinsically sinful, but in that way it is no different than straight sex, or any other human act.
The illustration accompanying this post is a portion of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is Michaelangelo's depiction of Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden. An advance reader of this post asked what it adds to the conversation. I replied, "What I hope to do with this post is advance the understanding of sin as the human condition, and to counter the assertion that gay sex is somehow more sinful than other human sex acts."
Friday, February 19, 2010
Further Reading
FOR YOUR EDIFICATION
Susan Hogan has a pretty good website at www.prettygoodlutherans.com. Actually, it is a lot better than pretty good. Yesterday, she posted the news that Lutheran CORE has announced its plan to organize as a new church body. Read about it here, and don't miss the comments.
Susan's story for February 17 made me wish I lived in Iowa.
Speaking of comments, fellow Lutheran pastor and blogger Robert Lee Bennight has a thoughtful post about CORE's repeated assertion "We're not leaving the ELCA. The ELCA has left us."
And in this post at www.theliberalspirit.com, Obie Holmen notes an irony. Dire predictions that ecumenical dialogue would be damaged if the ELCA voted to ordain non-celibate homosexuals have not come true. The Vatican remains in dialog with the ELCA. It is ELCA Lutherans who refuse to talk to one another.
Susan Hogan has a pretty good website at www.prettygoodlutherans.com. Actually, it is a lot better than pretty good. Yesterday, she posted the news that Lutheran CORE has announced its plan to organize as a new church body. Read about it here, and don't miss the comments.
Susan's story for February 17 made me wish I lived in Iowa.
Speaking of comments, fellow Lutheran pastor and blogger Robert Lee Bennight has a thoughtful post about CORE's repeated assertion "We're not leaving the ELCA. The ELCA has left us."
And in this post at www.theliberalspirit.com, Obie Holmen notes an irony. Dire predictions that ecumenical dialogue would be damaged if the ELCA voted to ordain non-celibate homosexuals have not come true. The Vatican remains in dialog with the ELCA. It is ELCA Lutherans who refuse to talk to one another.
I Believe
JUST IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHERE I STAND ON SEXUALITY ISSUES.
I believe that some people have an innate attraction to members of the same sex. This is an oversimplification, of course. Human sexuality is a spectrum that includes heterosexuality, homosexuality,bisexuality and transgenderism. Still, the best research indicates that homosexual orientation is not a disease, a mental disorder or a willful perversion. Homosexuality is a normally occurring subset of human sexuality.
I believe that sexual orientation is morally neutral. Homosexuality is no more "good" or "bad" than heterosexuality. Sexual acts have an ethical character; sexual orientation does not. I believe that sexual acts are unethical when they are abusive, coercive, degrading, demeaning, dishonest, unloving, uncommitted or damaging to the human psyche.
I believe that the Bible's condemnations of homosexual acts do not apply universally. The reasoning behind this belief can be found in some of my earlier posts, for example here, here, here, here, and here.
I believe that the Bible absolutely condemns unethical sexual acts.
I believe that the Bible does not give a single definition of marriage.
I believe that marriage is a positive good for society and that one of its important functions is to provide an ethical outlet for sexual expression. Even within marriage, sexual acts may be unethical if they are coercive, abusive, and so on. But marriage, being a covenant of commitment and mutual fidelity is a step toward ethical sexual practice.
I believe that marriage is essentially a social contract and is rightly regulated by the State. Whether a marriage contract can be entered into by persons of the same sex is a question for the State to decide.
I believe that same-sex marriage is a benefit to society.
I believe that some gay people are gifted for and called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. As I understand Lutheran theology, an individual's sense of call is ratified by the whole church through a process of education and examination, but that individual is not ordained until he or she is called to serve a particular congregation.
I believe ethical sexual practice includes celibacy outside of marriage and chastity within marriage. I believe that celibacy is a gift, and that not everyone, gay or straight, is so gifted. I believe, with the Apostle Paul, that it is "better to marry than to burn" with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9). I believe, with Martin Luther, that requiring celibacy for the clergy violates the freedom of the Gospel.
I believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be held to the same standard.
I believe that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is worthy of the call to ministry. We serve by God's call and by God's grace, not by our own merit.
I believe that some congregations may wish to call a pastor who lives in an ethical, committed same-sex relationship. I believe that they should be free to do so.
I believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality and ministry are right.
I believe that some people have an innate attraction to members of the same sex. This is an oversimplification, of course. Human sexuality is a spectrum that includes heterosexuality, homosexuality,bisexuality and transgenderism. Still, the best research indicates that homosexual orientation is not a disease, a mental disorder or a willful perversion. Homosexuality is a normally occurring subset of human sexuality.
I believe that sexual orientation is morally neutral. Homosexuality is no more "good" or "bad" than heterosexuality. Sexual acts have an ethical character; sexual orientation does not. I believe that sexual acts are unethical when they are abusive, coercive, degrading, demeaning, dishonest, unloving, uncommitted or damaging to the human psyche.
I believe that the Bible's condemnations of homosexual acts do not apply universally. The reasoning behind this belief can be found in some of my earlier posts, for example here, here, here, here, and here.
I believe that the Bible absolutely condemns unethical sexual acts.
I believe that the Bible does not give a single definition of marriage.
I believe that marriage is a positive good for society and that one of its important functions is to provide an ethical outlet for sexual expression. Even within marriage, sexual acts may be unethical if they are coercive, abusive, and so on. But marriage, being a covenant of commitment and mutual fidelity is a step toward ethical sexual practice.
I believe that marriage is essentially a social contract and is rightly regulated by the State. Whether a marriage contract can be entered into by persons of the same sex is a question for the State to decide.
I believe that same-sex marriage is a benefit to society.
I believe that some gay people are gifted for and called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. As I understand Lutheran theology, an individual's sense of call is ratified by the whole church through a process of education and examination, but that individual is not ordained until he or she is called to serve a particular congregation.
I believe ethical sexual practice includes celibacy outside of marriage and chastity within marriage. I believe that celibacy is a gift, and that not everyone, gay or straight, is so gifted. I believe, with the Apostle Paul, that it is "better to marry than to burn" with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9). I believe, with Martin Luther, that requiring celibacy for the clergy violates the freedom of the Gospel.
I believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be held to the same standard.
I believe that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is worthy of the call to ministry. We serve by God's call and by God's grace, not by our own merit.
I believe that some congregations may wish to call a pastor who lives in an ethical, committed same-sex relationship. I believe that they should be free to do so.
I believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality and ministry are right.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Bad Vestments
AND A PINA COLADA, MY FRIEND
If you have given up laughter for Lent, you'll want to avoid the Bad Vestments blog. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that bad taste knows no denominational bounds, you willl find all the confirmation you need there.
Not everyone shares, or even understands my musical taste. The subtitle for this post is a reference to the Steely Dan song, "Bad Sneakers."
If you have given up laughter for Lent, you'll want to avoid the Bad Vestments blog. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that bad taste knows no denominational bounds, you willl find all the confirmation you need there.
Not everyone shares, or even understands my musical taste. The subtitle for this post is a reference to the Steely Dan song, "Bad Sneakers."
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Ethics and Morality
THEY AREN’T THE SAME EITHER
I recently finished reading Scott Gustafson’s latest book, Behind Good and Evil. It is a quick read, but well-reasoned, thoughtful and thought provoking. Gustafson is perhaps too fond of double exclamation marks (!!) but this is a quibble over style in a book that is long on substance.
Gustafson makes a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality draws lines between good and evil, right and wrong, worthy and unworthy. Morality serves the purposes of civilization, and civilization is built upon what Gustafson calls the “dominator model” with its unilateral relationships of power. The character of morality is death-dealing.
Gustafson argues persuasively and at length that Nazi Germany was neither a failure of morality nor a collapse of civilization. Rather the Third Reich, with its strict distinctions of acceptable and unacceptable persons, was hyper-moral. The Nazi bureaucracy, which exterminated unacceptable persons with horrible efficiency, was a sign of civilization.
Ethics, on the other hand, serves what Gustafson calls “partnership ways.” Ethics identifies with the marginalized, not the powerful. Ethics serves culture without civilization. It derives power from community and values humility, compassion and forgiveness. Ethics is life-giving.
According to Gustafson, Jesus was not moral, but he was ethical.
To Gustafson’s insights I would tentatively add a few of my own. It seems to me that morality is always imposed from the outside. Ethics arises from within. Some individuals, feeling themselves or the world around them to be out of control, require an external sense of morality to feel secure. I understand the Gospel to be a message of eternal security that frees us from the need for an imposed morality and opens us to the possibility of ethical living.
Scott Gustafson’s descriptions of ethics and morality should give Christians pause as they consider how to deal with questions of homosexuality, and more importantly, how to deal with homosexual persons.
You might want to check out Scott Gustafson’s website, www.behindgoodandevil.com. He has several resources posted there, including a downloadable essay titled “On Good and Evil”, which is a good introduction to his thinking.
I recently finished reading Scott Gustafson’s latest book, Behind Good and Evil. It is a quick read, but well-reasoned, thoughtful and thought provoking. Gustafson is perhaps too fond of double exclamation marks (!!) but this is a quibble over style in a book that is long on substance.Gustafson makes a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality draws lines between good and evil, right and wrong, worthy and unworthy. Morality serves the purposes of civilization, and civilization is built upon what Gustafson calls the “dominator model” with its unilateral relationships of power. The character of morality is death-dealing.
Gustafson argues persuasively and at length that Nazi Germany was neither a failure of morality nor a collapse of civilization. Rather the Third Reich, with its strict distinctions of acceptable and unacceptable persons, was hyper-moral. The Nazi bureaucracy, which exterminated unacceptable persons with horrible efficiency, was a sign of civilization.
Ethics, on the other hand, serves what Gustafson calls “partnership ways.” Ethics identifies with the marginalized, not the powerful. Ethics serves culture without civilization. It derives power from community and values humility, compassion and forgiveness. Ethics is life-giving.
According to Gustafson, Jesus was not moral, but he was ethical.
To Gustafson’s insights I would tentatively add a few of my own. It seems to me that morality is always imposed from the outside. Ethics arises from within. Some individuals, feeling themselves or the world around them to be out of control, require an external sense of morality to feel secure. I understand the Gospel to be a message of eternal security that frees us from the need for an imposed morality and opens us to the possibility of ethical living.
Scott Gustafson’s descriptions of ethics and morality should give Christians pause as they consider how to deal with questions of homosexuality, and more importantly, how to deal with homosexual persons.
You might want to check out Scott Gustafson’s website, www.behindgoodandevil.com. He has several resources posted there, including a downloadable essay titled “On Good and Evil”, which is a good introduction to his thinking.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Guilt And Shame
THEY’RE NOT THE SAME
Tigers do not just have stripy fur. They have stripy skin. If you were to shave a tiger bald, it would still have stripes.
Not that I recommend trying to shave a tiger.
Guilt is a sense of remorse over something one has done wrong. Guilt can be a positive thing. Guilt can lead a person to make amends for the wrong done and to seek ways to avoid future wrongdoing. Guilt can lead to repentance.
Shame is a sense of remorse over something one is. I cannot think of any situation in which shame is positive, useful or helpful. Shame, unless it is overcome, leads to despair.
Lutherans, by the way, are pretty good at shame. We have inherited from Martin Luther a deeply pessimistic view of human nature. Luther taught that we are sinners through-and-through, unable to do any good apart from God. Luther also taught that God has provided the cure for our sinfulness in the cross of Jesus Christ. So, while we are good at shame, we also proclaim that God removes our shame. We need not despair.
Sexuality lies close to the core of our being. Our sexual orientation is a state of being. We may repent of sexual acts, but we cannot repent of sexual nature. Too often persons of homosexual orientation have been made to feel shame for what they are. If the statistics are to be believed, homosexuality is a significant risk factor for adolescent suicide. Shame leads to despair.
The best research and science tell us that our sexual orientation is innate in us. So-called “reparative therapies” which attempt to change homosexual orientation do not work and can be harmful. “Reparative therapy” is like trying to shave the stripes off of a tiger.
Christians, it is time that we stopped inflicting shame on persons of homosexual orientation.
Just for fun, can you find "the hidden tiger" in the illustration that accompanies this post? I found the picture, and you can find the answer, at this website.
Tigers do not just have stripy fur. They have stripy skin. If you were to shave a tiger bald, it would still have stripes.Not that I recommend trying to shave a tiger.
Guilt is a sense of remorse over something one has done wrong. Guilt can be a positive thing. Guilt can lead a person to make amends for the wrong done and to seek ways to avoid future wrongdoing. Guilt can lead to repentance.
Shame is a sense of remorse over something one is. I cannot think of any situation in which shame is positive, useful or helpful. Shame, unless it is overcome, leads to despair.
Lutherans, by the way, are pretty good at shame. We have inherited from Martin Luther a deeply pessimistic view of human nature. Luther taught that we are sinners through-and-through, unable to do any good apart from God. Luther also taught that God has provided the cure for our sinfulness in the cross of Jesus Christ. So, while we are good at shame, we also proclaim that God removes our shame. We need not despair.
Sexuality lies close to the core of our being. Our sexual orientation is a state of being. We may repent of sexual acts, but we cannot repent of sexual nature. Too often persons of homosexual orientation have been made to feel shame for what they are. If the statistics are to be believed, homosexuality is a significant risk factor for adolescent suicide. Shame leads to despair.
The best research and science tell us that our sexual orientation is innate in us. So-called “reparative therapies” which attempt to change homosexual orientation do not work and can be harmful. “Reparative therapy” is like trying to shave the stripes off of a tiger.
Christians, it is time that we stopped inflicting shame on persons of homosexual orientation.
Just for fun, can you find "the hidden tiger" in the illustration that accompanies this post? I found the picture, and you can find the answer, at this website.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Affirming Committed Same Sex Relationships Does Not Contradict The Authority Of Scripture
REALLY.
Rev. Dr. Brian Peterson, Professor of New Testament at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, has written a clear, succinct six page paper in which he explains how the ELCA can respect the authority of Scripture without condemning committed, faithful homosexual relationships. A sample:
Read the entire paper here. It is worth it.
I found Dr. Peterson's paper through Obie Holman's blog. He found the link through Ted Sitz's blog.
Rev. Dr. Brian Peterson, Professor of New Testament at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, has written a clear, succinct six page paper in which he explains how the ELCA can respect the authority of Scripture without condemning committed, faithful homosexual relationships. A sample:
In Romans 1, Paul similarly uses assumptions from first century culture, medicine, and science, particularly an assumption that same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passions. We should hear in this text the claim that life lived apart from God leads to disordered relationships. We should hear in this text that sexual addictions, which our culture seems so good at promoting and which consume so many lives, are in fact contrary to God’s will. We should hear in this text a clear word against any society obsessed with how sexually active people are and which abandons fidelity in relationships for the sake of sexual self-gratification. However, the text does not require us to affirm the 1st century cultural assumption that all same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passion or to conclude that those same-gender couples in our congregations must be secret idolaters, any more than Joshua requires us to affirm that the sun goes around the earth. This stance is not an abandoning of the authority of Scripture over the church, but in fact results from taking the text and its authority seriously enough to read carefully and to notice the point that Paul was actually making.
Read the entire paper here. It is worth it.
I found Dr. Peterson's paper through Obie Holman's blog. He found the link through Ted Sitz's blog.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Slide Slide Slippity Slide
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE REVISTED
I do not usually put much stock in slippery slope arguments. The idea that allowing A will lead inevitably downward to B is a logical fallacy. Also, it is my observation that slippery slope arguments are generally based in fear, or intended to create fear.
Navigating around the ’net recently, I paddled into a backwater of American Protestantism with which I had only passing familiarity. There I found a strange, but classic, use of the slippery slope argument.
Douglas Wilson apparently has some Evangelical cred. He is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and a founder of New Saint Andrews College. He debated militant atheist Christopher Hitchens in the pages of Christianity Today magazine, in a book and in person for the movie cameras. So far, so good.
I was surprised, though, when I learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers Wilson something of a hate-monger. The reason? Wilson, who describes himself as a “paleo-Confederate,” has written defending, on biblical grounds, the institution of slavery as practiced in the American South.
While the Bible is, at least in some of its parts, pro-slavery, I found myself wondering why anyone would write in defense of Southern slavery on any grounds. Then I found this statement on the Wikipedia page about Wilson:
Wow. Just wow.
Do away with a biblical defense of slavery and it will lead to the approval of homosexuality. That actually sounds like progress to me.
Maybe we are on a slippery slope, but rather than sliding inevitably downhill we are actually scrambling slowly and with difficulty uphill toward full inclusion and civil rights for all people.
The title for this post was taken from the chorus of Coolio’s recording “Fantastic Voyage.” Though I am no fan of gangsta rap with its profanity and violent imagery, I have to admit that the “slide slide slippity slide” refrain is catchy. The Slippery Slope image was borrowed from this website.
I do not usually put much stock in slippery slope arguments. The idea that allowing A will lead inevitably downward to B is a logical fallacy. Also, it is my observation that slippery slope arguments are generally based in fear, or intended to create fear.Navigating around the ’net recently, I paddled into a backwater of American Protestantism with which I had only passing familiarity. There I found a strange, but classic, use of the slippery slope argument.
Douglas Wilson apparently has some Evangelical cred. He is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and a founder of New Saint Andrews College. He debated militant atheist Christopher Hitchens in the pages of Christianity Today magazine, in a book and in person for the movie cameras. So far, so good.
I was surprised, though, when I learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers Wilson something of a hate-monger. The reason? Wilson, who describes himself as a “paleo-Confederate,” has written defending, on biblical grounds, the institution of slavery as practiced in the American South.
While the Bible is, at least in some of its parts, pro-slavery, I found myself wondering why anyone would write in defense of Southern slavery on any grounds. Then I found this statement on the Wikipedia page about Wilson:
He has said that he intended to defend the once traditional biblical approval of slavery since, in his view, disregarding that tradition will lead to disregarding biblical sanction against homosexuality as well.
Wow. Just wow.
Do away with a biblical defense of slavery and it will lead to the approval of homosexuality. That actually sounds like progress to me.
Maybe we are on a slippery slope, but rather than sliding inevitably downhill we are actually scrambling slowly and with difficulty uphill toward full inclusion and civil rights for all people.
The title for this post was taken from the chorus of Coolio’s recording “Fantastic Voyage.” Though I am no fan of gangsta rap with its profanity and violent imagery, I have to admit that the “slide slide slippity slide” refrain is catchy. The Slippery Slope image was borrowed from this website.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Dear Anonymous
A BELATED REPLY TO MY FIRST NEGATIVE COMMENTER
When I started this blog I decided that I would post any and all comments, whether they sided with me or not, as long as they were stated respectfully. Personal attacks, bad language or name-calling are not allowed, but pretty much anything else goes. I also decided that I would not reply to every comment that I received. I did not want to get caught up in a back-and-forth of endless argumentation that would consume my time and energy and deflect the planned trajectory of this blog. So when this post received my first negative comment, I posted it, but said nothing in reply. I would like to revisit it now. It may be a bit after the fact, but my anonymous commenter made some points that I feel I should have addressed. Let me quote the comment in full:
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for your comment. It is nice to know that someone is reading my work.
I think that you invoke a variation on the Slippery Slope argument. If we allow for gay marriage or homosexual clergy, what is to prevent us from approving of incest? (Some of the more histrionic versions of this argument suggest that the Churchwide Assembly Decisions will open the floodgates to pedophilia and bestiality). There is no reason to think that allowing for consensual same-sex relations will lead to any of these things.
I have actually encountered arguments favoring ethical, consensual incest. I disagree with them for three reasons. First, is the genetic danger of inbreeding. Second, and more important, is my experience working as chaplain to a home for troubled children. Many of the young people I met there had been sexually abused by members of their own families. While ethical, consensual incestuous relationships may exist in theory, in the real world I have only encountered examples of abusive, coercive incest. Third, an important function of marriage is establishing a legal family relationship for the purposes of inheritance, property rights, etc. In the case of blood relations, this already exists.
As for the “numerous examples” of God’s judgment on homosexual behavior in Scripture, there are, in fact, five passages that deal with the subject. I have treated all of them in various posts.
Finally, as regards the ELCA’s “politically-correct” interpretation of Scripture, I would point out that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Even the most abject literalism is a form of interpretation. What you call “the Scriptures themselves” is, in fact, your interpretation of the Scriptures. As I have tried to establish by blogging here, the ELCA reads Scripture according to sound Lutheran principles. Understanding the Bible as not only God’s word, but also the product of a particular culture and time, we are not bound to perpetuate homophobic interpretations today. Sometimes, dear Anonymous, political correctness is political, but sometimes it is correct.
God bless you,
Brant
When I started this blog I decided that I would post any and all comments, whether they sided with me or not, as long as they were stated respectfully. Personal attacks, bad language or name-calling are not allowed, but pretty much anything else goes. I also decided that I would not reply to every comment that I received. I did not want to get caught up in a back-and-forth of endless argumentation that would consume my time and energy and deflect the planned trajectory of this blog. So when this post received my first negative comment, I posted it, but said nothing in reply. I would like to revisit it now. It may be a bit after the fact, but my anonymous commenter made some points that I feel I should have addressed. Let me quote the comment in full:
Anonymous said...
Yet, in our current society there is a "cultural conditioning" to view incest as unacceptable. Should we learn to understand this differently as well?Concerning judging, there are numerous examples throughout Scripture showing God's clear judgment against homosexual *behavior* (while still loving of those with same-sex attraction difficulties). The ELCA, however, views its own politically-correct interpretations of Scripture as higher authority than the Scriptures themselves-and therein lies the problem.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for your comment. It is nice to know that someone is reading my work.
I think that you invoke a variation on the Slippery Slope argument. If we allow for gay marriage or homosexual clergy, what is to prevent us from approving of incest? (Some of the more histrionic versions of this argument suggest that the Churchwide Assembly Decisions will open the floodgates to pedophilia and bestiality). There is no reason to think that allowing for consensual same-sex relations will lead to any of these things.
I have actually encountered arguments favoring ethical, consensual incest. I disagree with them for three reasons. First, is the genetic danger of inbreeding. Second, and more important, is my experience working as chaplain to a home for troubled children. Many of the young people I met there had been sexually abused by members of their own families. While ethical, consensual incestuous relationships may exist in theory, in the real world I have only encountered examples of abusive, coercive incest. Third, an important function of marriage is establishing a legal family relationship for the purposes of inheritance, property rights, etc. In the case of blood relations, this already exists.
As for the “numerous examples” of God’s judgment on homosexual behavior in Scripture, there are, in fact, five passages that deal with the subject. I have treated all of them in various posts.
Finally, as regards the ELCA’s “politically-correct” interpretation of Scripture, I would point out that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Even the most abject literalism is a form of interpretation. What you call “the Scriptures themselves” is, in fact, your interpretation of the Scriptures. As I have tried to establish by blogging here, the ELCA reads Scripture according to sound Lutheran principles. Understanding the Bible as not only God’s word, but also the product of a particular culture and time, we are not bound to perpetuate homophobic interpretations today. Sometimes, dear Anonymous, political correctness is political, but sometimes it is correct.
God bless you,
Brant
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Garrison Keillor Says That We Are A Quiet People
QUIESCENCE (n.): INACTIVITY, STILLNESS, QUIETUDE, A MOTIONLESS STATE
It is not easy to be a Lutheran. For one thing, Garrison Keillor makes fun of us all the time. For another Lutherans stand slightly outside the mainstream of American Christianity, which is tinged with Calvinism and Evangelicalism. Most importantly, it is not easy to be Lutheran because the doctrine of justification by grace is absolutely central to Lutheranism and this doctrine brings dangers with it.In a recent post, I wrote about the temptation to works righteousness that confronts Lutherans. It is much easier to proclaim the sort of legalism that makes justification a matter of our own doing than to maintain a strict doctrine of justification by grace. Nevertheless Lutheran theology recognizes both human sinfulness and God’s sovereignty in such a way that we reject all forms of works righteousness. God alone can save us.
There are two other dangers that come from believing that we are justified by grace alone. The first, and it is common among Lutherans, is quiescence. If we can do nothing to save ourselves, then it is tempting just to do nothing. Our motivation for missions and good works has to be found in gratitude not guilt. We share our goods and God’s good news not from a sense of obligation, nor out of a desire to win God’s approval, nor to justify ourselves, but only out of thankfulness to God for the gift of grace.
The next danger facing Lutherans is antinomianism. From the Greek anti (“against”) and nomos (“law”), antinomianism is the idea that, if we can do nothing to justify ourselves, then we can do whatever we please without regard for the law. I suspect that historically Lutherans have been accused of antinomianism more than they have engaged in it. From Martin Luther on, Lutherans have held the law in high regard and recognized its proper uses.
First, the Law gives order to our life in community. Second, the Law convicts us of our sinful nature and drives us to seek God’s grace. There is a third use of the Law mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions. For those who believe, the Law provides a guideline for a life of sanctification. Since the Law’s demands are always beyond human ability, I observe that this third use of the Law shades into the second, and drives us to seek God’s grace again and again.
What the Law does not do is save us.
As one who advocates for same-sex unions and for full inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the Church, I am sensitive to the charge of antinomianism. While I do not believe that the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior still apply in the light of our contemporary understanding, it does not mean that I reject the Law. Far from it. I advocate for homosexuals to be upright and responsible in their relationships by the same standard applied to heterosexuals.
The illustration for this post is the cover of Garrison Keillor's book Life Among the Lutherans.
Worth Reading
Back on January 28, Obie Holmen blogged on the question "Is Lutheran CORE Fundamentalist?" He does a nice job of refuting CORE's attitude toward the Bible. Click here to read about it.
Hesitant? Here is a teaser:
Hesitant? Here is a teaser:
There are smart and educated persons in CORE, and they ought to know better than to spout such unscholarly and fossilized views of the canon coupled with accusations that the rest of us are unbiblical. It is not that we don’t take the Bible seriously, as CORE alleges, it is that we take it too seriously to avoid challenging questions informed by reason, experience, and the lessons of scholarship, both traditional and modern.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
A Subtle Form of Works Righteousness
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NRSV)
The doctrine of justification by grace through faith apart from works of the law is absolutely central to Lutheran theology. We cannot make ourselves right with God. Only God can save us. Lutheranism stands or falls on the truth of this doctrine.Lutheran pastors, preachers and theologians must guard this doctrine closely because it is not easy to maintain. Children of Adam and Eve that we are, we like to imagine ourselves in control. We desire to be like God (Genesis 3:5).We like to think that we can justify ourselves.
Works righteousness is the false idea that we can save ourselves by our own good deeds. Works righteousness is appealing to us. We like to think that we can do the right things, say the right prayers, perform the right rituals, and God will reckon it to us as righteousness.
I have even heard subtle forms of works righteousness proclaimed from Lutheran pulpits. Anytime the Law and Gospel are confused, anytime a preacher tells us what we "must" or "ought" or "should" do to please God, it is probably works righteousness being proclaimed.
Sometimes I hear it said that one cannot be a “gay Christian” as if, somehow, a sexual orientation is the opposite of a religious faith. There is an apples and oranges logical fallacy at work here. One cannot be a gay heterosexual. One cannot be a Christian Muslim. But there is no contradiction in being both gay and Christian.
I recently listened to a sermon in which I heard the preacher say that God will heal Christians of homosexuality. The problem with this idea is that homosexuality is not a disease. Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation. It is not something to be healed of. Besides, from what I have read, neither conversion to Christianity nor long-term “reparative therapy” is effective in straightening gays.
Again, sometimes I hear it said that one can be gay and Christian but, because homosexual acts are “inherently sinful,” a gay Christian must refrain from having sex. Homosexual Christians must remain celibate. Do you see the subtle works righteousness in this notion? It is as if refraining from gay sex makes a homosexual right with God.
That is not good theology. At least it is not good Lutheran theology.
The picture of Martin Luther’s seal in stained glass was taken from the website of Oakbrook Esser Studios.
Monday, February 1, 2010
With Apologies...
...TO ALL OF MY FRIENDS CALLED STEVE, BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY.
I have been looking at the second chapter of Genesis, which I maintain is not a historical account, but a description, in story form, of the human condition. Adam and Eve are us.
When God makes Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam, delighted, exclaims:
“This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh….” (Genesis 2:23)
Then the narrator comments, “For this reason, a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
This describes what is, for the vast majority of humans, their experience of being attracted to the opposite sex. Please note, however, that this is a description and not a prescription.
Sometimes this passage is taken as a mandate for heterosexual marriage, or a sanction against homosexual attraction. A bumper sticker slogan says, “It’s Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.”
Yes, God made Adam and Eve (us) and most Adams are attracted to Eves. We can all agree that this is a good thing. If men and women were not attracted to one another, none of us would be here. Even Big Gay Steve can get on board with that idea.
But, here is the thing: God made Steve too. God made some Adams to be attracted to other Adams. Genesis 2 describes a norm, but does not prescribe that norm.
God, according to Genesis 2:18, made Eve because it was “not good for the man to be alone.” Human beings are made to live in intimate and caring partnership with one another. Most of us desire partnership between an Adam and an Eve. Some of us, however, desire partnership between an Adam and a Steve.
It is not good for Steve to be alone, either.
The Scripture quotes, as usual, are from the New Revised Standard Version. The illustration is my own mash-up of the elder Cranach's Adam and Albrecht Durer’s Adam. "Big Gay Steve" is a reference to the character Big Gay Al on South Park. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched South Park, but I assure you that I did not laugh.
Much.
I have been looking at the second chapter of Genesis, which I maintain is not a historical account, but a description, in story form, of the human condition. Adam and Eve are us.When God makes Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam, delighted, exclaims:
“This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh….” (Genesis 2:23)
Then the narrator comments, “For this reason, a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
This describes what is, for the vast majority of humans, their experience of being attracted to the opposite sex. Please note, however, that this is a description and not a prescription.
Sometimes this passage is taken as a mandate for heterosexual marriage, or a sanction against homosexual attraction. A bumper sticker slogan says, “It’s Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.”
Yes, God made Adam and Eve (us) and most Adams are attracted to Eves. We can all agree that this is a good thing. If men and women were not attracted to one another, none of us would be here. Even Big Gay Steve can get on board with that idea.
But, here is the thing: God made Steve too. God made some Adams to be attracted to other Adams. Genesis 2 describes a norm, but does not prescribe that norm.
God, according to Genesis 2:18, made Eve because it was “not good for the man to be alone.” Human beings are made to live in intimate and caring partnership with one another. Most of us desire partnership between an Adam and an Eve. Some of us, however, desire partnership between an Adam and a Steve.
It is not good for Steve to be alone, either.
The Scripture quotes, as usual, are from the New Revised Standard Version. The illustration is my own mash-up of the elder Cranach's Adam and Albrecht Durer’s Adam. "Big Gay Steve" is a reference to the character Big Gay Al on South Park. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched South Park, but I assure you that I did not laugh.
Much.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Truth about Adam and Eve
The story of Adam and Eve is found in Genesis chapter 2 and following. In my last post, I wrote that I do not believe this story to be a factual account of human origins. Nevertheless, I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be profoundly true. I also said that Adam and Eve represent all of humanity.In short, the story goes like this: God made a human being (“adam” in Hebrew means “human” or “humankind”) from the dust of the ground and placed him in a paradisiacal garden called Eden. There was only one rule in Eden: Do not eat from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” God, noting that it was not good for the human being to be alone, made all of the creatures of earth and sky. God brought them to Adam, who gave names to each one. None of them, however, was a fit companion for the human being. So, God caused Adam to sleep, and taking one of his bones, possibly a rib, fashioned a woman from it. Upon awakening, a delighted Adam called her “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” The author inserts a note that “for this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Adam also called his new partner “woman,” and later named her “Eve” (Hebrew for “life-giver”). They lived, for a while, naked and innocent in Eden.
A talking snake entered the scene and, promising Eve that she would not die but rather become “like God,” convinced her to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. She and Adam ate and realized that they were naked. They covered themselves with fig leaves and tried to hide from God. When God, rather anthropomorphically, took a stroll in the garden, he found and confronted the human pair. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. All three of them were cursed. They were thrown out of Eden, and ever since people have toiled to grow crops, women have given birth in pain, and snakes have crawled on their bellies.
Though this ancient story of Adam and Eve is couched in the male-dominant terms of the patriarchal culture in which it originated, it still has a powerful descriptive function. It tells us what our life as humans is like. We are creatures, made by God, and akin to the earth. We long for companionship. It is not good for us to be alone. We are subject to sexual desire, and to mortality.
We are made to live in right relationship to God, nature and one another but our relationships are broken. We live in a state of alienation. We still wish to be our own gods. We desire dominance over one another. We toil for our existence. We long for an ideal existence that we can imagine but cannot obtain.
These few conclusions do not begin to exhaust the truths about human existence expressed in the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are us.
Next: Genesis 2 and marriage.
This post’s image of Adam and Eve was painted by Lucas Cranach the Younger. I found it here. For a scholarly take on Adam’s “rib” bone couched in sophomoric humor, read chapter one of The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book, by John Kaltner, Steven Mckenzie and Joel Kilpatrick, HarperOne, 2008. If you don’t find low humor amusing, skip it. What can I say? I tickled me.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Are You Calling God a Liar?
NO. ARE YOU?
The second chapter of Genesis tells the story of Adam and Eve. Let me be clear from the start. I do not believe that Genesis 2 is a factual account of human origins. You may disagree. Many Christians do. But, please bear with me while I present my evidence.
First, there is the internal evidence. The Book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation. The first is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. It includes the beautiful, poetic account of the seven days of creation. The second account begins at Genesis 2:4b and tells the story of Adam and Eve. The two accounts disagree in many details. For example, in the first account, birds are created before human beings (Gen. 1:20-23). In the second account, humans come before birds (Gen. 2:18-20). In the first account, plants are created before humans (Gen. 1:11-12). In the second, humans are made before plants (Gen. 2:4b-9). In the first account, man and woman are created simultaneously (Gen. 1:26 ff.). In the second account, the man is created first, and the woman is made from his rib (Gen. 2:21 ff).
Apologists try to reconcile these two creation stories. As with the story Judas’ death, their attempts only work if one ignores the plain meaning of the text. The very fact that anyone tries to reconcile the two accounts indicates the problem. As I see it, the two accounts were not meant to be reconciled.
Even the names “Adam” and “Eve” suggest that Genesis 2 was not meant to be a factual record of human origins. The Hebrew word “adam” means “humankind.” “Eve” means “life bearer” according to a footnote at Genesis 3:20 in the HarperCollins Study Bible. I take these names to indicate that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Rather, they are symbolic representations of all humanity
Then there is the external evidence. The biblical accounts of creation indicate that the earth would be about 6,000 years old. Some young earth creationists will stretch that to 10,000 years. On the other hand geologists and physicists who examine the physical record tell us that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Again, a literal reading of Genesis suggests that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago but the fossil record indicates that modern humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago.
And again, Genesis tells us that human beings were created in their present state. The best science tells us that human beings evolved from earlier life forms. Although some Christians reject the evidence, evolutionary theory explains physical reality better than the biblical accounts do.
The question of human origins is another case where the General Revelation contradicts the Special Revelation. If science is right in this case, then Genesis 2 is not factual.
At this point, I expect an inerrantist to exclaim, “Wait a minute. The Bible is the word of God. Are you calling God a liar?” To which I reply, “No. Are you?” After all the hand of the Creator is revealed in the creation. If Genesis 2 is a literal, historical account, then God must have falsified the physical record.
More importantly, although I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve to be factual, I absolutely believe that it is true.
I’ll take this up again in my next post.
Two recommended books for those who are interested in reconciling Christian belief with evolutionary science: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, 2006, and Can You Believe in God and Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed, Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Abingdon Press, 2008. The HarperCollins Study Bible (Wayne A. Meeks, general editor) was published by HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. The painting of Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder was found at www.libart.com.
The second chapter of Genesis tells the story of Adam and Eve. Let me be clear from the start. I do not believe that Genesis 2 is a factual account of human origins. You may disagree. Many Christians do. But, please bear with me while I present my evidence.First, there is the internal evidence. The Book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation. The first is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. It includes the beautiful, poetic account of the seven days of creation. The second account begins at Genesis 2:4b and tells the story of Adam and Eve. The two accounts disagree in many details. For example, in the first account, birds are created before human beings (Gen. 1:20-23). In the second account, humans come before birds (Gen. 2:18-20). In the first account, plants are created before humans (Gen. 1:11-12). In the second, humans are made before plants (Gen. 2:4b-9). In the first account, man and woman are created simultaneously (Gen. 1:26 ff.). In the second account, the man is created first, and the woman is made from his rib (Gen. 2:21 ff).
Apologists try to reconcile these two creation stories. As with the story Judas’ death, their attempts only work if one ignores the plain meaning of the text. The very fact that anyone tries to reconcile the two accounts indicates the problem. As I see it, the two accounts were not meant to be reconciled.
Even the names “Adam” and “Eve” suggest that Genesis 2 was not meant to be a factual record of human origins. The Hebrew word “adam” means “humankind.” “Eve” means “life bearer” according to a footnote at Genesis 3:20 in the HarperCollins Study Bible. I take these names to indicate that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Rather, they are symbolic representations of all humanity
Then there is the external evidence. The biblical accounts of creation indicate that the earth would be about 6,000 years old. Some young earth creationists will stretch that to 10,000 years. On the other hand geologists and physicists who examine the physical record tell us that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Again, a literal reading of Genesis suggests that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago but the fossil record indicates that modern humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago.
And again, Genesis tells us that human beings were created in their present state. The best science tells us that human beings evolved from earlier life forms. Although some Christians reject the evidence, evolutionary theory explains physical reality better than the biblical accounts do.
The question of human origins is another case where the General Revelation contradicts the Special Revelation. If science is right in this case, then Genesis 2 is not factual.
At this point, I expect an inerrantist to exclaim, “Wait a minute. The Bible is the word of God. Are you calling God a liar?” To which I reply, “No. Are you?” After all the hand of the Creator is revealed in the creation. If Genesis 2 is a literal, historical account, then God must have falsified the physical record.
More importantly, although I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve to be factual, I absolutely believe that it is true.
I’ll take this up again in my next post.
Two recommended books for those who are interested in reconciling Christian belief with evolutionary science: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, 2006, and Can You Believe in God and Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed, Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Abingdon Press, 2008. The HarperCollins Study Bible (Wayne A. Meeks, general editor) was published by HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. The painting of Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder was found at www.libart.com.
Friday, January 22, 2010
All Slogans are Lies!
THAT’S MY MOTTO
If it can be printed on a bumper sticker, it is not the whole truth. Bumper sticker slogans may be clever. They may express a bald opinion, but they do not, and cannot, communicate subtle and nuanced thought. They do not reflect the reason, if any, behind the opinion.
The bumper sticker pictured above was distributed free-of-charge by Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. According to its conservative algebra “Marriage equals one man plus one woman.” I frequently hear this norm attributed to the Bible.
I counter with a bit of doggerel verse I memorized long ago.
The simple truth is that the Bible does not define marriage. There is no verse in Scripture that says “Marriage equals one man plus one woman” or something to that effect. In fact, the Bible describes several kinds of marriage and does so without judgment. Certainly the norm of one man and one woman is most common in the Bible, as I believe it has been in every time, place and culture, but polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage are also found in the Bible.
What-irate marriage?
Levirate marriage was the practice of a man marrying his brother’s childless widow in order to raise children for his dead brother. This kept the deceased’s name alive and his inheritance intact. It also provided a measure of security for the widow in a society that treated women as chattel property. The word “levirate” derives from the Latin word “levir" meaning “brother-in-law.” The practice of levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and features in the stories of Ruth, Tamar (Genesis 38) and Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:38 ff and parallels.
Jacob, who became Israel, and whose children gave their names to the twelve tribes of Israel, was a polygamist. His children were born to his two wives and their two handmaids. See Genesis, chapters 29 and 30.
As for Israel’s two greatest kings, David had multiple wives and concubines, but Solomon takes the prize with “seven hundred wives…and three hundred concubines” who led him into idolatrous worship (1 Kings 11:3ff.). If that seems a bit excessive, it may account for the command, no doubt written after the fact and postdated, found in Deuteronomy 17:17
To sum up, the Bible does not mandate that marriage equals one man and one woman. The Scriptures recognize several forms of marriage, including polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage.
Next: a look at Genesis 2
If it can be printed on a bumper sticker, it is not the whole truth. Bumper sticker slogans may be clever. They may express a bald opinion, but they do not, and cannot, communicate subtle and nuanced thought. They do not reflect the reason, if any, behind the opinion.The bumper sticker pictured above was distributed free-of-charge by Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. According to its conservative algebra “Marriage equals one man plus one woman.” I frequently hear this norm attributed to the Bible.
I counter with a bit of doggerel verse I memorized long ago.
King David and King Solomon led merry, merry lives
With many, many lady friends and many, many wives
But when old age crept over them with many, many qualms
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms.–James Ball Naylor, 1935.
The simple truth is that the Bible does not define marriage. There is no verse in Scripture that says “Marriage equals one man plus one woman” or something to that effect. In fact, the Bible describes several kinds of marriage and does so without judgment. Certainly the norm of one man and one woman is most common in the Bible, as I believe it has been in every time, place and culture, but polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage are also found in the Bible.
What-irate marriage?
Levirate marriage was the practice of a man marrying his brother’s childless widow in order to raise children for his dead brother. This kept the deceased’s name alive and his inheritance intact. It also provided a measure of security for the widow in a society that treated women as chattel property. The word “levirate” derives from the Latin word “levir" meaning “brother-in-law.” The practice of levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and features in the stories of Ruth, Tamar (Genesis 38) and Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:38 ff and parallels.
Jacob, who became Israel, and whose children gave their names to the twelve tribes of Israel, was a polygamist. His children were born to his two wives and their two handmaids. See Genesis, chapters 29 and 30.
As for Israel’s two greatest kings, David had multiple wives and concubines, but Solomon takes the prize with “seven hundred wives…and three hundred concubines” who led him into idolatrous worship (1 Kings 11:3ff.). If that seems a bit excessive, it may account for the command, no doubt written after the fact and postdated, found in Deuteronomy 17:17
And he (the king) must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away….
To sum up, the Bible does not mandate that marriage equals one man and one woman. The Scriptures recognize several forms of marriage, including polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage.
Next: a look at Genesis 2
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
God is Ambidextrous
MARRIAGE AND TWO KINGDOMS DOCTRINE
The Two Kingdoms doctrine is a standard trope in Lutheran theology. Essentially it says that God works in this world through two distinct spheres. The Kingdom of God’s right hand is the Church where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. The Kingdom of God’s left hand consists of the civil authorities that exist to promote peace, reward good and punish wrongdoing.
These two kingdoms are distinct, but God is at work in both of them. God has given them both for the benefit of humankind.
Luther’s reforms included a reduction in the number of Sacraments from seven to two. Baptism and Holy Communion, both commanded by the Lord Jesus, were retained. Confirmation, ordination, last rites, confession, and marriage were not considered Sacraments because Jesus did not command them. Effectively this made marriage, for Lutherans, a part of the Kingdom of God’s left hand.
Marriage is regulated by the State, not the Church. This makes sense because the institution of marriage exists also in non-Christian cultures. Marriage benefits society by promoting order, ensuring inheritances and property rights, providing stability for families and so on. Marriage is good. Marriage is God-given. Marriage may be blessed by God’s right hand, but it is given from God’s left hand.
In my last post, I linked to Ted Olson’s article providing a politically conservative rationale for same-sex marriage. I would argue that a political rationale is a theological rationale. The State is free to regulate marriage as it sees fit. Whether the Church chooses to bless a marriage is another question.
Next: some thoughts on marriage in the Bible.
The illustration of Martin and Katie's wedding came from the ELCA website. Please pray for the people of Haiti, and if you are able, give to their relief. Give through any reputable charity of your choice. ELCA Disaster Response is my choice.
The Two Kingdoms doctrine is a standard trope in Lutheran theology. Essentially it says that God works in this world through two distinct spheres. The Kingdom of God’s right hand is the Church where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. The Kingdom of God’s left hand consists of the civil authorities that exist to promote peace, reward good and punish wrongdoing.These two kingdoms are distinct, but God is at work in both of them. God has given them both for the benefit of humankind.
Luther’s reforms included a reduction in the number of Sacraments from seven to two. Baptism and Holy Communion, both commanded by the Lord Jesus, were retained. Confirmation, ordination, last rites, confession, and marriage were not considered Sacraments because Jesus did not command them. Effectively this made marriage, for Lutherans, a part of the Kingdom of God’s left hand.
Marriage is regulated by the State, not the Church. This makes sense because the institution of marriage exists also in non-Christian cultures. Marriage benefits society by promoting order, ensuring inheritances and property rights, providing stability for families and so on. Marriage is good. Marriage is God-given. Marriage may be blessed by God’s right hand, but it is given from God’s left hand.
In my last post, I linked to Ted Olson’s article providing a politically conservative rationale for same-sex marriage. I would argue that a political rationale is a theological rationale. The State is free to regulate marriage as it sees fit. Whether the Church chooses to bless a marriage is another question.
Next: some thoughts on marriage in the Bible.
The illustration of Martin and Katie's wedding came from the ELCA website. Please pray for the people of Haiti, and if you are able, give to their relief. Give through any reputable charity of your choice. ELCA Disaster Response is my choice.
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Theodore B. Olson presents good social and Constitutional arguments for same-sex marriage in an article in Newsweek. Read it here. It is not, of course, a theological case but gives us all something to think about.
If I agree with almost everything Olson says, does that make me a conservative?
If I agree with almost everything Olson says, does that make me a conservative?
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Argument from Anatomy
OR, NO, REALLY, WHAT WAS PAUL THINKING?
In biblical times, the concept of sexual orientation did not exist. It was thought that sexual nature was determined by anatomy. If you had male parts you were male and you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined male role. Likewise, if you were born with female parts, you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined female sex role. To do otherwise was “unnatural.”
This, I believe, is the notion behind Paul’s references to “natural intercourse” in Romans 1:26-27.
This argument from anatomy is also behind the condemnation of homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus is not a moral code, but a holiness code. It divides world into “clean” and “unclean.” Just as dirt is “matter out of place” (In the garden it’s earth. In the kitchen it’s dirt.) so, anything in the wrong place is “unclean.” Since male parts are not supposed to go with male parts, in this thinking, homosexual sex is prohibited.
Today we understand sexual nature to be a more complex matter of “chemistry, brain and hormones.” Still, the argument that anatomy determines sexual nature is sometimes heard. Last summer, David Housholder invoked the argument in a blog post.
That short line is a miniscule sound bite from a lengthy post. I disagree with most of what Housholder says in it, but will not subject you to the tedium of a point-by-point rebuttal. Instead, I will stay focused on my theme.
A creative fifteen year old can probably think of any number of ways that the various parts can be put together (sexually). A fifteen year old who, because of “chemistry, brain and hormones” is homosexual by nature will probably prefer to think of ways in which same-sex parts go together (sexually).
In biblical times homosexuality was thought of as unnatural. Today we know that same-sex attraction is a naturally occurring subset of human sexuality. Do the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior still apply in the light of our current knowledge, or are there ways in which homosexuals can ethically express their love?
Scripture quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The phrase “matter out of place” is taken from Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Fortress Press, 1998, page 94. Durer's paintings of Adam and Eve were found here.
In biblical times, the concept of sexual orientation did not exist. It was thought that sexual nature was determined by anatomy. If you had male parts you were male and you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined male role. Likewise, if you were born with female parts, you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined female sex role. To do otherwise was “unnatural.”This, I believe, is the notion behind Paul’s references to “natural intercourse” in Romans 1:26-27.
Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This argument from anatomy is also behind the condemnation of homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus is not a moral code, but a holiness code. It divides world into “clean” and “unclean.” Just as dirt is “matter out of place” (In the garden it’s earth. In the kitchen it’s dirt.) so, anything in the wrong place is “unclean.” Since male parts are not supposed to go with male parts, in this thinking, homosexual sex is prohibited.
Today we understand sexual nature to be a more complex matter of “chemistry, brain and hormones.” Still, the argument that anatomy determines sexual nature is sometimes heard. Last summer, David Housholder invoked the argument in a blog post.
Any fifteen- year old can tell you what part goes where (sexually).
That short line is a miniscule sound bite from a lengthy post. I disagree with most of what Housholder says in it, but will not subject you to the tedium of a point-by-point rebuttal. Instead, I will stay focused on my theme.
A creative fifteen year old can probably think of any number of ways that the various parts can be put together (sexually). A fifteen year old who, because of “chemistry, brain and hormones” is homosexual by nature will probably prefer to think of ways in which same-sex parts go together (sexually).
In biblical times homosexuality was thought of as unnatural. Today we know that same-sex attraction is a naturally occurring subset of human sexuality. Do the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior still apply in the light of our current knowledge, or are there ways in which homosexuals can ethically express their love?
Scripture quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The phrase “matter out of place” is taken from Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Fortress Press, 1998, page 94. Durer's paintings of Adam and Eve were found here.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Questions about Patriarchy, Slavery, Racism, Sexism...
...GENOCIDE, SUPERCESSIONISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND THE CHRISTIAN USE OF SCRIPTURE
If the Bible is patriarchal, does that mean God is patriarchal?
Does it mean that Christians should be patriarchal?
If the Bible is pro-slavery, does that mean God is pro-slavery?
Does it mean that Christians should be pro-slavery?
If the Bible is racist, does that mean God is a racist?
Does it mean that Christians should be racists?
If the Bible is sexist, does that mean God is a sexist?
Does it mean that Christians should be sexist?
If the Bible advocates genocide, does that mean God is genocidal?
Does it mean that Christians should be genocidal?
If the Bible is anti-Jewish, does that mean God is anti-Jewish?
Does it mean that Christians should be anti-Jewish?
And of course, if the Bible is homophobic, does that mean God is homophobic?
Does it mean that Christians should be homophobic?
Arguably the Bible is, at least in some parts, patriarchal, pro-slavery, racist, sexist, genocidal, anti-Jewish and homophobic. Also arguably, the Bible, at least in some parts, teaches us that God is not patriarchal, pro-slavery, etc. What does this mean for Christians and our use of Scripture?
If the Bible is patriarchal, does that mean God is patriarchal?
Does it mean that Christians should be patriarchal?
If the Bible is pro-slavery, does that mean God is pro-slavery?
Does it mean that Christians should be pro-slavery?
If the Bible is racist, does that mean God is a racist?
Does it mean that Christians should be racists?
If the Bible is sexist, does that mean God is a sexist?
Does it mean that Christians should be sexist?
If the Bible advocates genocide, does that mean God is genocidal?
Does it mean that Christians should be genocidal?
If the Bible is anti-Jewish, does that mean God is anti-Jewish?
Does it mean that Christians should be anti-Jewish?
And of course, if the Bible is homophobic, does that mean God is homophobic?
Does it mean that Christians should be homophobic?
Arguably the Bible is, at least in some parts, patriarchal, pro-slavery, racist, sexist, genocidal, anti-Jewish and homophobic. Also arguably, the Bible, at least in some parts, teaches us that God is not patriarchal, pro-slavery, etc. What does this mean for Christians and our use of Scripture?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Romans 1 and the Cause of Homosexuality
OR, WHAT DETERMINES SEXUAL NATURE?
We do not know exactly what causes homosexuality. Research into the subject is ongoing. We can be quite sure, however, about some things that do not cause homosexuality. Bad parenting, for instance, does not cause homosexuality. In spite of the fact that some prominently placed preachers claim that a weak father and a domineering mother will create a homosexual boy, the best research says otherwise.We can also be certain that idol worship does not cause homosexuality. Some homosexuals may worship graven images, but others are devout monotheists. I have known some homosexuals who are, in fact, committed, church-going, God-fearing, Jesus-loving, devout, dedicated, pious Christians.
Yet, in the first chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul states quite unequivocally that homosexuality is caused by idolatry.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:22-27)
Either we have here another case of the general revelation contradicting the special revelation or the Apostle Paul had in mind something other than what we know of homosexuality. From context, I am inclined to think that Paul was referring to orgiastic pagan temple rituals.
Again, though we may not know exactly what causes homosexuality, we do know that it occurs quite naturally. Yet, in Romans 1, Paul refers to homosexual sex as unnatural. In the time of the Apostle Paul, sexual identity was thought to be determined by anatomy. What kind of genitalia you were born with determined your sexual nature. We now understand sexual identity to be much more complex. Factors such as “chemistry, brain, and hormones” contribute to our sexual nature.
In an earlier post I wrote that the Bible does not say what we think it does about homosexuality. In fact, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as an orientation. In the five passages that address the subject, the Scriptures are negative about homosexual behavior, but none of those passages can legitimately be used to universally condemn all homosexual behaviors. This does not mean that the biblical writers would approve of same-sex acts. The truth is we now understand homosexuality very differently than they did.
The quote from Romans is taken from the New Revised Standard Version. The phrase "chemistry, brain and hormones" is borrowed from The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg, HarperOne, 2009, page 163. I lifted Emil Nolde's painting of the the worship of the Golden Calf from this website.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
In Memoriam
Art Clokey, the creator of Davey and Goliath, born October 12, 1921, entered eternal life January 8, 2010. I never knew the man, but I grew up with Davey and Goliath.
The image of Davey and Goliath came from their official website: http://www.daveyandgoliath.org/index.html
Rest eternal grant him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him.
The image of Davey and Goliath came from their official website: http://www.daveyandgoliath.org/index.html
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Apostle Paul is Pulling Your Rug
THOU ART THE MAN
Pulling the rug out from under your audience can be a powerful rhetorical strategy. First you raise their outrage against a common foe. Then, with a great “Aha!” you show them that they are that foe.
When King David seduced another man’s wife, and then arranged for that man to be killed in battle, he was confronted by the prophet Nathan, who told him the sad story of a poor man. This man’s pet lamb, Nathan said, was stolen and slaughtered by a wealthy man in spite of the fact that the wealthy man had many flocks of his own. The King, outraged, declared the wrongdoer worthy of death. Then Nathan pulled the rug out from under him. “Thou art the man,” he said in good King James English. You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 12.
Martin Luther also engaged in a little rug-pulling in a masterful Christmas sermon. He described the sad plight of the holy family who were cruelly turned away from the crowded inn so that Mary had to give birth to Jesus in a stable. Of course, he said, no one in his congregation would be so cold-hearted. Surely they would provide warmth and shelter for the newborn Savior. Then Luther accused them of hypocrisy for ignoring the needs of the poor, hungry and cold in their own midst.
In the first chapters of his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul used the same rhetorical strategy. First he engaged the Roman Christians’ outrage against the depravities of the pagans. God’s wrath burned against them because they worshipped idols! (Rom. 1:22-25). They were God-forsaken, engaging in depraved sex acts! (Rom. 1:26-27) And therefore…
It’s shocking! It’s horrible! They deserve to die! (Rom. 1:32). Right?
Rug-pulling is a powerful rhetorical strategy, but it is also a dangerous one. Like sarcasm, the one using this rug-pulling technique runs the risk that their audience just will not get it. Maybe they will tune out before they hear the point. Maybe someone will come along later and undermine the point by inserting a chapter break in the text just before the rug gets pulled.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Anyone who uses Romans 1:18 ff. as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals has not read as far as Romans 2:1.
Thou art the man.
Still more to come.
I snagged Matthias Scheits' painting of David and Nathan from wikipedia.
Pulling the rug out from under your audience can be a powerful rhetorical strategy. First you raise their outrage against a common foe. Then, with a great “Aha!” you show them that they are that foe.When King David seduced another man’s wife, and then arranged for that man to be killed in battle, he was confronted by the prophet Nathan, who told him the sad story of a poor man. This man’s pet lamb, Nathan said, was stolen and slaughtered by a wealthy man in spite of the fact that the wealthy man had many flocks of his own. The King, outraged, declared the wrongdoer worthy of death. Then Nathan pulled the rug out from under him. “Thou art the man,” he said in good King James English. You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 12.
Martin Luther also engaged in a little rug-pulling in a masterful Christmas sermon. He described the sad plight of the holy family who were cruelly turned away from the crowded inn so that Mary had to give birth to Jesus in a stable. Of course, he said, no one in his congregation would be so cold-hearted. Surely they would provide warmth and shelter for the newborn Savior. Then Luther accused them of hypocrisy for ignoring the needs of the poor, hungry and cold in their own midst.
In the first chapters of his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul used the same rhetorical strategy. First he engaged the Roman Christians’ outrage against the depravities of the pagans. God’s wrath burned against them because they worshipped idols! (Rom. 1:22-25). They were God-forsaken, engaging in depraved sex acts! (Rom. 1:26-27) And therefore…
They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Rom. 1:18-31)
It’s shocking! It’s horrible! They deserve to die! (Rom. 1:32). Right?
Rug-pulling is a powerful rhetorical strategy, but it is also a dangerous one. Like sarcasm, the one using this rug-pulling technique runs the risk that their audience just will not get it. Maybe they will tune out before they hear the point. Maybe someone will come along later and undermine the point by inserting a chapter break in the text just before the rug gets pulled.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Anyone who uses Romans 1:18 ff. as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals has not read as far as Romans 2:1.
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Thou art the man.
Still more to come.
I snagged Matthias Scheits' painting of David and Nathan from wikipedia.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Homosexuals and Haberdashery...
...IN THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
It was during the period of debate, discussion and study leading up to last summer’s Churchwide Assembly that I had a conversation with a pastor who belonged to one of the more conservative Lutheran church bodies. He said, “How can the ELCA even think about approving of homosexual relations when the Scriptures are so clear?” I told him, “Assuming that your question is sincere, I’ll answer it. But first let me ask you a question. Do the women in your congregation cover their heads when they pray?”
He knew what I was referring to. In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul takes up the question of head coverings. Men, he says, should pray with their heads bare, but women should cover their heads.
“Don’t be silly,” he said. “Paul was referring to a cultural custom. Besides, it was just one point in a larger argument.”
I said, “Exactly. And that’s how the ELCA can consider approving of same-sex relations. Paul’s references to homosexual acts were culturally conditioned. In our culture we understand homosexuality differently than he did. What’s more, in Romans 1 Paul mentions homosexual acts among the Gentiles as one point in a larger argument.”
Anyone who uses Romans 1:26-27 as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals apparently has not read as far as Romans 2:1.
Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are sinners, but that everyone is a sinner, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….” (Romans 3:23)
More to come.
Scriptures quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version. I found Raphael’s painting of Paul preaching, bareheaded, here.
It was during the period of debate, discussion and study leading up to last summer’s Churchwide Assembly that I had a conversation with a pastor who belonged to one of the more conservative Lutheran church bodies. He said, “How can the ELCA even think about approving of homosexual relations when the Scriptures are so clear?” I told him, “Assuming that your question is sincere, I’ll answer it. But first let me ask you a question. Do the women in your congregation cover their heads when they pray?”He knew what I was referring to. In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul takes up the question of head coverings. Men, he says, should pray with their heads bare, but women should cover their heads.
“Don’t be silly,” he said. “Paul was referring to a cultural custom. Besides, it was just one point in a larger argument.”
I said, “Exactly. And that’s how the ELCA can consider approving of same-sex relations. Paul’s references to homosexual acts were culturally conditioned. In our culture we understand homosexuality differently than he did. What’s more, in Romans 1 Paul mentions homosexual acts among the Gentiles as one point in a larger argument.”
Anyone who uses Romans 1:26-27 as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals apparently has not read as far as Romans 2:1.
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are sinners, but that everyone is a sinner, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….” (Romans 3:23)
More to come.
Scriptures quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version. I found Raphael’s painting of Paul preaching, bareheaded, here.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Story So Far
It might be wise, at this point, to recap some of what I have been saying about the Bible and homosexuality.
First, the general revelation, i.e. reason and experience, has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We now recognize that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. This new understanding was foreign to the thinking of the biblical writers.
Second, while the book of Leviticus prohibits same-sex acts, the prohibition applied only to the men of Israel (not to women, nor to Gentiles). The Levitical code is not a moral code but a purity code. It was intended to set Israel apart from other nations as the Lord’s people. Christians freely disregard most of the laws found in Leviticus.
Third, there are three passages of the New Testament that address same-sex acts. I’ve looked at two of them. The Greek word malakoi occurs at 1 Corinthians 6:9. It literally means “softs” and is, I think, approximately equivalent to the derogatory English term “sissies.” The word arsenokoitai (literally “man-beds”) is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word is notably difficult to translate, as 1 Corinthians is its first known occurrence. It is likely, though by no means certain, that both of these words describe practitioners of some homosexual act. Neither of them can legitimately be translated as “homosexuals” since the concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. Nor can they be taken as a condemnation of same-sex marriage as that concept did not exist in biblical times either. This does not, of course, mean that the writers of the Bible would approve of same-sex marriage. Even had they shared our new understanding of homosexuality, we cannot say what they would have thought.
In my next post I will be looking at the last of the New Testament passages dealing with same-sex acts, Romans 1:18 ff.
First, the general revelation, i.e. reason and experience, has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We now recognize that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. This new understanding was foreign to the thinking of the biblical writers.
Second, while the book of Leviticus prohibits same-sex acts, the prohibition applied only to the men of Israel (not to women, nor to Gentiles). The Levitical code is not a moral code but a purity code. It was intended to set Israel apart from other nations as the Lord’s people. Christians freely disregard most of the laws found in Leviticus.
Third, there are three passages of the New Testament that address same-sex acts. I’ve looked at two of them. The Greek word malakoi occurs at 1 Corinthians 6:9. It literally means “softs” and is, I think, approximately equivalent to the derogatory English term “sissies.” The word arsenokoitai (literally “man-beds”) is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word is notably difficult to translate, as 1 Corinthians is its first known occurrence. It is likely, though by no means certain, that both of these words describe practitioners of some homosexual act. Neither of them can legitimately be translated as “homosexuals” since the concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. Nor can they be taken as a condemnation of same-sex marriage as that concept did not exist in biblical times either. This does not, of course, mean that the writers of the Bible would approve of same-sex marriage. Even had they shared our new understanding of homosexuality, we cannot say what they would have thought.
In my next post I will be looking at the last of the New Testament passages dealing with same-sex acts, Romans 1:18 ff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
