Recently, a flurry of viagra spam has been filling up behind the scenes on my blog here. Consider this post a kind of viagra spam. You might not want to hear about it, but, as in my experience, it’s no longer something you can easily avoid.
* * *
When I first became a Christian, one of the heaviest reservations I held was the denunciation of homosexuality. In school, you could say I was ‘indoctrinated’ to believe that everything gay was a good thing, that same-sex attraction was just as normal as liking girls, so much so that after five years of high school I had no objections, other than my still dismissive attitude towards homosexuality. All that I had a problem with was overtly homophobic attitudes, expressed predominantly by Christians, and old people here and there, and people that lived on farms.
After a becoming a Christian late into my seventeenth year, my views on the homosexual question gradually began to change. My dismissive attitude passed (mostly), as I was more aware of how offensive it could be to refer to something I didn’t like as ‘gay’, yet the underpinning stance, that which I used to understand as homophobic, now became more acceptable to me: It was alright to oppose homosexual marriage and support ideas such as gays being ‘healed’, that is, becoming straight (and later on down the track I accepted the idea of homosexual celibacy), but it was not alright to direct any hate or bad jokes towards homosexuals — only this was homophobic.
Five and a bit years later I’m ready to come out of the closet¹: This post will examine two aspects of my Christian worldview, these two which I think many Christian friends will share in common with me, and demonstrate some of the intellectual hypocrisy in my thinking these last years.
* * *
As I began reading the New Testament, some deep internal changes were going on. I was totally taken aback by Jesus’ words on loving your enemies, and Paul’s similar exhortations to overcome evil with good. The centrality of love in these writings presented me with no difficulty in affirming their divine origin. On this basis did I read the passages concerning the subjugation of women in the church: The only thing subjugatory about them for me was under circumstances where people would desire otherwise, but if God had desired that men should lead the flock and head the family while women accepted their natural roles as child-bearers and nurturers then why not be obedient? For those unfamiliar with the passages, I’ll cite a few:
“I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ” (1Corinthians 11:3 NRSV).
“Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, in modesty” (1Timothy 2:13-15 NRSV).
“Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honour to the women as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life–so that nothing may hinder your prayers” (1Peter 3:7 NRSV).
With these and other passages in mind, I began to notice discrepancies between biblical teaching and church practice. What gave Christians the right to pick and choose which passages they would abide by? Some Wikipedia funded research here and there, some searching online, and good conversations with good friends began to provide me with another perspective:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 NRSV — I especially like how the NRSV repeats the ‘there is no longer’). Probably the most popularly cited verse for the egalitarian view, Paul powerfully presents the Gospel as a way of life that transcends socio-cultural qualifiers.
Because of space, I’ll only summarise the other points. Adam and Eve were created equally (Genesis 1:7) but after sin, gender roles/distinctions came about as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:16-19). Women in Jesus’ ministry held a privileged place, one of the most commonly cited examples being that a few women Jesus knew were the first to find out he had risen from the dead and then go and tell the disciples the good news (Luke 23:55-24:10) (other examples can be found here). Lydia is the first recorded convert in Europe, who boldly offered the apostles a place to stay, against social norms of the time (Acts 16:14-15). Paul refers to ladies in leadership in a few of his letters, including Junia, whom he refers to as an apostle (Romans 16:7).
Any attempt to harmonise these two very different strands of New Testament stances on women leads necessarily to complementarianism: That is that men and women were created with the intention of playing different roles in society. If we don’t acknowledge that then the first lot of cited verses hold no sway. It must be acknowledged by those who support women in church leadership, as do I, that we give priority to some verses over others. To hold a properly egalitarian view, neither can the words “the husband is the head of his wife” be explained away by appealing to their First Century context: They always meant what they meant and therefore must instead be passed over.
Earlier this year there was some controversy considering Margaret Court, ex-professional-tennis-player turned Australian pastor. Her opposition to gay marriage was in every sense ironic. She clearly ignored Paul’s advice for sound ecclesiology, “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says” (1Corinthians 14:34 NRSV). Her pastorship was based on the denial of passages such as these. If we allow a Christianity that does not discriminate according to birth, that women who desire to be leaders and have equal standing with their husbands in family matters should be allowed to, then why not allow a Christianity that does not discriminate against homosexuals for desires they did not choose themselves?
Yet, there are many complementarians out there. This argument holds no sway. Let’s move on.
* * *
Catholic theology will always hold a much more justifiable stance against homosexuality, in relation to other Christian worldviews. This is because Catholic theology has a much better understanding of what is natural. It is natural that men lead and women nurture. It is natural that people of the opposite sex are attracted to each other. It is natural that sex leads to babies.
Consider Paul’s words on what is natural, probably the most cited passage supporting Christian rejection of homosexuality:
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 1:26-27 NRSV).
Yet, the well-read interlocutor raises this point: Paul’s reasoning may easily be disregarded by an appeal to modern day science: All sorts of animals enjoy all sorts of sexual practices, including homosexuality. How then can it be unnatural? I’m sure there is something we can say to this. Homosexuality in animals is as unnatural as it is in humans, in the same way, as Christians taking note of the Fall would mention, that it’s unnatural for animals to kill each other. Just because something happens in nature, this does not provide evidence for its being natural. But we need to take Paul more seriously. Homosexuality in the bedroom is unnatural precisely because it does not fulfill the foundational natural aim of sex: reproduction. Two horny male rabbits in isolation will always find it difficult to ‘bear fruit’, even if they are rabbits.
The unquestioned sexual practices of many Christians the world over need first be examined before any decisive opposition to homosexuality. Contraception is by this criteria unnatural. It is only possible in various Christian worldviews by a redefinition of the meaning of sex: God’s gift to husband and wife to express their love for each other. Sex as purely reproduction is too old-school. Orthodox Catholic theology is one example of a worldview which still upholds the sanctity of sex and family purely for its reproductive value, for natural sex, and therefore one of the only solid worldviews for opposing homosexuality. If you would like to oppose homosexuality yet are currently using or intending to use contraception then you must consider: Giraffes don’t use condoms².
* * *
The discussion is in no sense yet over. I welcome all comments and will do my best to reply to them, as I neglected to do so last time. One word before continuing though. Just because something has always been accepted, it doesn’t mean it’s rational. When ideas change in society, people have the tendency of looking for ways in which the older ideas were rational. The reasoning seems to be that if people believed something for so long then there must’ve been some rationality behind it, just as there was rationality behind slave trading, racism, sexism, persecution of religious minorities — the list goes on. Issues continually need to be re-examined in a new light.
* * *
¹I recommend that every Christian heterosexual male (you don’t need to be white or middle-class) entertain some mystery concerning their sexual orientation, as a kind of living sacrifice. If every ready, willing and able, Spirit-filled female thinks you’re gay then every effort you have hitherto made to secure the ideal marriage is now effectively in God’s hands.
²Admittedly, my assertion lacks the academic research to support it. I acknowledge that their could be contraceptive practices out there in the wild, but these must be subjected to same criteria as homosexuality in the wild, that is it has no natural reproductive value.
Just a blog I read just before i looked at this one, I thought it may interest some people
http://mattfradd.com/2012/06/14/catholic-gay-and-feeling-fine/
I enjoyed you article you raise some very interesting points. Some thoughts then in response:
Theology when applied as social commentary becomes another form of philosophy. This inevitable transition occurs because theology only retains its integrity when it is applied to further developing our relationship with Christ.
The discrepancies you note in ecclesiastical praxis is a case in point. Spiritual truth cannot be discerned from examining church doctrine as it relates to both the practice of worship and cultural engagement. This will degenerate into a philosophical debate over changing denominational trends, theologies and praxis across two thousand years of ecclesiastical evolution. The obvious perambulation that ensues is which praxis is the right one? Which denomination or expression of Christianity can be used to extrapolate an original truth?
Simply put, none of them.
You cannot appeal to either current or historical cultural, social, ecclesiastical or ethical norms to establish a Christ centred approach to confronting sin. Posing a philosophical/theological framework to address the issue of homosexuality or same sex marriage will ultimately lead to another existential debate. This may prove entertaining or stimulating on an intellectual level but a persons heart will remain unchanged.
And why explore those issues? If the attempt is to determine the theological response to sin all sin needs to be examined. Otherwise we risk leading into either a Liberationist theology or the simple accommodation of evolving cultural practise juxtaposed across Christian tradition. At that stage any sin can be accommodated as no longer being sin, providing we can develop a strong, reasoned argument in its defence.
I love theology and philosophical debate but Only Christ can change our hearts and only Christ can be the source for determining truth and our response to sin. When we debate and moralise on a purely ‘theological’ level we actually elevate ourselves as being a potential source of truth. This reminds me of Paul’s admonition against people having ‘itchy ears’ and surrounding themselves with teachers according to their own desires (2 Tim 4:3).
Throughout the Gospel I see a Jesus who loves people and hates sin, all sin. Interestingly there are more Biblical warnings in relation to greed and idolatry than sexual sin. Jesus confronts all sin in the same manner and makes no allowance for the development of culturally normalised practices in his day i.e. temple prostitution, money lending in the temple, the refusal of alms for the poor etc. What we do see is a call to a repentance that leads to salvation and a salvation that leads to a changed heart and a life of obedience to the Father, through the Spirit in Christ.
Any sound examination of scripture reveals a God who hates all sin, including sexual sin, hard heartedness, greed, wickedness, self-righteousness etc. Not because God is passing a moralistic judgement on human behaviour but rather because he is God and He has the right to set those boundaries and we are the ones who desperately try to justify our rebellion.
We may be uncomfortable at identifying ourselves with a Jesus who would take to no pleasure in a same sex marriage; after all that position is neither politically or socially acceptable in an increasingly permissive society. Yet as Christians that’s what we committed to when we gave our hearts to Christ.
Jesus loves people and hates sin. He ate with sinners, walked with sinners, took disciples who were as weak and fragile as anyone else and yet he never compromised on his call for people to live a changed life. There is no justification for the accommodation of sin. A world bent on its own destruction will ultimately face the judgement of Christ. As Christians we are not called to pass judgement on the way the world chooses to live; their is one who will judge and it isn’t us. We are called to examine ourselves and live in a manner that is holy (set apart) and pleasing to God.
We cannot be lights to the world if we shroud our glow with the same darkness with which the the world is covered.
“This is the message that we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” 1 Jn 1:5-7
“He who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk just as He walked” 1Jn 1:6.
I realise holding to what is considered an old fashioned ethic in relation to sin may seem either prejudicial or dogmatic. But I wan to walk as Jesus walks. Which is to love people, hate sin and pray for changed hearts, free of sin and full of the grace and glory of God.
Paul (from CF)
ps
There are some very good books that explore Pauline Theology, particularly Christology in great detail. Remember Paul’s focus was always on discipling people who considered themselves Christian. His theological hermeneutic was never intended to establish a doctrine of social philosophy and any exegesis that seeks to draw that connection will always be on dubious ground. No matter how convenient rampant biblical contextualisation may be its not without some serious risks. Namely that you will overlay the answer your looking for, before you have ever asked a question of the text.
Grace and Peace
“theology only retains its integrity when it is applied to further developing our relationship with Christ.”
I couldn’t disagree more.
Also, I think you’re using the word perambulation wrong.
God definitely hates and opposes sin, nobody denied that, but the question is what’s sin… is it love between two people of the same sex and/or gender, is it marginalising, denying and oppressing sexual/gender minorities, is it the hegemony of the gender binary, gender roles and patriarchy, is it expressions of gender and sexuality that challenge the gender binary, gender roles and patriarchy… Basically we should ask how good/loving/just/Christian and how sinful are our dominant conceptions of gender/sexuality, and then with that in mind we should ask how good/loving/just/Christian and how sinful LGBTI sexual identity, desires and activity are, and then whatever our answer to that is, we should ask which ways of responding to LGBTI people and lifestyles are good and loving and just and Christian and which are sinful.
Hi
Thanks for reading my comments. I was using ‘perambulate’ to highlight the metaphorical slow walk we take towards trying to make a decision around church praxis.
I see theology in a different light to ecclesiology. Theology for me has always been the pursuit of understanding the purpose and nature of God throughout the breadth of human experience. Ecclesiology on the other hand has more scope to be philosophical in its approach because it is largely dealing with a human construct.
You raise an interesting point. I believe that love as an emotion, in and of itself, is not sinful. Anymore than anger is a sinful emotion; though certainly the behaviour and actions attached to that emotion can be.
Love when used as an a rationale to indulge in actions that scripture state are sinful, to me, has become something other than love. At what point do we question the nature of the ‘love’ that is being expressed. Again I do not see this as an issue specifically reserved for LGBTI relationships.
For example if churches started promoting domestic violence as acceptable within relationships would we have the same debate? Would I change my attitude towards violence as a sin simply because the church had.
I know how much grace God has given me and the imperfections I struggle with. My prayer is that i reflect grace and mercy in all my relationships and conversations. I agree that denominations can adopt sinful attitudes towards a variety of issues and groups. That is why I don’t try and filter my understanding or theology regarding an issue by exploring denominational norms.
Ultimately the Father judges people’s hearts and we have no place in judging the lifestyles of people outside the church (1 Cor 5:12). If a person chooses to identify themselves as Christian then yes I believe they are accountable for their behaviour and that love cannot be used as a shield to excuse sinful acts. I believe that is true for all ungodliness, greed, malice, envy, strife, bitterness and sexual immorality.
Hey Paul, I thought it was you when I saw the name! Sweet! Thanks for reading and commenting. I definitely think the post lacks Christ-centeredness. I suppose the appeal is to intellectual integrity rather than the heart. However, if there is a Christ-centred theology for women in church leadership, which I believe there is, also of which seems to go against explicit verses barring women from leadership, then we need to, by implication, take this thinking to its logical end and allow gay marriage.
The example of contraception is probably a little sophistic, as it almost completely ignores Jesus, where the first argument has him behind the scenes. This is because I don’t know if there is a decent Christ-centred theology for contraception. The purpose of this second point is more so to point out the hypocrisy of our assumptions. We accept contraception because it’s so embedded unquestionably already in much of the Protestant Church yet we raise questions on homosexual marriage.
Hi Camo
Yes I do believe there is a Christ centred way to approach any issue we face either as individuals or as a Church. my prayer is that through my relationships with the people around me, spending time in prayer and weighing God’s word I can grow to see these things they way Jesus does. Debating the intellectual nature of these issues also helps that process. I am still convicted that the best way to seek Christ is through the transformation of my heart to resemble His more than it does mine sinful one.
Some additional thoughts:
When we come to scripture to answer a question its important to remember the history, context and intention behind the text. Yes Paul absolutely speaks on the topic of the role of women in Church. To apply that thought process consistently you would also have to follow Paul’s lead on:
* Men should not have head coverings (1 Cor 11:4)
* Women can’t have shaved heads, as it is a disgrace (1 Cor 11:5)
* Churches should be under the authority of an Apostle, active prophets etc (1 Cor 12:27)
* Praying, singing, prophesying in the Spirit should be common practice(1 Cor 14:15-19).
* Should we sell everything we have and lay it at an Apostles feet? (Acts 4:35)
* Should we pray that people who lie to the Spirit are struck down and buried next to their husbands? (Acts 5:6-9).
If the hope is to follow a literal translation of the New Testament into Church practice than lets go the whole way. Why focus on areas just related to sexual sins or contraception? We could abolish all buildings, meet in houses, share all in common, men should have short hair and beards, women should have long hair, dress simply and conduct themselves modestly. Oh and Husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the Church how do we police that? Should we move to supporting the widows in our community, encourage young widows to marry and encourage men in ministry to remain single?
I agree that there is a huge divergence in the practices of Churches that would describe themselves as Christian. I still believe there is a big difference between weighing up the contextual nature of Church praxis, which of itself may or may not be sinful, and issues that are clearly sin. I feel like it is an attempt to use the scriptures to justify an argument rather that as tool to increase our knowledge of what it means to be like Christ.
If you’re hope is to explore the integrity of Church praxis then my starting point would still be who am I in Christ and how does my relationship with him shape my ecclesiology. Paul’s encouragement in 1 Cor 5:12 is a good reminder about where our focus should be. Yes we should definitely weigh the character, integrity and nature of the people and practices within a church. We are also cautioned against futile arguments that cause divisions (Titus 3:9).
You have a sharp mind and clearly process these issues through a variety of social, cultural and ecclesiological paradigms. I enjoy reading your thoughts and musing over the possibilities they raise. The above comments are an encouragement to apply your thesis consistently across the breadth of ecclesiological challenges faced by modern worshiping communities. I am keen to understand how you se the heart of Jesus playing out in the way you would see Churches do life.
Grace and Peace. I have missed seeing you at CF and Hilton. Praying all is well with you.
Thanks again Paul! It’ll be good to talk through some of this stuff in person maybe on Sunday. Might week night off has switched to Thursday so I’m probably not going to be at the Hilton unless I get another Tuesday off. It would be awesome to be more involved, and it was cool the few times that I did show up!
I think for me, the lack of consistency in any church practice (except maybe Brethren expressions of Christianity, yet at the possible loss of other important emphases) is what leads me to support gay marriage. I don’t think we can come to an egalitarian view of gender through reading the New Testament literally, but only through taking themes and reading the rest of the bible in accordance with those themes. If I wanted to take seriously Galatians 3:28 (there is no longer male or female) yet at the same time accept Ephesians 5:21ff (wives submit to your husbands; husbands love your wives) then that would necessitate me viewing the former in only an ideal sense, in a kind of eternal sense, a no-marriage-in-heaven sense (Matthew 22:30), where we are equal before God yet this equality requires a natural order, something which is affirmed but expressed differently. That’s how I understand people who would support a complementarian view. But if I wanted to take Galtians 3:28 to its logical end, then I would have to take all the conservative gender role passages and dismiss them as missing the point. I can say that they served a purpose for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc Century Church as their treatment of women relative to other social norms was better (or at least we would like to believe they were better, in the same way that apologists approach enigmatic laws around slavery in the Torah, genocide, etc in an attempt to justify them to perplexed modernists), but I must eventually put them aside for their literal value, implicitly saying that the New Testament writers didn’t feel the full force of what they were saying and in that the Gospel signals a u-turn towards the Edenic ideal.
It is in light of this latter discourse that I approach taking the bible literally: There are kind of meta-ethics or meta-imperatives that should inform our ecclesiology (and I think I include gay marriage in this term now when I mention it), or a bigger picture. This is probably a stretch and a mis-reading, but Jesus’ critique of the practice of the law works on the same principle: In ignoring your donkey caught in a well to uphold the law, you’re actually missing the whole point of the law; in pledging your money to ‘God’ at the neglect of your ageing mother, you skip right over the love at the heart of the law. Jesus’ love, which goes beyond our social qualifiers (male and female), affirms people as they are and uninhibits them from fully giving themselves to the work of the Kingdom, specifically for women in the ministry of leadership, in its infinite expressions. With this same discourse I approach gay marriage: I cannot tell people who are attracted to others of the same sex that this is a decision they themselves make. Love means to listen and to take a guy seriously when he says he’s always been attracted to guys. Apart from the subjective evidence, there is academic work (so I’ve heard; awkward time for no sources) that comes to the same conclusions. If this is the case, and the for the most part of Christian history women have been restricted from their fullness in Christ because of something they have had no control over then I think that this kind of emancipation (to use nice emotive words here) should extend beyond that to other qualifiers, like homosexuality, expressed in the equal right to marry.
The Church does not neglect her post. The Christian value of marriage is not in its complementarian nature, but in that it reflects Christ’s love for the Church. This is the “submit to each other” in Ephesians 5:21, introducing the section on the Christian family. Of course this is only possible in an egalitarian view of gender. And this is where I’m sure this can be quite polarising. I’m ready to accept (and challenge) a well-thought complementarian theology, as I believe it’s very biblical. But I cannot except an egalitarian theology or any, in fact, that stops half-way. The theology needs to be taken to it’s logical conclusion, and I’m yet to find a good reasoning for this kind of half-way theology.
I think there’s a lot more to say. And I’m getting sleepy. Something about the importance of listening to a people group who have at large been unheard by the Church, and trying to understand their perspective before I spout my own. But this necessarily ruptures my listening to Christians, as my listening here is expressed in a kind of speaking. But maybe it’s more important to listen first to those who don’t know God before those who are on the way to. I’ll see you on Sunday, looking forward to it!
Hey, It will be great to see you Sunday.
Actually I am enrolled in my Masters for Theology next year already but it was a good thought.
I do understand the basis for tension, although trying to apply the Galatians verse to gender sexuality, and its various expressions is, taking the passage way out of context. It is adopting a reader response towards your exegetical methodology which is always vulnerable to the subjective applications of any generations social, moral, ethical context.
If you want to adopt a social/philosphical stance to addressing issues of clutural evolution then that works well as an intellectual exercise. If you want to address the praxis/orthodoxy of contextual discipleship then the only way to do that consistently is by employing a consistent exegesis.
Jesus was clear that he had not come to abolish the law or the Prophets but to fulfill (Mat 5:17) you then have to juxtaspose that against Jesus not coming to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (Jn 3:17). Conversely the world is still clearly subject to judgement. In both instances however obedience to a holy God, through loving realtionship with Christ is still unavoidable. The call is always to ‘go and leave your life of sin’ (Jn 8:11). The woman caught in adultery, with adultery arguably no longer being a socially offensive practice providing you are ‘in love’ with the other person, was still called to live a life free of sin. Can we abolish marriage as being a socially/theologically irrelevant practice in the face of such high divorce rates? Can we permit/condone all areas that the bible would class as sexual immorrality simply becuase society allows them as common practice? Would we accept Pastors/Church leaders having casual sexual relationships just becuase society accepts that lifestyle as normal?
Just to clarify my position is:
1. It is not up to me to pass judgement on the way people, who do not consider themselves to be Christian, choose to express their sexuality.
2. Consistently throughout both the Old and New Testamanet homosexuality is defined as a sin.
3. Consistently throughout both the Old and New Testamant greed, idolatry, strife, gossip, lying etc are also defined as sin.
4. I do not believe that Jesus, at any stage through the gospel, gave us the right to choose which sins we keep and which sins we adopt as being ‘ok’ just because society decided that something is now acceptable. The Situational Ethics nightmare is a world where adults can engage in intimate relatioships with young children, of any age, and that becomes acceptable practice. I have worked with people who had those desires who genuinely believed they were in love with their victims. If they were to launch a lobby group advocating for social and theological reform would we be having the same exchange of ideas?
5. The gospel is a stumbling block to people who try to filter it through human wisdom, this was no less a problem in Paul’s day as it is now (1 Cor 1:18-30).
6. At what point do we sell the Gospel so cheaply that it ceases to hold us to a higher standard?
7. If we find the gospel personally confronting on any issue than I don’t think we should try and change to gospel. If society finds the gospel confronting then thats par for the course becuase it always has.
8. Jesus never expounded an accommodationist theology of social change. Holiness comes at a price and sometimes that means standing against the trend for social norms supplanting Christological axioms.
It is tough to be a disciple. It means that we have to stand up, often against social outcry, and hold to a Biblical position on sin. Yes, people and Churches have and do regularly do that badly. That is not an excuse to compromise the Gospel however; Jesus remains the Christ despite our weaknesses.
The difficulty with a consistent Liberation Theology is allowing for any assimilation of social, cultural or anthropological norms. Can you think of any practice where you would want to stand up and say no? At what point to we abandon the gospel and allow for a situational/permissable theology to take over?
Paul’s attempt to address church praxis is not the basis for generating an theology of social accommodation. My only question would be can you apply your exegetical/theological approach consistently and prevent a subsequent generation from destroying any resmeblance of a Gosple that demands a changed lifetowards increasing hoilness?
Hope your week has been treating you well.
Grace and Peace
Hey
I realise I may have responded to comments out of sequence or addressed to the wrong sender. If this is the case please bear with me I am new to blogging.
I was further reflecting however:
It is a common misconception that Paul’s era was ultra conservative when it came to issues of sexuality. The ancient world, with the notable exception of Judaism, was completely reconciled to same sex relationships. Temple prostitution was common place and was occupied by both male and female prostitutes. The parties/social events of the wealthy, pagan religious practices often either advocated or condoned same sex encounters.
In Old Testament times there were similar practices often linked to religious ceremonies or the practices of the ruling classes. The most well known of these, although often misquoted, Old Testament example is Sodom, with the city facing judgement because of its wickedness (Gen 19). God has always held his chosen people, Israel and now Christ’s disciples, as being holy, separated to Himself. David is judged for his adultery with Bathsheba, Solomon’s main weakness was foreign women, Israel is often judged/admonished for its failure to keep itself separate from the social/cultural practices of the surrounding nations.
God’s admonition of Job asks the questions, ‘Where were you and who are you to call me (God) to account for the judgements I make?’ God set the boundaries for what is/isn’t acceptable in terms of His people and relationships. The society around us may be living in an opposing way and judge us as narrow minded, backwards, archaic etc. but I chose to follow Christ. I can’t then turn around and start filtering out the parts I do and don’t like.
I realise the challenge for Christians is how do we navigate those principles in a way that reflects grace and not judgement? And yes trying to develop a theology for worshiping communities is tough when you look at the writings of the New Testament and the variety of historical/denominational expressions of Church. If it was going to be easy however we wouldn’t have been given the Spirit and we would be much better at expressing the heart and mission of Christ.
Just thoughts
Grace and Peace
Hey Camo,
I do love reading your blog, and feel like a bit of a dooz for so far only responding to blogs about homosexuality… but…
The difficulty that I have with what you’ve said is that you seem to isolate homosexuality from all other relationships – and what’s sexually right or wrong in those relationships. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your position you seemed to argue that saying homosexuality is wrong is as ‘unfair’ as saying women don’t belong in leadership roles (i.e. if they were born with it/desire it, why shouldn’t they have it?); but if you take that for a walk into all other relationships, then it’s biblically ‘unfair’ to say that I can’t sleep with another woman while I’m married to my wife (because that desire certainly raises its ugly head from time to time), and that it’s biblically ‘unfair’ to have sex before marriage (which I certainly wanted!) – both of which I feel the Bible clearly marks as sinful and ungodly. Just because I desire sex as a part of my relationship with someone (or something!) doesn’t mean its right before God. I think that maybe the starting place should be ‘where does God want sex in relationships and why?’ and then apply whatever outcomes you get across all relationships – from married to unmarried, between friends, between parents and children, between both sexes, between same sexes.
Love to hear your thoughts, Clint
Awesome. You possibly would’ve bypassed the moderation if your name was spelt with a capital and it was the same ip as last time or something. I’m not sure.
You raise a good point that I skipped over wholly. My reasoning seems to be that if we let one or two boundaries down (the boundary to women in leadership and the boundary to protected sex) then we must let another boundary down (the boundary to marriage for homosexuals). Yet, as you point out, why have I chosen only this boundary and not others such as sex before marriage? Shouldn’t my position allow for, in some point in time, all boundaries to be taken down? That’s actually probably one of my biggest fears in supporting progressive values. If I’m this same person in one hundred years time, what ghastly social ‘equality’ might I be endorsing that my current self would throw up over? One example, that I’ll not go too deeply into, is that of paedophilia. There are a very small minority of people out there who argue for children’s sexual ‘rights’, in which some cases where ‘consent’ is involved should be viewed in a less incriminating light… I really hope this kind of thinking doesn’t lead down that track.
I think, however, there are some important differences between the examples you cite and gay marriage. A lot of people have access to marriage as a kind of ‘right’. You could say that most people in Australia, at some point in their life, have access to marriage as a right. Homosexuals, well I can’t predict the future so say growing up thirty years ago, never will have access to this right throughout their lives. Fornication (sorry, there is some poetic validity in this word over the more euphemistic ‘sex before marriage’, haha) and adultery are no longer mediated by the Church or government, at least not to the same extent. The ability to commit either is much more universal than the right to marriage, giving the Church the opportunity to show an alternative way of life, one lived before God. Homosexuality, something that many individuals do not choose for themselves, should not bar them from the universality of marriage. The point is hard to articulate, but I’ll paraphrase to make sure: Most people already have the opportunity for sexual behaviours that go against marriage, but not most people have the opportunity to marry.
Thanks for the response. I think maybe we’re coming at it from different angles; I’d love to hear more of your thoughts (perhaps in another post some time?) on biblical authority and its relationship to philosophy and reason. Keep blogging; I love learning from you and about you through your posts.
Yes! You’re right! Thanks for listening and keeping up =) Have an awesome time in Indo and I’ll see you when you get back!
Bro, you’ve got me on my toes! Nice! On the first footnote, don’t take me too seriously. Don’t take me too seriously in anything I say, actually.
Yeah, the passing-over idea was probably a result of some light poisoning from cynicism. I hadn’t explored other options completely. If some of the subjugatory passages are truly Pauline then I have a feeling he didn’t realise the full ramifications of what he was saying in his other writings. And this isn’t a bad thing. I think that when reading any ancient writer, people need to remove themselves from this idea of complete coherency, that everything someone says should be in line with everything they say. This idea of smooth corners and linearity, etc, is unrealistic if you compare it with people in real life. People’s attitudes change over time, but not just that, when I am writing a singular piece of writing there is not often a complete unity of emotion or thought, etc, but I am swayed in different directions throughout.
You are right in saying that I don’t say what my final position is. But I come pretty close. Haha.
It would be nice to hear more about how you think gay marriage and women in church leadership are not linked: For me this has always been the most inescapable hypocrisy in my thinking. ‘Birth’ is a metaphor for a wider range of things, like factors influencing on you when you’re growing up, etc, if that makes sense. It was a shorthand oversimplification.
Yes, and help. I need some direction for next year. I had my haughty eyes set on Canberra. I really wanted to study philosophy, like see if I could do it starting from level 3 or something. Otherwise, Otago looks good. I thought about Laidlaw a while back. Maybe. But I’m really loving philosophy. I might have a ‘pray’ about it though. Find out where I’m ‘called’. It would however be awesome to work alongside you. We could be very competitive and feel much more awesome than the other when one of us gets one more mark.
Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” James 4:13-15
Don’t worry, he was talking to me.
What did you study last time? I thought you already studied philosophy. Laidlaw is good. I’ve done one course so far, really liked it, but the rest next year. People speak highly of Otago too though, on the theology front anyway.
With regard to women in leadership and homosexuality, the two are definitely related in a bunch of ways, and I tend to take what could be (mis)diagnosed as a ‘liberal’ position on both of them, but I think there’s a lot more (direct) biblical precedent for male/female equality than there is for LGBT equality. I can’t think of anything in the bible as direct as the evidence of female leaders, Junia etc, in support of tolerating homosexuality (but I’d argue there’s plenty of indirect biblical reasons for it)
So, while I’m sure there is hypocrisy in this stance for a lot of (/most) people, I do think a defensible academic case can be made in support of (binary) gender equality while opposing LGBT lifestyles, because there are completely different factors and data to consider as well as the factors in common. I’ve read an article doing just that and it made sense although I disagree on the LGBT stance.
HE THOUGHT I STUDIED PHILOSOPHY. I love you man. No, it’s definitely something I’d like to sink my teeth into. I studied to be a teacher, but two years out of uni and I’ve pretty much forgotten how to do so…
I think your point for differentiating between women’s rights and LGBT rights stands on what you said before, that an honest reading of the New Testament, etc, leads to support for women’s rights and binary gender equality. But yeah, I haven’t seen an awesomely good demonstration of that (admittedly my position then arises from ignorance) so I can only currently conclude that this support must be based on a denial of explicit bible verses. Back in the day, I couldn’t see what all the fuss was — like why would women want to be in leadership and not accept the roles God had prepared for them? There were other options available. But if I accept that women should be allowed leadership in the church, as a right of being human, then I can only accept also that homosexuals, instead of embracing some role God has prepared for them, like celibacy, should also be given the right to marriage as a fundamental human right.
Hey you haven’t said anything about contraception. It’d be interesting to hear. Do you think it’s something that many current Protestant ethics systems takes for granted?
I suppose the argument is personal, but I tried to translate it into a more universal sense: If I accept women in church leadership and contraception then I must also accept gay marriage.
I take contraception for granted. I’ve never really considered it a real issue even when I lived with a Catholic family (7 kids) for a year. You make a good point connecting that to homosexuality and the ‘natural’ argument though.
I don’t really consider ‘nature’ a liberating or helpful or particularly biblical category. There’s no word for it in Hebrew (though obviously Paul does mention it, as you quote). A much better concept is ‘creation’ I think, and I think changing our sexual ethics and laws (not to follow the trends of the time but to better reflect justice and love and true freedom) could be part of creation.
It’s definitely something I’d like to look more into. I think a well-thought out view on contraception is needed; people may have done the thinking sixty or more years back but it’s now only assumed and I think it’s two early to start assuming. Any talk of sex in the bible (including implied talk through say ‘marriage’) is all too readily read through the lens of God’s gift of love to married couples, missing the obvious contributing, even primary, aspect of reproduction. It’s also important for informing views on abortion.
Ooh, and one point on something you said somewhere else some time back… I disagree with gender neutral pronouns in bible translation. I think the bible should be presented as honestly as possible. The gender neutral pronouns can be implied from the context, but I don’t think we should alter the text. The only way we could alter the text would be by not really altering it because gender neutral alternatives are now the closest words in English for what the original writers meant… But I don’t think this is the case. I think that the masculine as the norm was something that all of the writers adhered to, even if unconsciously, and our translations should reflect this. There are verses that go beyond the masculine as the norm but they never got as far as changing their pronouns. Our changing of pronouns should be in the way we read the text, but not in the English translation itself. I would question whether translators of ancient epics and classics into English fall into this same tendency to neutralise…
Your first footnote is not something I’d want to take to its logical conclusion.
I’m not quite clear on what exactly you were saying about women in leadership etc, but if I’m getting you right I think I vaguely agree that we sometimes need to ‘pass over’ certain out-of-context verses that seem to contradict our position on face value. That’s not to say that there’s no way of reconciling the various passages (I’d be reluctant to agree that our only options are ‘complentarianism’ or ignoring the ‘bad’ verses). New information and new interpretations are always being come up with and maybe we just don’t have any way of reconciling it ourselves yet, but somebody else might. But either way, yes, at times we do have to abandon the fundamentalist attitude of “this is a bible verse, so I have to obey it”.
I do think there is a rational and fair way of deciding what we prioritise and what we ‘put aside for now’, it’s not just what we prefer. For example, I’ve become convinced that a central thrust of Paul’s theology and ethics and politics etc was the cultivation of the egalitarian community where Galatians 3:28 is true. I think this is the overwhelming theme in his thought and practice, so the burden of proof should be on the ‘other’ verses to show why a face value instructional reading of them is appropriate for us, and reconcilable with this overwhelming theme.
You don’t say what your final position on homosexuality is, beyond showing the hypocrisy of ‘naturalist’ and ‘obeying the Bible’ arguments [incidentally, I do think it’s a fallacy to say your view on homosexuality is necessarily linked to your view on female leadership, btw], so I don’t know how much I agree or disagree.
As for me, as a good sociologiser I reject naturalist/biologist explanations for homosexuality (and most other things), but that doesn’t mean I’m against it. In fact I’ve gradually become more-or-less completely unable to reconcile an anti-homosexuality stance with those other overwhelming themes of the Bible, particularly love and concern for the oppressed.
In conclusion, you should come back to Chch and enrol full-time in a GradDip in Theology at Laidlaw with me in 2013. Stat.