Читать книгу Homosexuality - Joseph Walter Miller - Страница 4
ОглавлениеIntroduction
Homosexuality is one the most polarizing and confusing issues within the American culture, political arena, media, and church. Our culture has divided itself by acceptance and/or rejection of the LGBT community and/or gay sexual relationships. There seems to be little middle ground. Christians particularly are divided on various issues regarding the LGBT community. Is homosexuality (orientation and/or practice) a sin? Should homosexuals have equal rights to marriage, legal access, church leadership, inheritance, benefits, and clergy ordination? The government is obviously polarized and confused as evidenced by the Clinton administration’s implementation of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military and its withdrawal in the Obama administration. The defense of marriage act (DOMA) was a political/societal attempt to preclude gay marriage by defining heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable norm.
The cultural tide towards acceptance and full inclusion of LGBT rights and privileges will eventually carry the day. Courts have overturned and continue to overturn state laws that preclude gay marriage. The Supreme Court recently ruled, 5-4, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage in the United States, but that does not answer the questions for the Christian church. What should Christians believe about homosexual relationships including marriage? Should we condone and participate in gay marriages?
Scientific and medical studies affirm that homosexuality is an orientation born of discovery rather than a lifestyle choice. In other words, homosexuality is a function of genetics and/or environment that causes a person to be attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. There are arguments pro and con to what causes sexual attraction, but orientation is not chosen. There are some cases of homoeroticism, such as prison sexual contacts, that are not between homosexuals. The questions that this book attempts to address are the following: given that homosexual orientation exits in our world today, is it morally permissible (according to scripture) for those with said orientation to participate in homosexual eroticism and under what circumstances?
Younger generations of Americans are more accepting of LGBT inclusion, and they express dismay at what they perceive as hypocrisy in the church’s homophobia. Within in the next 20 years we, as a society, will wonder why we ever excluded the LGBT community from full rights and privileges.
So, if the issue is becoming fait accompli, why do we need another book on homosexuality? Although society is moving toward full inclusion, the church is in the midst of great struggle that is cleaving the union of the one body of Christ. Some denominations have already experienced schism as a result of acceptance of gay marriage/union and ordination of gay clergy. Some years ago, the Episcopal Church ordained an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, and a number of American Episcopal churches severed their relationships with the Episcopal Church and covenanted with churches in Africa that were part of the Anglican Communion. The Presbyterian Church (USA) recently decided that pastors could officiate at same sex weddings in states where they were legal. The United Church of Christ has allowed gay marriage since 2005. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) endorsed homosexual partners in 2009, homosexual marriage in 2011, and elected the first gay bishop in 2011. The Southern Baptist Convention and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church officially oppose gay marriage and the ordination of openly gay clergy. The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and their clergy are celibate, so it is a moot argument for priestly ordination.
The United Methodist Discipline (the official polity and doctrine of the UMC) officially opposes homosexual relationships. The requirements for ordination as clergy specify the following: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”1 The term “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” will be referred to as the “noninclusion clause” of the UMC in this book. It was added to the Discipline of the UMC in 1972. The UMC official stance on gay marriage is that “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”2 In the same book of Discipline, there are words of grace extended to the gay community; regardless, the UMC recognizes gay sex as sinful. At the 2014 Annual Conference meeting of the Texas Annual Conference, a set of resolutions was put before delegates that would petition the General Conference to change discriminatory language in the Discipline. They were rejected by a margin greater than 2 to 1. Unofficial organizations within the UMC are at odds with one another over this issue: Breaking the Silence favors full inclusion and the Confessing Movement, supported by the periodical The Good News, supports the continued noninclusion clause. While this book may be of interest to all Christians, I am a United Methodist clergyperson and I write from my perspective and concern for my church. I hope to provide a way forward for the United Methodist Church to resolve the issue and put it behind us.
Some UMC pastors have violated this doctrinal admonition and performed gay marriages. The Rev. Frank Schaefer was defrocked on December 19, 2013, by the United Methodist Church for performing a gay marriage in Pennsylvania between his son and son’s spouse. After much judicial proceedings, Schaefer was reinstated after serving a 30-day suspension. Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert performed a gay marriage in Alabama (actually a blessing because the couple was already married in Washington DC). The bishop was formally asked by the executive committee of the Council of Bishops of the UMC not to do the wedding, and the Council of Bishops has formally written and asked him to submit himself on charges to the Judicatory of the UMC. Many clergy have supported him and many clergy have called for his defrocking. There have been unofficial dialogues suggesting that the UMC split into two denominations and others are crying for unity between the two groups. Of course many of the seven million members are caught in the battle unknowingly. These are merely examples of what is going on in my denomination.
Since homosexuality is such a polarizing subject for Christians, what stance should the church take in providing spiritual direction for Christians and to culture? Does it matter what the church does or believes? Many in the church are oblivious to the issue or consider it a peripheral, unimportant argument among academics and administrators. In his watershed book Christ and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr proposes five typologies that define the relationship of the church to its surrounding culture. If one adopts a typology of the church as in relationship to culture in some way, what we believe and what we do should matter greatly within the total cultural environment. If we become isolationists from culture, then what we believe and do only matters to a church “behind the walls” while culture goes about its secular business without our influence. How we go about relating to culture is a massively complex issue. This book takes the position that what we believe and what we do are important to our culture and civilization. Ushering in the Kingdom of God is more than bringing people into the Sunday morning worship service; it is also impacting culture in a positive way. The United Methodist Church’s mission statement declares that “The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs.”3 That phrase carries a lot of content to be unpacked, but one thing it means is that the UMC is responsible, to some extent, for the moral and spiritual character of the world around us. What we believe, say, and do should make a difference in the societies of the world.
It matters what the church believes about homosexuality.
Where are we today?
Many churchgoers (if not most) today, both laity and clergy, are noninclusionists or “traditionalists” by belief. I define traditionalists as those who, if pressed to answer, would say that homosexuality is a sin. They might define the difference between orientation and homoeroticism. That is, they might say something like “hate the sin but love the sinner.” If asked why they think homosexuality is a sin, they would refer generically to God’s law, scripture, church teaching, and/or doctrine in a mostly obscure way. Some people would cite scripture out of context, such as “the Bible says it is an abomination.” Whatever the specific response, I think most churchgoers would fall into this traditionalist group. Many who call themselves Christian but do not go to church would probably respond as traditionalist, as well. Of course, what the church believes and teaches should have nothing to do with individual opinion; our joint beliefs and teachings should be shaped by other, more transcendent sources and warrants. However, we cannot ignore what impacts the mindsets of individuals in the church because individuals impact the mindset of the church. Although expressed rather graphically, the traditionalist mindset equates with the opinion of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, who made the following remarks in an interview in the January issue of GQ magazine: “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Phil Robertson expresses what a lot of uneducated heterosexuals think. By uneducated, I mean those who still think that homoerotic behavior is a lifestyle choice made by people who are basically heterosexual. In other words, the belief exists that we are all heterosexual by creation, and some of us choose the homosexual lifestyle. This book does not debate the issue of choice versus orientation, because the issue does not exist. Homosexuality is a discovery or realization. There is no defense of flat-earth theory contained within this writing.
Another difficulty in discussing homosexuality is that open, honest, and real discussions about the details of homosexuality are difficult. One of the reasons for this lack of negotiability is the passionate polarization already mentioned. Another reason is our culture’s reluctance to discuss sexuality and expressions of sexuality at all. As Archie Bunker (in the old TV classic that broke a lot of taboos) once said to Edith, “Paragorically.... I will not let you ever talk about our sex life.” As long as gays stayed in the closet, traditionalists did not really have to be involved; they could just hope the issue would go away. There are some similarities to the civil rights movement in the 60s. African-Americans could not possibly stay in the closet, but if they would just stay in their place, some said, the whole issue would go away. Civil rights for people of color did not go away, and civil (and religious) rights for the LGBT community will not go away either.
Kids in my pre-sexual-revolution era may have joked about gay attributes, but it was like no such thing really existed. Today, that head-in-the-sand stance is gone. The issue is very much out in the open and being argued and tested. The LGBT community has been marginalized and oppressed for a number of years by both secular culture and religion. Much has been written in academic (psychological, sociological, theological) literature, the media has had a continuing field day, and our political/secular culture has relished the ongoing battle.
What should the church be teaching?
We have noted the impact of tradition on belief, but tradition is a sticky wicket. Whose tradition? What timeframe in history? Recent tradition is clear in both the church and culture: traditionalists say that homoerotic behavior is anathema. But is the tradition consistent with experience, reason, and, most importantly, scripture itself? Traditionalists say that their tradition squares with scripture, and some quote various “clobber” scriptural texts that allegedly prove their point. These texts are bandied about and picked up piecemeal by the populace of pew sitters and church outsiders who both claim “values” as part of their agenda. This book is about those clobber texts and what they mean regarding homosexuality. Biblical interpretation is fraught with conflict, especially when it comes to a controversial subject.
Scriptures have been used to justify slavery, racism, ethnic prejudice, and elitism. The great theological arguments for and against slavery in the mid-1800s are an example. Plucked from context and interpreted literally, slavery was not only justified but proven as pre-ordained by God. The scriptures interpreted similarly have been and are being used to oppress and dominate women. The civil rights movement in this country was opposed by many well-intentioned (white) churches. There is a trajectory to the movement of the Holy Spirit among us, incorporating the living nature of holy scripture. Even the few years that separate the writing of the gospels show changes in the expectations of Jesus’ return. It is quite natural and good that as the context changes over the years that the work of the Holy Spirit takes on new and exciting tasks. The gospel is truth, and the Holy Spirit represents the teachings and grace of Jesus Christ to us, but the application/context changes.
There are many books written about how to interpret biblical texts, but Adam Hamilton has written a book that is particularly helpful in understanding the Bible.4 I do not intend to plow this ground that has been so ably cultivated by Hamilton, but I do want to emphasize two things. The first is context. Each book in the Bible was written within a particular context or set of contexts. The history that is covered and the history of the writing itself varies significantly. The creation stories in Genesis tell about something that happened in the distant past, but are told from the perspective of someone living much later. The oral tradition was passed down through the ages before being set in writing. The writing was also passed down through the ages while the language was changing, and various writers were redacting (editing) and adding various other sources. Each writer or group of writers had their own agenda in repeating the story, and their readers were different in each generation. Occasionally, the readers or hearers were privy to details that make the biblical writing obvious to them but puzzling to us who came later. Those details were very much a function of the culture and scientific knowledge of the day. Of course, what is fascinating is that, through many hundreds of years, the Bible is relevant and revelatory as God’s word to each generation. Paul’s letters, such as Romans and 1 Corinthians were written to specific congregations or groups of congregations in the very early Church. Like today, each community of faith had its own set of issues that the apostle was trying to address through the written word. Scholars try to determine what was going on in those churches because we only have one side of the dialogue … Paul’s.
The other issue alongside of context is language. The First Testament was written in ancient Hebrew although it was translated into Greek in Alexandria Egypt about 200 BCE. This version is called the Septuagint, and many of the First Testament passages that Jesus and Paul use come from the Septuagint rather than the “original” Hebrew scriptures. Some First Testament quotations in the Second Testament vary from our own Bible because our First Testament is based on the Hebrew scriptures. Also, we do not have the “original” versions of any book in the Bible; we have what has been passed down to us. Scholars may spend their entire career interpreting old manuscripts and trying to develop the most “accurate” reading in the original languages. Even so, there are several versions of manuscripts, and that number increased with the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. From these manuscripts, interpreters have written numerous translations in English. There are more translations of the Bible into English than can easily be counted. There are several reasons for so many translations: we have recovered more ancient biblical manuscripts through the years, for one thing, and different translators try to balance readability with accuracy while pressing their own theological agendas.
Context and language are particularly important for interpreting the “clobber” texts that were referred to earlier. The context is very important because four clobber verses (1-4) in the Old Testament are part of narratives that are the genre of myth or epic, and they are very important theologically. The theology is missed by plucking the clobber versus out of context. Two others (5-6) are short texts that are part of a large series of commandments that were related in ways that are very different from our way of thinking. The interrelationship of these commandments makes them difficult to translate to our culture. The last three clobber verses come from Paul or the Pauline literature in the New Testament. In each of these letters Paul is addressing specific early Christian communities that each has a unique relationship with Paul. He is addressing that relationship and preaching to them about various issues in those specific churches. We cannot ignore the context of these letters.
Language is a difficulty in the majority of these verses for the simple reason that neither Hebrew nor Greek had a word for homosexual in their limited vocabularies. So these texts that have been used to declare homosexuality a sin have done so without the advantage of simple word translation. Specifically, in the Pauline scriptures that we will study, the translation and interpretation are very challenging, and various versions of the English Bible have vastly different translations of the clobber verses that appear in scriptures 7-9.
Methodology
Frank Schafer was driven by love to break the doctrinal standards of the United Methodist Church. He performed a marriage for his son because … well, he loves his son, and he did the ceremony out of love. There is some argument that focuses on comparing the biblical commandments with the overarching theme of biblical love. Some argue that God loves all of his creatures, including gay people; that Christ expresses the ultimate love and mercy of God for humankind; that we are commanded to love one another by Jesus; and that God is love.5 However, others would point out that sin is sin, and while forgiveness and mercy is always available through the death and resurrection of Christ, the need to obey the biblical commandments is not abrogated. Adultery is still adultery and murder is still murder, and our loving God is also just. However, what do the scriptures say? Since I am a Wesleyan by training and belief, I count scripture as the primary source for determining what the church’s teaching and response should be on issues such as homosexuality. Reason, experience, and tradition—the remaining three legs of the Wesley Quadrilateral—also play a part in forming a sound framework for establishing moral positions. Hence the major portion of this writing is commentary on the nine clobber texts.
Other scripture exegetes have already plowed the ground of scripture and theology regarding homosexuality. Like many polarized questions, the answers are varied and also polarized. Although some authors are reasoned and objective, some seem to bring their own presuppositions to the subject, even when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Of course, exegetes are human and come to biblical interpretation with lenses impacted by culture, environment, ethnicity, experience, education, training, and personal and implanted paradigms. One of the overriding presuppositions is traditionally and culturally conditioned to find homosexual practice repugnant, distasteful, and very wrong. Hence, much of mainstream biblical commentary presupposes what is now assumed in our contemporary culture. On the other hand, those who have had and have intimate relationships with the LGBT community, either through pastoral relationships or secular relationships, tend to interpret the same scripture differently. Observing and pastoring LGBT individuals and couples has become a motivation for many to favor the relaxing of doctrinal standards relating to homosexuality.
Traditional Bible commentaries support the noninclusion interpretation. The accepted exegesis of these verses declares homoeroticism as sinful behavior. Since a lot of voices have already established the prevailing belief, the prevailing understanding requires little study. Most of my efforts are focused on individuals who have employed a contrarian interpretation. Logically, one should have to prove (through scripture, reason, tradition, and experience) that something is sinful rather than prove it is not sinful. However, homoeroticism has been accepted as a sin by many, so more attention has to be paid to the opposite.
There are several sources available for our study: scripture is the primary source; presumably neutral commentary on the Bible (although my assumption is that most commentaries declare homoeroticism a sin); presumably neutral works on Bible-based ethics; specialized studies on the clobber scriptures that conclude that homoeroticism is either a sin or not a sin; and views expressed by different denominations.
There are new books on this subject coming out constantly. The various angles that they are coming from are fascinating. However, the biblical arguments are pretty much defined by now, and I have tried to cover the major foci of the argument. Hence, my analysis is very much dependent on selected scholars, and it is not comprehensive. I do not cover everything that has been said about this subject.
Who is doing the teaching today? Arguing that homosexuality is not a sin
Jack Rogers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary, Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and author of the book Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality. Although his experiences had to have had some effect on his stance, in the section of his book entitled “How My Mind Changed,”6 he credits his in-depth biblical study as the driving force for his efforts to effect change in the Presbyterian Church by giving equal status to the LGBT community. Of course, anyone who acts in a judicatory/administrative position within a major denomination and is making multiple decisions regarding the lives of congregations and preachers would have to be influenced by the relationships of the people and clergy. I find it fascinating that those clergy who deal with the gay community within their churches seem to be influenced positively and accept them as full Christians. The lens through which they read scripture may be different from those of us who do not minister to the LGBT community.
Adam Hamilton is pastor to the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas. It has become the largest United Methodist Church. Rev. Hamilton has also been swayed heavily by his ministry and relationships to the LGBT community in his own church. He is that rare individual who appreciates all of the counter arguments from other United Methodists but, over time, has taken a stronger and stronger position of his own. Chapter 29 in his most recent book, Making Sense of the Bible, expresses his scriptural interpretation of the biblical texts on homosexuality.7
J. Neil Alexander is a bishop in the Episcopal Church in Atlanta. Prior to becoming a bishop, he taught seminary and served parish ministry. In Chapter 3 of his short but important book, This Far By Grace, he details how he came to interpret scripture and how he now interprets it regarding homosexuality.8 In the first two chapters of his book he details his encounters with a gay mentor and other LGBT people, but his focus is on biblical interpretation done “the Anglican way.”
Daniel A. Helminiak published What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality in 1994 that went through seven printings. A new and updated Millennium edition was published in 2000 and went through 12 printings. Helminiak is a Roman Catholic priest who has ministered to several gay communities. Like other clergy who have intimate relationships with the gay community, his biblical interpretations dispute the traditional, literal interpretations that have been used to oppress the LGBT community. His book is largely a scripture-by-scripture commentary that dismantles the interpretations that claim all homosexual practice is sinful.
John Boswell provided the initial in-depth, historical analysis of homosexuality and social intolerance in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, published in 1980. In 1994, which is the year he died, his second book on gay marriage, Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, was published. Boswell was a professor of history at Yale University and an accomplished linguist; he was raised Episcopalian but converted to Roman Catholic at the age of 16. For his historic analysis he translated many ancient texts, poems, narratives, laws, philosophies, and the like, to try to understand the swinging pendulum of cultural practice and tolerance of homosexuality. He covered the chronological era from the beginning of the Western Christianity to the 14th century. Although attitudes swung by extremes over the centuries, in many historical eras, including early Christendom, the practice of homosexuality was not a religious, moral issue but a cultural issue. There was no recognition of gay orientation, and people of diverse backgrounds practiced both gay and straight sex. Many early rulers such as Emperor Hadrian had homosexual relationships. Boswell’s analyses9 of the scriptures and early church were an opening salvo against the contemporary, non-analytical acceptance of the status quo condemnation of the LGBT community. His scholarship is impeccable though, being the first to tackle this issue head on, his work has endured much criticism. Boswell died of AIDS at the age of 47, and I suspect that he was gay. Perhaps his personal experience informed his analysis.
The Rev. Dr. L. William Countryman is an Episcopal priest and, most recently, Sherman E. Johnson Professor in Biblical Studies at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, CA (now retired). He has written extensively on a number of theological, biblical, and Christian ethical subjects. Along with Boswell, Countryman took up the mantle of LGBT apologetics before it was popular to do so. His book Dirt, Greed, & Sex, published in 1988, was updated in 2007.10 His work on homosexuality was motivated by a request for a series of lectures on the subject. He is responsible for pointing out the difference between “purity” and ethical or moral issues in the First Testament, particularly in Leviticus. He considers the purity issues more contextual to the time period and hence, less binding on contemporary society. Countryman is gay and married to Jon Vieira.
Mark Allan Powell is the Robert and Phyllis Leatherman Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary. He is editor of the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary and author of more than 100 articles and 25 books on the Bible and religion, including a widely used textbook, Introducing the New Testament. He is probably the most prolific scholar within my selection of sources. Powell has written a chapter in a quasi-official book written by a series of distinguished authors in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), Faithful Conversations, edited by James M. Childs.
In a somewhat surprising treatise by one of the leading Pauline scholars in the world, Victor Paul Furnish takes on the subject of homosexuality in the overall context of the moral teachings of Paul.11 Furnish’s view is surprising because he does not tell of any significant experience in relationships with gay persons; his entire book is about understanding the moral teachings of Paul. Furnish discusses divorce, sex, and marriage, and presents an entire chapter on homosexuality.12 He points out the textual difficulties in making homosexuality practice a black and white issue. Dr. Furnish is University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University.
K. Renato Lings has recently published Love Lost in Translation, a 641 page tome made up of the most detailed literary and linguistic analysis of the clobber scriptures. Lings (according to book cover) and website holds degrees in Spanish, Translation Studies, and Theology. In addition to studying Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Nahuatl (Aztec), he has written and taught extensively on biblical interpretation, translation, and issues relating to gender and sexuality. Missing from his introduction is his motivation for writing on this subject. His writing appears to betray only an academic interest in accurate translation and sexuality as expressed in the Bible. Although the book itself is very detailed in translation of Hebrew and Greek, it is a very readable and interesting book.
One of the more recent works is a very comprehensive, yet readable, book my Matthew Vines. Matthew is a young conservative, gay Christian with a high view of scripture. Vines is a well known advocate for affirming gay sexual relationship and supports gay marriage. He has a blog site and founded the advocacy group The Reformation Project.13 He started his public work with a YouTube video on March 10, 2012, that went viral. He has posted other speeches on YouTube, and he is quoted by various mainstream media. He is a sought after speaker by various progressive Christian groups. Not only is his scholarship first-class, he folds his own Christian journey into his book. His book and advocacy are game changers. However, because of his very public profile and advocacy, Vines and his work have received a lot of criticism; much of it is negative. Although he does not have the academic credentials of some of his critics, his book utilizes resources admirably.
Who is doing the teaching today? Arguing that homosexuality is a sin
Besides the standard commentaries that address the scriptures that reportedly proscribe homosexuality, there are those works that disagree with taking a positive stance towards homosexuality, including a magnificent piece of work published by Richard B. Hays in 1996.14 The majority of the book relates the New Testament scriptures to the discernment of moral vision. Hays provides several examples of the interpretation of scripture providing moral direction for various contemporary dilemmas. One of those is the issue of homosexuality, which he discusses in Chapter 16.15 Hays is a highly respected biblical scholar, and the assortment of scholars who have endorsed this book is staggering. He lines up with those traditionalists who consider the practice of homosexuality a sin regardless of the circumstances.
The most prolific, recent voice casting homosexual practice as a sin belongs to Robert A. J. Gagnon.16 Gagnon is an associate professor of New Testament at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA). He holds a BA from Dartmouth and an MTS from Harvard Divinity School, as well as a PhD from the Princeton Theological Seminary. What Boswell has done for supporting the full inclusion and acceptance of homosexual activity, Gagnon has done for the polar opposite view. His thick and dense book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, is an academic tour de force that carefully examines the biblical witness while comparing it to literature written in the same era. He elucidates cultural and religious contexts with in-depth translation analyses trying to resolve the current argument over what Paul meant by use of various words in his letter to the Corinthians. He also attempts to discount other exegetes who interpreted the scriptures as neutral and/or supportive of homosexual relationships and activity. Gagnon believes that any and all homosexual activity is a sin. Interestingly, he is more conservative than his own denomination and he is one of the younger authors that I selected.
Why me?
Since so much has been written on homosexuality, why write another tome? Many others have written in support of the LGBT community; some are briefly introduced above. As noted, those who have had a significant relationship(s) with gay friends and/or family tend to be supportive of the LGBT community. When they exegete the scripture that has been used to oppress gays, they interpret them differently from the current negative connotations that are often introduced by words such as, “Well, the Bible says….”
So why am I writing about this subject, and in defense of the LGBT community and homosexual practice? Unlike Hamilton, Helminiak, or Rogers, I have not had an extensive ministry with the gay community. I do not have intimate relationships with any gay people who have come out of the closet. I have not witnessed committed Christian gay couples and their faithful service to the Lord. I was an engineer for about 30 years and lived in a refined bubble devoid of poverty, cultural issues like abortion or homosexuality, economic deprivation, pay-day loan sharks, lack of basic medical care, unjust immigration systems, and the like. Depending on the particular year, I mingled among PhD scientists and engineers, other university academics, or well-paid workers in a production facility.
I remember reading a Houston Chronicle article many years ago about the oppression of undocumented Latino workers who were not paid their wages. They had no recourse to the law because they would get deported. I remember learning about this and other injustices in the world in high resolution, but such occurrences were not in my life’s sphere. I read about poverty, read about injustice of all kinds, and was partially aware of inequities in our culture. Then my world changed. I graduated in 2002 from Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University with the standard preaching degree, a Masters of Divinity, at the age of 57. I was ordained an elder in the UMC at the age of 60. At first, my appointments were as an associate at churches with relatively well-to-do congregants. My refined bubble was burst by pastoral ministry with a more diverse group of people, but the upper middle class nature of the parishes was not all that different from my previous environment. In 2004 I was appointed pastor of a church in the county seat of a rural and poverty-stricken county of Texas. People tend to think of Texas as cattle and oil and money, but none of those is prominent in our town. There is no industry, jobs, or government-provided safety net. We have been abandoned by offices that once included social security, SNAP (food stamps), medical care for the indigent, employment assistance, aid for the aging and disabled, and the like. People are without much recourse.
On September 23, 2005, our town and surrounding community were hit hard by Hurricane Rita. Since we were a rural area, and New Orleans was still reeling from Katrina, we were pretty much ignored by state and federal governments and agencies. Our city and county governments did a yeoman’s job of putting back the pieces, but many, many people suffered for a long time. I had the distinct honor and privilege of helping host the Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) that provided enormous help in rebuilding homes damaged by the hurricane. However, after the first few weeks of reviewing damage and starting projects, these legendary servants of Christ were confounded. Their mission was to restore homes to pre-hurricane condition; that is, to fix the damage from Rita. There were a lot of damaged roofs, but when they stripped the shingles and plywood, they found that entire houses had pre-existing structural damage from years of zero maintenance and/or initial substandard construction. MDS resolved this issue at the management level and started rebuilding houses as needed. Over the years they even built a lot of new homes for the economically disadvantaged of our community.
The last vestiges of my previous life exploded early in the rebuilding process when we visited a woman whose home had some hurricane damage. She also showed us a bathroom problem. The wax seal around her commode had been leaking for an extended period of time and the floor around it was rotted and the commode halfway fallen through the floor. That is bad, but what we observed next was worse. The drain underneath the commode was not connected and, when it was used, the waste simply went under the house that was up on concrete blocks. Since that day I have observed people living without running water, electricity, air conditioning, heating, furniture, and so forth. This is reality in parts of America. What does this have to do with homosexuality? There is a great amount of potential ministerial time wasted on fighting a hot-button issue like gay marriage when there are so many needs that the scriptures teach us to address in an active way. People are going hungry; people are homeless; the gap between the rich and everybody else keeps expanding; we have substandard medical care for the poor; our mental health system sucks; food stamps (SNAP) were cut recently; the minimum wage is far removed from a living wage; and social justice in America is in the pits.
We are all too familiar with the divorce rates and collapse of heterosexual marriage. I actually dislike doing many weddings because I can tell that the focus is on the wedding and not the marriage. Virtually all couples who are getting married are already living together, and many are living together (we used to call this shacking up) without any benefit or thought of ever getting married. Heterosexual commitment is disappearing. In my own parish, single mothers with children are common, and fathers are not supplying any financial support. Sexual violence against women is widespread. A recent article in Time magazine highlighted the epidemic of rape in university campuses across the US,17 where the extreme assault problem makes college the most unsafe place for young women to be, and these are heterosexual acts of violence towards women. What is the church teaching our young men as they are growing up? The church’s responses to heteroeroticism may not create a great amount of controversy, but our responses are woefully inadequate.
One of my motivators is the church’s lack of emphasis on what we should be doing as a church and individual Christians. There are Christian works being done, but how much more ministry could we do if we were not as concerned with boundaries as the Pharisees were in Jesus’ time.
Another motivator is my acquired understanding of human nature that leads to scapegoating. From 30 years in the secular, business world I learned that people try to feel good about themselves by putting others down. Stuck in a boring job with an overbearing boss and little room for self-esteem or hope, people tend to elevate themselves psychologically by playing on the foibles of others. This may require the metaphoric knife in the back, a subtle dig, a bit of one-sided gossip, or just watching with enjoyment as someone else slowly twists in the wind… hung up by the idiosyncrasies of the working environment. When this put-down of others becomes directed at a minority group, it becomes scapegoating: “It’s not our fault that the project failed, it was those bean counters. They screw up everything we try to do!” I think that our culture and the church have been involved in scapegoating the LGBT community.
I grew up in a fundamentalist church. During a formative time in my life, I heard a disproportionate number of sermons on the evil of alcohol consumption. I was a teetotaler so I could feel pretty smug about myself on the railroad to heaven. By focusing our energy on the LGBT community we can hide our sins from ourselves by heaping hot coals on the heads a minority that certainly does not deserve the derision and oppression they have received. Then there are those who turn honestly to the Bible to discern the very few scriptures that seem to relate to homosexuality, and that is why I am focused on the scripture and what others have written about the scriptures.
The Bible has at least 168 texts that relate to the common good, social justice, and the care of others. The Bible is replete with admonitions of loving one another and accepting Christ as our savior. Our savior spent his earthly life addressing suffering, hunger, disabilities, forgiveness, love, and teaching about the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. We tend to sweep those aside as we scapegoat the gay community. The Bible also has nine texts that have been interpreted to castigate the LGBT community. At the very least, the conventional interpretations of these texts are highly questionable! My thesis is that we need to get this divisive red-herring out of the way and turn to our Christ-given mission of loving one another. However, we are going to have a difficult time getting through the issue of homosexuality as long as we adopt polar opposite interpretations of the scripture. One way to bring us to together is to broaden the subject to human sexuality … that includes all of us. We are all sexual beings and our sexual behaviors are moral issues. Some sexual behaviors affect only us as individuals and/or couples and some sexual behaviors affect society. We are all fallible human beings, but scriptures can lead us to better synthesis of our sexuality without disparaging and scapegoating the LGBT community.
A detailed analysis of the various exegetical resources would be tedious at best and boring at worst. Hence, for each clobber text, I adhere to the following format: the text from the NRSV; an overview of the text itself; a brief summary of the salient points from the detailed analysis; and finally, an extensive “exegetical analysis” using the various sources from authors discussed earlier. The reader could easily skip over or skim the detailed analysis and still understand what the exegetical results are.
Part 1: What Do the So-Called Clobber Verses Teach about Homosexuality
1 The UMC Discipline, 304.3.
2 The UMC Discipline, 341.6.
3 The UMC Discipline 120.
4 Hamilton, Making Sense of the Bible.
5 John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. John 13:34 “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” 1 Peter 4:8 Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins. 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
6 Rogers, pp. 15-16.
7 Hamilton, Making Sense, Chapter 29, pp. 265-280.
8 Alexander, Chapter 3, pp. 21-50.
9 Boswell, Christianity, pp. 91-168.
10 Countryman, Dirt, Greed, & Sex.
11 Disclosure: Victor Paul Furnish was one of my professors in seminary.
12 Furnish, Chapter 3, pp. 55-93.
13 (http://www.reformationproject.org/)
14 Hays, Moral Vision.
15 Hays, pp. 379-406.
16 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
17 Time magazine, May 26, 2014, pp. 20-29.
