This week at Princeton Theological Seminary is BGLASS Week (BGLASS stands for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Supporters). The theme for this year’s BGLASS Week is “It’s About People” and on the right is the design I did for the t-shirts. There are a lot of great activities going on this week; yesterday began with a panel of three LGBT seminarians speaking about their experience here at PTS. I thought it was a helpful way to start off a week focusing on the theme of “It’s About People.”
This is something I think we often need to be reminded of in the church, especially with the PCUSA’s focus on the “issue” of homosexuality in the church, and on the ordination of LGBT folk for ministry. It’s often very easy for us to discuss the topic of homosexuality, or the issue of homosexuality, or talk about a desire to have dialogue about the issue, but it is very easy to forget that behind all of these “conversations” and debates and issues exist real people. Real people who struggle on a daily basis with existential questions; real people who are more than just their sexuality; real people who are just like you and me. It’s been very encouraging to see just how many people are picking up the BGLASS shirts this week. On Friday there is the annual BGLASS photo on the steps of the Chapel – a way for those who choose to wear the shirt to publicly show their support for the LGBT community here at Princeton.
The way I couch it is like this:
Imagine that you have a couple of kids and your spouse suddenly dies. The state tells you that it does not recognize you marriage to be legal. You now have no legal right to your kids so they go to your spouse’s parents. Your spouse also paid for the home mortgage and it was in his/her name. You also have no legal right to the home. You have no legal right from your spouse’s healthcare, nor do you have any rights to life insurance, funeral, etc. It is like you have been a stranger in the house of the one person you have loved with very ounce of your being for so long and raised two children with. No on recognizes that love and no one seems to care. Most churches do not affirm your relationship either. You are told that Christ loves you, but not your relationship.
Now imagine that this is the situation for all heterosexuals in the country by an amendment to the constitution that says that marriage can only be between two people of the same gender. You insist that you are heterosexual not by choice, but by nature. Few in the church believe you and tell you that you are sinning. It is not God’s design they tell you. Yet you still love your partner, would still die for your partner, and cannot imagine life without him or her. You are one flesh with this person and severing your tie would feel like someone reaching into your flesh and tearing your heart out one sinew at a time.
Is this justice by the state? How can the church reach out to these people who have just been told their marriages are invalid? Is it the church’s duty to reject the relationship by doctrinal fiat? Or is the responsibility to love God and neighbor far more radical than this? This is the reality for homosexuals that is caustically jettisoned with arguments from both the Bible and from a version of love that will welcome, but not accept or affirm “lifestyle” as if homosexuality is a “lifestyle” at all.
“real people who are more than just their sexuality”
If this is true, why do they get a week and there’s no week for people like me? Because it really is about that.
If heterosexuals were marginalized and discriminated against, I would imagine at least a week would be in order right? Thing is, heterosexuals are not.
I beg to differ. I believe now that the heterosexual lifestyle is now under attack. Not just by homosexuals, but by all manner of influences. If its not about their sexuality, then why give them any recognition unless they have achieved something spectacular.
“I believe now that the heterosexual lifestyle is now under attack.”
I think you might have an over-active imagination. Interesting belief I’ll give you that. Just a little tough to substantiate though. I would be amused to hear how you support such an outlandish claim however.
Also, let’s get rid of any recognition of women or black people since white history is under attack by such proposals.
Building consciousness and awareness means recognizing people not for so-called “spectacular” traits (rather subjective standard at best), but for their very existence as something legitimate – which is not at this time. If your view stuck during MLK’s protests, then black people would have not made strides because so many people were not really all that spectacular. the whole idea of recognition by achievement is absurd and I would also venture to say rather un-Christian.
Hey Adam…something is amiss with your Stylesheets…
Will there ever be a point when we will agree to disagree and go our separate ways and put an end to this turf war?
Jeremiah, are you saying the PCUSA should split over this issue?
I don’t know if we should split or not, but it seems that we will never reach a point of mutual understanding. My respect for you Adam, has never wavered, yet we will never see eye to eye. For the sake of minsitries on both sides of this issue, wouldn’t our resources be well served if they were not put towards trying to re-educate and re-educate and re-educate the other side on our respective positions? I know that this is not as black and white as I’ve made it to seem, but it appears that it is time for the church to figure out how to move forward with grace and respect. If that means one side goes one way and the other goes another than so be it. None of us are married to this denomination, it is not eternal, and it is not the end all be all of the Christian faith in America. Perhaps it’s time to simply and sincerely say to one another, “Grace and peace to you as you serve God as you are called.” We can leave the name calling, the labeling, the property issues, the contentious GA’s and Presbyterys far behind all of us and begin accomplishing more. Should we split, again, I’m not 100% convinced, should we begin investigating what a mutual agreement to disagree looks like, yes, of that I am convinced.
Drew I expected such a response but the heterosexual marriage is under attack whether you want to believe it however outlandish you think it is. Your response is typical to equate this with the civil rights movement which are completely different. Race and sexual preference aren’t the same thing…not even close.
And while I’m at it, I would like to see people get jobs and college acceptance based on merit not race. Your limited mind cannot comprehend this, but you’ve got to work hard to get ahead in life…not have it handed to you by Marxists. My guess is when Barry Millhouse is elected, the streets will rejoice, for if you are rich (i.e. work for a living) you’ll be given the boot. And if you sit all day wishing for Powerball winnings you’ll be handed a free ticket to paradise.
I can’t believe how many people buy into this nonsense.
Drew’s couching can easily be solved with a simple will. You leave your stuff to the person you want to have it when you die. And your relatives have nothing to say. As for your kid, custody can be granted to your gay live-in in your will also.
And if you find that cumbersome, all I can say is that marriage is always hard work, even if it’s not called that on paper.
If you are really in it for the love, then calling it “marriage” is irrelevant. If you’re in it for property rights, then draw up the papers and sign away. But don’t go around assuming that fighting for the right to demand that the world agree that your relationship counts as Holy Matrimony. If you want a churchy name for your relationship, then why discount what the Bible says about homosexuality?
Charlie,
First of all it is only fair that I tell you the theological position I come from on this issue. I am not in favor of same sex marriage in the church. I come to this position not from the intrepretation of the bible that maintains homosexuality is a sin. It is – but so is everthing else we do to be unfaithful and not honor God. I chaff when homosexuality is made out to be a BIG SIN while poor hetereosexual union occurences are just “small problems to be worked out”. The big commandment to love one another is broken all the time (and usually by most if not all of us).
I have come to believe that marriage has a divine calling to respect the other, to fill one’s communal needs and basis and to procreate. This position has led me to be called on it many times – and I don’t have answers for some of the very good points that are argued against me. What about people who choose not to have children or can’t have children? Are these marriages right in the eyes of God and blessed? I squirm on that one.
To your point though of the value of a simple will. It really doesn’t give anywhere near the benefit to same sex couples. Especially financially. But this is a function of the secular civil, legal and tax treatments government has attached to it – not the church. If someone has succeeded in building a estate of as little as $600,000 (and though that sounds like a lot it isn’t when you consider home ownership) and is unmarried a very regressive tax is levied by the goverment for the amount over this (as much as 40%). However, if the person leaves a surviving spouse, the entire estate moves tax free to the survivor.
Now this is a secular issue, but as a church and kingdom person I want to see equal treatment. There are of course other legal issues of guardianship of children, healthcare information and visitation, not to mention decisionspost death that a spouse can make a partner can’t. You are correct that a simple will could address these. But not the financial side.
I am reformed because I see the same tension between the here and now (this carnal earth) and the kingdom that the early reformers did. Calvin didn’t get everything he wanted in Geneva in regards to this also!
This all boils down to that I am for inclusion of ALL in our church – without judgment because we are all sinners. And I am not worked up on gay ordination, but I do support the “Chastity” clause (which is really what is there now) but that applies to all elders, deacons and ministers. You see, I see the same moral issue with hetero ordinations that have sex outside the bounds of marriage. And that also means there was a period in my life I could not have been ordained.
I am pastoring in a community that is having a significant problem with teen pregnancy. About 10% of the girls will get pregnant before they are out of high school. And the community isn’t ready to address the problem – because it stretches back several generations. The parent’s have the same issues. My point to them is “How will the children know if they are just doing what you did?”. Do as I say, not as I do. That is a issue of biblical warrant.
Call me simple, but I see the current way of handling the issue is to keep the church on a high moral ground, but work to change the secular laws to provide the rights to homo-sexual union. A civil ceremony and recognition is correct. It doesn’t make me a popular person in some circles. Maybe I am couching my position. I keep praying for more discernment.
I’m for total inclusion of all sinners in church too. And recognizing the sin of homosexual sex accords with scripture as well. In secular law, I think it’s easily demonstrated that all the property and custody rights of hetero couples can be attained by homo couples, albeit with quite a bit more paperwork, but it’s still completely accessible. So it shouldn’t be about the money. If it’s about respect, I’ll grant that homo couples should have the legal right to do what ever they want to do with themselves sexually, and even go around introducing themselves as life partners with complete impunity. And I’ll champion their right to appear in public as such without fear of harassment or harm.
But when they want the Church and Christians everywhere to bend over and call them married in the same sense that hetero couples have done so for eons, sit next to them in church and pass the communion to them and “bless” their union, they ask too much, and I think they know that.
I’m not advocating the stance that homo sex is a bigger sin than hetero sex. All I’m about here is insisting that the Church and Christians everywhere continue in the original and historic doctrine that, of all the sins that man can commit, homosexual sex is one of them. I don’t want them to feel any less welcome than any other sinner. But it would be dishonest to change the rules just so they can believe themselves righteous.
“I’m not advocating the stance that homo sex is a bigger sin than hetero sex.”
Hrm. When did sex itself become a sin? I know that Augustine had a hard time seeing sex as anything but sinful, though he gave a nod to the benefit of procreation as something that could (somewhat) redeem sex. But I also thought that the church has made progress on the issue of sex itself than to believe that falls outside the realm of things that God declared good.
What if, instead of focusing all our energy on same-sex partnerships, we decided to start from a more basic conversation: what can theologically and biblically be said about sex and sexuality in general. Because if we can’t figure out if sex is a sin or not, or if we can’t talk about what it means, from a faith-perspective, to be humans with bodies and humans who seek relationship (romantic or otherwise) with other humans, how can we possibly talk about same-sex matters?
Or perhaps it’s time that we stopped letting ourselves believe that same-sex relationships were the main issue on God’s radar these days. Perhaps it’s time that we remembered that there is way more to faith and ministry and God’s purposes in this world than constantly getting bogged down on this one issue. Part of me wonders if we sometimes believe that getting active in the same-sex debate means that we have done our part, and that we can shrug off other (more important?) theological conversations, whether they be about hunger or poverty or violence or despair, because those issues run deeper and involve more grappling than talking about homosexuality, where both sides have found easy proof-texts on the issue.
Sorry if any of this came out harsher than I intended – I’m a little grumpy from lack of sleep. But I’m also getting wearied of conversations about homosexuality, because it seems to me that they are never really conversations…
“Hrm. When did sex itself become a sin?”
I was referring to extramarital sex.
Hope you get your sleep.
“Or perhaps it’s time that we stopped letting ourselves believe that same-sex relationships were the main issue on God’s radar these days. Perhaps it’s time that we remembered that there is way more to faith and ministry and God’s purposes in this world than constantly getting bogged down on this one issue.”
I totally agree. However, it’s pro-homosexual activists who are leading the charge in demanding the Church reinvent its doctrine. The Church is merely reacting to it. Anytime they are willing to drop it, the issue will die.
person 1: “Can homosexuals be in full communion without repentance?”
person 2: “No.”
person 1: “Why are you making such a big deal out of this?”
Mike,
Nice list of ad hominems, but you said nothing of substance here.
“Race and sexual preference aren’t the same thing…not even close.”
If sexual preference is not a choice, then race and sexuality are not distinct theologically or in practice.
“the heterosexual marriage is under attack whether you want to believe it however outlandish you think it is”
Still an absurd assertion and you did nothing to substantiate it. I am assuming you cannot which means that if you are rational, let it go. My marriage is as happy as a homosexual marriage in Canada. Divorce has nothing to do with homosexuality but misdirected ideas of marriage. But again, you have nothing to say to substantiate what is now a more absurd assertion than before.
“I would like to see people get jobs and college acceptance based on merit not race. Your limited mind cannot comprehend this, but you’ve got to work hard to get ahead in life”
This makes sense if it is possible. Not so much in the third world. Not so much when a kid in the city needs to work to support mom and a baby sister as well as go to school. Your argument of merit is as naive as it sounds from a privileged perspective. Truly afflicted people cannot simply work hard. They need people to love them out of their circumstances. If you think the solution is “work hard” I suggest reading a Gospel. That is not a plausible ethic for “the least of these”.
Charlie,
“You leave your stuff to the person you want to have it when you die. And your relatives have nothing to say. As for your kid, custody can be granted to your gay live-in in your will also.”
It looks like you missed the point. The point is not about how homosexuals can exploit loopholes in the system. The point is that the system itself is flawed and forces people to find loopholes because the law clearly does not hold equal regard. This is not a Christian of biblical issue. It is a legal one. The just legislation here is one founded on principles other than specific religious dogma. The argument that homosexuality is a scorn to social order is precisely a religiously motivated one and that is why it is a problem. It is an assertion without evidence and this is the reason why many people need to understand where there real commitments are.
Tim,
“I am not in favor of same sex marriage in the church. I come to this position not from the intrepretation of the bible that maintains homosexuality is a sin.”
Whose interpretation and how do you know that it is the correct one? What to you is unsatisfying about alternative interpretations that argue the six texts in question are not properly directed towards a non-affirming stance of committed and mutually self-giving homosexual relationships?
Again, the issue is that both sides here tend to assert rather than argue. Divisiveness is rooted in non-argument and irrational assumptions about reality.
We have got to be critical of our assumptions and be willing to reconstruct what we assert is true in concert with a reconstruction of what we understand the truth of Scripture to be. I am reading many assertions here that do not have a substantial body of evidence that is without doubt as to its correctness. Hence, it is unconvincing at best.
I would read Hays argument here in conjunction with William Stacy Johnson’s. Both come to different conclusions with the same body of texts. Until you can balance two or more rational arguments on the texts and adjudicate their legitimacy, you have nothing of value to add here.
*snicker* I guess “go and sin no more” is something Jesus wouldn’t say in today’s world. Your grasp of what the gospels say is also transparent. I have no reason to “back up” anything inasmuch as you didn’t “back up” what you said either.
Does love give people freebies every time they make poor decisions? I was not privileged. I was poor. My clothing was shambles. I ate every night, but it wasn’t always that great a meal. I worked hard and went to college and got my Bachelor’s degree in Bible, Music AND Social Sciences. I have been working hard as a Youth Minister for 8 years now and still struggle financially, but I NEVER expect the government to bail me out of my situation. Why? Because it is my job to find a way to fix my situation….that and I don’t depend on money to solve my life’s issues. The last thing I want is to answer to a government agency with my money.
My wife works hard so we can pay our bills. I stay at home and watch the kids while working on Youth Ministry stuff. I WORK HARD. Life isn’t always fair. “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me” said Jesus.
The gospel message is tell the world about Jesus.
“demanding the Church reinvent its doctrine”
Once reformed, always reforming… What say you to that?
I know that Augustine had a hard time seeing sex as anything but sinful…
Not exactly, Melissa. He thought lust is sinful. And in my experience, it truly is. The 1960′s have blinded us. We’re off fighting battles with the “Augustine’s” of the world while the Word continually reminds us that these problems lay much closer to the heart and soul than to the body. Masturbation and porn can wreck a marriage just as easily as an affair can. Jesus was right.
“Once reformed, always reforming… What say you to that?”
It’s consistent with Christian history. The inability of the Jerusalem Church to accept and affirm Gentiles did not stop the enevitable inclusion, dominance, eventual monopolization of Gentiles in the early Church. Scripture and Tradition definitely favor the development of theology rather than crystallization of every facet from small to great.
I believe Jesus had a thing to say about wine and wineskins.
And many ancient and historic traditions which became crystalline eventually were swept away, even by the most Historic Traditions, and some were frankly embarrassing, such as geocentrism.
Further, I have no doubt that within our lifetimes, the six verses will be explained away as neatly and completely as all the verses in New and Old which condone and regulate slavery thanks in large part to the efforts of such eloquent and persistent characters as yourself. While people like me will abide for a time among you like stodgy Old Catholics who just feel that if it ain’t Latin, it ain’t church.
Or maybe we’ll hold on to this one, and yours will be the group that goes the way of the Shakers.
Who knows?
All I know is some who buy in to the Jesus thing believe that the six verses are normative today and some don’t, and I’m one of the ones that do. Change the world if you want; I’ll be at your shoulder helping out. But don’t try to change the Church without expecting the Church to having something to say about it.
“This is not a Christian of biblical issue. It is a legal one. The just legislation here is one founded on principles other than specific religious dogma. The argument that homosexuality is a scorn to social order is precisely a religiously motivated one and that is why it is a problem.”
If this is a legal and not a Christian or biblical issue, then how is it that religious motivation is the cause of the problem?
Also, securing property rights and custody are no more “loopholes” than applying for a marriage licence. They are just something you do to protect your rights. If that is a systemic flaw, then so is the entire concept of ownership.
Actually Mike, “go and sin no more” might not have been something Jesus said at all if you study that particular passage in John a bit more. That’s why I choose not to preach on that passage.
You made a claim that heterosexual marriage is under attack. I asked you how you would substantiate that claim. You clearly cannot.
That your other statement where I said “it sounds from a privileged perspective” might not even be something that you yourself concocted, but an assertion that you are only assuming is correct by what pleases you or by fiat. I am not concerned about your personal background, I am questioning the assertion.
Your assertion about working hard is, I think a misconstrual of how Christians ought to respond to grace. In fact, there is little grace at all in your perspective – even from a Catholic view of the relationship of works and righteousness.
“Your grasp of what the gospels say is also transparent.”
This is again, an ad hominem and is not an argument at all. It is language without content.
As I have stated above, what you are doing is substantiating one thing thus far: you have many assertions that you cannot substantiate on rational grounds because you refuse to. What I have done is give reasons why your initial assertion that “the heterosexual lifestyle is now under attack” has any validity. You continue to do everything but address this question.
I am not being personal here, I jsut want to see how you are coming to your conclusions. Until you can do that, I will assume that you are acting on assertions without any rational understanding of why you have them at all. And THAT, my friend, is the source of divisiveness and strife within the church. Homosexuality is only a symptom of a much deeper problem and until we recognize this, the baseless assertions from both sides will continue to reinforce bad behavior.
Now if you want to argue this point rather than volley another ad hominem I would be most open and honored. But if your rant language directed at me personally is the content of your response, it is quite the same situation that Jesus told the disciples, “As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”
Charlie:
“If this is a legal and not a Christian or biblical issue, then how is it that religious motivation is the cause of the problem?”
That is precisely the question. Give me a legal reason why the state should not legitimate same gender marriage without any appeal at all to a religious tenet. Religious dogma is brought through the back door of “tradition” or “homosexual marriage will destroy the family” or some other rubrics. None of these have any evidential merit. At all.
It ought to be a legal issue alone. Churches can recognize any marriage they want to as is their pleasure. The state has different obligations for equal regard in the matter. Why it does not is because the religious agenda seeps into the cracks of legislation. I should note that this is a theory and all theories demand to be falsified on some grounds. Feel free to falsify and I am all ears.
“the six verses will be explained away as neatly and completely as all the verses in New and Old which condone and regulate slavery thanks in large part to the efforts of such eloquent and persistent characters as yourself”
I don’t follow here. Should we go back to slavery or not? If not why? In other words, if the legitimation for emancipation is not all that biblical, then why emancipate slaves? Jesus and Paul said everything about slavery except for emancipating slaves from their status as property. So I am not clear about where you are going with this one.
The rest of what you say I follow fair enough.
Thanks.
Drew,
Fair enough you call me out on my basis for interpretation. But the context of the statement was to demonstrate that my belief was not based on the “homosexuality is a sin” argument. I think I clearly showed this. My intrepretation is just that – mine. But my hermenutic is the rule of love – the bi-fold commandment. If I find scriptural conflict I revert to this – which is a reformed reading.
I agree with your comments of being careful with reconstruction. But we have to agree at least that there is a truth to be found in the scripture to have a discussion. Your comment, “I would read Hays argument here in conjunction with William Stacy Johnson’s. Both come to different conclusions with the same body of texts. Until you can balance two or more rational arguments on the texts and adjudicate their legitimacy, you have nothing of value to add here.” is harsh at best and dismissive at worst. You make the observation with no knowledge of my basis.
In fact I have read both and more. I had the experiance of being in Johnson’s Theology class at Princeton a couple of years ago when he tipped his hand. It was quite an experience – he was testing his work and I was trying to figure out what this had to do with the doctrine of God when I finally figured it out. That whole class was an experiance as the other instructor was Mark Taylor – we didn’t hear much about Calvin that semester!
Here is where I am coming from – I don’t have the answers. But I also don’tbelieve the truth is going to be found at either extreme of the argument. That’s foundationalism and I I have come to treasure what Tony Jones has to say about that in “The New Christians”. That basis has led me to a much better appreciation of the emergent movement. I don’t want to argue to continue divides in the Church. We need a new platform to move the discussion forward. My point was that my studied look at homosexual marriage resulted in not being in favor of it. But I clearly said that the church should be welcoming and understanding, as well as a proponent of equality of civil treatment.
That’s it!
Shalom,
Tim
I will concede. You’re obviously coming from an unorthodox position. But:
“Actually Mike, “go and sin no more” might not have been something Jesus said at all if you study that particular passage in John a bit more. That’s why I choose not to preach on that passage.”
I don’t know where you get your study material, but this is in poor hermeneutic to say that something Jesus said, he might not have said. It’s in the gospels and behind his name, so I have no reason to doubt it. Its in every translation.
Tim,
Thanks for the clarification. The statement, “I come to this position not from the intrepretation of the bible that maintains homosexuality is a sin” sounds like another way of saying “homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so”. You know the baggage that surrounds a statement such as that and I do tend to dismiss it as valid outright for good reason I think.
I should have prefaced that with my agreement with you that, “I chaff when homosexuality is made out to be a BIG SIN while poor hetereosexual union occurences are just “small problems to be worked out”. The big commandment to love one another is broken all the time (and usually by most if not all of us).”
I would concur that this IS the problem regarding sexuality and the church and the homosexual debate is symptomatic of it.
The welcoming and not affirming inclusive position does not seem to work on pragmatic grounds but that can perhaps be left for another discussion.
Johnson and Taylor doing the same class eh? I bet that was something…even if I can’t honestly picture what!
Thanks.
@ evangelical,
I’m re-reading some of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, and in them emerges the idea that sex for procreation is acceptable, and that “lust” describes sexual activity that is not for the express purpose of procreation. He also says that it is because of original sin that procreation had to happen through sex, but that in a perfect and unfallen world, there might have been another way to procreate. So it indeed seems to me that he sees sex as an unfortunate reality, that marriage is good insofar as it reigns in sexual desire (though the celibate life is preferable to him), and that sex for procreation is good, while all other sex falls into the category of lust.
This all being said, there are many who still hold to these sorts of ideas. This is most notable in the Catholic Church, but also appears among other strains of Christians who tend to equate sex and lust except when procreating. I grew up in a church that certainly left things fuzzy in regards to whether sexual expression other than a married couple making a baby was acceptable in the life of a Christian.
I now belong to (and am seeking ordination in) a denomination that has recently made public a draft of an official statement on human sexuality, in which procreation-less sex yet can fall into the category of things that God created and declared good. The jury’s still out on the homosexuality question, but I feel that this document makes an important point in stressing that sex arises out of mutual and God-given love, and does not necessarily need to lead to procreation in order for it to be considered good.
Drew, I Googled it and can’t seem to find any information on who really said “Go and sin no more”. In fact every single result syncs with mine and that of John 8.
Oops…hit Enter…can you provide me with a link or something that tells otherwise?
Drew:
“That is precisely the question. Give me a legal reason why the state should not legitimate same gender marriage without any appeal at all to a religious tenet.”
I can’t.
Okay, now can you give me a scriptural reason why the Church must affirm and accept practicing homosexual couples and permit or champion their accession to leadership. The article is not set in a courtroom or law office. It’s a Christian Theological Seminary. I’m not even really sure what the point of the article is other than that gay activists met and spoke at PTS, and that was somehow a good thing.
Mike,
The point is that the entire chapter of John 8 1-11 was one that is a suspect narrative of Jesus that actually happened if you look at it from a text-critical analysis.
Check Metzger The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. An old argument that has withstood the test of time quite well actually. There he discusses the numerous codices that omit the passage indicating a low probability that it is an authentic passage about Jesus and at best something that was part of another oral tradition in the Johannine community. He concludes, “Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies' (UBS) Greek New Testament, (1966, 2nd ed. 1968)] was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7.52.”
To be sure there are counter-arguments, but all these have appeared to do is only slightly lower the probability that this was not an authentic text.
If you are a pastor, sitting in your tax- free church building, using a computer bought tax free by your church, then you must see the irony in arguing that the government should not be involved in the issue of same sex marriage all the while saving pennies every year using your “EXEMPT” tax status…
I actually see benefits for not having tax exemption…
Saying that, I don’t work in the building and I don’t get paid.
“a scriptural reason why the Church must affirm and accept practicing homosexual couples and permit or champion their accession to leadership.”
The texts in question are not directed towards any argument against committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. To this end the specific address of the texts is to situations of slavery and domination where homoeroticism was forced or reveled in without any ordering or disordering of cultural norms and often at the expense of dominating another human being for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment (specifically in the Levitical setting and Paul’s context in Romans). Where these texts are silent is with situations in which same-gender relationships have to do with mutual love and support in the spirit of serving one another even as Christ served the church.
Objection: Anything that is not in the text is therefore permissible.
This infers too much from the argument above. The argument is that inferring that the text offer certainty for an outright rejection or non-affirmation is not a satisfactory rendering of these texts in question. That it applies in this case does not therefore mean that it must therefore apply in every case. However, the further objection along these lines that I take issue with this position is that it does appear to leave the door open for polygamy for which scripture is equally ambiguous and unclear.
Objection: This relies too much on the context of the audience and not the intent of the author.
To this end, we can infer that in Jewish practice homosexual relationships were not normative by any stretch and that seems clear in the culture at the time. Hence the relative silence in the matter if we look to homosexual relationships of this kind. However, many other issues in the culture of the time are no longer recognized or legitimated in Christian practice. Christians are not kosher, do not on balance believe that slavery is an adequate witness to the Gospel, the role of women is quite different in the Protestant church than in the ancient near-east, and numerous other Levitical ritual purity laws are simply jettisoned. It is clear that neither Paul nor Jesus intended these various laws to go away, but to point out that they could not be the means of one’s reconciliation to God.
The objection regarding procreation can be dismissed because it makes marriage contingent on child-rearing. If that is the purpose of marriage then many people who get married who cannot conceive and/or decide not to have children ought to separate and should not seek marriage at all. This is a consistent view to be sure, but suspect in its pastoral application from my view.
Finally, the objection so rendered are overly-committed and myopic to sex as the adjudicating norm by which we should answer the issue of marriage in general. If sex is the issue, then marriage is therefore primarily about sex and that does not seem to be a satisfying solution at all.
The objections (which, by the way, I do not think Johnson and other do a very clear job of addressing) do not overwhelm the purpose of marriage which is to seek relational bonding in one flesh as a witness to the bond of love that God shows for the creation and for humanity in particular. And this relationality goes beyond the boundaries of gender or sex.
“the irony in arguing that the government should not be involved in the issue of same sex marriage all the while saving pennies every year using your “EXEMPT” tax status…”
That’s a non-sequitur. Then the government should get rid of any tax benefits that married couples or married couples with children have. Then it is consistent. Until even then, it is irrational.
One more before I withdraw my contribution to this:
From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger: “…the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. At the same time, the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church.”
If you agree with Metzger, the question is whether the pericope was part of the original Gospel of John, the answer appears to be “no.” The question of whether the story is an accurate representation of an encounter with Jesus is another question altogether.
If the question is, “Did Jesus ever tell anyone to stop sinning?” the answer is “yes” even if you throw out the story of the woman caught in adultery.
Drew:
Well, you sound like you believe what you write. So, good on ya.
If I told you that Paul absolutely did intend for kosher laws to go away, and yet still condemned homosexuality, and not just homoeroticism and rape, you’ll say I’m reading it wrong or that Paul was either a backwards ancient or a homophobe.
Okay, so tell me I’m just being irrational so we can all go to bed. I’m walking away from this chess match. You can lay my king down if it makes you feel like a winner.
“If I told you that Paul absolutely did intend for kosher laws to go away, and yet still condemned homosexuality, and not just homoeroticism and rape, you’ll say I’m reading it wrong or that Paul was either a backwards ancient or a homophobe.”
Actually no Charlie. I would want you to present the evidence that this is true. In fact, I am fully willing to read such an argument if someone has presented it if you offer the reference. As I indicated above, Hays, I think offers a challenging argument that I need to read again. I tend to read things that challenge me over and over again not to prove that I am right, but to allow my own assumptions to change – if it’s a good argument. Ben Witherington has also raised some challenges and referred to a book I have not read yet which will no doubt challenge my present understanding.
If I sound harsh, it is because I am harsh when it comes to assertions that are not supported. And just to let you in on something – at one time I was a full supporter of the Confessing Church movement in the PCUSA. Over the past 10 or so years I have come to a clear disagreement with it.
If anything I would challenge you to make your assertions stronger and more convincing to a cat like me with well conceived evidence. I think disagreements like that are good and needed as long as we don’t take any of it personally.
Melissa,
Thanks for those points. I have admittedly been influenced by an article by John Cavadini on the subject in Augustinian Studies 2005 (I think) in which he takes up this issue with an eye to City of God 14, where Augustine describes sex in paradise (yes! sex in paradise!). All things considered, it’s worth looking at Cavadini’s reading, especially as it is compared to radical feminist (nearly Manichean) views. He takes up the thought of Andrea Dworkin, who calls woman “that hole” and suggests that due to our physical bodies, we are indefinitely (!) doomed to a situation in which men “fuck” and women are “fucked.” I can understand Dworkin’s concerns, but as a Christian, I have to hope for the redemption of, yes, our bodies as well as our souls. “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting….”
marriage is good insofar as it reigns in sexual desire…
I would agree with this statement, IF we understand “sexual desire” as a particular sort of sexual disposition: a corrupted, lustful, selfish power that presents itself when human beings wish to take advantage of other human bodies – not as sexual action rightly done (for example, with care for the other soul as well as the other body). Marriage is good insofar as it places a check on just this sort of perverted, distorted self-love – a kind of love in which men “fuck” and women are “fucked.” In other words, if you take Cavadini’s view that Augustine forges his view of sex over against a pagan ritual act of rape, Augustine’s seemingly radical position becomes a bit more palatable, if not desirable. Indeed, it appears that he espoused a truly non-violent view of sex (in paradise, the woman’s virginity isn’t violated, despite the fact that intercourse occurs!).
All of this isn’t to say your denomination’s statement is out of line – indeed, I think it is just right. But let’s not blame all of this on Augustine. There are many other ways to explain the problematic nature of human sexuality and the church’s handling of it than to pin the tail on a 1600-year-old donkey.
I just want to point out that this post did the exact thing I had written about in the post. While I am obviously supportive of the LGBT community and agree with some of the comments in this post, I’d like to point out that it only took a couple comments before the conversation went directly to “the issue” – politics, theology, etc.
I think this post just showed how quickly we jump to the issue and not focus on the people.
“The texts in question are not directed towards any argument against committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. To this end the specific address of the texts is to situations of slavery and domination where homoeroticism was forced or reveled in without any ordering or disordering of cultural norms and often at the expense of dominating another human being for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment (specifically in the Levitical setting and Paul’s context in Romans). Where these texts are silent is with situations in which same-gender relationships have to do with mutual love and support in the spirit of serving one another even as Christ served the church.”
Drew, I might be wrong here, but it sounds like you are taking this from Johnson’s book “A time to embrace”. I believe Dr. Gagnon has pretty much soundly silenced the argument that the apostle Paul and the early church were only reacting against non-committed homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships in the biblical culture in and around Jerusalem were very similar to today. Paul knew about homosexuality in similar ways we know about it know, and still he only condemns it and never once provides for its acceptance as a life giving aspect of God’s plan for human sexuality.
Having said that, I fully support taking marriage out of government, letting all people get civil unions and full rights. This would include hetero, homo, polyamorous, polygamous, and whatever else we deem are acceptable forms of sexual practice as a society. I wont marry these people in my church because this isn’t marriage to me. I don’t see, however, why tax rights should be denied.
Bglass week here was fine this week. I went to several of the events. I was saddened that Dr. Torrence chose to completely ignore Dr. Gagnon’s presence on campus and simultaneously attend various events by GLASS. I feel that this has done more to cause dissension and real hurt in our community than anything else. It is really too bad that during this tumultuous time in our church, our own president doesn’t have the foresight to be unifying. Sad.
Adam,
You host a blog, not a home. How can you expect strangers who sit in their homes typing away at keyboards in front of glowing computer screens to “focus on people”? Blogs are for writing and arguing, and not much else. What did you expect? You can’t “love people” with WEB 2.0 – no matter how hard you try….
…now a church – that’s different.
I have not read Gagnon’s work, but based on Witherington’s endorsement that I only recently read, I need to. To say that it soundly silences the argument is probably overstating the effect.
To Adam’s comment, the issue is that we have to be very pragmatic about the situation. When you do not affirm a lifestyle such as is constituted here, you are effectively not welcoming that person anymore. That is the harsh reality of it that people need to own. It is not about affirming or falsifying an idea, it is about affirming or falsifying a person. Adam’s point is to keep the focus in the right spot.
As an abstract idea I was not affirming of LGBT folks at all at one point. When I began to associate myself with the community more intentionally to see what the real story was from their perspective, it forced me to see what was really important from a pastoral perspective. It also made me see why my initial assumptions were totally wrong.
“You can’t “love people” with WEB 2.0 – no matter how hard you try….”
I disagree, you can demonstrate love, hate or anything in between. Sometimes sarcasm is a bit tricky. Until we stop throwing scripture and interpretation at each other and actually sit down and LISTEN to the stories of the people involved, we’re going nowhere. I say we stop driving the LGBT community out of our churches and just become one community. Maybe we’ll never agree theologically, but from my, uneducated, lay position, “evangelism” doesn’t mean turning people against God. I have two examples of that in my life all ready, where will it stop?
It is about people.
Hey Adam,
Can I use your image for the bglass shirt on my blog? It is a post about Dale B. Martin’s lecture, “Homosexuality in the Bible”, which he gave this past semester. If not, no worries. In any case, thanks!
Benjamin