Poser or Prophet and Gay Marriage

Posted by: thebrooks | May 4, 2008

Poser or Prophet and Gay Marriage

Over at Poser or Prophet, Dan (not our Dan) has posted on why he thinks arguments against homosexuality based on the order of creation in Genesis 1-2 are faulty. Please take the time to read the whole post. Here’s my response:

Interesting post, but I don’t think it adds up. The argument you’ve presented is sound, but it excludes important information that would negatively affect it.

You say that the beginning, creation, was good but not perfect. Due to this there is room for creativity and innovation, such as the move from a garden to a garden city. You then say there is nothing in Genesis 1-2 to stop us from thinking that homosexuality is one of those creative innovations.

“Thus, even those (the minority) who ‘choose’ homosexuality, have not done anything wrong. They to, are simply engaging in an act of creative, and good, innovation — and are mirroring God’s actions by doing so.”

Perhaps this is true if we just look at Genesis 2 alone, but Christ interprets Genesis 2 in the gospels. He uses it to condemn (at least some forms of) divorce.

So, although creation was good but not perfect, the goodness of creation does reflect some values that God wishes to reflect throughout the whole story of Scripture (unless you think that we ought to move beyond the words of Christ on divorce to some more ‘innovation’).

Of course, this same logic doesn’t necessarily follow with homosexuality. Christ doesn’t authoritatively speak on that subject (without getting into his discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah). But, the whole canon of Scripture does. As Robert Gagnon’s work has shown, everytime homosexuality is mentioned in the Scripture, it is seen to be an act of great abhorrence to God.

I see no good reason to see men having sex with one another as an “act of creative and good innovation” In light of the pertinent texts (which should be looked at more in depth … DH’s analysis in the comments was seriously lacking, cf. his argument from silence on Jesus and homosexuality) that do speak of homosexuality, this is downright blasphemy.

-Keith Brooks

Posted in Ethics, Family, Marriage, Theology, sexuality | Tags: homosexuality, Genesis, Poser or Prophet, Robert Gagnon, Sodom and Gomorrah

Responses

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all citizens if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

By: Charlotte on May 5, 2008
at 9:03 am

Charlotte:

Marriage is a right all citizens already have; marriage to someone of the opposite sex is not, and you have to establish that it should be with a moral argument, not just by stipulating that “people have this right”. Otherwise we can just stipulate in response: no one has a right to do what is wrong.

Keith:

Another thought I had was: how would this affect arguments from Genesis for ecological stewardship? Without fail, they all appeal to “respecting the created order God gave us in the world, not dominating it.” But if creativity is okay when dealing with inherent sexual differences, why isn’t strip-mining and exterminating entire species for the sake of economic development okay? I don’t see how the logic doesn’t cut both ways.

And frankly, anyone could use “creativity” to justify just about anything.

By: Andrew on May 5, 2008
at 11:12 am

Here’s what I don’t get:

Mosaic Law forbids it.

Paul forbids it.

What more do you want! God’s two primary vehicles of instruction (Moses for the Old, Paul for the New) made literal, matter-of-fact declarations regarding the immorality of homosexuality. Again, what more do you want?

I can’t believe we live in a time where “Christians” are so quick to dismiss so much verbatim instruction! Where does it end!? Why is murder or rape exempt from the same rationalization?

Beastiality must be fine too. Why wouldn’t it be? How can someone making the argument that homosexuality’s no sweat make the argument that beastiality is not? By their reasoning, I can do pretty much whatever I want.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 5, 2008
at 12:09 pm

Although you are correct to note that there are explicit condemnations of Scripture against homosexuality, I think that more can be said. One can claim two things. First, that all such condemnations are based on an authoritative interpretation of the Creation narrative. Second, that the creation narrative is sufficient to condemn such practices.

The original post does have some content that is true. The original creation was good, but not perfect. Adam was able to sin after all and that is not a perfection. He is also correct to claim that the creation allowed for creativity and innovation. Everything else manages to be wrong in some respect.

First, he seems to assume that “room for creativity” means that creativity has no boundaries! The opposite is true. Second, he condemns the link between procreation and marriage based on the fulfillment of the command and our practice of allowing infertile couples to marry. Since this misunderstands what everyone who used this argument actually did claim, he is attacking a straw man.

If this is the best example of an argument against this view, then there is nothing to worry about.

By: Matthew on May 5, 2008
at 2:46 pm

Let’s get innovative with animals and watermelons!!!

By: theroan on May 5, 2008
at 2:55 pm

Adam was able to sin after all and that is not a perfection.

Doesn’t this mean though that Adam was perfect in some sense (though perhaps not perfect in another sense)? Free will (necessary for true love and voluntary — thus meaningful — companionship) requires the real capacity to sin. Does this mean God made something that was imperfect? Why does “sin potential” equal a lack of perfection, as though God had done a second-rate job? Was Christ capable of sin? I think in one sense he had to be or His temptation was just posturing and a waste of time. This potential didn’t make Him imperfect. He remained perfect.

If this is the best example of an argument against this view, then there is nothing to worry about.

Not for Believers with some sense. The problem is concepts like this don’t mislead Believers with some sense! They seduce the masses which are by and large philosophically simplistic and easily seduced by things that have a ring of truth.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 5, 2008
at 3:00 pm

I don’t believe that free will requires the capacity to sin. Instead, I believe that creatures with free will necessarily have the possibility of sinning. This is a distinction that allows me to claim that Adam was good but not perfect. By good, I mean that Adam lacked nothing, God did a first-rate job, there was nothing wrong with Adam. By imperfect, I simply mean that the nature of Adam could be improved. If it could not, but was good, then that nature would be perfect.

Christ was capable of sin in his humanity but not in his divinity. Therefore, his temptation was real, because he was tempted in his humanity, but not in his divinity. However, Christ was not perfect in his humanity until after the resurrection. Nonetheless, he remained perfect in his divinity throughout his time on earth.

I think that you are quite right in claiming that such arguments mislead believers without wisdom. That’s why I pointed out where he went wrong.

By: Matthew on May 5, 2008
at 3:13 pm

Matt: some interesting subtleties. I’ll have to think more on them.

Thanks muchly!

By: Benjamin Allison on May 5, 2008
at 3:26 pm

While it’s kinda cute watching you kids muddle around with these things, it’s also kinda sad to see how muddled your thinking is (I could continue in this vein, or shall we all leave polemical remarks to the side? Yes, let’s do that — I’ll be civil from here, and hope y’all will be the same).

Keith,

I’ll be addressing your thoughts in more detail in my upcoming posts. Suffice to say, there are a lot more voices in this discussion than Gagnon. Indeed, Gagnon is a prime example of muddled thinking. For whatever reason, he thinks that the biblical sexual ethic limits sex to heterosexual unions because men and women are neither too similar, nor too different. Thus, men can’t have sex with men (too similar), and men can’t have sex with animals (too different). This sort of reasoning is, well, rather odd. (By the way, Walter Wink has had more than one exchange with Gagnon. If you look those up, I imagine you’ll be able to see who the better thinker is.)

Benjamin,

Mosaic law prohibits a lot of things. Thus, how we, as Christians, approach the law is determined, in general, by the rest of Scripture and, in particular, by that which fulfills the law.

And the issue of Paul and homosexuality is much more complex than you appear to think. Homosexuality, for Paul, is primarily used as an illustration of the perversion that paganism produces. As this sort of illustration, Paul is operating within the ethico-cultural world of first-century Judaism.

However, when we see homosexuality practiced within monogamous Christian marriages, we come to realise that homosexuality is not necessarily a by-product of paganism. We then come to see that Paul’s illustration, while readily understandable to his audience, might not be all that accurate. And that’s okay. Paul, as a first century person, isn’t always ‘bang-on’ about a number of ethico-cultural issues — he never explicitly attacks the institution of slavery, he sometimes appears naive about the truly evil aspects of the Roman Empire, he sometimes appers to be a feminist, and at other times appears to be a chauvinist, and so on and so forth. So, when faced with these sort of dilemmas, we need to allow the broader biblical narrative, and the trajectory thereof, to inform our decisions.

Thus, I am not seeking to dismiss “verbatim instruction”; rather, I’m recognises that the biblical texts, and our interpretation of them, is frequently a difficult process, and one that requires a great deal of understanding and nuance.

Andrew and Matthew,

You’ll notice that, in the comments on my blog, I assert that Christian creative innovation is delimited by the broader biblical narrative. I’m not arguing for limitless rhizomatic expansion across the plane of immanence (like Deleuze and Guattari, and those who follow them). Rather, I’m suggesting that we have not properly thought about how the ideas of creativity, and innovation, inform our readings of Gen 1-2 and ‘the order of creation.’ That creativity can be ab/used in many ways, does not simply mean we must exorcise creativity from the discussion of these things (as Andrew seems to want to do).

Matthew,

Perhaps you’d care to spend a little more time showing how I’ve created a straw man when it comes to the procreation argument?

Andrew, Benjamin, and theroan,

There is a great deal of difference between arguing for gay marriage and arguing for the other examples that you provided. Strip-mining, murder, rape, and performing sex acts with animals, are fundamentally exploitative and violent. As such, they are forms of perversion that are destructive (hence my emphasis upon creative [vs. destructive] innovation [vs. perversion]) and fall outside of the limits imposed by the biblical narrative. Homosexual sex acts, when performed within the context of marriage are, however, neither exploitative, nor violent. They are, and remain, creative and good innovations.

At this point, let me say how much you alienate our gay brothers and sisters when you use this sort of argument. If you really want to have a discussion, talk about your fears of moral relativism (which can easily be put to rest) — comparing gay marriage to beastiality and rape is mud-slinging of the worst sort.

Peace out.

By: dan on May 5, 2008
at 4:13 pm

“Homosexual sex acts, when performed within the context of marriage are, however, neither exploitative, nor violent. They are, and remain, creative and good innovations.”

No one will grant that who does not already grant your conclusion. Christian ethics have always said that sin is bad for at least one person: the sinner. It is harmful to do something wrong with yourself. As well, if it is harmful, because wrong, to do something yourself, then you are also harming someone else when you help them in doing the same wrong.

“I assert that Christian creative innovation is delimited by the broader biblical narrative”

Well, I guess this the heart of the difference: I see the broader biblical narrative as including everything that was affirmed by every writer (even the ‘chauvinist’ Paul), and you see it as something less than that. I’m not sure how to continue the dialogue from here.

By: Andrew on May 5, 2008
at 4:31 pm

Andrew,

Two points:

(1) I’m sure you understand that I can’t grant your first point without having already granted your conclusion (i.e. (a) sin is harmful; (b) homosexuality is a sin; therefore, (c) homosexual sex acts, when performed in marriage are somehow harmful — even if we can’t see how they are harmful — because they are sin. As I deny (b), (c) doesn’t follow [and thankfully reason and the experiences of others back me up on this point... although, granted, we must be careful not to put too much stock into those things!]).

However, you’re right — at this point, we’d just be talking in circles. There is more hope with your second point:

(2) Yes, the key difference is how we read Scripture. Simply put, I fail to see how you can argue that, as we approach the broader biblical narrative, we must affirm everything that was affirmed by every writer (oh, and I don’t actually think Paul was a ‘chauvinist’ — I think he was quite egalitarian [just like the authors of the Gospels]; patriarchalism doesn’t really start to reassert itself in the NT until the Pastorals… but I digress).

Without contradicting ourselves, we cannot equally affirm everything that was affirmed by every biblical author. Some authors affirm patriarchy; some authors deconstruct it. Some authors affirm various forms of sexual exploitation (like the having of concubines); some authors argue that all forms of sexual exploitation are immoral. Some authors affirm violence; other authors affirm nonviolence. Some authors affirm the State; other authors damn the State. And so on and so forth. Consequently, we need to develop the tools to discern how to negotiate our way through this tangled mess. Hence, we look for the trajectory of the narrative, we look for the consistent elements thereof, we learn to distinguish between genres, we learn how and why topics are employed by various authors, so that we can know how to approach those things ourselves, and so on and so forth. Ultimately, we learn to be suspicious of the ‘plain reading of Scripture’ — both because Scripture is a compilation of texts taken from various contexts, and because we ourselves are contextual beings — and we learn to be suspicious of those who want to build an entire case based upon one or two verses. Granted, particular passages do act as handy shorthand expressions of the broader story (Phil 2.5-11 being a good example), but it needs to be demonstrated that these verses are operating in this way (as Michael Gorman and others demonstrate about Phil 2.5-11).

Applied to the issue at hand, I would argue that those who build a case based upon Ro 1.21ff, are usually engaging in a deceptively simplistic type of casuistry. If they want to build a case based upon this passage, they need to demonstrate that this passage is the key go-to verse, on this topic (and it isn’t such a verse — it’s a key verse on idolatry, not on sexuality and specific elements of human relationships).

This, I think, gives us some grounds for further dialogue.

Grace and peace.

By: dan on May 5, 2008
at 5:12 pm

“[and thankfully reason and the experiences of others back me up on this point... although, granted, we must be careful not to put too much stock into those things!]).”

Indeed; if we did, both you and I would have a hard time making a case for pacifism, since it is not always “obvious” that non-resistence is the least destructive route. If our perceptions of what works better (makes people happy, etc.), without aid of divine revelation, are all we have to go on, I’m not sure what argument one could make for Jesus’ ethic.

“Without contradicting ourselves, we cannot equally affirm everything that was affirmed by every biblical author.”

In one sense, I agree: the consistency of various authors is not always apparent to us. Sometimes we have to take a second look at our interpretations. But in another sense, I vigorously disagree: in the end, we are not permitted to disagree with anything Scripture has affirmed. We can’t come to a conclusion about the kind of acts, for example, Paul says are wrong in Romans, and then say: “Since the surrounding (Jewish, certainly not Greco-Roman) context also disapproves of homosexuality, Paul’s commands don’t apply today.” Paul’s words have authority because they are also God’s words.

Also, it doesn’t follow as a matter of logic that if someone asserts a command that agrees with some people in a certain cultural context, it does not apply outside of that context. To make that link, you have to also import this thesis (or something like): anything shared by the biblical writers with wider culture is ipso facto not normative on us.

“Granted, particular passages do act as handy shorthand expressions of the broader story (Phil 2.5-11 being a good example), but it needs to be demonstrated that these verses are operating in this way (as Michael Gorman and others demonstrate about Phil 2.5-11).”

You’ll have to forgive me if this seems a little like special pleading: “Your favourite verses don’t matter, but mine are central and controlling.” People have also made similar arguments to Gorman’s in the case of Romans 1 (not that they are summaries of the narrative of Christ’s condescension, but that their ethic flows from the story of creation, through the law, into the NT).

“(and it isn’t such a verse — it’s a key verse on idolatry, not on sexuality and specific elements of human relationships).”

That assumes that what Scripture says is only relevant if it is the central point in any given passage. I don’t grant this either.

Beyond this: what is your criteria for determining what a “key” verse is?

Dan, on a personal note: I highly respect a lot of what you say, and have been personally challenged by your way of life to become more like you (and Jesus, I believe). I think you are brilliant and courageous, in many ways. But one place I can’t go with you is your hermeneutics of Scripture. Maybe we’ll be able to learn from each other, though.

Blessings

By: Andrew on May 5, 2008
at 5:36 pm

FWIW, for all the readers:

http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews.htm

Gagnon’s responses to Wink can be found there.

By: Andrew on May 5, 2008
at 5:39 pm

Although I appreciate many of Dan’s insights, I’m a bit more puzzled and surprised at his recent post.

There were many patriarchal societies surrounding ancient Israel which in some ways tolerated or celebrated same sex sexuality.

The liberal argument for Paul’s condemnation against same-sex sexuality(”he’s talking about exploitive relationships i.e. pederasty” crumbles under the evidence that many Greco-Roman men had mutual consenting relationships. Paul nowhere makes a distinction in Romans though a distinctions is made in 1 Corinthians 6 (arsenoskoites and malokos).

I am disturbed at his idea of creation and innovation regarding homosexuality and gay unions.

If God would create homosexuality following some creative logic (which it seems Dan is intimating) why would he put his ‘gay’ children through the sexual ‘trauma’ of having sex with persons of the opposite sex to conceive children?

Many heterosexuals cannot have children biologically or don’t desire to have children but still engage in sexual intercourse.

Yet procreation is a primary result from heterosexual conjugal unions (aside from the oral/anal intercourse).

The post just seems a bit theologically irresponsible to me.

By: Jason Oliver on May 5, 2008
at 7:34 pm

The previous was a rant.

By: Jason Oliver on May 5, 2008
at 7:35 pm

Please forgive the emoticon.

By: Jason Oliver on May 5, 2008
at 7:35 pm

Dan: our thinking is muddled?

Ok. Let’s exclude rape, murder, and “exploitative acts.” By your reasoning, sex with a consenting 13 year old is a good and creative act (don’t tell me 13 year olds can’t make sober and conscientious decisions).

Overdosing on hallucinogens to find creative inspiration is not only permissible, but also a noble act.

Committing suicide to make a statement is a beautiful display of courage and innovation.

Brother, your reasoning is disjointed and destructive. Really think over your argument. It is predicated on silence. You are arguing from silence.

The scriptures are overt in their opinion of homosexuality — your rationalizing it does not weaken this point.

The scriptures are not however, at any point, in support of your point. What you are doing is constructing an argument with various scraps in an attempt to demonstrate the Word of God actually condones something it is outspoken against.

You have no justification for asserting that Paul is theologically wishy-washy, and sometimes took this side and sometimes took another, especially in this area.

How can we know conclusively that Paul is firmly declaring homosexuality as sin? Simple.

In Romans 1 Paul makes this statement:

Professing to be wise, they became fools [who is they? Ungodly people] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them [who's them? Ungodly people] over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper [what's not proper? homosexuality], being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice.

How are you justified in saying that Paul is not making a statement about homosexuality in general? When he says that people gave up what is natural for what is unnatural, and calls the homosexual act indecent, improper and depraved, how is he making a comment that is limited in scope and not somehow applicable to the act itself?

He does not offer any cultural qualification to this passage, and any you add is inferred and suspicious. It is clear by how he goes about writing this passage that he is making a general declaration, and we know this because he connects it to nature. When Paul mentions nature he is alluding to what was established in Creation. Paul does this multiple times over the course of his epistles. By making a connection to nature, thus creation, Paul is letting us know that what he is saying is inextricable from our very ontology and beingness — that is, the very design of God. Humanity itself.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 5, 2008
at 8:58 pm

You suggested that I explain why your argument was attacking a straw man. That’s a reasonable request. Here it is:

Procreation is the goal of marriage as such. It is part of the nature of marriage. Since procreation requires one woman and one man, marriage requires the same. If any marriage lacks this, then it is not a real marriage at all. However, it is not as if this refers to individuals as they actually are. This refers to individuals as they were designed to be. (This is a doctrine of creation after all!)

In certain cases, a person will not match their design. This is not their fault, it is just the way things are. As regards marriage, there are two different ways that this can happen. One of them is infertility. Due to disease, injury or improper development, one of the spouses is infertile. However, since disease, injury and improper development are not a part of the design of either spouse, this does not prevent marriage.

The second case is that of injury to gender. This can take the form of someone who has no developed distinctly male or female organs, but is somewhere in between. It can also take the form of someone who is not attracted to the opposite gender. In either case, it may be genetic, due to choice, or some other reason. Nonetheless, these features are not a part of male or female design either. Therefore, this is also not an objection to this argument.

I hope this shows why you are attacking a straw man. Attack the real argument instead.

By: Matthew on May 5, 2008
at 10:11 pm

Ben:

I agree with your major point here, but I doubt Dan would concede that drug use (which has destructive physical and social effects) or suicide (which is de facto destructive) would be non-destructive.

By: Andrew on May 5, 2008
at 10:41 pm

I didn’t think the issue for Dan was really “destructiveness,” just the exploitation of others… otherwise bestiality is still a morally acceptable option.

Now, in a practical sense (not in a “God’s economy sense”), homosexuality can be destructive, but in a similar way that heterosexuality can be — essentially anything can be destructive. Based on Dan’s reasoning it all seems to be in “how you use it” and if the “ends justify the means” in some way. The mere presence of an act’s destruction potential can’t prohibit us from engaging in it, otherwise we could do nothing.

Consider, exhaling has destruction potential — the emission of greenhouse gases, the transmission of deadly viruses, etc. But the benefits of exhaling obviously outweigh its destructive potential. So it’s feasible that drug use and suicide each have an outcome that triumphs whatever destruction may or will occur which do make them, by Dan’s reasoning, acceptable.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 6, 2008
at 7:29 am

Oh, btw, Matt:

This might be off-topic now but I posted a reply to your comments about Christ’s perfection at my blog.

If you’re interested, check it out!

By: Benjamin Allison on May 6, 2008
at 7:55 am

More bafflement:

However, when we see homosexuality practiced within monogamous Christian marriages, we come to realise that homosexuality is not necessarily a by-product of paganism.

What has monogamy to do with anything? We know that polygamy is not explicitly immoral. The Law made certain provisions for multiple wives, and Godly priests would select several wives for a new king. It seems that if monogamy strengthens your argument for homosexuality that it hasn’t been thoroughly thought through.

Paul, as a first century person, isn’t always ‘bang-on’ about a number of ethico-cultural issues

On what grounds are you able to assert that your ideas are of greater strength than an Apostle’s?

he never explicitly attacks the institution of slavery

We’ve discussed this issue here before. Slavery 2000+ years ago was not always quite as we have come to understand it. We assume a view of slavery through the lens of the atrocities of the past few hundred year, based on Colonial European and “New World” conduct. This is not fair to the ancients. So Paul didn’t attack the institution of slavery for two reasons:

1) it wasn’t always immoral
2) he was likely writing to people that didn’t have slaves and would have been moot — my giving you instruction on how to fly a space shuttle would be as germane to your life as condemning slavery would have been to his audience

he sometimes appers to be a feminist, and at other times appears to be a chauvinist

Examples of both?

So, when faced with these sort of dilemmas, we need to allow the broader biblical narrative, and the trajectory thereof, to inform our decisions.

As I wrote in a comment last night, Paul actually built this “broadness” into Romans 1. Doing so safeguards against the sort of cultural/relativistic/textual criticism you’re using as a foundation for your hermeneutic. The safeguard is his inclusion of nature in the passage. He makes the issue as broad as it can be by establishing a connection to our very ontology and the very definition of what it means to be human. He satisfies your criteria.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 6, 2008
at 10:02 am

[...] I’ve sort of been keeping up with the recent debate over homosexuality started by this post on CoG. Does God abhor homosexuality? And if so, what should a Christian in 2008 do about that (if [...]

By: Is there a good Biblical basis to ban Polygamy? « City of God on May 6, 2008
at 10:17 am

One tangential point, before I begin. Perhaps y’all should think about how your words sound to people who are members of the GLBTQ community, lest you end up swinging your truth like a hammer. Granted, I’m a fairly thick-skinned fellow, and I’m only speaking as an advocate on behalf of those who belong to the GLBTQ community, but I’m afraid that, were a gay person to come across this discussion, you would be doing a fine job of driving them either into the closet or away from the church.

Now, I know that our discussion hasn’t been focused on how we, as Christians, are called to embrace homosexuals, nor have we focused on how we, as Christians, are to present homosexuals with a welcoming invitation of love and forgiveness (I think these statements are sufficiently vague that y’all could accept them), but it is a good idea to keep these things in mind when writing on this topic. This, I think, is a part of what it means to speak the truth in love, for, even when we practice exclusion (which we must do in some circumstances), that exclusion must always be practiced as an invitation to embrace.

Okay, now on with my responses.

Andrew and Jason:

Alas, I fear I have not been sufficiently clear, and so you (and perhaps the rest) have misunderstood what I was saying about Ro 1. My point was not that we can reject biblical commands when they overlap with other cultural influences. My point is that Paul is not making any commands about homosexuality in Ro 1. Rather, he is using homosexuality as an illustration of the perversion that necessarily results from paganism. Hence, my talk of the surrounding culture, was intended to show why, given Paul’s time and place, such an illustration would seem natural, to Paul and his audience.

Thus, my key point is this: we have now learned that homosexuality has no necessary link to paganism — many wondefully faithful Christians are homosexuals. Therefore, given that Paul is simply using homosexuality as an illustration (and not issuing a command on that topic), we are also now free to see that Paul’s illustration isn’t all that accurate. Yes, paganism is dehumanizing and leads to perversion (Paul’s point remains true); but, no, homosexuality isn’t necessarily counted as that type of perversion (one of Paul’s illustrations is revealed as inaccurate).

Hopefully, then, you will see that I am not simply taking the bible and making it say whatever I want it to say. Rather, I am attempting to faithfully recognise, and wrestle with, Scripture in all of its complexities. This, I would argue, is actually what it means to have a high-view of Scripture. Those who don’t do the hard-work that is necessary to understand Scripture, those who simply think that the truth of Scripture is obvious to their ‘plain readings’, are the ones I suspect of having a rather low-view of Scripture.

Andrew:

Continuing with our hermeneutical discussion (which really is the crux of the matter), you assert that “the consistency of various authors is not always apparent to us.” This, I think, is a good and necessary first step, but I don’t think it goes far enough. It is good because, given our affirmation of the biblical texts as Scripture, we should be trying to continually relate the parts to the whole, in order to find consistency and coherence. In this regard, we should be operating with an hermeneutic of trust (rather than an hermeneutic of suspicion).

However, I wish to press the point further and argue that, although sometimes the coherence is hard to find, at other times, it does not exist at all. I believe that there actually are contradictions in Scripture (in this regard, I have been highly influenced by Walter Brueggemann, although other narrative theologians, and exegetes — like N. T. Wright, Hauerwas, Vanhoozer, etc. — have helped me understand how I can accept contradictions in Scripture while not losing track of Scripture-as-Scripture).

Now, if you deny the contradictions, then I suspect that you end up in a position like yours (needing to somehow affirm every single thing), but if you recognise the contradictions (not to mention the context and all that), then I think you end up in a position like mine. Here, let us recall the Scripture is not the Word of God; rather, Jesus is the Word, and Scripture (as Barth has so helpfully reminded us) is a witness to the Word of God. Granted, it is a privileged witness, but it is neither a simple, nor a perfect(!), witness.

On to the point about “key verses.” Yes, this can easily slip into a form of “my favourite verses are better than yours” but it doesn’t have to go there. Rather, I think that key verses function something like doctrines. N.T. Wright has emphasised that the fundamental element of Scripture, and of our faith, is the narrative (I’m sure you know all this, but I’ll reiterate it quickly for the others). Thus, the true meaning, and power, is in the Christian story — doctrines simply function as short-hand references to parts of that story. So we speak of a ‘doctrine of creation’, but that doctrine is really just a suitcase that we use to carry around all the fullness of the (ongoing) creation narrative. Key verses, then, are those verses which function in a similar way. Thus, one demonstrates the importance of such verses by having intimate knowledge of the rest of the story, and showing how these verses are related to the whole.

Finally, on a personal note, I am humbled by what you have said — thank you. Although I have not known you personally, George Sweetman has spoken very highly of you to me (more than once), so anybody who is in with George is in with me!

Jason:

While I think that I have addressed your main concerns in the above remarks, I will confess that I had a little trouble understanding the flow of your “rant.” However, let me simply assert that I would never suggest that homosexuals should be made to sleep with the opposite sex in order to produce children. I’m not sure where you got this idea from, but it really is quite terrible. Perhaps it is based on the argument that the goal of marriage is procreation, so I’ll withhold further remarks on that until I get to my response to Matthew.

Benjamin and Matthew:

I do intend to get to your remarks, but I’ve got to run at the moment. Bear with me.

Peace out.

By: dan on May 6, 2008
at 12:39 pm

Now, I know that our discussion hasn’t been focused on how we, as Christians, are called to embrace homosexuals

I have friends that are gay. This particular forum simply invites us to handle the concepts in a more forthright way. Me and a gay friend having coffee would sound very different I assure you! But thank you for the warning. Regardless of our theology we are called to certain loving treatment of each other.

My point is that Paul is not making any commands about homosexuality in Ro 1. Rather, he is using homosexuality as an illustration of the perversion that necessarily results from paganism.

No he’s not making a command but what he is doing is making a statement about homosexuality in general. It is perhaps mentioned in the context of paganism, but it does not remain there. He is drawing a direct connection between Godlessness and its repercussion (chiefly, exchanging the natural for the unnatural — homosexuality).

There is nothing in the text itself that compels us to deny that Paul is making a general statement and is rather making one that is tied to some isolated move of culture and history.

One other thing: I think you are swinging the argument in your favour unfairly by using the term “paganism.” You have a certain conception of Paul’s intent within his context. But if we just deal with the text as it is presented to us, Paul is speaking of ungodliness. Again, not something that is in anyway isolated. It seems fairly clear, to me at least, that Paul is not talking about something that happened in one particular place at one particular time. His language is far more broad and far more foundational in focus.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 6, 2008
at 12:49 pm

“My point is that Paul is not making any commands about homosexuality in Ro 1.”

You’re correct on a grammatical level, of course, as Paul is not speaking in the imperative. But he is stating ethical facts, which are convertible with imperatives. So in another sense, you are wrong.

“Thus, my key point is this: we have now learned that homosexuality has no necessary link to paganism — many wonderfully faithful Christians are homosexuals.”

Once again, this is arguing in a circle.

“However, I wish to press the point further and argue that, although sometimes the coherence is hard to find, at other times, it does not exist at all.”

Here we part ways (and see my next comment).

“Here, let us recall the Scripture is not the Word of God; rather, Jesus is the Word, and Scripture (as Barth has so helpfully reminded us) is a witness to the Word of God. Granted, it is a privileged witness, but it is neither a simple, nor a perfect(!), witness.”

I think the Barthian view ultimately fails to measure up to how Scripture describes itself (i.e., as not just the witness to the Word of God, but as God’s words themselves), so I don’t feel any theological reason to go down that road.

“N.T. Wright has emphasised that the fundamental element of Scripture, and of our faith, is the narrative (I’m sure you know all this, but I’ll reiterate it quickly for the others). Thus, the true meaning, and power, is in the Christian story — doctrines simply function as short-hand references to parts of that story.”

I’m not as comfortable as you or NT Wright are with reducing Scripture to a story. Perhaps in one sense the central message of the Scriptures is a story (though it has aspects which transcend time, with the inner-Trinitarian life of God), but that does not mean that Scripture itself is just a narrative. At its most basic level it is simply communication from God, or as Kevin Vanhoozer puts it, “divine discourse”.

But I appreciate your explanation. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate!

Also, I will pray that God strengthens you continue your ministry in Vancouver. Blessings.

By: Andrew on May 6, 2008
at 3:49 pm

Dan:

I’m working on a response to your post and I will post it up on my blog this Friday. I have finals.

By: Jason Oliver on May 8, 2008
at 12:13 am

I like arrogant Dan is his responses, like he’s some how more qualified than Andrew or Matt lol. Letting us kids muddle around? thats funny too, so do people with PHd’s muddle around when they condemn clearly addressed acts of sin? I think Dan fail’s to see that he’s the only one in this sinking ship called “hey world, Christianity is good now! You can do whatever you want with no consiquences! How? Just use the magic word - CONTEXT!! and everything will be fine!”

Take it to a United church hippie.

By: theroan on May 8, 2008
at 10:34 am

I have friends that are gay. This particular forum simply invites us to handle the concepts in a more forthright way.

Ben, you are aware that this blog is public and that anyone googling, say, “Christianity and homosexuality” might end up here, right?

By: Dan on May 8, 2008
at 5:20 pm

Hahaha. Yes Dan. Of course. This is the inter-web after all and I never forget that when commenting here or writing elsewhere.

I stand by my beliefs and would never cower from them. It’s just a context/time and place thing.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 8, 2008
at 8:02 pm

I’m gonna have to forgo that response. I’ve got finals and I graduate on Saturday. I’ll save for another day.

Blessings to you all.

By: Jason Oliver on May 8, 2008
at 10:39 pm

Why do you guys only add stuff in on my comments? Everyone gets to say whatever they want without being belittled by you, but The Roan, no it’s cool to make an effort and make him look an asshole. Last time I checked, I was pretty good at doing that on my own.

Thanks for delivering such an open space for discussion.

By: theroan on May 9, 2008
at 9:06 am

Alas, I’ve been more busy than I thought I would be. I’ll begin by responding to Matthew, and then try to get to Benjamin.

Matthew,

I am somewhat intrigued to discover that some Christians continue to think that marriage is focused upon child-bearing (note that this is not for a lack of contact with evangelicals — I attended Tyndale and now attend Regent, two rather evangelical institutions). In my original post, I added my thoughts on child-bearing as an afterthought (subpoint 3b) because I thought it was mostly a non-issue. On that point, I stand corrected.

On, then, to your remarks. You assert that “procreation” is both “the goal” of marriage, and “the nature” of marriage. I wonder about the basis for this argument — I suspect that it is based upon Gen 1-2, but I would like to be offered some reasons as to why Gen 1-2 is the last word on marriage. Care to expound?

After all, even Gen 1 and Gen 2 are split on the value of marriage. Gen 1.28 seems to link procreation to marriage, whereas Gen 2.18-24 suggests that the value of marriage is the intimacy that one discovers there (i.e. procreation is not mentioned in this second creation narrative; rather the union of men and women is that which overcomes the loneliness that God considers to be “not good”).

Indeed, things rapidly become more complicated. For example, it must be noted that Gen 1-2 are not actually talking about marriage as such. They are talking about the union of men and women. It was only later traditions that made these the core verses for a theology of marriage — and once we learn to see through the filters that these traditions employed, we are able to see that Gen 1-2 are open in a lot more ways. Thus, continuing this thought, one could argue that, because Gen 1-2 have nothing to say about marriage, they also have nothing to say about the moral nature of homosexual marriages. Gen 1 is entirely silent on homosexuality (rather, it urges men and women to enter into unions that produce children and nothing further can be extrapolated from it) and Gen 2 is also silent on homosexuality (although, perhaps it could said to imply that gay unions are also good because they can overcome the loneliness that God calls “not good”).

Now perhaps you think I am grasping at straws, but I think that this is what it means to engage in exegesis that is faithful to the text at hand. Indeed, I am practicing the same sort of exegesis as those who recognise, in other ways, that Gen 1-2 is not the last word on human relationships and sexuality. For example, those who understand that celibacy can be a good thing would be painted into a pretty tight corner if Gen 1-2 were made the last word on relationships between people, and between the genders (i.e. those who embrace single-ness would either be (a) unfaithful to the procreation mandate; or (b) perverse because they desire the loneliness that God calls “not good” — and I don’t think we would want to say this sort of think about people like Jesus or Paul!). But, of course, Gen 1-2 has nothing to say about celibacy (just as it has nothing to say about homosexuality).

Consequently, when it comes to reading Gen 1-2 in light of homosexuality, what needs to be noted is that all sides are “arguing from silence”. I wish to respect this silence by arguing that Gen 1-2 cannot be decisive for this discussion. Others, alas, appear to disrepect this silence (and thereby appear to hold a rather low-view of Scripture and its authority!) by forcing it to be a key to a discussion that it altogether neglects.

Finally, let me dialogue with the second central point to your response. As I noted above, you begin by asserting that procreation is “the goal” and “the nature” of marriage, but you then go on to assert that this refers to people “as they are designed to be” and not “as they actually are”. What I then find intriguing, is that you allow for people to marry “as they actually are”, even when this (from your perspective) contradicts how they are “designed to be.” Thus, you argue that those, who through “no fault of their own”, are infertile or injured can marry.

The reason why I find this intriguing is that by your own logic it appears that homosexuality would meet the criteria that you establish. People who cannot help but be gay (i.e. people who, from your perspective, could be considered sexually “injured”), cannot engage in sexual relations with the opposite sex without being disrespected (at the very least), abused (in most cases), or exploited (in every case). It seems to me that the only why in which you can exclude homosexuality from your allowances is to either (a) only view homosexuality as a choice (which is akin to embracing deliberate ignorance of these things); or (b) counsel that homosexuals be disrespected, abused, or exploited (for children).

And so, I’m puzzled: why do you give grace to some “as they are” but not to others?

(Of course, one of the strengths of my position is that I don’t tihnk we are graciously condescending to blessing the marriages of infertile, injured, or homosexual people — rather, we’re recognising the broadness of God’s good creation! However, it took me some years to come to my position, and I was once in a position akin to yours… so give it time!)

By: dan on May 10, 2008
at 2:54 pm

Somewhat OT:

Dan, good reminder.

God saw that Adam was alone, and made a partner. That motivation has nothing to do with procreation explicitly. Truly the institution is a multifarious institution.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 10, 2008
at 3:33 pm

So, at long last, I come to Benjamin, my most persistent interlocutor.

Benjamin:

I hope you will forgive me if I leave aside the question of hallucinogenic drug use, suicide, and consensual sex with thirteen year olds – such topics deserve to be treated on their own, and not as tangential issues, or polemical examples, in a discussion of homosexuality. Such subjects only arise if one is arguing for absolute moral relativism – something far removed from the position that I take (as I explain further on).

Furthermore, I don’t intend to engage you on the question of Paul’s approach to slavery, or his approach to power as it relates to gender – I am currently writing a Master’s thesis on Paul and socio-political issues (after completing an undergrad in biblical studies), but I’ll spare you the details. Suffice to say, I don’t think my ideas are “of greater strength than an Apostle’s”; rather, I am dedicated to understanding what in the hell this Apostle is saying (for, as I said before, we must be suspicious of our ‘plain readings’ of Scripture).

However, to be clear, I don’t actually think that Paul is self-contradictory, or “theologically wishy-washy”, when it comes to these things (although cf. the writings of Heikki Räisänen, if you’re interested in seeing a scholar who strongly represents the view that Paul contradicts himself!), and I would argue that Paul actually does attack the institution of slavery – but he does so implicitly, and at foundational level, not explicity – that, after all, would likely ensure the destruction of the movement he was trying to help birth (in this regard, I refer you to James C. Scott’s Weapons of the Weak, and the biblical scholars influenced by this work, notably those who contributed to Hidden Transcripts and the Art of Resistance, edited by Richard A. Horsley). My point in raising these things was to suggest that Paul is complicated, and superficial readings can lead us to produce any number of Pauls – an egalitarian Paul based on Gal 3.28, and a patriarchal Paul based on 1 Cor 14.34-35; a liberating Paul based on Philm, and a Paul who supports slavery based on, well, Philm! Let us, then, approach Paul with some caution, lest we only find what we desire to find.

But enough prolegomena, let us return to the issue at hand.

It seems to me that you press me on two points: (1) my interpretation of Ro 1; and (2) my approach to hermeneutics (a third point could be mentioned, namely that I am “arguing from silence” in Gen 1-2, but I think I have adequately demonstrated that all arguments about homosexuality, based upon Gen 1-2, are arguments from silence).

I have already addressed the hermeneutical point to some extent in my exchange with Andrew and so, while I engage in “cultural” and “textual” criticisms, I am not approaching anything close to the “relativistic” hermeneutic than you, and the others here, seem to fear so much. Simply put, I believe that Scripture establishes different boundaries (but boundaries nonetheless!). However, the suggestion that an Evangelical crowd (and this crowd seems to be rather Evangelical) may have their boundaries in the wrong places, is almost always met with the cry: “Absolute relativism!” or the sort of thing that theroan, to his own detriment, articulates so well in his recent comments. This is unfortunate because it, a priori, prohibits genuine discussion. So, you see, the discussion between you and I, is not a discussion between bounded morality and moral relativism; it is a discussion about where we place our boundaries and why. Andrew, I think, grasps this point, theroan, alas, does not. Unless you do, I’m not sure how fruitful any further discussion will be.

However, in the hope that you grasp this point, I’ll press on to Ro 1 – this, after all, should further clarify my hermeneutical approach.

In response to my remarks on Ro 1 you state that I am “swinging the argument in [my] favour unfairly” when I connect the discussion to paganism. Instead, you suggest that Ro 1 should be related more directly to “ungodliness”, by which you appear to mean something like “immoral behaviour of any kind”. Alas, I am unconvinced. You see, I – and all the commentaries that I have read on Romans – are in agreement on Paul’s intent in this passage. Ro 1.18ff is Paul’s illustration of what occurs when people choose to worship false gods, instead of worshipping the one true God. So, yes, Paul is talking about ungodliness, but this ungodliness is a symptom of paganism (understood as the worship of anything but the one true God).

Stated simply, Paul’s argument runs as follows: (a) Worship false gods, and you will become ungodly (for, as the OT consistently shows us, we become like that which we worship – a point Paul reiterates in this passage); (b) if you become ungodly, you will also become less-than-fully-human (perverse or corrupted); this perversion is then illustrated in a number of ways (and is especially illustrated by homosexuality). So, Paul is not discussing morality in some general sense. He is talking about how worship directly impacts our identity as humans, and illustrating that point with some poignant examples.

Consequently, Ro 1 is not at all focused on homosexuality. It is focused on worship. Homosexuality is simply an handy, and easily accepted, illustration of Paul’s point, given his context. What we have here is a descriptive case of the indicative, not the imperative. You are correct, then, to point to the ontological significance of this passage (and of the indicative) but I would argue that the fundamental ontological factor is worship – Paul’s remarks on homosexuality are simply his throw-away illustration of that point.

Of course, Andrew grants me the “grammatical” distinction between the indicative and the imperative in this passage, but he then argues that Paul is still “stating ethical facts, which are convertible with imperatives” but I must disagree with this. We must be very careful about transforming biblical illustrations into commandments – particularly when those illustrations are dealing with ontological, rather than ethical issues! On what basis do we turn an illustration, or a narrative, into an ethical injunction? Surely we don’t do this with every illustration, or every narrative, found within Scripture, so what is our basis for doing this with Ro 1?

So, yes, Paul may be speaking of homosexuality in general, in this passage (although I would be quick to add that “homosexuality in general” was a very different thing than “homosexuality in general” in our day – “sexuality” itself is very much a social construct, and one that changes a great deal between ages and cultures). But I’m afraid that Paul’s illustration about homosexuality no longer holds up.

Of course, this is where I lose y’all, so I need to reassure you — it’s okay for Paul’s illustration not to hold up anymore. There’s much in Scripture that no longer holds up – both in our day (slavery, sexual exploitation, etc.) and in light of other Scripture (the contradictions in Scripture that I mentioned above). Further, let’s recall that all of us, reject some of the illustrations found in Scripture, and even some of the injunctions found therein (besides, Paul’s point remains true, even if his illustration is dated). The question then becomes how we know which illustrations and injunctions to follow and which to reject, and I already commented on this in my response to Andrew (although I did not convince Andrew, I am glad to see that he grants me both Barth and N. T. Wright in my hermeneutical approach – alas, theroan, you can’t just brush me aside as some crazed “hippie” without simultaneously brushing aside Barth and the good bishop Wright).

However, you seem particularly eager to press the point that Paul connects his “general declaration” on homosexuality with “nature.” I think that I have mostly addressed this point in my above comments – i.e. it is worship that impacts “our very ontology and beingness” and homosexuality is simply Paul’s example (and I reiterate that the point remains even if this particular example no longer stands). Apart from that, I’m not sure what to make of your focus on nature. It does make me a little nervous because it risks leading us into some sort of “natural theology” (which I, as something of a postliberal Barthian, am naturally suspicious of). I’m sure you can expound more on this point, so that I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from. So, if I’ve misunderstood you’re point about “nature”, do feel free to correct me.

Peace out.

By: dan on May 11, 2008
at 1:16 am

Just to interject one comment, since it was relevant to me:

“On what basis do we turn an illustration, or a narrative, into an ethical injunction?”

Well, in Romans 1, Paul cites an example/illustration of ethically bad behaviour that comes from worshipping the creation. So the example is one that is already ethical, and thus convertible with an imperative. At least that’s how I understand it.

By: Andrew on May 11, 2008
at 3:05 pm

Ok Dan. I don’t disagree with much of what you wrote. I’m disappointed that you decided to refrain from answering some other questions I posed as they are relevant. That’s your prerogative.

Onto the issue:

I think our discussion is not simply a matter of where we place boundaries. It is about interpretation, and I’m presenting rational arguments. That’s all. I don’t want to shut down a conversation just because I’m opinionated and it’s my way or the highway. By the kind of interpretation you’re advocating, many dangerous possibilities appear (you no doubt disagree).

Ok, so let’s assume your point about paganism stands. Fine. That fact, however, does not dismiss homosexuality as being wrong. The act is still associated with ungodliness. Paul does not mention riding donkeys. Not harvesting olives. Not wearing sandals that don’t match.

Homosexuality. It is mentioned in the same breath with the complete rejection of God, contextual or not! Context is not a defeater, in this case, to a general moral observation, and you have not demonstrated that it is.

Homosexuality is described as a “degrading passion.” They (pagans as you say) were given over to impurity (in this case, homosexuality). Homosexuality is called an indecent act and is equated with punishment. Punishment!

Paul doesn’t stop there, as if he were only giving an illustration. No. Not only did God give them over to homosexuality, but the passage goes on to say that God also gave them over to a depraved mind to do improper things, including wickedness, greed, evil, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slanderer, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, unlovingness, unmercifulness.

Are any of these things open to us as creative acts? Why not? By your reasoning, we can make a case for at least some of them.

Notice the parallel structure of the passage. Paul begins with the handing over to homosexuality. He then follows it up with the handing over to everything wicked. We can, I think safely, establish that he actually views homosexuality as a representation and metaphor for all those other things.

Notice also many of the things he mentions in that 2nd half are found in Galatians 5, being counterposed to the fruit of the spirit.

Further, in 1 Cor 6:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Homosexuality is mentioned in the same breath as idolatry, adultery, theft, and drunkenness. Does this kind of association mean nothing to you?

Based on the argumentation you are using, can we assert that drunkenness is wrong? It seems to be a concept that can be interpreted through the same frameworks you are using.

Essentially, you have to prove that when Paul includes homosexuality in lists of immoral acts, that he does not mean to say it’s an immoral act.

Somewhat tangential: I agree that our ontology is predicated largely on worship, but my point regarding the passage was that Paul homosexuality is unnatural. This is a comment on sexual design, nothing else. He is then by mentioning nature establishing a truth that is tied to the very essence of our humanity. That is, men were designed to have sex with women, vice versa, and nothing else. This is natural, the opposite being unnatural, and as explained by the passage, a degrading passion that is closely connected to godlessness, idolatry, and sin in general.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 11, 2008
at 3:55 pm

“I suspect that it is based upon Gen 1-2, but I would like to be offered some reasons as to why Gen 1-2 is the last word on marriage. Care to expound?”

I do not believe that Gen 1 & 2 is the last word on marriage. Instead, it is the foundational word on marriage. Why? Because it concerns itself with human beings as they were designed to be. Later teaching is necessary to deal with how sin and corruption complicate these issues.

“After all, even Gen 1 and Gen 2 are split on the value of marriage.”

I do not deny that “not being alone” is a reason and rationale for marriage. It certainly is. However one should not use one passage (Gen 2) in an attempt to overcome another passage (Gen 1). They can be understood together.

“For example, it must be noted that Gen 1-2 are not actually talking about marriage as such. They are talking about the union of men and women.”

This is true only is the sense that the passage does not use the word marriage. Since marriage just is the union of a man and a woman, that amounts to nothing more than verbal game.

“For example, those who understand that celibacy can be a good thing would be painted into a pretty tight corner if Gen 1-2 were made the last word on relationships…”

This is a much better argument. As you know, Paul allows for celibacy as a good thing. However, I already noted that Gen 1-2 is not the last word on marriage, but the foundational word. As the foundational word, it claims that it not good for men (by design) to be alone. Nonetheless, in the actual sinful world, circumstances may not allow for this.

“The reason why I find this intriguing is that by your own logic it appears that homosexuality would meet the criteria that you establish.”

This won’t work. First, I do not consider the marriage of this who are infertile or injured to be condescending to their situation. They are just as much men and women as we are. They may be injured, but sin has injured all of us. This does not make them less than us in any way.

Second, I do not count their marriage as contradicting the design of marriage. The design of marriage has to do with the design of men and women, not (directly) with actual men and women. Since the infertile or injured remain men and women, they can still participate in the design of marriage. There is no contradiction here.

Finally, homosexuals who cannot marry due to their homosexuality (ie. it would be a problem for them) are not to be counseled to marry anyway! Instead, their actual situation prevents them from participating in the general design of men and women. This is to be counted as a loss. Certainly the church should support such people, not treat them in a condescending fashion, not treat them as sinners merely for their temptations and should include them in the community. That has been severely lacking. This does not mean that homosexuals may seek sexual unity with the same gender.

By: Matthew on May 12, 2008
at 9:58 am

I’m not sure how much longer this discussion will go. However, I hope that I have garnered at least a wee bit of respect for some of us Christians who are in favour of blessing gay unions, and performing gay weddings. The marked tone of disrespect and (almost?) deliberate misunderstanding that showed in the earlier comments, seems to have developed into some intelligent, and respectful, discussion (with one exception, but so it goes). That is a good thing.

Okay, then. I’ll go in reverse order.

Matthew:

(1) You argue that Gen 1 & 2 can be “understood together” and suggest that I am using one passage to “overcome” another. In fact, this is not what I am doing. What I am arguing is that both Gen 1 & 2, taken as individual units, provide us with sufficient reason for the union of men and women. In some cases, the bearing of children is, by itself, sufficient justification for the union of a man and a woman. In other cases, the overcoming of loneliness is, by itself, sufficient justification for the union of a man and a woman. Granted, sometimes those who marry for children also learn to overcome loneliness together, and sometimes those who marry to overcome loneliness are able to bear children, and that is all well and good… but it is not always necessary or possible.

Therefore, although Gen 1, when taken on its own, seems to offer little that is useful for the blessing of gay unions, Gen 2 certainly does seem to be useful and hopeful in this regard.

But let me be clear, I’m not saying one passage is “right” and the other “wrong”. I’m saying each of them have value in and of themselves, and we should not be too quick to try and say that unions (particularly unions that are unaddressed in Gen 1 & 2) must justify the criteria of both Gen 1 & 2.

For example, there are many ethical examples within Scripture that offer two equally good options, depending on the person and the situation. To the rich young ruler, Jesus says, sell all your things, give the money to the poor, and come follow me. To the former demoniac who lived in the tombs, Jesus says, don’t follow me, go back to your family and your home town and tell them about what happened to you. We don’t need to try to combine these injunctions into one all-encompassing command — in fact, we shouldn’t try to synthesize these two pericopes.

I think the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Gen 1 & 2. There is nothing within those texts (nor, I would suggest in the rest of Scripture) that requires us to create a synthesis of those two passages in order to arrive at some sort of single “foundational” word on marriage.

(2) In response to my point that Gen 1 & 2 actually have nothing to say about marriage directly you argue that:

This is true only is [sic] the sense that the passage does not use the word marriage. Since marriage just is the union of a man and a woman, that amounts to nothing more than verbal game.

Alas, I’m afraid that your argument is circular. Here is the first, implicit step in your argument — marriage is, a priori, defined as the union of a man and a woman. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Gen 1 & 2 that requires us to define marriage in this way. Consequently, you impose a limited definition of marriage upon the passage, and only then say that the passage is about marriage (because the passage meets your limited definition!). It’s a convenient way of thinking. But I find it unacceptable.

You see, I’m not playing a “verbal game” (although we’re both playing “language games” as Wittgenstein understood that term… but I digress!). I’m trying to read what the texts at hand actually say, instead of filtering what those texts say through the lenses of other traditions, biases, or contexts.

(3) In your response to my comments on how homosexuality would fit the criteria you established for marriage in your previous comment, you argue that this is not the case (in part) because the ” design of marriage has to do with the design of men and women, not (directly) with actual men and women”.

I’m baffled as to where you have gotten this idea from. Speaking of the “design” of men and women would lead me to think of Gen 1 & 2 — but I’ve already shown how your logic on this point is circular — but perhaps you have another passage in mind?

Besides what “design” is it that you have in mind here? A physical design (i.e. this tab fits this slot)? An emotional design? An even more ephemeral spiritual design? I’m skeptical. I don’t see this “design” of men and women thing in Scripture, and I’ve known enough men and women to know that that are no uniquely male or female characteristics (apart from our anatomy — and even that can be more problematical than we first imagine given that something like 1 out of 1500 children is born with complications around gender and is consequently assigned a male or female gender by the doctor; cf. http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency).

So please feel free to expound on this point about design. It sounds to me like an argument which is widely used but has almost no substance.

Grace and peace.

By: dan on May 17, 2008
at 9:44 pm

“However, I hope that I have garnered at least a wee bit of respect for some of us Christians who are in favour of blessing gay unions, and performing gay weddings.”

I have a respect for well-thought out positions. You have such a position. However, I disapprove of these practices in the strongest moral sense. I do not recognize gay “marriages” as being marriages at all, nor do I count the “blessing” of gay unions as being a true blessing.

“What I am arguing is that both Gen 1 & 2, taken as individual units, provide us with sufficient reason for the union of men and women.”

I see. I disagree. Gen 1 & 2 provide us with essential characteristics of the union of men and women, not with sufficient reasons for such unions. To argue any further on the matter would require that I actually address the exegesis of the passage itself.

“We don’t need to try to combine these injunctions into one all-encompassing command — in fact, we shouldn’t try to synthesize these two pericopes.”

I disagree. These pericopes can be combined and they ought to be combined. However, one must work with the nature of what Jesus commanded. So Jesus commanded that the rich young ruler sell his possessions because he was violating the commandments. He was to follow Jesus because that was what he desired (in order to obtain salvation). The demoniac was to return home and tell them of himself because that was how he was to follow Christ. Both were told to follow Christ and the law. The difference in situations just leads to different applications of the same command.

“Alas, I’m afraid that your argument is circular.”

Then I will simply claim that Gen 1 & 2 set forth the design of sexual unions. These unions are only meant to occur between a man and a woman. This will avoid verbal disputes of the meaning of the word “marriage”.

“I’m trying to read what the texts at hand actually say, instead of filtering what those texts say through the lenses of other traditions, biases, or contexts.”

That is your intention, but I do not think that things are that way. First, I think that the Holy Spirit has guided the church in its interpretations. So if the traditional consensus of the church is that homosexuality is wrong, then one needs good reason to overcome this consensus. Second, I believe that the context of the rest of Scripture must inform our thought much more than our surrounding culture. Third, the context for understanding Gen ! & 2 is both literary and historical. So how it fits into Genesis and how it would have been understood 3.5 thousand years ago in the Middle East is the proper context.

“Besides what “design” is it that you have in mind here?”

The design includes the physical, emotional, spiritual and mental. It includes everything about men and women.

“I’ve known enough men and women to know that that are no uniquely male or female characteristics”

All experiential knowledge will tell you is what actual men and women are like. I have already said that I am referring to design rather than actual men and women.

“…that something like 1 out of 1500 children is born with complications around gender”

I have already mentioned that. I counted those could not be distinctly identified as male or female as falling under the class of those who had an injury to gender.

It appears that you have difficulty understanding what design is. Let me explain by analogy. Imagine that you have a car. Your car is designed. But now someone takes hammer to the inside of the car and damages several components. The car can still work, but it is now damaged. The way that the car is and the way that the car was designed to be are different. Does this help?

By: Matthew on May 19, 2008
at 1:48 pm

Matthew, a a few quick responses, and then I really should respond to Ben (and Andrew).

(1) I should begin by noting how happy I am that you have recognized your need to “actually address the exegesis of the passage itself”. As I’ve been engaging in exegetical reflection for much of this discussion, I’m glad to see that you may be ready to stop using Gen 1 & 2 as a proof-text for a previously established theological position. So, please, dive into the commentaries (I would suggest those by Wenham and Brueggemann as they balance each other out quite nicely — Wenham being the exhaustive scholar and Brueggemann being the scholar with an eye to the congregation)!

(2) On the idea of creating syntheses between texts (or Gospel pericopes), I’m afraid that I wasn’t sufficiently clear. Yes, of course there is an overarching synthesis to Jesus’ commands in the passages I mentioned — but that doesn’t mean each person engages in the same action. In fact, they engage in opposite actions in order to both be faithful to the one command.

But, look, let’s apply that to Gen 1 & 2. Let’s say that the overarching command is how people are to live faithfully. Gen 1 shows us one way of being faithful; Gen 2 shows another. Both are ways of being faithful, but each is a way of being faithful independently of the other. Here I return to the exegetical point — there is nothing in the texts at hand (nor, dare I say, in the rest of Scripture) that requires us to define faithfulness in the regard as a combination of the two stories.

(3) You grant me the point that Gen 1 & 2 do not refer to marriage. Good. However, you then go on to say that they “set forth the design of sexual unions”. It’s an interesting suggestion, and one that is so common in some circles that many people forget to actually look at the texts at hand to see if we can find this idea there. Frankly, I don’t think we can. Sure, Gen 1 & 2 talks about some sexual unions. But it never states, or even suggests, that it is firmly establishing the limits of all sexual unions. So I’m afraid that this position is just as eisegetical as your last (all the more reason to delve into the exegetical literature to see precisely what is, and is not, found in the texts as hand!).

(3) On the role of tradition, I would also affirm the suggestion that the Spirit has played a role in shaping the traditions of the Church. Of course, the Spirit has not (yet) revealed all things to us, nor have we perfectly followed the Spirit’s guiding, so tradition must always be reformed (indeed, this “semper reformanda” principle is demonstrated even within Scripture itself). Of course, I think that I, and others, have offered some fairly good reasons as to why the (dominant) tradition of the Church needs to be corrected in relation to homosexuality.

(4) I strongly affirm the importance of reading Scripture in light of other Scripture but, as I’ve already suggested (in relation to Ro 1), and as I hope to suggest (in relation to Ben’s comment on 1 Cor 6), I think that my position is one that accords well with the rest of Scripture. I guess you’ll just have to hold this thought until I get to Ben’s last comment.

(5) Finally, on to your most troubling point, that which relates to this oh-so-elusive “design” that you appear to wield as a trump card.

As soon as a person talks about a design that doesn’t correlate to anybody “as they actually are”, well, I think we’ve gone beyond the bounds of logical discussion. Especially since you don’t provide much of a biblical basis for this “design” talk (I did ask for further references in my last response).

So, what precisely is this physical-emotional-spiritual design, as applied to men? And what is this physical-emotional-spiritual design, as applied to women? How should men phsyically-emotionally-spiritually be? How should women? What are the differences? And what are the texts that serve as the foundations for your understanding of this “design”?

Then again, let me try to save you some time, with a quote from Wittgenstein: “Don’t think! Look!” You see, following Deleuze, Guattari and others, I think that this “design” argument attempts to move us from the “plane of immanence” to the “plane of transcendence” in order to artificially overcode our social relations. It’s a power-play. Thankfully, we’re at the point where we can see this sort of argument for what it is.

That said, let me play a little with your design analogy involving the car that is damaged. Let me apply this analogy to those who are born in various places on the gender spectrum. What is the damage done here? Is the damage the intersexed state of the person being born? Or is the damage done by the doctor who assigns a gender to the person? What if the doctor gets it wrong (assigns a physical state that doesn’t accord with the emotional and/or spiritual state)? What if the doctor assigns a male gender to a person who is inherently attarcted to men? What if the doctor assigns a female gender to a person who believe she is female? Perhaps it is the doctors who do the damage. Perhaps, then, in these cases we should allow gay unions.

So, yes, it turns out that your analogy was helpful.

By: dan on May 19, 2008
at 3:28 pm

“Then again, let me try to save you some time, with a quote from Wittgenstein: “Don’t think! Look!” You see, following Deleuze, Guattari and others, I think that this “design” argument attempts to move us from the “plane of immanence” to the “plane of transcendence” in order to artificially overcode our social relations. It’s a power-play. Thankfully, we’re at the point where we can see this sort of argument for what it is.”

Dan, couldn’t someone use your argument to, in fact, justify violence? “You should not use violence against people, since they were meant to be loved!” “Don’t overcode people with your artificial social mores; immanently, people are mortal, all people die, people are capable of killing others, and people do frequently kill others… so there is no reason why I should not use violence…”

If at any point you appeal to what God has intended for the world, as opposed to what happens historically in the world, as a justification for moral action, you use a design argument. There’s a reason why Deleuze, for example, did not believe in Christ…

By: Andrew on May 19, 2008
at 4:01 pm

Andrew,

Yes, one could use Deleuze et al. to justify a good many things (indeed, speaking of Deleuze and violence, you may be interested to know — if you didn’t already — that Deleuze killed himself in a rather violent manner [i.e. he threw himself from a window]).

Further, unlike Deleuze, I do not think that all overcoding (as he understands it) is wrong. I am not that much of a materialist to follow them all the way through to their own conclusions.

However, I think Deleuze & Co., are helpful in demonstrating ways in which overcoding, and the plane of transcendence, have been manipulated and used as a power-play. Consequently, we need to be able to discern which overcodings are abuses, and which are in accordance with our faith.

As I understand things, talk about “design”, when applied to the issues at hand, falls within the domain of Deleuze’s criticisms. Of course, you, or Matthew, or whomever else, is welcome to try to prove me wrong.

By: dan on May 19, 2008
at 4:20 pm

“Consequently, we need to be able to discern which overcodings are abuses, and which are in accordance with our faith.

As I understand things, talk about “design”, when applied to the issues at hand, falls within the domain of Deleuze’s criticisms.”

But this just brings us back to the same thing again, no? Whether we think God actually says these things are wrong or not will determine whether we regard saying they are wrong by design is abusive or ultimately helpful. So it’s a circular argument again, which is why in this situation I don’t think its helpful to appeal to a general hermeneutic of suspicion against claims of design as artificial impositions.

But, as you are, I am also open to correction on this

By: Andrew on May 19, 2008
at 6:45 pm

Andrew,

I’ll jump at that opening! You see, while I think that those who use the argument based upon “design” are vulnerable to the charge of engaging in a circular logic (as you so adequately demonstrate!), I think that my argument is a little more sound.

Here’s why. I’m not making any sort of statement about “design”, except to say that comments related to it, when made in conjunction with the discussion at hand, are imposing an arbitrary additional layer upon the biblical texts (esp. Gen 1 & 2). I’m not simply offering some sort of reversal of the standard “homosexuality is wrong because of God’s design” and stating “homosexuality is right because of God’s design”. Rather, I’m saying that the bible doesn’t have much at all to say about “design” in this regard (and Gen 1 & 2 have nothing to say about “design” in this regard).

Consequently, my hermeneutic is only suspicious of those who read “design” (and a rather limited one at that) into texts that don’t have much to say about “design” and whatever boundaries may, or may not, relate to that “design”.

Hopefully that shows why my argument isn’t circular. I’ll leave it to Matthew to try and explain how his argument also isn’t circular.

Peace out.

By: dan on May 19, 2008
at 9:16 pm

“Here’s why. I’m not making any sort of statement about “design”, except to say that comments related to it, when made in conjunction with the discussion at hand, are imposing an arbitrary additional layer upon the biblical texts (esp. Gen 1 & 2).”

That’s fine, I guess; but it just means the exegetical debate has to be settled to prove the other side is being arbitrary, which means, I think, that it’s still not helpful before that debate has occurred to charge the other side with arbitrariness.

But perhaps you were thinking about the debate as having already been engaged for some time, and you were assuming your exegetical conclusions (which is fine). In that case all I can say is that your argument will only work to help you persuade your side. Someone, like Matthew or myself, who thinks that the Bible does exegetically support our position, is not going to find the Deleuzian hermeneutic of suspicion to be persuasive. For what it’s worth…

By: Andrew on May 20, 2008
at 7:36 am

“You grant me the point that Gen 1 & 2 do not refer to marriage. Good.”

Actually I do not. I just believe that avoiding the word “marriage” might help to prevent verbal disputes.

“indeed, this “semper reformanda” principle is demonstrated even within Scripture itself”

I do not accept this either. The nature of Scripture as being the very words of God mean that it is in no need of reforming.

“What is the damage done here? Is the damage the intersexed state of the person being born?”

Yes. It is a part of the corruption that results from original sin. That sin changed the spiritual state of human beings, their mental state, emotional state, will and physical condition. That is known as the doctrine of total depravity. There is no aspect of human beings that has escaped the corrupting influence of sin.

By: Matthew on May 20, 2008
at 12:04 pm

Andrew,

The point is that I’ve actually been engaging in an exegetical argument. However, despite the fact that you and Matthew and whomever else likes to point out that y’all have a different exegetical POV, you guys haven’t spent any time explicating, or defending your own exegetical position (on Gen 1 & 2). I keep asking for this… and keep getting nothing.

I would really like to understand how the bible exegetically supports your position (and thus refutes the objections that I have raised) but all I get is silence on this point.

By: dan on May 20, 2008
at 2:31 pm

Matthew,

As I stated above in my comment to Andrew, please do me the favour of explaining how y’all exegete the texts at hand. That might refute my position… to simply suggest that you exegete things differently leaves us at an impasse (which is okay, too, if that’s where you want to leave things… and you might want to leve things there because I don’t think you can, exegetically, refute my position!!).

Indeed, you have left most of my questions unanswered. So, please, I’ve gone out of my way to defend my position, you can start defending yours at any time.

One more comment on the status of intersexed children. On what basis do you designate intersexed status a result of “original sin”? I recognise that the world is broken on every level, and that we too are fallen, but why must something like intersexed status be a symptom of fallenness? Indeed, given the way in which Western Christians have treated “the Other” in the past (you know, Aboriginals aren’t fully human and so they can be hunted, black people are black because that’s the mark of Cain, and so on and so forth), I’d be curious to hear why the intersexed “Other” must be understood as fallen, or broken, or whatever, when it comes to their gender status. Oh, and continuing with our emphasis on Scripture and exegesis, feel free to prove this point by those means (good luck!).

In this regard, you may benefit from some readings in the “theology of disability”. I’ll give you a few (somewhat different) starting points: The Disabled God by Nancy L. Eiesland, Spirit and the Politics of Disablement by Sharon V. Betcher, and Critical Reflections on Stanley Hauerwas’ Theology of Disability edited by John Swinton. I think that this literature might help to convince you that physical attributes that mainstream evangelical society tends to consider “the result of sin” may actually be neutral in that regard — the “sin” involved might actually be how we as society respond to such people!

Grace and peace.

By: dan on May 20, 2008
at 2:44 pm

Dan! You haven’t gotten back to me! To refresh, a snippet of my last post:

Homosexuality is mentioned in the same breath as idolatry, adultery, theft, and drunkenness. Does this kind of association mean nothing to you?

Based on the argumentation you are using, can we assert that drunkenness is wrong? It seems to be a concept that can be interpreted through the same frameworks you are using.

Essentially, you have to prove that when Paul includes homosexuality in lists of immoral acts, that he does not mean to say it’s an immoral act.

By: Benjamin Allison on May 20, 2008
at 3:42 pm

Dan:

Well, to start with, I still think my reading of Romans 1 is superior to yours (Paul makes ethical assertions about homosexuality); and, as Wright argues in his commentary, I think Paul is subtly alluding to the creation narrative throughout that chapter. Thus I think Paul sees in Genesis 1-3 what you say is not there. That is sufficient reason for me to believe that it is there, since Paul was inspired.

By: Andrew on May 20, 2008
at 5:54 pm

One more comment on the status of intersexed children. On what basis do you designate intersexed status a result of “original sin”? I recognise that the world is broken on every level, and that we too are fallen, but why must something like intersexed status be a symptom of fallenness? Indeed, given the way in which Western Christians have treated “the Other” in the past (you know, Aboriginals aren’t fully human and so they can be hunted, black people are black because that’s the mark of Cain, and so on and so forth), I’d be curious to hear why the intersexed “Other” must be understood as fallen, or broken, or whatever, when it comes to their gender status. Oh, and continuing with our emphasis on Scripture and exegesis, feel free to prove this point by those means (good luck!).

This is a little OT, but: Western Christians are largely part of a bloc of people who, by global-historical standards, are a bit on the pale side and, frankly, too fat. If anyone is a freakish other, it’s someone like me. It’s just that people like me (white guys) have historically had a great deal of power.

By: Dan on May 31, 2008
at 6:40 pm

Hey! Are you calling me fat?! Stop it!

(@dan)

Keep on brother. If you convince me that gay marriage is biblically sanctionable, I pretty much can never leave Canada.

- dan ray

By: Dan Ray on June 1, 2008
at 12:24 am

Since Mr Poser has not responded to my last questions, I’ll assume he doesn’t have an answer for them and will consider his thesis defeated.

By: Benjamin Allison on June 9, 2008
at 9:36 am

Actually Ben, I think he was out of town for a bit and may have lost track of this comment thread.

By: Dan on June 9, 2008
at 10:34 am

It’s true, I was out of town.

I do intend to get back to you, Ben… but life is busy, and blogging can’t always be a priority (I’ve been wanting to confirm a few things in Greek before getting back to you, and I haven’t had the time to do that).

However, if we’re going by uncontested arguments, I think I’ve thoroughly kicked all your asses! But, of course, not contesting an argument is not always proof of a defeated thesis. Indeed, y’all probably haven’t contested a lot of what I’ve said because, from your perspective, it probably seems so obviously wrong, that there is no point in contesting it! So it goes.

Oh, and feel free to call me Dan — maybe you don’t want to be presumptuous and refer to me by name, but I don’t mind. Really.

By: dan on June 10, 2008
at 12:07 am

dan:

Going back to your previous challenge (about the exegesis of Gen 1), I think Keith offered an argument that hasn’t really been dealt with: Jesus saw in the creation narrative a prohibition against divorce. Now, if you want to argue that Genesis is not even talking about marriage, I think you would definitely be at odds with Jesus. Thoughts?

By: Andrew on June 10, 2008
at 7:47 am

City of God

Poser or Prophet and Gay Marriage

Responses

Leave a response