Richard Hays on Homosexuality
This is an interesting excerpt from Richard Hays’ The Moral Vision of the New Testament. It’s important to note that Hays is a New Testament professor at Duke Divinity School, so he’s clearly not a frothing at the mouth fundamentalist.
Gary came to New Haven in the summer of 1989 to say a proper farewell. My best friend from undergraduate years at Yale, he was dying of AIDS. While he was still able to travel, my family and I invited him to come visit us one more time.
During the week he stayed with use, we went to films together, we drank wine and laughed, we had long sober talks about politics and literature and the gospel and sex and such. Above all, we listened to music. As always, his aesthetic sense was fine and austere; as always he was determined to face the truth, even in the shadow of death.
We prayed together often that week, and we talked theology. It became clear that Gary had come not only to say goodbye but also to think hard, before God, about the relation between his homosexuality and his Christian faith. He was angry at the self-affirming gay Christian groups, because he regarded his own condition as more complex and tragic than their apologetic stance could acknowledge. He also worried that the gay apologists encouraged homosexual believers to “draw their identity from their sexuality” and thus to shift the ground of their identity subtly and idolatrously away from God. For more than 20 years, Gary had grappled with his homosexuality, experiencing it as a compulsion and an affliction. Now, as he faced death, he wanted to talk it all through again from the beginning, because he knew my love for him and trusted me to speak without dissembling. For Gary, there was no time to dance around the hard questions.
In particular, Gary wanted to discuss the biblical passages that deal with homosexual acts. Among Gary’s many gifts was his skill as a reader of texts. After leaving Yale and helping to found a community-based Christian theater group in Toronto, he had eventually completed a master’s degree in French literature. Though he was not trained as a biblical exegete, he was a careful and sensitive interpreter. He had read hopefully through the standard bibliography of the burgeoning movement advocating the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. In the end, he came away disappointed, believing that these authors, despite their good intentions, had imposed a wishful interpretation on the biblical passages. However much he wanted to believe that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality, he would not violate his own stubborn intellectual integrity by pretending to find their arguments persuasive.
The more we talked, the more we found our perspectives interlocking. Both of us had serious misgivings about the mounting pressure for the church to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As a New Testament scholar, I was concerned about certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists. As a homosexual Christian, Gary believed that their writings did justice neither to the biblical texts nor to his own sobering experience of the gay community that he had moved in and out of for 20 years.
Gary and I agreed that we should try to encourage a more nuanced discourse. Tragically, Gary soon became too sick to carry out his intention. His last letter to me was an effort to get some of his thoughts on paper while he was still able to write. By May of 1990 he was dead.
While this is a touching story about a dying friend, Hays hasn’t really offered anything substantial here. I still think the language in the original texts is being pressed to mean something that Paul could not have conceived it to mean. There was no way that anyone in the Greco-Roman world could have conceived of gay marriage – mainly since the purpose of marriage then was to carry on the husband’s bloodlines or at least his family name. Of course this leads to politically or economically advantageous marriages that may be devoid of any passion – hence the relative ease with which Romans seemed to tolerate mistresses, prostitutes and the like (Terence has a wonderful satirical play about this where a father is very blase about his son-in-law continuing to see his favourite prostitute after he has been married).
If this primacy of paternal lineage is still the most important thing in a marriage then we will have to have another conversation entirely.
It is usually hazardous to make a statement of this sort in the negative, for it only takes a single example to disprove it. Paul’s well-known contemporary, Nero, married a man (Suetonius, Nero 28; LCL, 2.127):
I am not sure what to make of Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) which prohibited same-sex marriage in AD 342 (Wikipedia, s.v. “Same-sex marriage”–History). But laws don’t usually forbid what is inconceivable.
The quotation concerning Nero is hardly serious about same-sex marriage. It is Seutonius’ way of disparaging Nero sexuality generally. The passage right before this one concerns how he raped a Vestal Virgin (which is ordinarily punishable by death). So it is about Nero sexual exploits. And the fact that the boy is first castrated would of itself point to the contrary, that marriage between two men was not conceived of as right—hence the need to turn him into a woman. This passage is not evidence in support of Paul, but evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, it takes more than a single piece of evidence to disprove that position (“it only takes a single example to disprove it”), contrary to what P.W. thinks; because it still has to be demonstrated that these were Paul’s exact thoughts (that is, that he was speaking about homosexuality in all regards, even the 21st century conception of it). Moreover, almost certainly Paul’s Jewish background would not have allowed him to accept homosexuality. But, also notice in the Romans passage how homosexuality is not distinguished by itself, but is rather something that comes with “not honour[ing God] as God or giv[ing] thanks to him” (21), desir[ing] after images of gods resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles (23); worship[ing] and serv[ing] the creature rather than the Creator (25); they [are] filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, (29), slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents (30), foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless (31). This is just not a 20th–21st century portrait of the particular homosexuality that is in question.
The Nero text clearly and completely blows away the notion that no one in antiquity could “have conceived of gay marriage.” Not only did Paul’s most famous contemporary conceive of it, but he also enacted it. The argument reminds reminds me of Vizzini saying, “He didn’t fall? Inconceivable!” Indigo dryly responds, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” The Princess Bride.
Let me see if I follow your second argument: if homosexuality appears in a list of vices, and the homosexuality that you know is not related to everyone of those vices, then that homosexuality is ok? By the same token, then, it’s ok to be faithless as long as I’m not heartless? It’s ok to hate God as long as I’m not insolent? It’s ok to murder as long as I am not boastful or inventive? It’s ok to covet as long as I don’t engage in slander?
Or does it mean that we need to see homosexuality associated with just one these other vices and then it also is condemned?
“20th–21st century portrait of the particular homosexuality that is in question”: Is that what we are dealing with? A Portrait? Perhaps a caricature is better: the nice neighborhood gay couple in American Beauty–clean as the wind driven snow. While the rest of are messed-up, these mythical gay couples share in none of the other sins in Paul’s list.
That’s the problem there, PW. What Paul considers “homosexuality” or what translators of Paul translate as “homosexuality” (and there is more controversy on this then you imply or accept – a simple Google search will confirm this) may not include categories that would be more familiar to us.
Nero was crazy.
So far what I’ve seen from no one on this blog an example of a controversy regarding the translation of terms (I have considerable expertise in the area of Greek word studies); what you’ve presented thus far are tendentious readings of Paul’s letters that either distort his meaning or just simply try to disregard them as irrelevant. If you would like to present some examples of lexical controversies I could consider their merits. It doesn’t help to suggest a Google search with unspecified parameters.
You are wrong about the Nero passage; Seutonius is hardly praising him for his liberal thinking and his novel attempt.
Look, it is not enough to say that one “could have conceived of” gay marriage; the question is what was Paul’s conception of it. Even if he at one time thought of it, it is doubtful he would have given it serious thought, since it is foreign to anything actually occurring in the ancient world. Even if we were to allow your cited examples which I don’t, they are so fringe that they do not really bring anything to the issue. The point is when he does describe it, it is combined with a list of other vices, meant to describe a particular person or kind of person. With the prospect of gay marriage now, it no longer describes the same kind of person. It doesn’t follow that someone has to relate to “every one” of those vices, what it will have to relate to is enough of them for it to make sense as a concept in the ancient world. Most of the vices follow from a hatred of God. I think Paul is saying that because they turned away from or hated God they have fallen into these errors. But that is certainly not what we are seeing now. And it is not proper to isolate the homosexual passages from the rest of what is going on in the passages around it (as you did) since it belongs to the greater picture.
Moreover, I think biology has to inform us somewhat in this case. We make concessions all the time in Law where biology is a mitigating factor.
Moreover, I don’t understand how a Greek word study is going to get us anywhere, since I concede to its definition; anyway you are just going to use English definitions (21st c.) to define a 1st century use.
“You are wrong about the Nero passage; Seutonius is hardly praising him for his liberal thinking and his novel attempt.” Never said he was.
“Even if we were to allow your cited examples which I don’t, they are so fringe that they do not really bring anything to the issue.” I have disproved definitively the notion that no one in the Roman-Greco world could have conceived of homosexual marriage. Why not just admit that that statement is wrong? Rather, you come up with incoherent rambling sentences to deny what is an historical fact. And Nero was hardly fringe. He was the Emperor of the Roman Empire, for crying out loud. Suetonius is hardly fringe: he is a standard primary text for the lives of the early emperors.
The Suetonius’ text shows that people in antiquity could conceive of homosexual marriage. Nero took himself very seriously, as do homosexuals and their advocates today. On the other hand, many people today still think that homosexual marriage is a farce.
“Moreover, I don’t understand how a Greek word study is going to get us anywhere, since I concede to its definition” — I was addressing Dan who said that the translations were controversial.
My “incoherent rambling sentences” must have been coherent enough for you to feel the need to respond to them. Does it make you feel better if you think yourself coherent and not one who rambles? It’s ok. I’m incoherent and like to ramble on. You know for one who was adamant about exposing PorP’s rhetorical fallacies, you employ enough of them yourself. Perhaps the huge friggin’ beam that sticking out of your eye you ought to have removed first.
“I have disproved definitively the notion that no one in the Roman-Greco world could have conceived of homosexual marriage”—good for you! That certainly doesn’t mean that Paul conceived of it, nor does it mean that the conception was a serious one. I might be able to demonstrate that people could conceive of purple killer elephants as well; that doesn’t mean they gave them serious thought or considered them when composing their mores.
“Nero was hardly fringe. He was the Emperor of the Roman Empire”—Was Nero the Emperor of the Roman empire? I wasn’t aware of that. Thank you P.W. for informing me of such information. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind following me around every day and informing me of everything I don’t already know. That would be great.
“Suetonius is hardly fringe: he is a standard primary text for the lives of the early emperors.”—I wasn’t stating that Suetonius was fringe. I was saying that the example of homosexual marriage supposedly testified to by you as a legitimate example is fringe. It has no value towards Paul’s possible conception of it, since it is not a serious attempt at gay marriage. Remember I did say “Even if he [Paul] at one time thought of it [homosexual marriage], it is doubtful he would have given it serious thought.” Suetonius is not using it to say—hey! Homosexual marriage is possible; he is saying “look at how wacked this person was!”—he went to the lengths of going through the ceremony of marrying a castrated boy and having him act as wife. The point that this is something worthy to note from Suetonius’ point of view suggests that homosexual marriage is not common otherwise it is not noteworthy. So it is something that supports that Paul wouldn’t have conceived of it in his statements concerning homosexuality.
“Nero took himself very seriously”—this is actually debatable. And it is relatively meaningless considering that in all probability no one else did—“A rather amusing joke is till going the rounds: the world would have been a happier place had Nero’s father Domitius married that sort of wife” (Twelve Caesars, 228, Penguin).
John:
You seem not a little miffed at me for pointing out that your comments seem to go nowhere because they are devolving into a less and less coherent and defensible argument. The problem that you are facing is that neither the antique background texts nor the biblical texts support your position. So when you can’t convince us, you resort to argument ad naseum. When I point out the weakness of your argument, you lash out at me as a hypocrite. I am waiting for some convincing evidence. Instead all I get is venom and an emotional plea based on “wishful thinking.” I have really no idea where you want to go with this, because your point of view is so muddled. What difference does it make that the majority of people (the emperor notwithstanding) in Paul’s day didn’t recognize homosexual marriage as anything but a farce? Why should that convince the church today that we should recognize such arrangements today?
Your comments are so passive-aggressive, it is not worthy of a response.
I’ll admit that I have been aggressive: aggressively arguing a position yes. But passive-aggressive? Explain to me how that is the case.
Keith: A very powerful testimony which affirms many of biblical positions that I’ve taken on this blog. It is a very substantial rebuttal of the position taken by some here. Thanks.
It is not a substantial rebuttal.
Dan,
The point was not to offer something substantial exegetically. The point was to show that it’s not just rabid fundamentalists that have the position that I do. Even someone like Richard Hays has a similar position. Poser or Prophet said we should look to Walter Wink. Well I looked at Wink and he concedes that the bible is against homosexuality in general. How much more then gay marriage?
I still haven’t seen a good response to Paul backgrounding his thought in Romans 1-3 with Genesis 1-3 and God’s original intention. Paul seems to have picked this line of argumentation up from Jesus when he used that type of argument when it came to settling an issue regarding divorce. (Maybe this has been dealt with – I haven’t had the time to comb through all these bloody comments. I’m a little behind).
It’s interesting that you cite the Greco-Roman world. What about the Hebrew worldview that Paul found himself a part of? Now if you say that the Hebrews couldn’t have conceived of gay marriage you’re right – but that’s because they were totally against all forms of homosexuality (cf. Lev. 18:22 and any Rabbi writing in the era of second temple Judaism). It’s just an argument from the lesser to the greater (like in Matt. 11:20-24).
I’m curious as to what you believe about this. Do you honestly think Paul would stand with modern day Anglican bishops and bless same sex relationships? I just don’t get it. There would seem to be more evidence for unicorns in the NT than such a position.
Now if the situation is so different that we find ourselves in today, what is it specifically in Paul’s theology that would lead us to adopt a pro-homosexual position? I honestly just don’t see anything. I’m quite baffled by all of this.
Maybe I need to read more Foucault or something.
I think it is true that Paul would not have accepted it if he had learned about it (gay marriage), and, if we are speaking strictly about the bible, that it is against homosexuality (or certainly its own conception of homosexuality). The only way it is possible that Paul might accept it is if he lived now, in our time.
John,
You’re probably correct, all I would add is that this is one small part of a long list of things that Paul would not support. These could include:
-Lending at interest,
-Social pressure in churches to marry everyone off,
-The airport church in the early 1990s,
-Televangelists,
-The internet,
-The fact that there are, like 30 000 demoninations of Christianity,
I could go on…
Dan: Each of the statements which you make are themselves debatable; so I can see them and the point regarding loveless marriage in antiquity as nothing more than red herrings. Of course, I suspect that this is in your thinking a pertinent argument but I am not sure what that is. Perhaps you could explain what you are getting at.
I respect Paul inasmuch as it was possible for him to be aware of things during his own era. Which I think he was. You’re right about these things, though. I just don’t think that even if Paul would have disagreed that he would be right, and I would try to reason with him in regards to this as much as I could.
So because these exist it means that homosexuality is now vindicated? That doesn’t make sense.
No. What it means is that the line of argument that “Paul would oppose this” uses is ultimately fruitless. There are other arguments that are more relevant.
My point is to raise what the nature of marriage is as a social institution. And given the way Roman society operated, and many other ancient societies for that matter, it appears that the main goal is that the father’s name and bloodlines are assured continuity. If can’t see how this is not really the case anymore (at least in North America) or if you can’t see how this might impact a discussion about who can marry and under what circumstances, then I’m not sure I have much else to say to you.
If we accept that people now marry for love and not so that your dad can form a business alliance or expand his property holdings or some such thing, then what I have trouble getting worked up about is the need to somehow run around and prevent gay couples from doing the same thing. This is not because I’m apathetic, there’s lots that makes me angry or upset or worried about the church’s future – this just doesn’t bug me the way it clearly bugs so many Christians.
Before trying to respond to this view (I’m still pondering it), I still wonder exactly the relevance of your suggestions that Paul would also have trouble with interest, the Airport church, televangelists, the internet, social pressure to marry, and multiple denominations.
From the perspective Western hyper-individualism, your point of view makes perfect sense. The greatest good is what makes me happy. Andy Crouch writes in Christianity (Dec. 2003), “… all of us have a sexual orientation that bends toward self, that tends toward self-justification, and that hides from a God we fear is not good enough to satisfy us.”
One reason that we need to uphold the authority the Bible is that we would otherwise be guided only by the excesses of our own generation and culture. C. S. Lewis wrote that we have no right to (sexual) happiness, and he was right. The happiness in a sexual relationship which the Bible makes exclusively available only to heterosexuals was not itself intended as the greatest good but as incentive towards a greater good, the building of a community whose ultimate purpose was to have fellowship with God. By turning inward to ourselves, we completely miss this point. Collectivist cultures, e.g. most sub-Saharan cultures, do not see the greatest good as lying in the individual and that could be a big part of the reason why they adamantly oppose homosexuality. We misunderstand the Bible when we read and judge it from our own individualistic obsessions; and at the same time we miss the point of God’s intention for humanity.
I never said anything about happiness of the individual as the greatest good. I made a descriptive statement about the purpose of marriage in our society (though I’m not surprised, you really don’t seem interesting in actually understanding what I’ve said most of the time). Yes marriage can bring greater happiness to a community. My community includes gays and lesbians, what should I do?
Perhaps, I got one step ahead of you. I assure you that it’s not because I am not interested in understanding what you have to say.
You said that we marry for love today. That means that we marry not for the benefit of my father’s business, as you suggested was the purpose of Roman marriage, but for “love”. Thus, a couple marries because they believe it is the best way to improve their personal happiness. Thus, personal happiness supersedes all other reasons that the couple may marry, such as to please their parents, to fulfill their duty to procreate, or to create business alliances. That you would suggest that love is the main reason for marriage and therefore homosexual couples should not be excluded implies that it is unfair that homosexuals be excluded from this happiness. You have essentially placed the individual and his or her happiness as the highest good.
The biblical view marriage, while not excluding the possibility of personal happiness, does not make it the main purpose of marriage. Otherwise, Paul would say to men, “Marry the person you love.” Not “Men, love your wives.” This is important, because as you have suggested, love was often not the reason that men married in antiquity; one could easily imagine that they would “love” a slave girl, a prostitute, a mistress, or even a boy, above their own wives.
One major purpose of marriage in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), besides companionship in this life, is procreation. Homosexual couples are biologically excluded from this possibility and therefore cannot benefit the community through procreation. Their homosexual relationship is an evasion of this basic duty to the community, and therefore, it is quite wrong to think that homosexual marriage can help to build a community. Perhaps, as you say homosexual marriage can make the community happy, but that happiness is ephemeral.
It is well-known that our culture is hyper-individualistic. That you don’t seem to understand that your statement about marrying for love is symptomatic of that hyper-individualism shows how deeply ingrained this aspect of our culture is.
So if I determined that I wasn’t going to have any children and took steps (birth control, surgery, what-have-you) so that I did not, would I not be in the exact same position?
Additionally, why does Paul quite clearly say that it is better not to get married?
Both of these positions seem to skirt this duty that you describe.
Usually, a marriage in which there is never any intention of having children is hyper-individualistic. There may be exceptions (e.g., perhaps, if there is a history of genetic problems which one does not want to pass on to children). As an institution, however, marriage is a building block of community, designed not merely for companionship and comfort, but for the creation of families.
Celibacy is a legitimate option in the New Testament because we live in the “already” and “not yet”: between this age and the age to come (the Kingdom of Heaven/God). Since there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven, Christian may choose to live, as angels of heaven, without sex and procreation. Marriage, as an institution, however, is governed by the principles of the created order and belongs to this age.
I’ve been thinking about this and I don’t really think children are a foil for individualism. Rather I think a lot of people are terribly selfish about their children just as much as anything else. Moreover a great many parents want to use their children as a vicarious fix for their failings (go to your local hockey arena if you don’t believe me). I think there’s a great danger in elevating “family” and “children” as false idols as we have in our culture.
I don’t think that having kids will make me a better person, I rather think that I’d better be a better person first.
I don’t really disagree with anything in this last comment. But I don’t believe that it substantially affects what I’ve said. Just because people who have children can be selfish individualists doesn’t change the reason for the institution of marriage.
I’m saying that Keith used the argument that Paul would oppose something if he were around today, and I suggested that this doesn’t matter because I’m sure that there’s lots things that would bother him today – in some cases I would share his consternation but in other cases (e.g.: credit) I’d probably be saying “look, society has changed on a macro level in lots of ways”
Then in what sense is what Paul says as an apostle authoritative at all? How do we judge what is authoritative and not-authoritative? Why trust what he says about the Gospel?
Paul is still human. It is implicit in some of his letters that he assumed that Jesus would return in his lifetime.
Sure – return in judgment on Jerusalem. Paul’s being human doesn’t necessarily imply that he uttered something false as an apostle. To err is not necessarily human.
Keith, for an interesting cf. Hays contributes an article in “Staying the Course”(Abingdon Press 2003 ed. Dunnam and Malony) in which he reviews the biblical witness on homosexuality. He concludes pretty much that their is one appropriate sexual ethic in the Bible and it is between and husband and wife and all the rest are out. (For Dan O -pretty close to Bob Derrenbacker’s view.)
He is more exegetically focused than this. Just in case you wanted to check it out!
Mat
Mat,
Then again, Bob’s area of expertise is Q… a document that doesn’t even exist!
Poserorprophet, it is like music to my ears when you say that Q doesn’t exist.
Didn’t you read A LOT about Q a few years ago?
Yeah, last semester I was in Prof. Kloppenborg’s class on the Synoptic Problem, and R. Derrenbacker, whom I got to meet, actually came and sat in on one of the classes. They are both 1st-class scholars. I disagree with their proposed solution, however. My plan, God-willing, is to do my PhD thesis on MwQH, hopefully in order to replace the 2DH as the existing most widely accepted paradigm.
Wow, I had to google “MwQH” just to know what you were on about.
I am Q.
Q is that guy from Star Trek, right?
John,
Despite our differences regarding Q, I’ve gotten to be friends with Bob Derrenbacker over the last few years. If you wanted him to take a look at a draft of your thesis, I might be able to arrange something for you. I’m not promising anything, but let me know if that idea interests you.
I had a feeling that you were kidding. That’s ok, I can appreciate the 2DH position.
Wait, no, I wasn’t kidding about Q. I have major doubts about whether or not it has ever existed. When I wrote “Despite our differences regarding Q…” I was referring to the differences between Bob and I.
poserorprophet – excellent post – however, I’m a little disappointed. From your comments I can tell each of you are educated in theology and well-read. So I was hoping for some good insight on the question of homosexuality from a biblical perspective. But the conversation seemed to dwindle into an argument instead.
I have a very good friend that is homosexual. He has asked me for my opinion about his salvation, about why he is considered ungodly because of his sexual orientation. I spoke to him of specific verses in the old testament, where it stated it was an abomination to the Lord. He read leviticus and counted back that there are several verses throughout leviticus (he brought up several others in other OT books) that modern day christianity ignores. (ie, lev 7:27, lev 12:4, lev 19:20, lev 19:28, lev 20:2, lev 20:9, lev 21:18-21, lev 23:2, etc.) He asked me why today’s christians get to pick and choose what they believe, but others can’t. I had no good answer for him.
So, I was hoping you might lend me some insight. God made homosexuals. He loves them, as he loves all of us. Why is their sexual orientation bad, and heterosexuals good?
These are some of the questions he asked me that I could not answer. It is important because he has decided he cannot have a relationship with God, since he feels that his natural sexual orientation is an abomination to God.
I would truly appreciate a reply from you!
Andrea,
Here are some resources that might help you:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5352#Homosexuality
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5298
For some real in depth stuff, I’d recommend anything by Robert Gagnon. He’s written the standard defense of the orthodox view of Christianity and homosexuality. http://www.robgagnon.net/
If you want to talk to Poser or Prophet, goto his blog: poserorprophet.wordpress.com. I’m not sure he’s checking this post anymore. He’ll argue in favour of homosexuality being permissible.
I believe the opposite. I still think the commandments apply, even Leviticus. If you want to chat personally, you can email me at keithwbrooks@gmail.com
I’ve had to deal with similar circumstances.
Cheers.
the point of Hays’ story is to illustrate that like all of us, Gary realizes his struggle is with a tendency that does not imitate God’s design (my tendency might be toward rage, others’ might be toward greed, neither are pure). Yet he does not make the inherent nature of his tendency or desire an excuse to go outside of the Divine, Biblical (and equally important) ecclesiological order.
Queta citazione è solo l’inizio di quello che dice Hays nel suo libro. La sua discussione è molto articolata ed anche convincente sul fatto che non si debba celebrare il matrimonio gay
Quieted quote is only the beginning of what he says Hays in his book. His argument is very articulate and convincing that we should not celebrate gay marriage
this quote is only the beginning of what he says Hays in his book. His argument is very articulate and convincing that we should not celebrate gay marriage