The Celtic
Christian Church
|
|
                
|
Celtic Christian Church
Document On the Question of Homosexuality and
Same-Sex Relationships
Biblical Hermeneutics: by Vincent
Pizzuto, Ph.D.
The position of the Celtic Christian
Church on the issue of homosexuality will necessarily influence the communal
life of its members, both privately and publicly, not the least of which will
come to expression in the sacramental and pastoral practices of the church.
As such, if the church’s position on homosexuality is to bear any merit,
it must be grounded in responsible biblical scholarship, attentive to the
ever-developing tradition of Christian faith, and open to truth wherever it may
be found. It is within this context
that that we begin our consideration of biblical hermeneutics
vis-à-vis the topic of
homosexuality. From the outset, this
document, and the polemical and exegetical arguments made herein, are grounded
in the catholic teaching which rightly accepts both Scripture and Tradition as
comprising one inseparable source of revelation.
Thus, while Tradition is
important and necessary for the formation of our faith and ethical teachings,
this document takes what is clearly a prophetic stand on the issue of
homosexuality, against not “Tradition,” but “traditionalism,” in order to help
lay the ground work for new directions in the future.
Tradition, as the life-breath of the church, is forever changing and
renewing itself, forward-looking, while “traditionalism” is the stagnation that
comes with holding on to old vestiges of past religious customs or teachings,
which no longer have value beyond, perhaps, that of a faint nostalgia. In order
to obtain a better view of the world around us we are to stand upon tradition,
not be buried by it. Thus, taking a
stand on the issue of homosexuality is not just about who we are as a church,
rooted solidly in past Tradition, but moreover, how we are also called to break
with entrenched prejudices and oppressive structures in Christian
“traditionalism,” in order to put an end to an unjust and unsupportable
discrimination, which finds no warrant in Sacred Scripture.
This may entail making novel pronouncements, nonetheless consistent with
the past, in that even the gospels themselves, despite their historical
limitations, demand that we move beyond the cultural and ethical limitations
entrenched therein.
Currently, a major obstacle to
the development of positive gay Christian theology, is a kind of entrenched
heterosexism, which assumes that gay relationships are to be measured by
heterosexual standards (i.e., biological procreation).
Increasingly, even heterosexual theologies are calling into question
these paradigms; a subject which cannot be dismissed in the context of this
issue. Thus, theological arguments
are mounting in many Christian circles, whereby serious questions are being
raised as to why gay unions should be viewed as less binding, less sacramental,
or in any way less valid than the sacrament of marriage.
Indeed, gay unions are different in many ways from heterosexual unions,
both symbolically,
and
concretely.
This diverse reality must be recognized, theologized, properly
symbolized, ritualized and celebrated for what it is, distinct from heterosexual
unions. Nevertheless, such unions
clearly share profound similarities with heterosexual marriages.
Thus, if heterosexual and homosexual marriages are not recognized as
equivalent in sanctity, all other attempts at theologizing around this issue
ultimately become inauthentic and vacuous.
It is impossible to separate
an acceptance and validation of an individual homosexual person from an
acceptance and validation of their primary relationships.
Certainly, at its very core, Christianity is first and foremost about
relationship. As
Trinity, God is
pure relationship without multiplicity of
being; a Christian truth which can only imply that we are
fundamentally defined by our relationships.
Thus, insofar as our relationships are not merely an outgrowth of our
individuality, but indispensable to our very personhood, there can be no genuine
celebration of homosexual persons while at the same time denying the fundamental
moral goodness of loving homosexual relationships.
Only from this a priori
affirmation can we speak of a “second moment” in which the implications of
gospel values and spirituality may come to bear on the ethics of a Christian
homosexual union.
Scriptural Considerations
Throughout history, and even
until today, issues of faith and morals have been argued on the basis of
Scriptural passages which have been used as proof-texts to support polemical
arguments. It should be clear by now
that virtually any theological, social, political, or ethical position can be
argued (legitimately or illegitimately) by proof-texting biblical passages.
The Bible has been used in support of Nazi Germany’s persecution of
homosexuals, Jews and other social “misfits.”
The KKK uses Scriptural faith in support of white supremacy.
On the other hand, examples as can be found in the 7th century
defense of iconography by the Eastern Fathers, the contemporary relevance of
Roman Catholic social teaching, and the Anglican church’s defense of women’s
ordination, have all used the Bible in ways that are constructive and life
affirming.
What is important, therefore,
is not that we simply isolate the few scant references to homosexuality in the
Bible in an attempt to refute or embrace them, but that we look to the broader
context of the question: “What is the underlying
hermeneutic
of the CCC in its use of Scripture to formulate doctrines and ethical
teachings?” This is of paramount
importance because it aims to establish an identifiable and normative Scriptural
approach to matters of faith and morals, which does not isolate the question of
homosexuality as in any way exceptional, but situates it within a particular
hermeneutic from which the CCC position becomes consistent and even predictable.
In other words, the CCC position on homosexuality should not represent an
identifiable break with its interpretation of Scripture and Tradition on other
issues, but should be consequent and in harmony with the church’s overall
theology.
To this end, I would propose a
hermeneutical approach defended by Prof. Reimund Bieringer of the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, in which he proposes a foundation for understanding the
authority of the Bible for theology in the context of Modern biblical criticism.[1]
The basic premise underlying
Bieringer’s theory is the simple truth that sound theology is necessarily rooted
in, and flows from a sound exegesis of the Scriptures.
As such, the relationship between the Scriptures and theology is one
which presumes that the biblical canon is
inspired, and thus, revelatory.
This premise leads Bieringer to focus on the basic question regarding
“…in which way the Bible, a text of the past, can be meaningful, relevant, maybe
even normative and authoritative for people who live today and in the future.”[2]
In response to this question, he first turns to the question of
terminology which surrounds the theological concern to articulate the unique
sacred character of the Bible.
Noting in particular that the terms “revelation,” “canonicity,” “authority,” “normativity,”
“inerrancy” and “infallibility” each take on different meanings in the various
theological systems which employ them, he attempts to provide as broad a
description as possible for each term, so to clarify the role each plays in
relation to Scripture. We may
summarize his definitions as follows:
a.
Biblical Revelation is the affirmation that in
the Bible, God is communicating something to us and that divine
self-communication is happening in the Bible.[3]
In addition, Bieringer notes
that the following terms have as their particular focus, the relation of the
content of the Bible:
Despite the widespread
agreement enjoyed by these definitions, Bieringer goes on to observe that
exegetes and theologians remain divided over theories about which stage the
divine influence is most pronounced in the development of the Sacred texts.
Without repeating here the many theories summarized by Bieringer, we will
note his observation that these theories can be categorized more or less by the
notion of whether the intensity of divine inspiration of the Bible is to be
located in an action or person of the past, or secondly, of something that is
believed to happen in the present as one engages the text, or finally, of
something that is expected to be realized in the future.[10]
In summary of these theories, Bieringer notes:
If we try to survey all the positions that were surveyed…we conclude that at one
time or another virtually any moment of the entire process of the communication
has been identified as locus of inspiration:
the actual events, the Jesus of history, the experience of the
eyewitnesses or of the early church, the proclamation of the gospel and its
tradition, the sources as the earliest layers of the written text, the
historical Jesus, the composition by an individual or by a community, the text,
the acceptance of the text into the canon, the effective history (tradition), a
particular translation or the event of reading.
The collective wisdom of all
these positions may well remind us that it is not a matter of ‘either-or’ (as
most of these authors thought themselves), but of ‘both-and.’
If the process of revelation is really supposed to become a reality,
God’s Spirit must be recognized as present in all the stadia.[11]
Thus, despite Bieringer’s
attestation to the value of each of these theories, he cautions that none of
them go far enough in addressing the more fundamental question of the moral
integrity of the Bible as “inspired” literature, in view of post-Enlightenment
theology. In other words, religion, and more specifically, the Bible, are not
exempt from the post-Enlightenment proclivity to question whether past norms and
truths can meaningfully or validly inform the present.
If we are to maintain that the Bible is both inspired and authoritative
for matters of faith and morals, how do we address the fact that by contemporary
Christian standards, the Bible itself is found morally deficient.
Bieringer cites Schneiders as having stated the problem succinctly: “…can
an ancient text speak normatively to a generation which has criticized the
text’s ideology and found it morally wanting? Anti-Semitism, slavery, war, and
apartheid, as well as sexism, can appeal to, and actually appealed to biblical
warrants of legitimation. In other
words, oppression is not accidental to the biblical text but intrinsic to it.”[12]
Given this dilemma, Bieringer is not content to deny these allegations in
order to save the Bible’s normativity for Christian faith, or by contrast, to
accept a guilty verdict, which would effectively deny the Bible its normative
status. He argues instead, for a
third way, which he calls, the normativity of the future.
Bieringer begins by
establishing that revelation does not consist merely in the “imparting of
content”[13]
but is rather the dynamic reciprocal process of God’s self communication and
human response, resulting in an invitation to shared life with God (cf.
Dei Verbum, 6).
Revelation is therefore, dialogical and reciprocal.
We observe here that Bieringer is thus framing revelation in the larger
historical context in which it can be demonstrated that the Scriptures grew out
of the community of faith (past), have become authoritative (present), and must
nevertheless continually be interpreted by the Christian community in light of
new situations and experiences (future).
Consequently, he notes,
…the authority assumed by revelation can never be unilateral, coercive and
absolute…[but] is dialogical and relative. Revelation is, therefore, not to be
reduced to an anonymous or vicarious action of the past which is closed because
all the possible content is imparted.
It is rather an ongoing, ever-new process which involves each participant
in the community in a personal way…[thus], while Christians profess Christ as
the ultimate revelation of God, this revelation is by no means closed.[14]
As such, Bieringer affirms
that the biblical text itself, functions as a dynamic symbol, mediating in
visible, tangible form, that which is ultimately ineffable and imperceptible.
In this way, the text remains meaningless unless and until it is engaged,
read and interpreted by individuals and communities who do so with the intent of
encountering the mystery of God symbolized in the Sacred Texts; a process which
is fulfilled only when the texts reach their “transformative potential.”[15]
However, Bieringer cautions that symbols are two-edged swords which
simultaneously reveal and conceal, which bridge us with the Mystery, as well as
establish walls. Dynamic engagement
and interpretation remains the key to distinguishing between the two.
Furthermore, unlike the spoken word, written texts enjoy a ‘surplus of
meaning,’[16]
about which he notes, “Written texts enjoy a relative semantic autonomy.
What authors create can be or become such an intricate network of meaning
that it transcends their original intention.
Written texts do have legitimate meanings which were not intended by
their authors.”[17]
In other words, the meaning of
a biblical text is not unalterably ‘frozen,’ but is, rather, inexhaustible as it
is interpreted by readers in light of new situations and realities.
Restricting texts to their own historical circumstances of composition
(which, unfortunately, has been and often still is the normative approach to
exegesis) presumes the impossibility that a reader or interpreter can be a
neutral (i.e., “a-historical”) observer.
However, since both the author of a biblical text as well as every reader
of the text is historically limited and conditioned, there must be at least a
minimal transcendence of historical conditions by both text and reader, so that
a “fusion of horizons”[18]
becomes possible. Thus, observes
Bieringer, “Even though the biblical text is expressing the experience of the
first Christians, what it is really about (the real referent of the text), the
truth claim of the text, is the world projected by the text.”[19]
Each person enters this projected world of the text in a uniquely
personal way (i.e., historically conditioned), notwithstanding the context of
their tradition and community.
Thus, in the Sacred Scriptures
the projected future world of God’s Kingdom is expressed under the limitations
of their given historical situations.
It is here that the “contingent and therefore necessarily restricted
perspective” of the author come into play, and consequently so too the
“sinfulness of the author and the sinful [i.e., intrinsically oppressive]
structures of his or her world enter the text.”[20]
Paradoxically, these same Scriptures, insofar as their primary referent
is the future world of the Kingdom, embody a truth claim or criterion by which
the very limitations and sinful elements of the text must be corrected.
This correction takes place in the dynamic process of revelation, whereby
text and reader are in dialogical relationship, overcoming the historical
limitations embodied in the text, as well as those limitations impinging upon
the reader. And herein lies the
balance between two unacceptable extremes: blind obedience to the text on one
hand, and lording over it as its final arbiters, on the other.
Rather, he concludes, we must critically discern the
truth claims of the text and allow ourselves to be
transformed according the vision of the world
of
the text.[21]
Thus, the Normativity of the
Future is a forward-looking hermeneutic which places the locus of inspiration
not only in the past, but in the alternative world of the future that the Bible
projects. In this way, the reader
does not re-write the text or too quickly develop a ‘canon within the Canon’ as
a simple solution to dealing with oppressive and destructive elements of the
text. Rather, he insists, “…the
oppressiveness of the text remains both a witness to that from which we have
been saved and as a challenge to action on behalf of justice.
But just as we must not cling to our sins as a paradigmatic definition of
ourselves, just as the Church must not continue to affirm its mistakes as if
they were tradition, so we must not propose the oppressive structures in the
biblical text as the Word of God.”[22]
Thus, the projected future
world of God’s Kingdom becomes normative for discerning what is life-giving and
death-dealing in the text. The
Spirit, then, “is not only to be sought behind the text in the past, but is
always ahead of it, drawing us into a new heavens and a new earth.”[23]
which are purported to condemn homosexuality
Old Testament Texts
There is an abundance of
literature devoted to the debate about whether or not—or to what extent—the
Bible condemns homosexuality. As
previously mentioned, Scripture can and has been used to support virtually any
polemical argument or ethical position, and the question of homosexuality is no
exception. The
a priori
hermeneutical assumption underlying this document, grounded in the “normativity
of the future,” attempts to circumvent just that kind of myopic proof-texting,
which clearly seems to have proven itself futile.
Certainly, there is little or nothing to be accomplished by proof-texting
if the underlying hermeneutical assumptions directing our interpretations are
not exposed or agreed upon. Thus, to
provide a line by line interpretation of those biblical texts which have often
been interpreted to condemn homosexuality, is somewhat antithetical to the
underlying hermeneutical foundations of this document.
Nevertheless, even the hermeneutic of the Normativity of the Future
begins by noting the inextricable relationship between Scripture and theology (above, 2). Thus,
in order help us distinguish between the historical limitations (i.e.,
oppressive structures) of the text, and the world projected by the text (i.e.,
Kingdom of God), we will briefly demonstrate how the limited biblical references
to “homosexuality” can be interpreted in light of the historical-critical method
of biblical interpretation.
The central importance of this
passage revolves around the text of Gen 19:5, “…and they [the townsmen of Sodom]
called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’”[25]
Of the 943 times that the
Hebrew word “to know” (Hb.
hDo√d´n◊w) appears in the OT, the
present context represents one of only ten occasions in which the term carries a
clear sexual implication, meaning “to have intercourse with.”
Although some exegetes want to argue that the Hebrew verb “to know” as it
is used here, means simply that the townsmen wanted to acquaint themselves with
the two strangers and inquire about their reason for being in Sodom, this
interpretation lacks credibility due to the fact that Lot offers his own
daughters to be abused instead of the visitors.
When we situate this narrative in its proper cultural and historical
context, two significant questions immediately present themselves.
First, we must inquire about what precisely is the sin of Sodom?
What did the townsmen of Sodom want to do with Lot’s visitors and what
was their motivation? Secondly, if
Lot is being rescued from the destruction of Sodom because of his righteousness
before God (Gen 19:29), how are we to reconcile that with the fact the he was
willing to offer up his own two daughters to the townsmen (Gen 19:8)?
Had these women been raped and survived the brutality, they would have
forever remained social outcasts and unmarriageable for having lost their
virginity beforehand. How then is
Lot’s behavior excusable, much less exemplary?
Contemporary Christian ethics could hardly condone his willingness to
hand over his daughters to such a fate.
A historical-critical reading
of the text will afford some answers.
To the first question we simply note that the story of Sodom is not about
sexual ethics, (as Lot’s willingness to give up his daughters makes clear), but
is rather about inhospitality to strangers, intensified by a most grotesque form
of sexually abusive behavior: gang rape.
The motivation for wanting to “sodomize” the visitors was to humiliate
them by treating them like women, whose social status was limited to that of
being merely the “property” of men.
In marriage, a woman was “redeemed” (literally, “purchased”) by her husband
whose property she now became.[26]
In view of this pervasive cultural perception, ancient Israelite society
maintained a covenantal code of “sacred hospitality” that was extended to
strangers, widows and orphans because of the fact that these three classes of
people were the most vulnerable to poverty, abuse and harm.
This is the reason that in the narrative presently under consideration,
Lot is regarded as righteous; he honors the sacred covenantal code of
hospitality with the strangers whom he encounters, unaware that he was
entertaining angels (cf. Heb 13:2).
This interpretation is further
confirmed within the context of the Scriptures themselves, by Isaiah’s direct
condemnation of the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah for not having upheld this code
of hospitality, “Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the
teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue
the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:10-11, 16-17).[27]
Employing a hermeneutic in which the normativity of the future becomes
our guiding principle, it cannot escape us that even the current Christian
conviction regarding that which constitutes ethical behavior is at once rooted
in Scripture, and yet must clearly transcend that which is contained in the
biblical texts themselves. If this
were not so, we would still regard Lot’s willingness to offer his daughters to
the mob as ethically acceptable. As
this is clearly not the case, the Genesis 19 narrative represents a case in
point, in which the biblical canon as a whole transcends the limitations of its
own historical trappings, so to move the contemporary reader to a higher ethical
standard than the biblical characters themselves possess.
In conclusion, Gen 19:1-11, taken in its
proper historical context, cannot be cited legitimately as a sanction against
homosexuality. It is, rather, a
clear and unequivocal condemnation of abusive and denigrating behavior toward
another human person, which in this case takes the form of attempted gang rape.
As such, the Genesis 19 narrative condemns what amounts to a grave breach
of the sacred covenantal code in which Israel came to understand its
relationship with God and humanity.
These two texts, found in close proximity to one another, read as follows:
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon
them.
Among all of the OT citations
which apparently condemn homogenital acts, it may be argued that these two texts
are the least ambiguous. While there
is little doubt that we have here a clear prohibition of male homogenital
activity, there is nevertheless, a conspicuous absence of any condemnation of
lesbian sexual activity.[28]
More telling, perhaps, is the fact that in both prohibitions, the
reference to male-male sexual activity makes the comparison of one man lying
with another to that of lying “with a woman,” or more literally, in the case of
Lev 20:13, “With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman.”[29]
Once again, therefore, the text betrays the idea that that for a man to
engage in homosexual activity, he is being denigrated to the socially inferior
status of a woman (above,
7;
below, 11).
Again, the entrenched patriarchalism found within much of our biblical
literature must be recognized here, and contextualized historically-critically.
In doing so, we are better able to clarify that a hermeneutic which
embraces the “normativity of the future,” relies on the very ethical demand of
the Scriptures to call us beyond the social-historical limitations which they,
themselves, contain.
We begin then, by noting that
these prohibitions are found in a section of Leviticus that has, by scholarly
consensus, been labeled, “The Holiness Code,”[30]
extending from Lev 17-26. Generally
considered to be an originally independent legal document dating to the end of
the Israelite monarchal period (c. 6th Century
BCE), it was later edited by the
Priestly [P] tradition of the Torah and incorporated into the larger corpus of
what we now know as Leviticus. As
has been noted by A. Klostermann, the prophetic literature of Ezekiel (also a
product of the same era), emphasizes “holiness” as one of God’s quintessential
attributes,[31]
and thus, seems to have significantly influenced “The Holiness Code,” which
betrays the same theological presuppositions.[32]
Under the Priestly [P]
influence, this “Holiness Code” was eventually related to the concept of ritual
purity, and as such transformed gradually into the realm of ethical purity:
Because holiness is thought of in relation to worship, it is connected with the
idea of ritual purity: the ‘law of holiness’ is also the ‘law of purity.’
But the God of Israel makes moral demands and under this influence the
primitive notion of holiness undergoes a transformation: avoidance of what was
ritually impure becomes abstention from sin; ritual purity develops into purity
of conscience…[33]
The establishment of this link
between ritual purity and purity of conscience is an important element in
attempting to historically-critically situate the texts in question.
Both citations, Lev 18:22 and 20:13, clearly condemn male same-sex
relations as an “abomination,” and the latter verse goes even farther as to
evoke the death penalty on those who are found guilty.
When contextualizing this penalty within the “Holiness Code,” the
severity of the punishment is tempered by the fact that in the midst of these
two injunctions we find the same penalty prescribed for a child, guilty only of
cursing his parents![34]
Cleary, the severity of this penalty betrays the fact that cursing one’s
parents in ancient Israelite society had radically different connotations in
that culture than in our own. In
short, the patriarchal societal order of ancient Israel was dependent on a clear
line of expected obedience within the family hierarchy.
To threaten that chain of command, was to threaten the larger social
order itself. Similarly, homogenital
acts between two men, carrying the same severe penalty of death, also had
different implications in the world of ancient Israel than it does in our world
today.[35]
“The Holiness Code,” as such,
was concerned with just that, the holiness of God, and subsequently that of the
People of God. The etymological
origins of the Hebrew root for the word “holy” (Hb.
qds) means
literally, “to cut;” that is, something which is separated, set apart,
consecrated to God; a concept which still manifests itself in the near
universally recognized distinction between the so-called “sacred” and the
“profane.” In the “Holiness Code,”
therefore, Israel is being instructed to set itself apart from the surrounding
nations, to be pure and holy before God.
This means that Israel was to refrain from ritual behaviors and social
practices that would be tantamount to an observance of the statues of alien gods
and their people:
The
LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak
to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the LORD your God.
You shall not do as they do
in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the
land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow
their statutes. My ordinances you
shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am
the LORD your God.
You shall keep my statutes and my
ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the LORD (Lev
18:1-5).
Of particular relevance to our
subject matter, then, is that the injunctions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 were not
sexual prohibitions as such, but were ritual prohibitions leveled against sexual
activity which would seem to involve the religious rites of foreign nations and
the worship of their gods. As
Helminiak aptly summarizes, “The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical
or moral. That is to say, no thought
is given to whether the
sex in itself
is right or wrong. All concern is
for keeping Jewish identity strong.”[36]
He goes on to cite a contemporary example of the moral reprehensibility
of a satanic ritual involving sexual acts—even between a husband and wife.
Modern Christians would not object to their sexual relations as such, but
to the fact that in this context, their sexual act was tantamount to worship of
the devil. It is in this context
that we must interpret the Levitical prohibitions of homogenital activity.
In close connection with the
concept of “separateness,” we note, finally, that both injunctions refer to the
act of male sexual activity as an “abomination.”
Abomination, in this context suggests that which is “unclean,” as is made
clear in the following passage:
You shall therefore make a distinction
between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the
clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by
anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold
unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy, and I have separated
you from the other peoples to be mine (Lev 20:25-26).[37]
Understanding the texts in question, in
light of this passage, it becomes evident that the prohibitions against male,
same-sex relations are not moral or ethical in nature, but rather religious and
cultural. The reference to them as
“abominations,” then, have nothing to do with the sexual act in itself, but with
the their specific religious context within ancient Israelite culture, as acts
of ritual impurity.
New Testament Texts
It is particularly notable
that among the sacred literature of the NT, our most central documents—the
gospels—are silent on the issue of homosexuality.
There are no allusions to OT citations on the subject,[38]
nor are their any novel teachings either for or against homoerotic love in any
of the four gospels. We begin our
examination of relevant NT texts, then, with the acknowledgement that the
documents which most readily put us in touch with the traditions of Jesus’
teachings seem to convey no particular concern over the issue of homosexuality.
However, this should come as no surprise to us, for as our review of the
OT texts have shown, Leviticus forbade homogenital acts only for reasons of
ritual purity, not because such acts were necessarily wrong in and of
themselves. As it is, the gospels
portray Jesus as one who is very much unconcerned about ritual purity:
“Listen and understand: it is not
what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the
mouth that defiles…Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the
stomach, and goes out into the sewer?
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what
defiles. For out of the heart come
evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not
defile” (Mt 15:11, 17-20).
Thus, having rejected the
reason for which homogenital acts were condemned in the OT Holiness Code (i.e.,
ritual purity), it stands to reason that if the issue of homosexuality were of
particular concern to Jesus or the primitive church, we should expect to find in
the gospels either an alternative reason for condemning homosexuality, or an
attempt to demonstrate why these acts are wrong in themselves.[39]
Neither is the case. There
are however, NT texts outside of the gospels which must be addressed and
contextualized historically-critically if they are to be properly understood and
interpreted for the contemporary church.
It is to these texts that we now turn our attention.
The most extensive biblical
text in either the OT or NT which refers to same-sex relations is found in Rom
1:26-27, and is the only place in the NT where there is an entire sentence given
over to the subject at all. In
English translation, the text reads as follows:
26For this reason
God gave them up to degrading passions.
Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural (Gk.
para/ fu/sin)27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.
Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons
the due penalty for their error.
When read in the larger
context of Rom 1:18-32, it becomes evident that the subject of the pericope is
not homosexuality, but grammatically speaking, is “God” (vs 26, “For this reason
God…”). Paul argues that God “gave
up” the gentiles to “unnatural” passions for failing to recognize God in
Creation, wherein he has always been revealed (vs 20-22).[40]
The implications of this statement are rooted in several beliefs about
homosexuality commonly presupposed in ancient Greco-Roman culture.[41]
We may summarize these as follows:
Looking at this broader social and cultural context concerning beliefs about homosexuality, it becomes evident that Paul’s statements are neither unique nor particular to Christianity. Rather, he is merely reiterating the presumed truths of his contemporary culture; presumptions which, on virtually all levels of human advancement, have since been rendered inadequate, untenable, and completely erroneous. Simply stated: on the question of the ethical implications of homosexual relationships in the contemporary church, Paul’s statements in Rom 1:26-27 are inconclusive because the cultural assumptions upon which he bases them have been proven false. Like so many other instances where cultural trappings and historical limitations have been weaved into our Sacred Scriptures, proper exegesis of any given text demands that we critically discern that which is divinely inspired and therefore, universally true, as opposed to |