This is the final post of a three-part series.
In conclusion, as I have shown in Part 1 & 2 of the “Seeds, Seafood, Beards & Sex” articles, there are historical, cultural and religious reasons behind these often debated verses. Most of them related to various distinctive identity purposes to separate the Jews from other religious practices, cultural customs or impure or immoral activities.
The work of biblical interpretation helps us show what was fulfilled in Christ and what of the moral law passed through Christ in his example, teaching and instructions through the apostles. Many of the commands of the Old Testament are found in the apostolic teaching of the New Testament. One of those laws is regarding homosexuality. An honest, non-biased reader, cannot deny the obvious continuation of the prohibition of homosexuality as practiced in the Old and New Testaments. The important interpretive work is defining what God ‘originally intended’ in the Old Testament and how does the NT interpret or continue that intention in life, marriage and community.
Jesus, Marriage and Original Intent:
For me I always start with Jesus and examine what he said about marriage and sexuality. He did continue the OT understanding of marriage and his authority for the original intent from the beginning was ‘Scripture’.
Jesus said:
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’” And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.” “Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?” they asked. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.” (Matthew 19:4-8)
For progressives, I see no other option than ignoring or mythologizing the Scripture since Jesus and the apostles continue the Torah tradition of marriage and sexuality. The ability to say it’s a story-book vs authoritative Scripture, allows anyone to become the final court of interpretation. I get that desire, but for me that method of handling what I consider sacred Scripture, falls too far from the actually way people in the Bible handled Scripture. Strange that for progressives, the people of torah are not the example of how to handle Torah.
But, unfortunately, people often give up on the work needed to understand Torah and refuse to commit to the truth behind the teaching being presented. It’s unfortunate that these biblical conversation so easily devolve to modern snickers instead of actual historical and cultural explanations of the seeds, clothing and beard laws.
What About Monogamous Homosexual Relationships?
As a follower of Jesus, the law has a beautiful place within the gift of community as a fulfilled covenant by Christ, undergirding the understanding of the royal law in James 2:8. “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.” This royal law informs and guides how I approach the issues that are difficult, confusing and possibly misunderstood. For many people the costs of this discussion are far more steep than the ones arguing against it. We should walk in grace and humility with any topic that deeply impacts the lives of vulnerable young people and the relationships, self-identities and self-acceptance of people we love and care for in our communities.
The main argument being presented by progressives today revolves around the idea that the prohibition of homosexuality in the OT and NT was related to how it was practiced. The claim is made that modern, monogamous, gay relationships don’t fall into the category of the prohibited practices of temple/cult prostitution, pederasty(older man/young boy sex), cultural proclivities of power related to passive and dominant sex roles or unrestrained sexual lasciviousness.
For me this is where there is currently room for debate and disagreement and it’s here where I try to assume a humble posture in the process of learning. We must allow the work of professionals in textual criticism, historical and cultural studies, experts in biology, science and sociology, and the broad and time tested work of psychologists help us in our cultural and biblical conclusions about the place and definitions of modern homosexuality.
For me, the civil legal issues of rights and responsibilities of marriage in a secular state are different discussions than the biblical exegesis of the right or wrong practice of homosexuality. We allow for these differences in how we legally and religiously apply law and practices to heterosexuality. We recognize various right or wrong practices related to adultery, fornication, under-age sex etc. We allow for a religious understanding related to heterosexuality and a secular understanding related to civil law. Sex before marriage isn’t illegal in civil law but in religious communities it’s commonly prohibited as an expression of intimacy reserved for marriage. My point is we already slice up sexuality and practices and call some things right and wrong depending on the context of those activities.
Evangelicals & Divorce & Remarriage:
Can we honestly talk about how the general attitude and acceptance of divorce and remarriage has dramatically changed in the church? Why is it that us evangelicals who hammer the issue of faithfulness to God’s word, have evolved in the application and interpretation of an issue that is far more clear and defendable since Jesus himself said it:
“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
Why is acceptable for evangelicals and conservatives to embrace a faith culture that sees itself shifting, de-emphasizing and sidelining some views of scripture in response to growing cultural disconnect with the position of those verses? Is that apostasy, is it a rejection of the authority of God’s word or is it reflective of tensions between interpretation, application and cultural realities?
Right now, these debates are taking place regarding same-sex, monogamous marital relationships. There are serious theologians and pastoral leaders that don’t condone irresponsible, outside of marriage, sexual relationships. This is a debate about the possibility of working to remove the religious and cultural stigma of a growing population of people who don’t fit the former biblical understandings of a type of sexual immorality. The comparisons of women’s rights and slavery hold very similar examples of the very difficult work of exegesis in matters of history, culture, tradition, the bible and the growing understanding and practice of human rights.
We must answer why we don’t continue to ostracize disobedient heterosexual couples and re-marrieds with the same appeal to the clear reading of Scripture. If we find grace and acceptance for people who continue to live in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of Jesus in the word of God, what is our ‘Bible’ defense?
Heretics or Hermeneutics?
One could conclude that both gays and re-marrieds are to be handled with the same severity of the letter of the word of God, or we can approach the real life situations with pastoral care and a commitment to biblical ministry that reflects the way and words of Jesus. The verdict for many isn’t conclusive enough to reject, excommunicate, divide or damn one another.
This ongoing secular and sacred exegetical work shouldn’t be done under the threat of heretic trials and denominational excommunications. We should handle the scripture and people’s lives with a sense of divine responsibility and loving care. We should wrestle with our understanding of scripture and always be committed to practicing mercy over judgment as we attempt address the challenges and opportunities of the post-modern era.
Eric, it has been good corresponding with you on this subject. Perhaps we will never agree, but as others before us have been able to see their way to a new interpretation of scripture leading away from misogyny and slavery, I hope everyone will one day be able to see their way into an interpretation that accepts homosexuals into full communion in Christ’s Church. Is it right to ostracize gays and work to keep them from legal marriage while allowing slanderers this God-given right? Even more, what do we do with the scriptural admonishment of the greedy?? Will weight/height ratios be the new litmus test for full membership in a church? One day will obese people be barred from sacramental marriage?
As Alan E. stated in a comment on my earlier article, maybe it would be best if the Church got out of people’s bedrooms and back to the business of preaching the Gospel. We are not the arbiters of righteousness. We never were.
Jan,
There are churches that “accept homosexuals into full communion in Christ’s Church”, your UCC and others. I’m not sure about ostracizing gays, in my context, I work to combat discrimination, advocate for equal rights under the law and counter homophobia when I encounter it. The challenge that is happening on my side of the debate is that even after we vote for rights, do all that I say I do, that is still not enough. Now the push is not only marriage equality, which I supported, but now it’s got to be complete agreement or nothing. That continual push removes peoples rights to personal religious belief. The demand for people’s conscience and faith to bow to the wishes of gay apologists is detrimental to the equality movement in my opinion. It’s moved from demanding change in laws to demanding change in peoples faith and belief. I don’t support that kind of agenda. As I said in my article until we hold all accountable to the standards of scripture it makes no sense to focus on one. the hypocrisy of all that does infuriate me. The audacity of us evangelicals, many who are divorced, gluttonous, greedy materialists, chomping on cigars and swilling beer while they damn gays is the heights of arrogance. I confess that the conservatives have been pronouncing judgment on splintered people while we have logs in our own eyes. I also believe that Jesus most often sides with the Samaritans over the self-righteously pious, other side of the street stepping religious folk and I think in this case, he’s probably with the gays more than the stone throwers these days. personally I think the state needs to get out of the bedrooms business and leave the work of moral teaching to the church.
Eric: I greatly appreciate your pastoral sensitivity and Biblical depth. For me, this issue still turns on the difference between Behavior and Orientation. As I read and re-read the handful of Biblical texts that are deemed relevant, in their contexts, I continue to see them addressing homosexual behavior by those that the Biblical authors assumed to be heterosexual in orientation. This behavior is deemed abominable and that is a pretty consistent ethic in the Bible. But, there is no reference to orientation and this is the challenge for those of us who have a serious regard for the Bible and also believe it is time for the Church to fully embrace and support committed same-sex relationships.
Mark, that discussion lies behind my last part of the article. I leave room for the development of that apologetic. I am not fully convinced but there’s room enough to be wary of a conservative iron clad counter-apologetic in my opinion. I don’t buy most of the arguments of translation of words because there’s so much more taught than mere words in a few verses. But, I do think there is grounds for cultural challenge in the same way I think the issues of Paul’s words about women, the restrictions on speaking in some verses, patriarchy over equality etc. Until I see conservative evangelicals demand the silence of women, institute mandatory head coverings, cut all the hipsters and urban lumberjacks long hair with similar bombastic passion as the ‘God Hates Fags’ sign wavers, I just can’t side with them in their campaign.
Jan, this quote I read says the same thing you said: “……. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for Their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if wefollow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.”
~ Saint Jerome (AD 347-420)
Eric,
Since this seems like an issue that is troublesome to you, I’m glad to read your struggling with it. But many church-goers’ prurient interest in the sex lives of others seems like kind of a waste of time to me. I’d look forward to hearing you struggle with other places where some of the New Testament’s moral teaching seems at odds with our own current moral experience For example, the support of slavery. Or the deep concern the New Testment has towards slander and untruthful speech (the severity more at odds for us than the prohibition, of course). Or the ability of a Christian to serve in the military or in public office.
Jake, the focus in this series was born out of a conversation I had with Jan Shannon who holds the view that gay relationships are not prohibited by God. In our dialogue, I offered to respond to her presentation of the “seeds, sex and beard” scriptures and invited her to provide a rebuttal or offer her own article on those verses. My articles are in response to that and the gay pride focus of June. My fourth unintended article on “Shrimp” was in response again, to another online conversation.
It’s not a fascination with sexual lifestyles as you imply. If you follow my articles I write about a wide range of issues. My personal blog (www.fcb4.tumblr.com) is currently highlighting the Iraq war and my consistent anti-war position extending over both presidencies.
Two things: Are the passages about God creating male and female descriptive of prescriptive. Either way, we have the individuals interpretation. And are we talking biology or social role?
And the acceptance of the arguments stand or fall for you just as in the argument of textural criticism they stand or fall. We too rapidly assume that since it’s “in the book” it is divine word. OK, but again that’s your interpretation.
For me, the deciding factor is, to what extent does my interpretation lead to ju
stice and loving relationships in the new kingdom. Was humanity made for the law, or the law for humanity?