Identity Statement Discussions Session 2
- Common ground
- Genesis 2:24
- Genesis 19:5 (Judges 19:22 is a similar story)
- Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13
- Romans 1: 26,27
- 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; 1 Timothy 1:8-10
- Summary
Common Ground
- We are agreed that the LGBTQ issue is a "hot button" issue
- There is a new gay movement within the church
- Conversation is required
- Interpretation of key verses has varied in recent years
- We are all human beings, sexual beings, and sinners
Definition
Encyclopedia of Bioethics defines homosexuality as ‘a predominant, persistent and exclusive psychosexual attraction towards members of the same sex’.
NB Quotations are in the New International Version
Genesis 2:24
Traditional (Grenz)
- The proper context for marriage is heterosexual monogamy. It’s a God-given model
- Paul and Jesus later appeal to creation narratives
Affirming (Gushee)
- The core practices referred to in Genesis 1 and 2, including mutual care for children, helper partner relations, and total self-giving, can occur among covenanted gay and lesbian couples
Alternative affirming view
- Differences exist in the human family; don't look back to primeval creation narratives - accept our differences as they are
Genesis 19:5 (Judges 19:22 is a parallel story)
Story: two emissary angels visit the city of Sodom. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, offers exemplary hospitality but at night the men of the city attack Lot’s house and want to ‘have sex with the visitors’ (the incident is the source of the term ‘sodomy’
Traditional (Grenz)
- The incident depicts violent homosexual rape
- God destroyed the Sodomites because of their grievous sins including homosexual behavior
- Ezekial chastised Sodom (16:50) for ‘abominable’ things. ‘Abominable’ is the same word as found in Leviticus 18:22 for homosexual acts
Affirming (Gushee)
- An example of gang rape which treats men like defenseless women, giving extra humiliation
- Further references to Sodom in scripture never describe this evil as same-sex sin
- Even If one accepts the sexual aspects, does it apply to loving homosexual relationships between consenting adults?
Genesis 19:5 (Judges 19:22 is a similar story)
Alternative affirming views
- The word translated ‘have sex with’ or ‘know’ generally means ‘to establish the identity of’ or 'become acquainted with’ in the Old Testament. The sin, therefore, was their refusal to allow the host to be hospitable
Leviticus 18:22: do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
Traditional (Grenz)
- These are part of the ‘Holiness Code’ (not to copy Egypt or Canaan) per Leviticus 19:2. Holiness requires proper sexual conduct.
- Old Testament morality protects family and married life
- In the New Testament, ex-communication equates to the death penalty
- Paul’s writings seem to reaffirm these commands
Affirming (Gushee)
- 111 of 117 Old Testament uses of ‘detestable’ (or abomination) describes other, less contentious issues. Christians describe few of these issues as abominations these days •Never again are same-sex acts mentioned outside of Leviticus in the Old Testament
- Simply just quoting Leviticus today to settle Christian morality is complex
- Nevertheless, these texts rightly figure in the church’s moral deliberations
Other affirming arguments
- What we see in Leviticus precludes not what we see today but same-sex acts linked to idolatry. Male cult prostitutes were part of pagan fertility rites. Only relevant to the idolatry of that time
- This relates to ritual cleanness by avoiding whatever defiles – a ceremonial prohibition
- These Levitical texts generally prohibit religious practices that have long since ceased
Romans 1:26, 27:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Traditional (Grenz)
- Prohibition of all same-sex genital behaviour reflects the Levitical holiness code and God’s design for sexual activity in Genesis 2
- Homosexual acts are unnatural and contrary to divine intent
Affirming (Gushee)
- Relevant only to that time. There was a Roman culture of depravity where young men could be raped by those of higher status
Other affirming arguments
- This passage relates to ‘perverts’ not ‘inverts’ (perverts are those who are heterosexual, but who indulge in homosexual acts; inverts are ‘natural’ homosexuals)
- Relates to commercial paederasty
- Not relevant to covenanted same-sex relations among devoted Christians
1 Corinthians 6:9,10
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:8-10: we know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those who practice homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
Traditional (Grenz)
- It’s in the context of the only proper context for sexual intercourse being heterosexual marriage
- Malakoi and arsenokoites appear in 1 Corinthians 6:9; the latter only in 1 Timothy 1:8-10
- Malakoi means ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’. Most likely passive member in homosexual sex
- Arsenokoites means the one taking the active role in male to male intercourse
Affirming (Gushee)
- malakoi: a variety of interpretations. Possibly also means weakling, licentious
- arsenokoitai: only appears in the New Testament in these verses. Meaning is contested. Some argue it means ‘sex traffickers’ or ‘pimps’
- May refer to ‘youthful call boys and their customers’
Summary
Traditional (Grenz)
Contemporary explanations do shed light on several of the passages. Nevertheless, recent findings do not provide sufficient warrant to reject completely the traditional exegesis. Also, marriage provides a picture of the exclusive nature of our relationship with Christ
Affirming (Gushee)
If what we are talking about is blessing an anything-goes ethic in a morally libertine culture. I stand utterly opposed, as I have throughout my career. But if what we are talking about is carving out space for serious committed Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian, to participate in society as equals, in church as kin, and in blessings and demands of the covenant on the same terms as everyone else, I now think that has nothing to do with cultural, ecclesial and moral decline, and everything to do with treating people the way Christ did.