‘God and the Gay Christian’ Discussion, Part 4 - (Romans 1)

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (See Part 1Part 2, Part 3)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

(Scheduling note: Our next installment in this series will be on October 22. I’ll be on the road speaking next week and unable to moderate and participate in the conversation.) 

Today we reach a critical chapter in Matthew’s book, for it deals with one of the two New Testament texts commonly cited to oppose same-sex relationships. 

Romans 1

Perhaps the most significant passage in the debate regarding the Bible and same-sex relationships is Romans 1: 26-27, which opponents to same sex relationships often point to as a “clear” statement on the matter. 

The passage is part of the apostle Paul’s message at the opening of Romans about how “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Romans 1 focuses on how Gentiles have fallen short, and Romans 2 focuses on how Jews like himself have fallen short. (This sets up Paul’s argument that redemption for both is offered through Jesus Christ.)

According to Paul, the sins of the Gentiles are rooted in their worship of idols, which led them to indulge in vices like envy, slander, gossip, murder, arrogance, and “shameful lusts.” Here he notes: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” and the men “abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”  

“Pau’s depiction of same-sex behavior in this passage in indisputably negative,” acknowledges Matthew. “But he also explicitly describes the behavior he condemns as lustful. He makes no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So should we understand Paul’s words to apply to all same-sex relationships, or only to lustful, fleeting ones?” 

To get to the bottom if this question, we have to discern why Paul wrote what he did—the principle behind his statements. 

[Here, almost as an aside, Matthew makes a very important point: “Focusing on the reason behind biblical statements is not a new principle. Christians of all stripes ask not only what but why when we study Scripture.” He cites slavery as an example. The New Testament authors often tell slaves to submit to their masters (Titus 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Colossians 3:22-25, Ephesians 6:5-9, 1 Peter 2:18-24), a point not lost on those Christians who advocated for the preservation of slavery during the Civil war. To make a case for abolition, Christians had to look beyond what appears on the surface to be an endorsement of slavery to examine why the New Testament authors wrote what they did. While Matthew doesn’t spend much time on this particular issue, this is what ultimately changed my mind about LGBT people and the Bible. The moment I realized I couldn’t win a “proof text” war with a slave-owner was the moment I realized that in discussions like these, we can’t rely on a few Bible verses pulled from their context—not when lives are at stake. But more on that at a later date…] 

So what did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 1? 

As has already been shown, same-sex relations in the first century were not thought to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation but were widely understood to be the product of excessive sexual desire wherein the one engaging in same-sex behavior did so out of an excess of lust that could not be satisfied. The most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Matthew notes, were pederasty and sex between masters and their slaves, and the majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behavior with their wives. So we’re not talking about committed, monogamous, sacrificial relationships here. Not by a long shot. 

Citing the writings of Philo, Plato, and Dio Chyrysostom, Matthew notes that same-sex relations were not considered objectionable to these writers because partners shared the same anatomy, but “because they stemmed from hedonistic self-indulgence.” 

Matthew provides multiple examples of this reality (both in this chapter and others). Particularly relevant in this case is Dio Chyrysostom’s argument that some men had such insatiable sexual appetites they abandoned the “easy conquest” of women for more challenging sex with males, and John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 1 in which the father of the Church states: “[Paul] does not say that they were enamored of one another but that they were consumed by lust for one another! You see that the whole of desire comes from an excess which cannot be contained itself within proper limits.” 

The concept of same-sex orientation and the notion of committed same-sex relationships was simply not part of Pauls’—or these other writers’— worldview. “In Paul’s day, same-sex relations were a potent symbol of sexual excess,” writes Matthew, and so “they offered an effective illustration of Paul’s argument: We lose control when we are left to our own devices.” 

“But while that principle remains true today,” he says, “the specific example Paul drew from his culture does not carry the same resonance for us. This is not because Paul was wrong—he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it cannot reasonably be called the same issue. Homosexuality condemned as excess does not translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation—or as a loving expression of that orientation.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don't know any gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today who pursue same-sex relationships because they have grown tired of heterosexuality and want to try something new. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians I know tell me they have experienced same-sex attractions for many years, often since childhood, and simply want to be in a committed, sacrificial relationship with someone to whom they are attracted. And Matthew's analysis of this passage, which is shared by many other biblical scholars, gives me reason to believe Romans 1 isn't speaking about them.

Unnatural – like long hair 

So what about the words “natural” and “unnatural”? Wouldn’t they suggest that Paul, like so many who crudely argue the case today, condemned same-sex behavior because the “parts don't fit?” 

Matthew again returns to what no good biblical scholar would dispute: that many of the gender roles alluded to in Scripture are rooted in patriarchy. In the ancient world, if a man took the active role in a sexual encounter, his behavior wad generally deemed “natural.” If he took the passive role, he was derided for engaging in “unnatural” sex for supposedly playing the role of a woman. The opposite was true for women: sexual passivity was deemed “natural,” while dominance was “unnatural.” 

Once again, Matthew cites multiple ancient authors, including Philo, Plato, and Josephus, to show how the terms “natural” and “unnatural” were used in ancient writings. “They were not synonyms for ‘straight’ and ‘gay,’” he concludes.  “They were boundary markers between what did and did not conform to customary gender roles within a patriarchal context…In societies that viewed women as inferior, sexual relationships between equal-status partners could not be accepted. Same-sex unions in particular disrupted a social order that required strict hierarchy between the sexes. We see this hierarchy reflected in Romans 1 by the use of the phrase ‘their women’ in verse 26, which points to the subordinate role of women in ancient times.” 

This doesn’t mean Paul himself was sexist, Matthew argues, particularly given his high praise of women throughout his epistles. But it could mean he simply invoked the terms “natural” and “unnatural” as a shorthand reference to what the ancient world would have understood as a violation of accepted cultural norms regarding gender roles, motivated by excessive, unctrolled lust. 

Here is where Matthew makes one of his best points of the book, one that I particularly resonated with given my own experience with head coverings during my year of biblical womanhood. 

The apostle Paul makes the very same appeal to “natural” and “unnatural,” in the context of gender roles, when he argues that women should wear head coverings: “Judge for yourself,” he writes, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory?” (I Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Nature” and “disgrace”—these are the very same words Paul uses when discussing same sex behavior in Romans 1:26-27! And yet most Christians today do not read 1 Corinthians 11 as a universal dictum regarding God’s design for hairstyles and head coverings. 

Citing Jim Brownson’s scholarship on the topic, Matthew notes that these norms regarding hair length, head coverings, and hierarchal gender roles were rooted in the honor-shame cultures of the Mediterranean, where violating them could do serious harm to the spreading of the Gospel. 

Concludes Matthew: “For Paul, same-sex desire did not characterize a small minority of people who were subject to special classification—and condemnation—on that basis. Rather, it represented an innate potential for excess within all of fall humanity.” 

He cites fifth century Christian bishop Julian of Eclanum who interpreted Romans 1 as a contrast of those who make “right use” of sexual desire with those who “indulge in the excess of it.” For Julian, the moral of Romans 1 is that “he who observes moderation in natural [desire] uses a good thing well; but he who does not observe moderation abuses a good thing.” 

This is a takeaway that applies to all readers of the text—gay or straight.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion: 

1. What do you think of this interpretation of Romans 1? If it is not a condemnation of people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, what might be the message? What can we learn from it? 

2. This study has shown the degree to which patriarchal assumptions affected so much of what was considered "shameful" and "unnatural" in the ancient world. How do we continue to relate to Scripture as inspired and authoritative, even when it reflects these (and other) cultural norms that no longer apply today? 

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation!  

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-and-gay-christian-romans-1

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

Sunday Superlatives 10/5/14

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. Many churches mark this event with a blessing of the animals or a special outdoor event commemorating the saint’s love for God’s creation. Here are three poems to celebrate him this week.

Around the Blogosphere…

Wisest: 
John Walton at BioLogos with “On Being Right or Wrong”

“It is too easy for an individual, a local church or a denomination to decide that they have a corner on the market of interpretation and truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This attitude exists despite the fact that the New Testament shows us a number of situations when people in the early church had disagreements about issues that were decided by allowing a range of possibilities (e.g., the Jerusalem Council)… We should be slow to accuse another of discarding the authority of Scripture, and therefore denouncing them, just because they interpret Scripture differently than we do.”

Funniest: 
Jenny Lawson with “Nancy Pelosi is extremely disappointed in me for destroying the democratic party…” 

“If we don’t get the photo of James Carville holding some sort of frozen dessert the Republicans will have already won. As you said to me a few hours ago, if we don’t have your cooperation ‘We. Will. Fail.’”

Coolest: 
First International Drone Photography Competition

Boldest: 
Yabome Gilpin-Jackson with “Ebola is more than a news story to me”

“So, in spite of my sinking heart, and in spite of the fog, this is not a sob story. This is a call to action–because Sierra Leoneans, Liberians, Guineans and Nigerians need hope, not pity and more than sympathetic bystanders. They need reassurance that the world cares about theirs and our collective health.”

Cleverest:
XKCD with "Correlation"

Best Conversation-Starter: 
Christena Cleveland with “Social Justice for Single People”

“It seems that so many of us (myself included) have bought into the lie that deep, mutually supportive relationships are God’s gift to married people alone. This lie is insidious on its own, but in the context of social justice work, it is even more destructive. Social justice advocates need mutually supportive relationships as much as, if not more than, any other group!”

Best Feature: 
Helen Lee with (in the cover story at Christianity Today) with “Asian Americans: Silent No More” 

Best Advice: 
Parker Palmer with “Memo To Myself: Avoid Domesticating Our Prophets” 

"Avoid the bad habit of domesticating the prophet of your choice, turning him into a cheerleader for your way of thinking and way of life. Remember that all the great prophets were courageous and outrageous folks who railed against the powers-that-be, challenged self-satisfied piosity, threatened the prevailing social order, and would find you falling short in some significant ways."

Best Storytelling: 
Amy R. Buckley at She Loves with “Lipstick in Seminary” 

“For a couple years in seminary, I didn’t wear lipstick. I twisted my long hair up tightly, wore dark turtlenecks and covered my eyes with glasses. I didn’t speak much in class unless I knew it counted toward my grade. In that case, I carefully planned what I’d say before opening my mouth. I didn’t want to call attention to myself in a room full of men. I hoped to fly beneath the proverbial radar, as a woman, and gain tools for teaching, writing, and ministry with as few conflicts possible…” 

Best Idea: 
Ben Irwin with “What Art Can Teach Us About Theology and Faith Formation”

“Art becomes meaningful, transformative, and captivating when we’re able to participate in it—when we’re invited to contribute to it, rather than being forced to just stand back and observe in silence.”

Best Perspective: 
Mariam Youssef at The Junia Project with “Chanting for Change in the Coptic Church”

“At first glance, Copts in  the California suburbs may not appear to have much in common with Black and Latino youth in South Central. But I have seen that they are more alike than one may think. These two communities are in desperate need of healing from the injustices that they have suffered, both from outside forces and from internal structural flaws. I decided a long time ago that even though I feel marginalized as a woman in my community, I have to be solution-oriented. As long as I can work for change, I can stay and I must stay.”

Best Response: 
Sarah Bessey with “Accusations and Accolades”

“God is at work despite me and through me and in me – all at the same time.”

Most Insightful  (nominated by Kevin Shoop): 
Joshua Rothman at The New Yorker with “In Facebook’s Courtroom”

“As you scroll, you wonder, what’s next on the docket? Which outrages and exemplars will confront me today, and how will I react to them? On the one hand, you’re criminally uninterested in a controversy about sexism amongst hedge-fund managers; on the other, at least you’re not one of the ‘ten celebs who have killed people.’ The social-media stream puts moral life on shuffle—and expresses the fact that, while being a good person matters perhaps more than anything, it’s also very unclear how one might go about being good.”

Most Provocative: 
Peter Enns with “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible that Evangelicals are Told Not to Do” 

“Evangelicals are told to respect the Bible by ‘sticking to the text’ and not go beyond it. Jesus did the opposite…”

Most Informative:
NPR with "No, Seriously, How Contagious is Ebola?"

Most Powerful: 
Ben Moberg with “Three Things I’d Tell Ben Three Years Ago, Before He Came Out”

“It sounds strange, but when you leave the faith, God’s going to shuffle along behind you. Not that you’ll notice Him. You’ll be too busy averting your eyes from all things religious, plugging up your ears in every conversation about the faith…”

Most Convicting: 
Nadia Bolz-Weber with “Sermon on Us and Them”

“Jesus still calls the tax collectors and prostitutes and housewives and social workers and Pharisees into the very heart of God. So come and join me at his table, at this holy of holies, not because you have made it past the velvet ropes, but because the ground at the foot of the cross is level and there is room for all of us.”

Most Inspiring: 
Kelle Hampton with “Saving the Balloons” 

“Raising a child with special needs—although we aren’t defined by it—does take seriousness and proactive thinking and a mission to both equip our children with the tools they’ll need to face the world and prepare the world to accept our children. They’ll need a hell of a lot more than balloons—both our kids and the world. But I still keep a little cluster of them—especially the yellow ones—because life is hard, and I’ll always need balloons. They’re less about Down syndrome and more about me.”

On social media…

On Facebook, we talked about how Christian unity might mean redeeming conflict rather than avoiding it (some really fantastic comments there) and we also discussed an interesting C.S. Lewis quote

 

On the blog…

Most Popular Post:
“New Songs” 

“It is a season of new songs. It is a season of receiving, of being loved just for showing up.  I am holding all these gifts gingerly, like fragile blue eggs I’m afraid to break. I am holding them the way I hold that white wafer in my cupped, open hands—grateful, relieved, and still just a little bit frightened of what will happen when I take it and eat.” 

Most Popular Comment:
Rachel McGlone Hedlin’s comment after “God and the Gay Christian, Discussion 3,” which you can read as a featured comment at the top of the thread here. 

Out and About…

Over the next couple weeks, I'll be speaking at these events: 

Tuesday, October 14 – Wednesday, October 15
West Virginia Annual Conference (UMC) Clergy School 
Charleston, West Virginia 
More Info 

Thursday, October 16
Good Earth Village Launch Project 
Spring Valley, Minnesota 
More Info 

Friday, October 17
Barefoot Tribe Gathering 
Phoenix, Arizona
More Info

***

So, what caught your eye online this week? What’s happening on your blog? 

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/sunday-superlatives-10-5-14

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

From the Lectionary: A Kingdom of Rejects

I'm blogging with the lectionary this year, and this week's reading comes from Matthew 21:33-46: 

“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.” So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.” 
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” 
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.

So Jesus has been busy making what we Southerners like to call a “big-ole-scene” in Jerusalem.

First, he rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, a dramatic statement with clear Messianic overtones that Matthew says put “the whole city into turmoil.” Then he went and overturned a bunch of tables in the temple, before welcoming streams of poor and sick people to replace the moneychangers that had been dismissed. Later, he cursed an unsuspecting fig tree, meant to represent the fruitlessness of those who rejected his message, before returning to the temple to engage in a heated debate with the religious leaders there. 

It had been a very weird 24 hours. 

Turns out the religious leaders do not share Jesus’ flair for the dramatic, and so they challenge him, asking who gave him the authority to do these things.  Jesus cites John the Baptist and his ragamuffin coalition of tax collectors and prostitutes, the poor and the uneducated, leprosy patients, foreigners, women and slaves—not exactly a prestigious endorsement, but a popular one among the people. Then Jesus tells them this parable about a landowner and his vineyard, one these experts in Scripture would have immediately recognized as an allusion to Isaiah 5—the Song of the Vineyard. 

I will sing for the one I love
    a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
    on a fertile hillside.
He dug it up and cleared it of stones
    and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
    and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
    but it yielded only bad fruit…

Last week we talked about how easy it is to miss God when God defies our preferred categories. But the parable for this week invites us to take it a step further and confront the fact that sometimes we don’t simply miss God; sometimes we outright reject God. Sometimes we cast God out. 

The first slaves to arrive at the vineyard in Jesus’ story likely represent the prophets of old who were rejected, sometimes violently, by the people of Israel. The second round may represent a prophet like John the Baptist, who also met a grisly fate.  The son of the vineyard owner represents Jesus of course, who himself is about to be crucified—the ultimate reject.  But according to Jesus, “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruit of the kingdom.” 

Jesus is building an entire kingdom out of rejects. It’s a kingdom of prophets, outcasts and misfits, a kingdom of table-tuners and donkey-riders. He himself is the cornerstone, the foundation, because he himself was rejected. 

Now, we can look to this passage as comfort for all the times we’ve felt rejected—by our community, by our loved ones, by our church—but I can’t get through this one without a deep, uncomfortable sense of conviction. Sometimes a better question than, how have I been rejected? is, who am I rejecting? 

And let’s face it. We tend to reject our prophets. 

Huss. Hutchinson. MLK.*

These days the word “prophetic” gets tossed around a lot, and while it’s nice to see the meaning recovered from the realm of fortune-telling back to the realm of truth-telling, we have to be careful about assigning the “prophetic” label to every blog post, sermon, or Facebook status we agree with. As Parker Palmer so eloquently reminded us in a “memo to himself” this week: 

"Avoid the bad habit of domesticating the prophet of your choice, turning him into a cheerleader for your way of thinking and way of life. Remember that all the great prophets were courageous and outrageous folks who railed against the powers-that-be, challenged self-satisfied piosity, threatened the prevailing social order, and would find you falling short in some significant ways."

When people tell me my work is “prophetic,” I can’t help but think to myself: Nope. I’m WAY too comfortable to be a prophet. 

Prophets disrupt. Prophets offend. Prophets make “big-ole-scenes” and push the edge of the envelope. Prophets are almost always rejected—by conservatives and liberals, by the pious and the rebellious, by their faithful critics and by the ones who once followed them. Prophets get themselves killed.  

So when you’re wondering to yourself who the modern-day prophets might be, the question isn’t, Who am I following? the question is, Who am I rejecting? 

I don’t know about you, but I've made a habit out of rejecting the people who challenge my privilege, the people who strike me as over-the-top or too theatric, the people who don't share my theological or political convictions but nevertheless produce the fruit of the spirit in their lives, the people whose Kingdom work is quiet and slow and a walking indictment of my own impatient lust for gratification, popularity, and power. 

Might God be working through these folks? Might they be critical stones in this Kingdom of rejects God is building? Might I be wise to shut up and listen before I attempt to cast them out of the vineyard? 

These are uncomfortable questions posed by an uncomfortable Messiah. 

…Which I suppose means they are a start. 

***

*As Tavis Smiley reports in his new book on Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights leader faced a major decline in popularity during his last few years, as many thought his social justice agenda too radical.  

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/lectionary-kingdom-of-rejects

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

'God and the Gay Christian' Discussion, Week 3

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (See Part 1 & Part 2.)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we finally begin our discussion of those biblical texts often used to condemn same-sex relationships. These six passages (a remarkably small percentage of Scripture as a whole) are sometimes referred to as “clobber passages.” Drawing from the work of biblical scholars, most notably James Brownson, Matthew looks at the context, language, and historical background of these passages to conclude that the Bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation or the expression of that orientation. “While is six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” writes Matthew, “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation” and so these passages do not apply to gay, lesbian, or bisexual Christians in committed same-sex relationships.  Our focus for this discussion is on the Old Testament texts. Next week we will move on to the New Testament texts. 

The Real Sin of Sodom 

Given the vast and obvious disparity between the gang rape scene of Genesis 19 and those gay, lesbian, and bisexual people seeking to enter into committed, sacrificial relationships with one another, it still surprises me that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is used to condemn same-sex orientation and relationships. And yet it remains a favorite among those who protest against “Sodomites” outside courthouses and even churches these days. 

If you are unfamiliar with the story, check out Genesis 18 and Genesis 19 (and prepare for a potential faith crisis—there’s a very weird bit about a pillar of salt which, as a child, left me frightened to look out the back window of our car lest I share the fate of Lot’s wife). Matthew wisely includes Genesis 18 in his analysis because the story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming the mysterious strangers into their home is meant to stand in contrast to the actions of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who rather than welcoming the mysterious strangers, threatened to gang rape them. The author of Hebrews makes the connection, writing “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing, some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). 

“The sin of Sodom,” writes Matthew, “had far more to do with a lack of hospitality and a bent toward violence than with any sexual designs the men had on Lot’s visitors.”  

Throughout Hebrew Scripture, and particularly in the prophets, the evils of Sodom are referenced as a way of reminding the people of Israel to avoid falling into the same ways. (If you’re reading Enns’ The Bible Tells Me So right now, you’re probably making some fun connections here.) The prophet Ezekiel offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins, declaring, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, emphasis mine). 

When was the last time you heard the “Sodomite” slur hurled at someone for overeating, indulgence, arrogance, and disregard for the poor? Hits a bit too close to home for most Christians, I guess. 

Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19. “If Sodom’s sin had indeed been homosexuality,” writes Matthew, “it is highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that fact.”  This is true for other ancient Jewish literature as well, he argues, where Sodom’s sins are identified as arrogance, indulgence, and lack of hospitality. 

So what about the men of Sodom’s threats to gang rape Lot’s guests? 

As Matthew points out, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation or an expression of sexual desire. In the ancient world, for a man to be raped was considered the ultimate degradation, a sign of total defeat. Warriors who wanted to shame their conquered foes often raped them in order to humiliate them. “Aggression and dominance were the motives in these situations,” writes Matthew, “not sexual attraction.” 

Here Matthew compares this passage to Judges 19, where we find the gruesome and troubling story of the raped and dismembered concubine, who served as a substitute for the men of Gibeah who wanted to rape an old man’s houseguests. In both stories, hosts wishing to protect the male guests offer women—essentially considered property at the time—to the mob instead, which goes to show that this was not about sexual preference, but about violence and domination. It also goes to show how badly women suffered in this patriarchal culture. Notes Matthew: “Neither Lot nor the old man of Gibeah said, ‘Don’t do anything to these men, because that would be a same-sex act.’ Instead, they both expressed concern that the visitors had come under the protection of their homes. The men were their guests and the ‘sacred duty’ of hospitality…was paramount.” 

[Pause here to consider the wisdom of appealing to any of these stories for our sexual ethics…Sorry. Couldn’t help it. Carry on. ]

But what about New Testament references to Sodom in Matthew 10:15, Luke 10:10-12, 2 Peter 2:7, and Jude 7? 

Only the latter two passages make reference to Sodom’s sexual sins. Jude 7 says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in gross immorality and went after stranger flesh.” But rather than referring to same-sex relationships, the phrase “strange flesh” seems to refer to the attempts to rape angels instead of humans. Jude 6 supports this connection by comparing Sodom’s transgressions with the unusual sins described in Genesis 6 where angels mate with human women. 

It was the Jewish philosopher Philo who first explicitly linked Sodom’s sins to same-sex behavior, and his idea caught on. But Philo was operating from ancient assumptions regarding same-sex behavior, Matthew argues, and therefore condemning the actions of the men of Sodom as the excessive pleasure-seeking of men who could also be satisfied with women. “He was not taking a position on the issue we are facing today,” writes Matthew, “gay people and their committed relationships.” 

The Abominations of Leviticus 

Even though it was decided in the Council of Jerusalem that Gentile Christians are not bound to Scripture’s Levitical law, discussions continue to this day regarding how those texts apply to followers of Jesus. Often cited in the discussion regarding same-sex relationships are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which describe same-sex behavior between males as an “abomination” punishable by death.  

It’s easy to forget just how many of these laws are disregarded by Christians without much thought. Leviticus 3 and 11, for example, forbid eating animal fat or blood, shellfish, and animals that walk on all fours and have paws—all of which are denounced as “abominations,” along with having sexual relations during a woman’s period, and charging interest on loans. 

As Matthew points out, in the vast majority of cases, the word “abomination” (typically the Hebrew, toevah, which is used in Leviticus 18 and 20) refers to what the Israelites associated with the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles, leading Old Testament scholar Phyllis Bird to conclude that “it is not an ethical term, but a term for boundary making,” with “a basic sense of taboo.” Many other biblical scholars share this view, which helps make sense out of why eating shellfish and charing interest on loans might have been considered taboo to the ancient Israelites, but not Christians today. “So while ‘abomination’ is a negative word,” Matthew says, “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin.” 

Furthermore, you can’t get very far in reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy before you notice laws regarding rape, marriage, menstruation, and women-as-property make it very hard to argue that while Old Testament laws related to diet no longer apply, Old Testament laws regarding sexuality do.  In addition, there are no condemnations of either polygamy or concubinage, which are in fact assumed within the text. 

Another argument that falls short is the argument that the severe punishment for male same sex behavior—the death penalty—suggests it was and is a more serious sin. We can’t forget that disobedient children were also to be stoned, along with a people who used the Lord’s name in vain and those who violated the Sabbath. Daughters of priests who fell into prostitution were to be burned alive, and in Exekiel 18:13, the death penalty is applied to anyone who charges interest on a loan.

Gender Complementarity 

But the most important point Matthew makes in these two chapter isn’t about Old Testament law and its many abominations. His most important point concerns gender complementarity: 

“Non-affirming Christians who want to make the most persuasive arguments ground their case in the idea that Leviticus banned male same-sex relations because same-sex unions violate gender complementarity…So as we read these ancient texts, we need to keep this question in mind: Do these writings suggest that same-sex unions are wrong because of the anatomical ‘sameness’ of the partners involved? Or is the primary concern a different issue?"

Here Matthew points again to the work of Philo, whose views on sexuality reflect how it was understood in his time. According to Philo, the great crime of male same-sex behavior—pederasty, specifically—was that males would “suffer the affliction of being treated like a women” which Philo referred to as “the greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy.” This posture is reflected widely in many of the writings from the world from which Scripture emerged. 

In the ancient world, deeply misogynistic attitudes were the norm. Same-sex behavior between males was rejected because women were considered inferior to men and it was considered degrading for a man to be “treated” like a woman.  In addition, it was believed that men who engaged in same-sex behavior did so out of an abundance of out-of-control passions, not because of fixed sexual orientation. 

This understanding sheds light on why Leviticus contains no parallel prohibition of female same-sex relations. “If the issue were anatomical complementarity,” Matthew argues, “female same-sex relations should be condemned on an equal basis. And yet, the text is silent on this matter…The entire question of how bodies fit together doesn’t seem to be on the radar. The concern we see is centered around the proper ordering of gender roles in a patriarchal society.” 

In light of this reality regarding patriarchy, Matthew advocates what some might call a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” regarding gender, suggesting that while Scripture reflects a patriarchal culture, it still grants women more honor and value than many of Israel’s counterparts and ultimately points to gender mutuality through the redemptive work of Christ.  In other words, we can accept Scripture as authoritative and true without accepting the patriarchal assumptions of the culture from which the Bible emerged. 

Frankly, I’ve never found arguments against same-sex relationships from these Old Testament texts particularly persuasive, and I suspect that if these were the only passages in question, there might be more unity of thought within the Christian community. What seems to trip most people up are references to same-sex behavior in the New Testament, to which we will turn our conversation next week.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion 

1.    How have these texts—the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the laws of Leviticus—affected your understanding of the Bible and same-sex relationships? Do they factor in to your understanding or are the New Testament texts your focus? What do you think of Matthew’s argument? 

2. Throughout God and the Gay Christian we see how patriarchy and ancient understandings of gender roles affected how same-sex behavior is referenced in Scripture. How does this affect your overall view of Scripture and how it should be interpreted regarding gender and sexuality?

I will be monitoring the comment section closely over the next 24 hours, after which the thread will be closed. Thanks for your participation!  

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-gay-christian-old-testament

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

In praise of the spiritual memoir (and specifically “Tables in the Wilderness”) + an art giveaway

Despite facing some recent (and valid) criticism, the spiritual memoir remains beloved among many people of faith, as it has been since St. Augustine first invented the genre. And while I’ve certainly encountered my fair share of mediocre memoirs through the years, when I think of the books that most influenced my faith, many are shelved in the spiritual memoir section of my library: Take This Bread by Sara Miles, Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, Pastrix by Nadia Bolz-Weber, Lit by Mary Karr. What makes a memoir worth reading isn’t so much the story the author tells, but how she tells it. Like good poetry, a good spiritual memoir excavates everyday life for beauty and truth, grabs the reader by the shoulders and says, “Pay attention! This is for you!” 

To this genre, my friend Preston Yancey has added a delightful entry with Tables in the Wilderness, which releases today. At just 25, Preston really shouldn’t be allowed to write this wisely or skillfully, and yet over and over again he surprised me with his insight, talent, and brilliant integration of literary classics into his own story.  (The “Suggested Reading” list at the end is worth the price of the book.) Tables in the Wilderness follows Preston through his college experience at Baylor University, so fans of Donald Miller’s early work will especially resonate as much of the story deals with school, relationships, and all the beauty and angst of finding one’s way in the Church these days.

To mark today’s release, Preston has shared with us an excerpt, as well as the opportunity for one reader to win an original painting made by Preston himself. (See details below.) I specifically asked Preston for this excerpt because it was these paragraphs—the first six of the book—what pulled me into the story. Enjoy! 

***
Silence 

by Preston Yancey
(excerpted from Tables in the Wilderness

When you grow up evangelical in the South, you hear God speak all the time.

Over the mashed potatoes, under the watch of the calligraphic Scriptures on the walls, in Carl Kasell’s voice over the radio on your way to school. You invite God to coffee to study the Bible with you, and God sits beside you on the bus to church camp and laughs at all your jokes. You hear God that night on the jungle gym and that time you stood at the corner downtown with a sandwich in your hand wondering why you got up in the middle of the Ash Wednesday service and fled. And you keep hearing, years on end, even on thatSunday you sit in the parking lot of the small Episcopal church after the Baptist-based ministry you felt God call you to do has crumbled, and you are so vacant and so wavering that you tell God you’re done, you’re empty, and God tells you to walk into church.

But one September morning, when you least expect it, you’re sitting in a friend’s apartment after a belated celebration of your twenty-second birthday the night before — in which you read aloud a short story you wrote about lighthouses and champagne, after which your friend tells you you’re still in love with the girl you broke up with a year ago and you should call her, find out where things stand — and you’re reading the Gospel of Luke when you feel suddenly, keenly, that Christ the Lord is sitting beside you on the couch as you’re reading, his voice almost tangible.

“It’s going to be about trust with you.”

Eight words. Ten syllables.

Then he’s gone. And you stop hearing God speak altogether. It’s just you, the King James, and the Silence. And you think it might be the middle of something, or the end. Eventually, nearly a year later, you see it as a beginning. But the seeing takes time. For a little while, it’s just going to be you and the Silence… 

***

Makes you want to read more, right? 

The original painting Preston is giving away is entitled “Martha of Bethany” and is pictured below.  (I have a companion piece entitled “Mary of Bethany” and it’s just beautiful.) 

Here’s how you can enter to win:  Leave a comment in the comment section that 1) names your favorite spiritual memoir, or 2) tells us what the first line of YOUR spiritual memoir would be, and I’ll randomly choose a winner from the entries. (Be sure to sign into DISQUS in such a way that I have access to your email address so I can contact you if you win and get your mailing address so Preston can send you the painting.) One comment per person, please! 

Note: While I did receive a complimentary copy of this book for review, I was not paid by the publisher or author to review and feature it. 

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/tables-in-the-wilderness

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.