Download Homosexuality and the Church

Homosexuality and the Church:
Thoughts on the Occasion of the Episcopal Church
Consecrating an Openly Gay Bishop
As many know from the national media, the Episcopal Church has done something daring.
The diocese of New Hampshire elected an openly gay Bishop. This was consented to by the
General Convention of the Church in August, 2003. On November 2, 2003, Bishop Robinson was
consecrated as bishop. As an alternate delegate to the General Convention, I received some letters
concerned about homosexuality and our Church. I am very thankful for the issues they raised and
for their concerns. They obviously are prayerfully and deeply interested in our church and in living
faithfully. During much of the week of General Convention I was on retreat at St Benedict’s
Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado. While there as well as before and afterwards I have been much
concerned about various aspects of this issue.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Certainly many in the church and secular culture make a connection between the Sodom and
Gomorrah narrative in Genesis 19 and homosexuality. One of the best ways for me to let Scripture
form me, calling into question my assumptions and biases, is to see what if anything other authors in
the Bible make of this story. How do they understand the sin of these cities? The answer is that
none of them see the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as homosexual relations. Ezekiel 16:49ff: “This
was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous
ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me.”
Amos warns that Israel will meet the same fate of overthrow as did Sodom and Gomorrah, and for
the same reason: the poor are oppressed and the needy are crushed (4:1). Isaiah says the people of
2
Jerusalem sin like Sodom (3:9), which is: “Your hands are full of blood (1:15); “the spoil of the
poor is in your houses” and for “grinding the face of the poor” (3:14f). Zephaniah warns that the
fate of Moab and the Ammonites will be like Sodom and Gomorrah because they have filled houses
“with violence and fraud” (1:9). In the only New Testament reference to Sodom and Gomorrah,
Jesus warns of a similar fate for those who do not provide welcome and sustenance to his disciples
(Matt. 10:14f).
There is something of a double tragedy here. First, ordinary use of the term in secular
society, as in “Sodomy Laws,” invests the meaning of homosexual behavior. Perhaps we developed
our first understanding of the Scriptural narrative from this. It is time to reverse this hermeneutic,
letting Scripture question my assumptions and the culture in which those assumptions germinated.
Secondly, people calling themselves “Christians” are daily committing the very sin for which
Sodom and Gomorrah are repeatedly condemned in Scripture. Vicious and hateful condemnation of
gays and lesbians falls far short of the biblical admonition to hospitality.
Tradition
A very important element shaping our understanding of Scripture as Episcopalians is
tradition. First, throughout that tradition we have had gay priests and bishops. Honesty and
openness about this are the only new elements today. Secondly, the ground-breaking research of
historians like John Boswell suggest a couple things: that condemnations of homosexuality are a
more recent phenomenon in the history of Christianity, and we may well have liturgies used in the
Eastern church way back in the Middle Ages blessing same-sex unions. For further reading on this,
see his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern
Europe.
Perhaps my third observation mixes in (or mixes up) a bit of the Eastern Orthodox
understanding of tradition. In the wisdom that is embedded in our tradition, certainly the heart of
3
our tradition is in the seven Ecumenical Councils. As I understand the Orthodox approach to this
Tradition, what those Ecumenical Councils dealt with is central. They provide the boundary for
theology. Orthodoxy displays a tremendous openness and flexibility about theology and doctrine
not dealt with by these Councils. Well, these Councils never dealt with homosexuality. From that I
infer that it is not what might be called a first-order theological issue. Our contemporary culture
carefully socializes us and encourages us to adopt a condemning attitude toward homosexuality. Our
tradition frees us to see a much larger picture. The more we can let our tradition inform our
understanding on this issue the less we will be influenced by contemporary secular culture.
Liturgy
Being brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant home, I was carefully nurtured to refuse to
worship with those Christians whose theology was not the same as ours. Indeed, it was easy to
dismiss those with different theologies as not real Christians. Gradually I began to wonder if I had
ever worshipped God, despite the endless services I attended and led. Much “preaching” went on
about how we should worship God, but I finally concluded that we never (or very rarely) actually
carried out the activity of worship. It is precisely this that left me stunned after the first Anglican
service I attended as a first-year college student. Given a liturgy that was carefully crafted over
centuries, it seemed entirely focused on actually worshipping God. I was hooked. The longer I
thought about this the more profound it seemed. What we Episcopalians (and other liturgical
churches) get right is that theology follows or develops out of our worship, not the other way
around. For us finite, limited humans, there is something profoundly right about this approach.
Theology, doctrine are always human endeavors. God’s ways are past finding out. The apophatic
tradition gets it right: God must always be greater than my sincere attempts to understand or I am
treading on the thin ice of idolatry. In worship we come together to open up ourselves as
imperfectly and incompletely as we do to God. In silence and in words carefully crafted over the
4
centuries in the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Agnus Dei), in the Collects, we are
lifted out of our petty concerns, beyond our personal and cultural concerns, to have the opportunity
to meet God, to listen. Appropriately, our worship tradition entirely leaves behind issues like
homosexuality when we come into God’s presence.
It has been wonderful and I find it necessary for me to work on committees and to worship
with persons I know are on the opposite end of the spectrum from me on this and many other issues.
I begin experiencing God as someone who is much greater than my ideas, my ideology, most
especially, much greater than my theology. I am so thankful and enriched when I see Sally and Ron
singing the “Gloria” or “Sanctus” with me; I value their concerns about homosexuality, but I am so
moved that we worship a God together who is beyond this issue. Paul’s wisdom and insights enrich
me every time we talk. I need to hear his questions and concerns on this issue. And to worship with
him, each getting beyond our concerns to the ultimacy of the One we worship. We can still pray and
break bread together. That is what unites us. I am wonderfully joined with Harrison and Amy as we
sing the “Agnus Dei.” All of these essentials of worship bring all of us together in whatever
brokenness or joy that marks our daily life. What we think about homosexuality and the Church
may differ, but for each of us those thoughts are an outgrowth of our continuing to worship together.
Secondly, our rich worship traditions (Acclamation, the Collect for Purity, other Collects, the
Ordinary, Psalms, Confession, etc.) tell us very loudly and very clearly what is essential in
worshipping God. Our worship and tradition clearly tell us that my position and your position on
homosexuality are wholly irrelevant to what goes on as we worship God.
Literalism
As I listen to conversations within the church about homosexuality, often serious problems
and misunderstandings arise with a literalist approach to Scripture. Having used the word, I must
immediately take it back. What often goes by the name of a literal interpretation of Scripture is,
5
especially on this issue of homosexuality, so highly selective in what it interprets literally that
“literalism” simply is a wrong characterization. Thus, my first point is to look further at this
problem of selectivity.
To avoid an accusation of trivializing Scripture, someone who tries to approach Scripture
literally needs to provide some principle of selection. The fancy way of saying this is that we need
some hermeneutic spelled out. Frankly, I never find that mentioned. Let me illustrate why this is a
problem. We undoubtedly all agree with the Bible in rejecting incest, rape, adultery and intercourse
with animals. Fine. But regardless of where we are on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible, I
suspect we all DISAGREE with the Bible on most other sexual mores!! The Bible condemns, but
we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, marriage with non-Israelites, naming
sexual organs, masturbation, birth control. On the other hand, the Bible permits, but most of us will
readily condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treating
women as property, and very early marriage (for girls, age 11-13). While the Old Testament
accepted divorce, Jesus forbad it. The point: even those who think of themselves as literalists are
highly selective about what they take literally. This inconsistency of selecting most biblical sexual
mores as NOT to be taken literally begs for the question: why select these as not literally applicable
today, but not homosexuality? For further reading on this, see Walter Wink’s essay in his important
collection Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches.
The second problem I have with literalism and Scripture can be illustrated with a couple
well-known examples from history, where literalism regarding selected passages led to tremendous
injustices. In ancient Israel, someone born deaf could not own property. They were also not liable
or punished for any damage or injury they caused. Though Leviticus 19:14 commands a
compassionate attitude, they were clearly left in an inferior position. In Greek society those born
deaf were considered “non-persons.” They could be rejected by parents as their legitimate children,
and killing them was not unusual. Aristotle had the idea that hearing was more important than sight,
6
the blind more intelligent than the deaf. He is quoted as saying that those born deaf “become
senseless and incapable of reasoning.” Roman law said those born deaf had no legal rights and
forbid them to marry. Guardians were required for them. Interestingly, if one became deaf after
learning to speak, they enjoyed full legal rights.
From this developed the widely held belief that the deaf were uneducable. In the Middle
Ages, priests barred the deaf from churches on the ground that they could not have faith. Augustine
taught that the deaf are excluded from salvation. Why? Because Romans 10:17 says: “So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.” I argue that literalism is not just
inconsistent, it is dangerous.
What seems flawed in Augustine’s use of Scripture is something like this: the air he
breathed from the culture around him, how he had been socialized to construct reality, involved
those many negative attitudes and laws about deafness. Given that secular construction of reality, it
becomes something of a blinder as he then reads Scripture. It is a principle of interpretation, a
hermeneutic. It then feels right to notice a particular (and narrow) meaning of the word “hear” when
he reads St. Paul, and to conclude, from the secular mindset he imposes onto Scripture, that Paul
thinks deafness precludes faith. Had he walked in the shoes of a deaf person? He seems instead to
make an a priori judgment about deafness and faith, based on the pervasive attitudes of his culture,
not on the basis of Scripture.
I see a similar method, a similar approach, today toward the issue of homosexuality and the
church. I am convinced the Bible nowhere talks about a loving, committed monogamous same-sex
relationship. Instead, our culture provides very powerful negative attitudes and laws about
homosexuality. I am only beginning to see how powerfully I was shaped by these social taboos (the
word “homosexual” simply did not exist in my household growing up because it was so taboo).
That then becomes a blinder, a principle of selecting, a hermeneutic. How? Given those prejudices,
it feels right, it feels natural, to take some reference—like a male lying with a male—out of context
7
and let my secular, socially constructed reality do today on this issue what Augustine’s socially
constructed reality did to distort Scripture in his day vis-à-vis deafness.
The second historical example is the history of the prohibition against charging interest.
When the Israelites were prohibited from charging interest to fellow Israelites (Ex. 22:25; Deut.
23:19-20; Lev. 25:35-38), interest rates were typically incredibly high in the surrounding nations,
often over 25%. Also, this was a time when most loans were not commercial in nature, but
charitable—something needed by a poor person or someone facing a temporary emergency. The
intent of the law, the spirit of the law, was clearly the well-being of the poor. This prohibition on
interest was just one part of a whole host of laws designed to protect the poor and to prevent
extremes of wealth and poverty.
The Christian Church largely failed to understand this. Instead we applied these texts
literally. We wrestled with it for years. Finally at the Third Lateran Council in 1179, all interest on
loans was prohibited. What were the results of this literalism? An absolute travesty. Monarchs in
the Middle Ages invited Jews into their realms since Jews were not bound by the church’s literalistic
interpretation. Ghastly anti-Semitism was one horrific result. Skillful theologians worked diligently
to develop loopholes to this prohibition. An additional tragedy of this literalism is that often in the
modern world we view loans, banking, indeed the whole field of economics, as completely
independent and autonomous of Scripture. For more on this issue of usury, see Ronald J. Sider,
Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study.
Scripture
When someone says they know what Scripture teaches about homosexuality, I am
immediately very uncomfortable. Why? Because they usually go on to claim that Scripture
condemns homosexuality. I find that to be an abuse of Scripture! Or a confusion of someone’s
8
prejudice with what Scripture teaches. I have too high a view of Scripture to remain silent at such a
time.
I do not presume to argue that what follows is the only way to take Scripture seriously.
Rather, my point is to argue that it is possible for someone to take Scripture seriously while arguing
against a widely held view of homosexuality and the Church in our American culture today. That is,
it is possible to be faithful to Scripture (and tradition) and to oppose the idea that homosexuality is a
sin condemned by God. Perhaps this is an extension of my comments on “literalism.” I will
illustrate this looking at the two passages in Leviticus that are often cited as proof that God hates the
sin of homosexuality—18:22 and 20:13. I will conclude that a careful reading, where I actively
bracket my prejudices as much as possible, shows these passages are not at all about homosexuality,
not about homosexuality being a sin, and not about God hating homosexuality (though perhaps God
still loves the homosexual sinner!).
Often those who cite these “clobber” passages (i.e., passages which ostensibly clearly
condemn homosexuality) are literalists (at the extreme, a Jerry Falwell, say). It says that a man
lying with a man is an abomination to God. In most situations where I have heard this used, it is
simply assumed that what this passage condemns is all same-sex sexual relationships—GLBT. The
bible says it is an “abomination.” How can we be faithful Christians and do any less? Well, I
absolutely want to take Scripture seriously, to let Scripture, Tradition and Reason mold my life in all
areas.
But right off the bat there are two inconsistencies for at least a literalist interpretation here.
Many have pointed out that Leviticus names a number of other “abominations” which presumably a
consistent literalist should be just as concerned about: eating pork, touching pig skin, wearing
clothes made from two different fabrics, being sexually active with your spouse during
menstruation, to name just a few. The problem is, of course, that the literalist is not that at all, but
rather highly selective. My problem with this is that this puts me above Scripture—choosing,
9
selecting what I want to emphasize. Instead I want Scripture to have a deeper impact, a more
pervasive role in my life. I want it to call into question my prejudices, how I have been conditioned.
The second inconsistency is that the very clear, very explicit word in these passages is
“male,” not “man” in some universal pronoun usage. So, what is only talked about as an
“abomination” is a male lying with another male. If I am a literalist trying to be faithful to
Scripture, I should stop there and not run off to lesbian relations, etc. Surely the thoughtful reader
will be curious about this specific gender reference. What is going on here that the author says
“male?” One of the most important steps in taking Scripture seriously is to bracket my subjective
responses and to ask what it meant in its original context. And so I do that here. What happens? I
move to a deeper level of understanding, valuing, and being shaped by Scripture!
Could it be that it is not accidental that the author of Leviticus leaves out women in these
references? What was the understanding of women in ancient Israel? The prescientific Hebrew
understanding was that woman provided the incubating space for new human life. Of course this is
very problematic for most of us today, where women are not viewed as chattel of men; where love,
fidelity, mutual respect replace property rights. But accepting that in ancient Israel this was how
women were understood explains many biblical sexual mores that are strange for us. For example,
in the Old Testament a man could not commit adultery against his own wife. Rather he could only
commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other man’s wife. Male virginity at
marriage is never mentioned, though a bride who is not a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut.22:1321). Prostitution was thought to be quite natural in the Old Testament as a safeguard of the virginity
of brides and the property rights of husbands (see Gen. 38:12-19; Joshua 2:1-7).
A further prescientific understanding in ancient Israel was that the male semen contained the
whole of human life—hence the womb as only an incubator. This is crucial to understand. To take
Scripture seriously it is not enough blindly to quote a verse. Instead, I must ask what it meant in that
original context. Suddenly I see a whole new dimension. Any spilling of semen for non-creative
10
purposes back then (with their inaccurate science) meant they were committing murder. Depending
on one’s views about abortion today, it might be something of the equivalent of abortion in the
ancient world. While my father thought he was being faithful to Scripture when I was growing up
by insisting that masturbation was sinful (again, only male masturbation is proscribed!), he sadly
failed to understand Scripture! By attending to what it meant back then in that historical setting, it
all falls into place: of course coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), (only) male homosexual behavior
(not orientation), male masturbation would be condemned, given this prescientific understanding.
Of course female homosexual acts were not mentioned at all in the Old Testament. See Walter
Wink’s essay mentioned above for more on this.
I do not think that this closes discussion of these or other passages. I am thankful for richer,
deeper insights, but fully expect a lifetime of further insights and dialogue. For me, a helpful
analogy comes from music. For years I have loved Beethoven’s 4th Piano Concerto. When I finally
heard Glenn Gould’s interpretation, I was stunned. I heard notes, phrasing, patterns I had never
heard before. For a moment I even wondered if Gould had uncovered a revision of the original
score! I find it petty to think that one or another interpretation of the musical text is wrong or right.
Different interpretations bring different insights; push me to look further, deeper. That is great.
When Chick Corea plays a Mozart Piano Concerto or Bobby McFerrin vocalizes one of the cello
solos in Vivaldi’s Concerto in G minor for 2 Cellos, RV 531, they are faithful to the text (score).
But I find myself listening to the “text” in new ways, more intently, with fresh ears. Even Miles
Davis’ “Sketches of Spain” album has a certain reverence for Rodrigo’s “Concierto de Aranjuez,”
though he stretches it with his creative genius. What is my point? That different interpretations of
(back to where we started) Scripture can help me to hear in new ways, to question how I have
always interpreted it, can enrich. We need our different voices in the church.
We ask the Holy Spirit to guide us as we read Scripture. This hardly means that how you or
I interpret Scripture is divinely inspired, the only meaning intended by God. With St. Paul, at best
11
we still see through a glass darkly. Any other claim is epistemic arrogance, and as a result is not
inclined to be open to Spirit next time I read the passage.
The Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is terribly basic, but often not applied. I find it central to this issue of
homosexuality and the Church. Most of the opposition to homosexuality in the church seems to
come from those who have not “walked in the shoes of their gay or lesbian brother and sister.” But
it seems to me that I do not have a choice about this! I must, if I am a follower of Christ. Why has
my daughter or son, my sibling, my aunt or close colleague at work not confided in me about this
important piece of who they are? Have I, consciously or unconsciously, made it clear to them that it
is not safe for them to be honest and open around me? How can I form my understanding about this
issue if I a priori decide that I cannot or will not learn from the stories of GLBT persons; that I
cannot draw on the integrity of their experiences; that I cannot see them as resources for my growth
and understanding. Have I gone out of my way, perhaps, to listen to the “other?” Just listen. I
would want that from someone else about my story. If I haven’t, seriously and for extended periods
and with numerous persons, then have I lived the Golden Rule?
I teach a course dealing with sexual orientation. Virtually every semester at least one student
will suddenly realize “Oh, that’s why Uncle Harry or Aunt Sally moved away from us.” Once it
was a sibling. Another student had to move out of the house when he “came out” to his Christian
parents. Now is the opportunity to reach out and to understand a very different reality. For me this
is not just optional, since the Golden Rule is not just an optional way to live as a Christian. It is
imperative. For someone in a position of privilege in our society (male, white, Christian, middle
class, heterosexual, etc.) following the Golden Rule generally means I must get out of my comfort
zone. Why? Because privilege pretty much blinds me as one in a dominant group from being able
to see and experience the reality of the subordinate, in this context the GLBT person. When I begin
12
to understand the structural, institutional nature of privilege that being in a dominant group gives
me, the Golden Rule places the burden clearly on my shoulders to make some serious changes, to
reach out in new and likely uncomfortable ways.
Perhaps the Golden Rule demands that we cease all discussion of homosexuality and the
church until those of us who are heterosexual have reached this base line. Some a priori theological
assumption or interpretations of an isolated passage of Scripture is no substitute for the Golden
Rule, for walking in the shoes of my GLBT brother and sister, for listening as never before.
David H. Chandler, Ph.D.
[email protected]