OT & Homosexuality
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they be put to death?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them to death? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is, as you said "eternal and unchanging."
posted by Tom Arthur at 6:31 PM
22 Comments:
I had some office time with Dr. Davis the other day and she flat out rejects the idea that Leviticus understands within itself a difference between purity laws and moral laws. She thus, rejects a hermenutic that allows for a simple shaving off of the purity laws. I asked this question very explicitly. And this is the second time I have asked her this question and received this answer. I would like to use this hermenutic, but her insistence on its false premise gives me considerable pause. But I think you are using it here. Are you not?
Tom,
Derek explicitly says he thinks that move is hogwash, doesn't he? He says he thinks the move made by those trying to make the case for homosexuality is to put it under the category of purity and then claim that Jesus did away with the purity laws. (At least, that's how I read his post.) Then, practicing his doctoral skill of politely rendered trash talk, he says, "There may be good arguments to support homosexuality theologically, but this ain't one of 'em." That's almost as good as Dr. Davis' classic intellectual body blow, "his logic is far too subtle for me to appreciate."
I guess your logic and humor were just to subtle for me to appreciate. :)
Tom
P.S. I'm carrying on this conversation with another friend who is a professor of psychology at University of Georgia. If anyone is interested in critiquing my thought process with him, I'd be curious to pass you on our emails and get some feedback. I sometimes wonder what I'm doing.
This topic came up the other day in the 1 Corinthians class with Hays. He said something like the "most foundational" verse about homosexuality is actually in Acts 15:19-20 where it says, "Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God,but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." The prohibition against fornication has been understood to prohibit the "Gentile " practice of homosexuality. Obvious question though, if that prohibition is still in effect, why don't we abstain from blood and things polluted by idols? So not only is there the question of are there distinctions to be made in Lev., but are there distinctions to be made in the book of Acts?
Dr. Hays makes a much more substantive case than what you mention here. I refer you to his "Moral Vision of the New Testament," in which he devotes a lengthy chapter detailing his exegetical work on this issue. And while you're at it, read his chapter on divorce: a better question may be, "why don't we stand firm on the prohibition against divorce when the scriptural case against it is substantively similar to the case on homoeroticism?"
Has anyone read William J. Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals? He proposes a "Redemptive Spirit" hermenutic in this book. It entails something like 15 various clues to the "redemptive spirit" of a text or issue. I don't remember them all but two I do remember are these:
1. If a prohibition is always prohibited with no variation in voice within scripture, then it is probably not cultural.
2. If a prohibition tightens the broader culture's notions on the issue (or losens it in the face of a broader culture), then it is probably not cultural. It might be said easier: if a prohibition goes against the grain of the broader culture then it is probably not cultural.
He suggests in the case of women's issues and slaves, that neither of these clues (and many more) allow for supporting slavery or non-egalitarian stances on women. But in the case of homosexual activity, both of these clues (and more) point to a not-culturally defined (or above-culture) prohibition against homosexual activity (or homoeroticism as Craig called it).
If anyone else has read this book or is familiar with this hermenutical principle, I'd be interested in hearing your take on it. Or even what you think about the above two hermenutic principles.
Tom
I arrived at Duke with an extremely low Christology (surgically removed by St. Smittie) and with a severe case of liberal protestantism (successfully treated with hyperdoses of the BHDCS antidote for the disease [BHDCS is trademarked by Duke Labs; it is constituted by minerals mined along the Barth -Hays-Davis-Childs-Smittie axis]). The disease had progressed to that terminal stage in which the afflicted apply the Harnackian gospel - the Golden Rule - to questions of ethics to determine "Christian" standards of behavior. I remember discussing this issue of homoeroticism with Derek and perhaps Wilson a year ago beneath the Duke Chapel as we downed cups of free coffee. As usual I applied my Golden Rule hermeneutic. That's when Derek suggested a different hermeneutic that I had never considered. He pointed out that Jesus didn't provide guidance on the vast majority of ethical issues that confound us in life, leaving us instead the categorical imperative as a way of navigating through them. But there are a small number of issues on which he was unequivocal. On those, we should receive the plain sense of his teaching and not construct clever arguments to make them more palatable to our cultural pallette. In those cases, it becomes not a question necessarily of what is good or evil, tolerant or intolerant,or of what we guess is loving or unloving of our neighbor, but merely a question of what it means to follow Christ. If Christ is truly our Lord, we follow his unequivocal teachings unequivocally. Period. This is one of those issues.
Craig,
Are you saying that Jesus left us unequivocal teachings on homosexuality?
Tom
No, Socrates, that's not my point. I am simply making the point that Derek made for me about hermeneutics when applied to Jesus' teachings. I leave the exegesis on the issue of homoeroticism to those more skilled than me. And, since you ask about my own belief on this issue: I trust Dr. Hays' exegesis. For me, this issue is one that doesn't admit room for the exegetical gymnastics that I have heard often by those straining to posture themselves as "inclusive."
I just would like to jump in and say that we should prohibit blood as well as remarriage after divorce, but since there is no such thing as excommunication, it still doesn't matter that much.
What do you mean, Wilson, by prohibiting "blood?"
I do wonder about remarriage after divorce. Call me old fashioned, I guess.
Tom
Ah, but, in that conversation long ago, you did concede that there were two cases: (1) for the vast universe of interactions in life, Jesus did not leave us detailed rules that simplify the task of discerning the content of his Way. He left us instead the command to "love" our neighbor as we would be loved ourselves. That's the categorical imperative; it remains our task to determine what love demands in order to follow Christ, which is one reason that faithfulness requires the courage to overcome the uncertainty inherent in that task. (2) in addition, the gospels provide a limited set of interactions about which Jesus spoke directly, such as divorce. So, I guess I should have been clear that you did not suggest "A" categorical imperative, but rather that when I offered the Golden Rule as my way of following Christ (Yes, it seems I have held at one time just about every heresy, including von Harnack's), you ADDED case #2 to my thinking. Sorry for not being more clear.
Prince,
I think the problem was not necessarily with divorce but remarriage. And the real problem was not really remarriage but the one-fleshness that happened in the consumation of marriage such that remarraiage was seen as adultery, "sleeping" with someone else when you're already one flesh with someone prior.
So what do people think about the suggestion that those who are divorced should not be pastors. I'm somewhat inclined in that direction (though not as a hard and fast rule but a general principle which I don't have a very good way of discerning when the general principle should be broken). So if they shouldn't be pastors, could they be Sunday school teachers? If not SS teachers, then trustees? If not trustees then nursery workers? If not nursery workers then custodians? I don't really know how to draw lines very well. Its a tricky business this drawing lines.
I'm with you, your Highness. I am befuddled by divorce. I will work towards a practical program of pre-marital and marital counseling and constant teaching about marriage that treats it as a holy calling (for those who accept that call) and a communal calling (that is, there is no such thing as a marriage between just two people, for all marriages are ultimately a familial and community concern). I imagine my teaching will challenge rather aggressively the secular idea of a no-fault divorce as institutionalized sin.
I don't know yet how to respond to the tragic cases - particularly those involving danger to a woman - where it seems that the safety and wholeness of one must have priority over and may preclude reconciliation (except that I can say now that I acknowledge the reality of times when the necessity of sanctuary precedes the hope of reconciliation).
I am unprepared right now to comprehend the notion of remarriage after divorce theologically. I hope we discuss that a lot here so I can work that thinking out amongs my learned friends.
I don't hesitate to expect a higher standard of pastors on this or other issues, for we are to exemplify holiness. So divorce is for me a red flag that raises questions about one's suitability for ordination, just as evidence of substance abuse, smoking, or sexual activity outside of marriage does. Multiple divorces raise for me the presumption of disqualification for the pulpit or any ecclesial office; I have in mind here a case in CA in which a candidate for bishop with three divorces was elected and consecrated; I view that case as comparable to the ordination of one engaged in a same-sex sexual relationship or a heterosexual sexual relationship outside of marriage.
And since you ask, I see the standards for lay leaders similarly, although it seems an area over which there is less hope of influence by us. But it seems to me quite important that we push hard to teach our congregations to ground their expectations of lay leadership in the pastoral letters, thus giving subtance to the hope and expectation of "elders" among the laity, no matter what we call them. I won't hesitate to remove or try to remove lay persons from office engaged in notorious sin; the most common example of these (in my experience) being adultery or substance abuse.
Craig,
I'm not sure I agree with you on various levels of church leadership. But I'm not sure I don't agree with you. But one thing I do certainly disagree with you on is that pastors don't have any influence on the issue. In the UMC the one committee that the pastor is chair of is the committee on lay leadership CLL) which used to be called the nominations committee. This is the committee that chooses or "nominates" almost every leadership position in the church. The only ones excepted from this process are the Trustee chair (though the CLL chooses the trustees in general, if I remember correctly), the UMW and UMM leadership, and some of the members of the CLL itself. Yet in these "restricted" areas the pastor can still exert influence. I remember one evening suggesting to my prayer group (made up of mostly elderly ladies) that a particular leadership change needed to change and that we should pray for that to happen. And the prayer was answered! Whether that was the work of those elderly ladies or the work of God (or some combination of cooperative grace) I do not know. But leadership changed and the church was better off for it.
Tom
To clarify, Tom, I didn't mean to imply that the pastor had no influence; rather, I simply acknowledged that we may have little influence at times. I concede that the UMC pastor has a lot of influence over lay leadership appointments, but I have now seen non-UMC polity at work in which there seems to me to be relatively less power on the part of clergy and relatively more power in the vestry (Anglican) or session (Presbie). Being a moral exemplar is that much more important, I imagine, because of the moral authority that likely ensues even when that vested via the by-laws is deficient.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here's something to chew on. What does Gal. 3:28 have to say about homosexuality? What sense does it make to talk about homosexuality if there is, in Christ, no male or female? Or is that not quite what Paul meant? And if it's not what Paul (or the early baptismal liturgy, or whatever) meant, then can we continue using this verse to beat down most of the other stuff in Paul (or deutero-Paul, or whoever) about women in church leadership?
Tom M.
Tom M, as usual, I'll bite the bait you dangle. First you offer a false dichotomy. The logic of "if not X, then Y" is inappropriate. Another choice is "Not X and Not Y."
Not X: this verse provides little guidance on the issue of homoeroticism. Preferences for different forms of eroticism and gender are different categories. This verse mentions gender, but not eroticism.
Not X: This verse is crucial in telling us how we are to relate to each other. As Bonhoeffer put it, and Carter echoes, we who are baptized in Christ's death are to see each other through Christ's eyes and not our own. Thus the categories of tribalism and sexism and other -ism's (including eroticism) that we use to justify the walls that separate us are nullified by our baptism. But that does not mean that the structural category of gender does not exist (Barth insists that gender is the only category that is given in creation, if I recollect correctly; all others are man-made). Rather it describes what our relation to each other is intended to be: we are to love one another - that is, be united with one another.
Rowan Williams puts it well: there is a distinction between "welcome" and "inclusivism." Gal 3:28 speaks of welcome. But once we are baptized, we are to be transformed. Not all behaviors are holy, even though all persons in repentance are welcome. Homoeroticism is not disqualifying for baptism or fellowship, but I believe it is in the large set of practices that we are to set aside as part of the transformation that follows from the renewal of our minds.
And by the way, the move that begins with there is no such thing as male and female - denying creation - and the move of "gender is not binary but rather a spectrum" are both examples of what I mean by hermeneutical gymnastics. They begin with a result in mind and defy the plain sense of the text in service to that desired result.
Craig,
My question was more targeted at people who use Gal. 3:28 to trump other passages about gender roles in the church. (In Fight Club last week, Matt basically said that the verse performs this function for him and his particular Baptist tradition.) What I'm looking for is a nuanced account out of those people of why they can take "there is now no male or female" to erase the distinction in roles between the genders without also erasing the distinctions necessary for distinguishing between hetero- and homosexuality.
But your answer is interesting in its own right, and I'll try to respond when I'm a little less tired. :)
Tom M.
Dar,
This isn't a direct response to your question, but you raise a point that has bothered me for quite a while, namely: I don't see anything in the "unequally yoked" passage (2 Cor. 6) or its context that indicates that it's just about (or even primarily about) marriage. It seems like it could have just as much to do with, say, business partnerships as with anything else.
Perhaps somebody here can help me out with this one.
Tom M.
Dar,
I once told a friend that I didn't think his girlfried was a good match for him. It was a very ugly conversation, one I would take back and try in a different way if I could. I had another friend who almost got married to a woman that most of his friends didn't think was a good match. None of us said anything. She eventually did some things that broke the engatement and we all sighed with relief. I also had a family member who was married against the advice of other family members who didn't attend the wedding. It continues to be a very messy situation at times. So I know the experience and resonate with it deeply.
My personal wisdom on your situation is this:
1. I'm impressed with what seemed like a very civil conversation you had with your friend about it up front. That sounds like the best step you took.
2. I would have gone to the wedding and supported the marriage afterwards as a friend. I don't think an "unequally yoked" marriage is always a bad thing. The individual situation or context would change from individual to individual. I'd "judge" based on each situation. I don't think the biblical witness is unequivocally clear on this issue (Tom's post adds to that unequivocal-ness).
3. As a pastor, I personally have many anxieties about marrying people. If I could line-item-veto one aspect of my pastoral job description, this would probably be it. "I don't do weddings." If only life were that easy. :) I don't know what I'll do with this in the future. My father-in-law, a Presbyterian minister, has a set of policies and guidelines that are so stringent that very few couples are willing to follow them to be married by him. I will probably take that approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home