Another Addendum on GLBT Posts
Some “cleaning up” matters on these posts before going to the next stage. I am rushing through some things in order to try to finish this series and be done with it. The series is tiring for me and I don’t want to neglect it again.
At any rate, there are some loose ends on the biblical survey to date that need to be cleared up.
- Would the biblical writers, especially the Apostle Paul, have known of long-term, same sex, partnerships based on love? I have followed the likes of Robin Scroggs and Victor Paul Furnish in saying, “No.” However, several classicists have pointed out that such pairings were well-known in the Greco-Roman world–something I did not know when I began this series. (Randle and others repeatedly cited Plato’s Symposium. The thrust of that discussion still seems to me to be Plato’s condemnation of pederasty in “mentoring,” but there are mentions of longterm male/male lovers. Ergo, Scroggs’ original claim, and mine by extension, was too strong.) However, this does not settle the question of whether Paul would have known them or had them in mind in his condemnations. It is certain that he is condemning exploitive relationships like pederasty and temple prostitution. If, in Rom. 1, he is also including non-exploitive same-sex pairings more like marriage (which is possible), it is not because he knows the concept of sexual orientation, but because he considers such acts to be evidence of idolatry and “unnatural” behavior.
- In 1 Cor. 11:14, Paul asks rhetorically, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. . .?” Here “nature” clearly means “custom,” because what is “unnatural” is cutting one’s hair. So, it is possible (by no means certain) that Paul has the same meaning in mind in Romans 1 when he calls same sex pairings “unnatural.” What is clear is that Paul is not a reliable guide to “nature” or to natural law arguments.
- I have said that Romans 1 is the only place where lesbian acts, not just male same-sex actions, are under review. What I didn’t know until quite recently is that lesbianism may not even be mentioned in Romans 1. The early church, up to and including St. Augustine, interpreted “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” NOT as referring to female-to-female sex acts (i.e., lesbian behavior), but to male-female anal intercourse. It is only beginning with St. John Chrysostom that the early church starts interpreting this verse as referring to lesbian actions.
- If the earlier tradition is the correct exegesis, then nowhere in the Bible are lesbian acts discussed. The focus is entirely on male/male acts and the concerns are purity/holiness concerns and concerns about men being treated “as women,” like conquering armies did in raping those conquered. Note the strong connection between condemnation of male homosexuality and patriarchy.
In my next post, I will briefly turn from the biblical texts to discuss the (little) we know scientifically about the causes of homosexual orientation. Science does not give moral guidance on its own. But, as H. Richard Niebuhr constantly reminded his students in Christian ethics, the first question to be asked is not, “What should I/we do?” but, “What is going on?” This post will also include a brief discussion of the related-but-different issues surrounding transgendered persons.
From there, I will make some comments on ethical method and on hermeneutics (as it applies to our discussion). My concluding posts will present a theological case for fully welcoming and affirming GLBT persons in the church: Defending their civil rights in society (something I would expect even of “welcoming, but NOT affirming” folks since public justice matters are distinct from purity issues or moral issues for religious communities); blessing same-sex covenantal unions (whether or not the law grants them the status of “marriage,”); and ordaining those called to ministry with same standards of chastity used for heterosexuals (not restricting all gay or lesbian ministers to celibacy unless the same standard is required for heterosexual ministers). I will conclude with a brief outline of a “single standard sexual ethic” for the church today–one which is open-ended and welcomes additions and corrections by my readers.
I will then update the index of all these posts and create a new page of indexed series.
I hope to post the science post this afternoon/evening.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.