The biblical prohibition against male
same-sex sexual expression is found in Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination,” (Lev. 18:22) and also, “If a man lies with a
male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be
put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). These passages are from the so-called
“Holiness Code,” which contains a variety of rules and consequences for
violating these rules. Some of these rules we would clearly see as morally
binding (“You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to
one another.” Lev. 19: 11). Others we do not see as morally binding (You shall
keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind;
you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a
garment made of two different materials. Lev. 19:19).
One of the central questions of the
early Church was to what extent the particular laws of the Jews, such as the
Holiness Code, were to apply to Gentile Christians. This question was resolved
by the Jerusalem Council. Gentile Christians were to “abstain only from things polluted by idols and from
fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood” (Acts
15:20b). “Fornication” is sometimes translated as “sexual immorality.” The
Greek word is porneia. This means
that the question, in the first instance, is whether or not same-sex sexual
behavior must always be an instance of sexual immorality.
It does seem
clear that St. Paul, for example, believed that same-sex sexual behavior was
immoral. However, this was clearly not because it was prohibited in the
Holiness Code. After all, St. Paul believed that the Holiness Code did not
define morality. Instead, St. Paul believed that same-sex sexual behavior was
immoral because there was no social context in which instances of such behavior
could be seen to be anything other than unbridled lust. Such behavior could not
be within the context of marriage in St. Paul’s world. Marriage was an economic
and procreative institution in that world. Same-sex unions had no possible morally
permissible place in that context.
The question
facing United Methodists and other Christians today is this: will we honor the social space that has opened
up in at least some cultures for same-sex relationships that embody the kind of
mutual love and respect that makes sexual expression within them morally appropriate?
Sexual expression in such relationships is by no means “incompatible with
Christian teaching.” There is no compelling argument that the Bible teaches
otherwise. Acceptance of same-sex sexual behavior within the emerging context
of same-sex unions and marriages does not mean that one denies what the Bible
teaches. The notion that one must deny biblical teaching to believe that gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons should be fully welcomed into the
life of the Church is simply false.
5 comments:
Well said. The holiness code also speaks about it being permissible to take and eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (Exodus 21:24) But Jesus says, “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[a] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."
So, it appears that the "kingdom Code" has taken the place of the Holiness code.
The logic of your argument sounds pretty good except I don't see where the boundaries are. Would we say it is moral appropriate if three people met the same criteria?
The "slippery slope" or "boundary" argument is a red herring. Both Jesus and Paul refer or allude to the "one flesh" analogy of Genesis 3, giving clear indication that monogamy (of equal/consenting adults) is the preferred form of sexual intimacy. Note that the Pastoral Epistles obliquely make exceptions to this rule, by saying that church leaders must be the husband of one wife. In other words, polygamous relations prior to conversion were not broken up after conversion, but it was made clear that such relationships could not be reflected in the leadership. So even the exception proves the rule.
John, as you know I have been through this question as a Presbyterian since 1976. I am grateful that the Presbyterian Church has finally accepted the position I then advocated (because it is the current theologically correct one, as you carefully explained, not because I advocated it then or now).
Why can't two married males or females become "one flesh"? I agree that neither Jesus or Paul would have thought of it that way. But I have known many such couples who would find that expression an excellent description of their intimate relationship.
As you know, John, I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for being a witness to the Good News - the all encompassing love of our savior, Jesus Christ.
Post a Comment