For some time, I have had a question for those of you who stand to my theological left when it comes to the issue of homosexual intimacy and same-sex marriage within the United Methodist Church.
I don't ask it to be flip or sarcastic but out of a genuine desire to see how you arrive at your position, both in terms of biblical interpretation and church history.
Let me explain. According to Dalton Rushing, a UM pastor and advocate for both same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals,
Those who argue for a more metaphorical interpretation [of marriage] believe that the covenant of marriage is less about male-female relations than it is a loving covenant between two people and God.
In other words, marriage is not about men and women. It's about faithful monogamy between two people, regardless of their gender..
Those of you who advocate for full inclusion, then, do so in part out of a desire to defend sexual and relational exclusivity. Covenantal faithfulness.
So here's the question before the question: where do you on the theological left find your rationale for covenantal monogamy? Is it, as seems likely, Scripture? Do you believe in marital faithfulness because you read about it in the bible?
If so, here's the logical inconsistency I see: that teaching comes from the same Scriptures you have moved beyond when it comes to same-sex intercourse.
Why stand with the authors of Scripture on monogamy but not with them on homosexuality?
Ironically, Scripture as a whole gives much more leeway to the exclusive nature of the marriage covenant -- I'm thinking here of the polygamy that runs throughout the Pentateuch -- than it does to same-sex intimacy.
When it comes to polygamy, the bible often describes what it does not necessarily endorse.
The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior. Whatever the cultural background behind the texts, every mention of homosexuality in both testaments of Scripture is negative.
So, from the perspective of these theologically conservative eyes: why keep the one (monogamy) and disregard the other (homosexuality)?
It seems to me that if you want the UMC to jettison the portions of Scripture that condemn homosexual behavior because they are either relics of outmoded thinking or misinterpreted entirely, why not do the same with those passages historically connected with "one man, one woman" perspectives?
Because I can tell you from pastoral experience that poly-amory -- or to use more common terms, fornication, promiscuity, and infidelity -- is every bit as natural for many heterosexuals as same-sex attraction and behavior is for homosexuals.
And yet I've never been encouraged to tell people involved in such behaviors to continue them as an act of grace. Why not?
Because the weight of inspired texts and the history of our church uphold the ancient, covenantal value of monogamy.
Those same texts and that same history also tell me homosexual intimacy is incompatible with Christian teaching.
So with all that, here's my question : why do you hold on to monogamy?
I don't ask it to be flip or sarcastic but out of a genuine desire to see how you arrive at your position, both in terms of biblical interpretation and church history.
Let me explain. According to Dalton Rushing, a UM pastor and advocate for both same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals,
Those who argue for a more metaphorical interpretation [of marriage] believe that the covenant of marriage is less about male-female relations than it is a loving covenant between two people and God.
In other words, marriage is not about men and women. It's about faithful monogamy between two people, regardless of their gender..
Those of you who advocate for full inclusion, then, do so in part out of a desire to defend sexual and relational exclusivity. Covenantal faithfulness.
So here's the question before the question: where do you on the theological left find your rationale for covenantal monogamy? Is it, as seems likely, Scripture? Do you believe in marital faithfulness because you read about it in the bible?
If so, here's the logical inconsistency I see: that teaching comes from the same Scriptures you have moved beyond when it comes to same-sex intercourse.
Why stand with the authors of Scripture on monogamy but not with them on homosexuality?
Ironically, Scripture as a whole gives much more leeway to the exclusive nature of the marriage covenant -- I'm thinking here of the polygamy that runs throughout the Pentateuch -- than it does to same-sex intimacy.
When it comes to polygamy, the bible often describes what it does not necessarily endorse.
The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior. Whatever the cultural background behind the texts, every mention of homosexuality in both testaments of Scripture is negative.
So, from the perspective of these theologically conservative eyes: why keep the one (monogamy) and disregard the other (homosexuality)?
It seems to me that if you want the UMC to jettison the portions of Scripture that condemn homosexual behavior because they are either relics of outmoded thinking or misinterpreted entirely, why not do the same with those passages historically connected with "one man, one woman" perspectives?
Because I can tell you from pastoral experience that poly-amory -- or to use more common terms, fornication, promiscuity, and infidelity -- is every bit as natural for many heterosexuals as same-sex attraction and behavior is for homosexuals.
And yet I've never been encouraged to tell people involved in such behaviors to continue them as an act of grace. Why not?
Because the weight of inspired texts and the history of our church uphold the ancient, covenantal value of monogamy.
Those same texts and that same history also tell me homosexual intimacy is incompatible with Christian teaching.
So with all that, here's my question : why do you hold on to monogamy?
I take your question seriously. If medicine, science, research and experience tell us that for some percentage of people, the ideal of marriage --which is not limited to but includes sexual desire and passion-- is possible only in same-gender relationships and that such relationships can manifest the fruits of the Spirit, we should honor them. You are right that committed marriages between two people who love each other spiritually and physically is not the exclusive biblical model but it is the Christian ideal. We adjust the basic principles of scripture and theology based on new information all the time. (Divorce, attitude toward disease and mental illness, interpretation of natural disasters, role of women in church). So if there are a group of people for whom romantic love is possible only in same gender relationships and both partners are mature adults voluntarily committing to the relationship, we should not force them into either involuntary celibacy or a marriage without desire. Better to marry than to burn with lust. --Dean
ReplyDeleteDean,
DeleteCouldn't the same argument be put forth in support of polygamy? It seems to me you have not responded to the heart of Talbot's question.
Well said and nicely said and thank you, Dean.
ReplyDeleteDisagree with Dean when he says 2 people getting married is not a biblical model. Jesus says in Mathew 19 when 2 people love each other and get married,they are to become one flesh and leave their mother and father. I don,t know of any place in the Bible where marriage is not considered a sacred institution,and just a"Christian idea".
ReplyDeleteI do not see where Dean is explaining why we should retain monogamy.
ReplyDeleteI find the comment by Dean Snyder to be lacking. Divorce is still considered a sign of brokenness and is not celebrated by any I know who have been touched by it. Scripture has many examples of women in ministry that is not condemned, so the comments by Paul can be understood to be specific to a situation. etc. The idea of interpreting Scripture through the prism of culture is ridiculous. The job of the Church is to proclaim Truth to our culture, not adapt to their belief systems.
ReplyDeleteBob D: Just to be accurate, I did not say 2 people getting married was not a biblical model. I said a committed marital relationship between 2 people who love each other spiritually and physically is not the only biblical model.
ReplyDeleteAs to polygamy, the argument for same gender marriage is based on the ideal of marriage as two people who are spiritually and physically attracted to each other making a commitment of fidelity to each other. Marriage includes sexual desire. If sexual desire is not possible with a person of the different gender, it is not the ideal of marriage.
Marriage does "fence" sexual behavior. You commit to pouring all of your sexual energy into one other person. But marriage assumes sexual desire is part of the marriage that draws you together. So marriage normally should be with a person with whom you experience sexual desire. That is very different from saying that it allows sexual activity with everyone with whom you experience sexual desire.
But forcing you to either be celebrate or else to have a sexual relationship with someone with whom you can not constitutionally experienced sexual attraction because of your sexual orientation is not an ideal of marriage. Friendship, but not marriage.
Let me fix the last paragraph of my comment:
ReplyDeleteBut forcing you to be either celebate (not celebrate, which is different) or else to have a sexual relationship with someone with whom you cannot constitutionally experience sexual attraction because of your sexual orientation is not an ideal marriage.
If a couple came to me to be married and one of them said that he or she was not sexually attracted to the other, we would have to talk at some length.
Dean, thanks for your continued commenting.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you find yourself having a difficult time convincing your congregation to "fence" sexual behavior within marriage? I find that is quite a hard message to get across in our culture.
I suspect polygamists would simply argue that putting the fence around two people is an arbitrary choice with no just basis or rational legal standing. They would certainly embrace arguments that we can't appeal to the Bible or Christian tradition. After all, racists and misogynists appeal to those.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/06/polyamory_should_be_legal_it_s_consensual_and_fine_for_children.html
ReplyDeleteJohn, I understand slippery slope arguments. There are issues I feel that way about myself. There are rules I am tempted to be very rigid about because I fear that if you allow any exceptions, everything will spiral downward. (The designated hitter rule in the American League is an example. Won't it just lead to having two different sets of 9 players on each team to field and hit?)
ReplyDeleteBut teenagers dancing doesn't necessarily lead to sex. Having a glass of wine doesn't necessarily lead to crack. A white lie about whether your wife's dress makes her look fat doesn't necessarily lead to embezzlement.
Telling two mature gay people that their loving, committed relationship can not be honored because doing so might lead to allowing incest, polgamy, etc., seems (frankly) insulting to mature gay people who want to make an adult reasoned passionate moral commitment to each other.
It seems to suggest that straight people can make a mature commitment but gay people can't without risking the end of all morality. Isn't this the essence of prejudice? I can be responsible because I am straight but you can't be because you are gay.
Is it possible that these gay-marriage-will-lead-to-incest arguments are just ways of holding onto our prejudices against people who are different from us? (Like the old argument I heard as a teenager that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead to beastiality. Pretty racist and insulting, right?)
Let's then never change any of our ideas. Believing that not all mental illness is caused by demon possession might lead to the acceptance of demon possession. Believing in germs or cancer cells might lead to people not taking responsibility for living health lifestyles. Allowing non-ordained people to preach might lead to devil-worshippers being allowed to preach in our churches. Allowing women to wear short sleeves might lead to public nudity. Paying clergy better salaries might lead to greed.
I could, of course, go on and on. (And have already.) But frankly, I've got to tell you, I find the accepting-homosexuality-will-lead-to-incest argument pretty demeaning. Actually, rude.
Hope I do not sound harsh. I don't want to be.
Dean,could you show me anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus says any other model besides a man and a woman is acceptable,thanks.
ReplyDeleteDean,
ReplyDeleteYou don't sound rude to me because I did not make the argument you are taking issue with. Indeed, I do not think the word incest is in any of my responses.
Neither did I say we can never change our thoughts or ideas. The Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem and Paul's extensive work on law and promise certainly show that Christ changes things. I'm a Protestant, for goodness sake. So, if you heard a claim that nothing can change, I was not careful in my writing.
And I did not invoke a slippery slope. I'm just asking how you would distinguish between the line you wish to draw (fence around two of any sex) from the line that others wish to draw (fence around any number; fence with a large gate that people can take a break from if they agree; no fence at all). This is, in fact, Talbot's initial question.
Traditionalists distinguish between their line (fence around one man and one woman) by appeal to Genesis, Jesus, and 2,000 years of Christian tradition, among other things.
You argue that those things are not valid guides to drawing the fence today, but -- so far as I can tell -- do not give a justification for keeping the number inside the fence the same while saying the sex is irrelevant.
I merely asked how your argument is logically any different from the argument being made at this moment by other people on a related issue. It is not hypothetical. People are actually making the argument.
Maybe it is blindingly obvious to you why these questions are invalid or make no sense. It is not blindingly obvious to me.
As Talbot wrote in his initial post, I also encounter questions all the time about why Christians draw the lines where they do. Why should we wait until we are married? Why shouldn't I leave my wife if I am tired of being with her? What is wrong with a little affair so long as she is okay with it? Why is that nice family on TV wrong to have sister wives? And, yes, why is homosexual sex a sin? Whose business is it who has sex with whom?
Maybe these questions are not common ones in your setting, but they come up in Indiana all the time.
Thanks for the conversation.
John, I hear the slippery slope argument all of the time and the question-- if we accept gay relationships, why not polygamy-- seemed like a slippery slope argument to me.
ReplyDeleteThe question --if we allow gay marriage, why not allow all of the other things you mention-- seems like the argument that if we, as a result of reason, scientific and medical findings, adapt past Christian teaching, then everything will become okay, which is why I interpreted it as a slippery slope argument.
We have a God-given capacity to reason and make distinctions. If we allow that the ideal of Christian marriage is two people who are spiritually and physically drawn to each other making a commitment of fidelity, and if science, research and medicine tells us that some people exist who are physically and spiritually drawn to only people of the same gender, we should be able to say: Oh, for them, the ideal of Christian marriage is only possible with a person of the same gender. Let's adjust our thinking in order to keep the same values and ideal of marriage, allowing for this new information.
If you believe that there is not a group of people for whom spiritual and physical attraction is innately and naturally same-gender, then you may well have a different perspective. I would. I suspect different assumptions here may be part of the misconnect in the conversation.
If you believe that the Bible is authoritative in terms of medicine and scientific information, then my argument is invalid as well.
If we believe that reason, science, research, medicine, and experience can introduce new information that the biblical writers were not aware of, then we not only can but are obligated to interpret the deep truths of Scripture in light of the new information.
I am not arguing that same-gender marriage is permissible. I am arguing it is necessary for some people if they are to be faithful to the Christian ideal of marriage.
This does not mean everything is permissible. It means we have to adjust for new information in order to maintain the Christian ideal.
This seems to me a gift of the Wesleyian movement.
John, it seems so clear to me that I am having a hard time understanding your continued question. If we learn that we can cure diseases with medicine as well as prayer, Wesleyians open hospitals. They don't stop praying but they also medicate and operate using the new knowledge available to them. To say we will only pray when medicine becomes available would actually be unfaithful to the Christian mandate.
When we learn that some people (and more than a few) are able to only fall physically and spiritually in love with someone else of the same gender, we provide same-sex marriage as well as straight marriage to mature adults. Not to do so would be unfaithful to the Christian mandate. It would force people into either involuntary celibacy or a sexual partnership with someone who they constitutionally can not focus their romantic and erotic love on.
To adapt our teaching for new information does not mean that we give up our teaching, which is what your question seems to assume.
My guess is that many people still do not believe that same gender sexual attraction and affection is normal and the only true possibility for some people. If you disagree with that discovery, my argument collapses and then your worry about permitting anything is valid.
I do not see any evidence that polygamy is the only possibility for physical and spiritual attraction for some people. Some people might like or prefer the idea and think that it enhances their lives but I have run into only one case of this in my long, long ministry. I see no evidence that it is impossible for a person to make a commitment of loving fidelity to only one person. It may be hard but not impossible (and actually I think it isn't as hard as we like to say it is).
To be continued
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteI have encountered many people who constitutionally are able only to fall deeply in love with a person of the same gender. Tony Campolo did his PHD research on this. He interviewed 500 gay men and came to the conclusion that their attraction to only another man was not voluntary in any of the 500 men he interviewed.
To say that someone can fall in love with several partners does not justify polygamy. No matter how disciplined, a gay person can not force themselves to be physically attracted to a person of the different gender just as straight people can not force themselves to be physically attracted to persons of the same gender. A discipled person can commit themselves to fidelity to one other person they are attracted to and work at a physically and spiritually fulfilling marriage. A gay person will not be able to achieve both a spiritually and physically fulfilling marriage with a person of a gender they are not attracted to.
I appreciate you listening.
If I may. I don't think Talbot's initial inquiry has been sufficiently answered or addressed as of yet. I think the "slippery slope" argument is more of a red herring. Talbot's questioin is not the slippery slope argument because that would mean that polygamy is the worse sin that is becoming acceptable on the back of the less problematic issue (sin) of homosexuality. The question was a matter of the double standard in the logic of the justification of homosexuality where the plain meaning of scripture is tossed out, but is held in its literal meaning in support of monogamous relationship whether hetero- or homo-sexual. This is the problem that I haven't seen either an argument against or even much of an effort to answer. Forgive me, but much of the argument for the justification of homosexual relationship feels like subtle diversions from the actual question at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason this is not teh "slippery slops" argument is that clearly, as has been mentioned numerous times, the clear biblical stand both scripturally and historically has been that homosexual relationships are outsider of God's divine acceptance and order. I do not think that the idea of being "constitutionally attracted" to the same gender has any say on how we interpret scriptures. That would simply be poor exegesis (if exegesis at all)I have heard people who "constitutionally" cannot enjoy sex unless they are feeling physical pain during it. And this IS the very argument that groups like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) uses to justify their attraction and sexual desires (and actions) toward young boys. IT sincerely scares me when we try to use our fallen, corrupted, selfish, and self-serving natures as backdrops for justifying our behavior and desires, and then use those desires to guide our explanation of understanding of scripture and truth.
I have been at GS since 2013. I also have read the following from the United Methodist Church webpage on the subject of Marriage.
ReplyDelete..................................
161 B) Marriage—We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union. We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2012. Copyright 2012 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.
................................
Please help me understand where the position of GS is on marriage.
I would like to agree with all the people who have already pointed out that Talbot's original question has not been answered.
ReplyDeleteThere does seem to be a kind of counter-question implied in response, along the lines of "Why should we disapprove of homosexual acts, homosexual marriage, etc.?"
The answer is "Because God says so"
You don't need to believe homosexuality hurts people.
You don't need to believe accepting homosexual acts will lead to accepting bad things.
Homosexuality may be the quickest, easiest path to personal health and happiness ever discovered, but that doesn't matter if God says "no".
I would not compare homosexuality to incest or pedophilia - comparisons to heinous criminal acts are totally unhelpful. If we must compare homosexuality to something, I would compare homosexuality to polytheism.
Why? Because a person who has a row of little statues at home they adore is not hurting anyone (like homosexuals). This sort of thing has been going on all around the world for thousands of years (like homosexuality). In the USA you have a legal right to worship as many images as you want (as with homosexuality). You are legally protected from discrimination in employment or housing for worshipping multiple images (as with homosexuality). An institution dedicated to polytheism can even get tax-exempt status (just like homosexual spouses get tax benefits).
That's all fine -- I'll defend your right to be a polytheist (or an active homosexual). But I won't agree with your choice or participate in polytheistic (or homosexual) rituals with you.
Why not? Because God said not to.
Easy for me to say, right? Rejecting polytheism (or homosexuality) doesn't cost *me* anything. But for some people their entire biological family and social community are polytheists. For them, rejecting polytheism could destroy any prospect they have for a "normal" life. Why would God command something that would put such a crushing burden on some people and no burden at all on others?
I don't know. Why does Job suffer? He doesn't know. I have no answer for the seemingly random distribution of undeserved hardship in the world. I hate it, actually.
But God is God regardless, right?
God's "no" means "no".
We could talk about the specifics of what the Bible says, but Talbot said it in his original post, "every mention of homosexuality in both testaments of Scripture is negative" -- there's more Scriptural leeway on polygamy than homosexuality.
Given that, what else can I say?
Good points Bryan. God knows what is best for us and has given us parameters to keep us both safe and holy (by the grace and power of his holy spirit). Why? Because he is God and it takes faith to trust him with those things that he says. Please let me clarify one point, I wasn't trying to make a comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles for the very reason you stated Bryan. The point I was making is that the argument of being 'constitutionally" anything doesn't hold water because if the argument can be used (against the teaching of scripture) to justify one lifestyle then it can be used by others to justify another. For us who trust the word of God and the holy spirit, we are never meant to put our understanding in either the ways of the world or the inclinations of the "flesh" no matter how "natural they feel.
ReplyDeleteLet me apologize for just getting to this--and I dont have time to give this post the serious attention it needs. But I will respond two ways. First, Talbot, thank you for your respectful phrasing of the question. I hear an honest curiosity (though, of course, I am clear where you stand on the issue). Second, I don't see this about feeling like we are "better than" or "beyond" scripture. I read in scripture--and experience in life--the ways in which we were made for each other. In fact, my argument in favor of same sex marriage (marriage equality, in my parlance) DOES begin with the fact that males and females were made for one another. But my understanding of science and my understanding of the ways in which God works helps me to udnerstan that biologically, just as there are crude "plumbing" arguments to be made, there are also scientific, genetic arguments to be made in favor of recognizing same-sex attraction as a legitimate, potentially-loving arrangement. SO, you see, I do begin with scripture, and I believe, end with it, as I think about the ways in which God's grace works in human relationships. But, I will add, I also understand the opposing argument. I disagree with it, but I am certainly not going to dismiss it out of hand. I have certainly struggled as I have come to my own place of theological acceptance.
ReplyDeleteDalton,
ReplyDeleteI did wonder if you were going to respond to the cyber shout out. Heh.
Glad you felt the tone of the post was respectful, as that's what I wanted it to be.
I searched for the appropriate language for "your" (meaning, people to my theological left) approach to the texts of Scripture which condemn homosexual behavior. "Disregard?" No, that's a loaded term. "Overlook?" No, that's patronizing. I settled on "Move Beyond" because I felt it best captures Heath Bradley's sense that progressives see the conversation within Scripture continuing beyond Scripture while conservatives see the conversation with the bible speaks with a unified voice as settled.
Thank you for your respectful reply. A lingering question does remain, however: what about the time when either the way life works or scientific study suggests we're NOT wired for monogamy? That some people can't be happy or content or fulfilled with just one sexual partner? Will God then bring grace to that new poly-amorous reality?
While I understand how it is you have landed where you have landed (though I disagree with it as you know), I'm sure you or other commenters on this post have answered that last, lingering question satisfactorily. Because of this I'm almost sure: in 20 or 30 or 50 years, THAT will be the next theo-sexual battle line that progressives draw.
I agree, Talbot. The call of Christ is not for our ultimate sexual satisfaction or fulfillment, or preference...it is to lay down our lives.
DeleteMy last paragraph should read:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure you and other commenters . . .
I am grieved by how many of our brothers and sisters have been led astray by a spirit not from God.
ReplyDeleteLet this be a lesson to us all- for I truly believe that both of these respectable men of God have not always believed as they do today. I wonder if they can recall the moment that they first entertained the idea that homosexuality was not a sin. I further imagine that instead of testing that thought as we are called to do with everything- they got distracted; bogged down with many words, words from man that are not ever to be held with the same authority as we hold the living Word of God. And dangerously, once that line gets blurred- when any one of us gets to a place where we no longer see sin as an offense against God but call it something else like social injustice we have put ourselves in a place of seeking to please man above God. This is the only slippery slope I see-the slope of pride. Where you will not even go to God and ask Him for the truth. You only believe as you believe. Now you are blind to the truth you once were so intimate with. Spiritually blind and you do not even know it.
As followers of Christ, He calls us all to be holy. We are here to bring God glory in all that we do and say. With that being said,
May we never be above reproach,
never cease in testing everything,
always be quick to confess,
always seek His face more than anyone or anything else,
In addition, may we always pray for one another to remain in Him and for those who have been led astray- pray for the lies to be exposed by the light of day, that their sight will return-which will lead them to repentance in order for their relationship with God will be restored. Only then can healing take place instead of further division.
May we always remain eager to build up the entire body of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God be the glory
Following Him
In Acts 10 Peter is shown a sheet with many foods, some kosher, some not. He refuses to eat saying he cannot eat what is unclean. God tells him not to all unclean what God has made. Through that exchange Peter sees a new vision of God's working in the world and it allows him to preach to and baptize Gentiles. God is still revealing himself. Paul says God is making all things new. New insights into the leadership of women, into the evil of slavery, into the inclusion of all people in his church. God continues to make all things new. As Peter said when he was asked to defend the baptizing of Gentiles, "I have seen the Holy Spirit at work in them. How could I deny them baptism." We have seen the Holy Spirit at work in our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. How can we deny them equality in marriage and in ordination?
ReplyDeleteCorrection: May we never be above reproach should have read, May we always be above reproach.
ReplyDeleteTalbot, I don't know the answer to your question (so I'm glad you're asking it!), but I want to compliment the kind of discussion around this topic that you're modelling. If both sides of this issue can participate in more conversations like this one, then I have a lot of hope for the UMC!
ReplyDeleteI would like to address the comment regarding “forced celibacy.” I do not believe forced celibacy should ever be an argument for not yielding to scripture. The church, in general, has relaxed its standards so that it is hard to find individuals in the body of Christ who are committed to sexual purity. I am a 49 year old single (never married) woman who would love to meet a Christian man who is interested in honoring God in a dating relationship. I rarely find that. When I meet men who claim to be Christian, they almost always walk away once I tell them that I am not willing to engage in premarital sex. Sex has been exalted to the level of air and water—can’t/won’t live without it. Yes, Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. What if God has not brought a suitable partner? What if one’s spouse is disabled and can no longer participate in sexual intimacy? What then? Perhaps we should be teaching our heterosexual members and homosexual members alike how to live a fulfilling life in the context of a sacrificial life (without sex). To honor God in that way is painful, yes. It is uncomfortable, yes. But when we rise to the calling, we participate in Christ’s suffering and we honor him with our bodies as well as our minds and spirits.
ReplyDelete"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:1-2
1 Corinthians 7 is the only place I've found where Paul shows his cards and lays out a set of underlying principles for his views on sexuality, in verses 32-35:
ReplyDelete"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord."
1) "I want you to be free from anxieties" (love of self)
2) "To promote good order" (love of neighbor)
3) "Unhindered devotion to the Lord" (love of God)
A Christian sexual ethic that doesn't consider gender roles to be normative can be built off of these three principles. Polygamy does not work as we see in the many Old Testament examples of it because it creates "anxiety" and disrupts "good order." Anything that hinders our "devotion to the Lord" is problematic, so anything that makes sex into an idol like porn, getting into weird fetishes even within marital sex whether you're gay or straight, etc.
If the 1st century Jewish understanding of gender is permanently normative for Christian practice, then the United Methodist Church should rescind the ordination of women. It's a Biblically incoherent hypocrisy to say that when Paul tells women to be silent in church we can bracket that as culturally contextual while when he calls same-sex intimacy "unnatural," that's permanently normative.
I believe that if Paul were alive today, he would challenge ALL OF US to consider the celibacy that both he and Jesus considered SUPERIOR to marriage. He would also say "Better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7:9) not just to people who are normally gendered heterosexuals, but also to people who are born outside of the norm in terms of their sexual or gender identity. They can have chaste lifelong relationships that are free from anxiety, promote good order, and allow for unhindered devotion to the Lord. To tell them to burn rather than marry if they're going to burn is sinful insofar as it creates a major obstacle in their devotion to God. If I had never married, I would be a disaster. God has used my wife as a means of grace in my life. Why should I deny that to someone else who physically cannot have sex with a person of the opposite gender?