Bible Gender Sexuality

I want to start by saying that many of you are not going to like this post. It will inevitably leave you saddened that I took such a view, and may even change your perception of who I am. However, this is a post that I have to make in order to address some issues that are invading the Church today. Just to be clear, from the very beginning, this Book of the Month is a brief overview of the reasons why accepting and affirming monogamous homosexual relationships are not condemned in the Bible as most Christians traditionally believe; rather, when looked at through the Bible’s understanding of proper sexuality and marriage, they can be something to be embraced and encouraged for those with homosexual desires.

First and foremost, Brownson’s book is not exhaustive of all the complexities that are associated with this discussion. I recognize that, as does he in his writing. However, it does serve as an introduction to the issue for those who may be wrestling with where to fall on this issue that is highly political, and incredibly personal for those who “struggle” with homosexuality, as the church encourages them to phrase it. There are even things in this book that I don’t agree with, and things that I think could have been handled better. I say this so you are aware that I am aware that this book is not perfect, is not all-encompassing, and is not an end-all to the discussion of homosexuality within the Christian world. I do, though, want you to understand that it is a starting place with more discussion and further (personal) research needing to be done.

In order to the book and the points Brownson addresses justice, I will be giving a summary of each chapter. It will be longer than my typical BOM, but I feel it’s the best way to handle this issue without missing something important by accident (which may still happen, I am human after all). Brownson is a theologian and a New Testament professor at Western Theological Seminary. He was compelled to write this book, and do the research required when his son came out to him and his wife. Like many Christians, this first-hand experience with someone identifying as gay, especially someone so close to them and within the Christian circle, is lifechanging. Everything they felt about homosexuality is questioned. The “causes” for homosexuality often flaunted by the church are put into question. This book is the fruit of questions created by a personal experience with a gay person, something most Christians who speak openly against homosexuality don’t allow themselves to have, or even consider.

Introduction
When we read Biblical texts we need to figure out not just what they are saying, but what they mean. Brownson calls this the moral logic of the text. Others have called it the underlying principle. Throughout history, much of what the Bible actually says has been questioned, and the moral logic has been discovered, and a new understanding of what the text says comes to light. That is what this book sets out to do.

On Traditionalism
In this chapter, Brownson set’s up the main thrust of traditionalist (against homosexuality) logic- same-sex relationships go against gender complementarity. However, he points out many issues with this idea. The first being what “gender complementarity” means. There are many different ideas of what gender complementarity means. Some thing it relates to a hierarchy- men are supposed to be higher than women. However, most Christians today would not be so quick to use this as a universal principle, so it’s hard to apply it specifically to the area of sexuality. The more common understanding of gender complementarity is that men and women are made physically to compliment the other. Essentially, the female was created by God to complete the incompleteness of the male. However, when one closely looks at Genesis 2, this opinion is hard to find. First, when God is looking for a partner for Adam (partner being someone to help, therefore the hierarchy thesis also gets reduced) he searches all the animals first. Not one is found suitable. Why? Because they are two different. Therefore, God makes Eve. The narrative continues, but it highlights mostly their similarities. Not their differences. The creation of Eve isn’t about finding someone different from Adam, but about making someone similar. Others assume the “one-flesh” union talked about in Genesis 2:24 addresses sexual intimacy between the couples, making them one-flesh. However, when one looks at the use of that same phrase throughout the rest of scripture, it is hardly used in a sexual reference. It’s more about the kinship bonds (leaving one’s primary family to start another family) that are created. That’s a big deal in ancient culture. Based on this, it seems that gender complementarity is not a valid argument against homosexuality, as it’s not even rooted in a proper reading and understanding of Scripture.

On Revisionism
Essentially, revisionists are those who do not think homosexuality is a sin. They tend to argue that what the Bible says about same-sex relationships and activity is to be seen entirely as an ancient idea and that it has no application to same-sex relationships today. They resort to the idea of love and justice within the Bible to condone such relationships. Brownson argues that these themes are not necessary in order to have a proper understanding of sexual ethics, and are not, “sufficient in themselves to develop a full sexual ethic from Scripture.” What is needed, then, is to see how the entire Bible views sexuality, not just homosexuality, or heterosexuality, but sexuality as a whole. Taking into account the entire Biblical witness is necessary to have a properly informed scriptural understanding of sex and the role it plays in the life of Christians, and how the Bible coincides with committed same-sex relationships today.

Patriarchy
By examining the hierarchy of genders within the Bible, one sees two conflicting themes: one of patriarchy, and one of egalitarianism. Some texts seem to make it clear that patriarchy is normative (ie- men are the head of the household) whilst others show egalitarianism as the view of humanity within the new covenant created by Christ (ie-many women prophets). The struggle them becomes determining which view is normative, and should be carried by all Christians throughout all times. Upon close reading, one sees that the patriarchal system seems to be more of a cultural relevance than a Biblical norm. Even Paul says in Christ there is no male or female. The new covenant is egalitarian. However, until the return of Christ, we are caught in an “already, not-yet” dynamic mix of culture and the new covenant. This is to say that we are in the new covenant and patriarchy is left behind, but we are not yet out of this world and are still bound in small ways by the structure of society. For patriarchal cultures, this meant a gender hierarchy, even if that is not the vision for the new covenant. Because of this understanding, one cannot use understood gender hierarchies as an argument against same-sex relationships. That is to say, you cannot argue against same-sex relationships on the assumption that men and women are unequal and the man is to lead the woman; while not common, this is a form of gender complementarianism that needs to be addressed.

One Flesh
What is the one flesh bond spoken of in Genesis 2:24? While many traditional interpreters view this as something of a physical nature- they become one when they have sex-is that what the Bible is actually saying? Continuously throughout the Bible (both in the New and Old Testaments), the relationship between God’s chosen people (Israel and the Church) as a marriage bond. But this bond isn’t physical. If the marriage bond in Genesis is physical, how then can the relationship between God’s people and Himself be a nonphysical marriage bond? It’s clear, even with each reference to Genesis 2:24 in the New Testament, that the emphasis is on the kinship and bonding, not on the physical. This allows the relationship between God and people to be viewed the same as a marriage relationship-something about kinship, and not a physical oneness. This also allows for the essence of marriage to be something constituted even when procreation is impossible (ie- barren women, same-sex relationships).  While Brownson admits the Bible is clear in assuming that marriage is between one man and one woman, there is nothing explicitly condemning same-sex relationships that exhibit these kinship bonds and oneness exampled throughout the scriptures. As Brownson puts it, “There, what is normal to the biblical witness may not necessarily be normative in different cultural settings that are not envisioned by the biblical writers.”

Procreation
According to the Catholic church, procreation is the essential purpose of marriage, and any form of contraception is morally wrong. However, most Protestant churches do not agree with this view. They see the union of marriage to be what defines it and makes it special, or is the “essence” as Brownson calls it. Because of this, procreation is not necessary for a marriage to be valid; if it were, marriages between elderly people, barren people, those who do not wish to have kids would all be invalid, or even sinful. Likewise, the inability to have children is never given as a reason that divorce is okay, and therefore, even according to Jesus, procreation is not the main point of marriage. With all this in mind, the inability to procreate cannot be seen as a reason to exclude same-sex relationships from the blessing of marriage.

Celibacy
Celibacy is a complicated issue within the Bible. Some places seem to address it as something to be avoided, while others seem to address it as something to strive for. However, looking at all of these things in context, and taking all that and putting it together, one sees the clear biblical understanding and expectations of celibacy. The Old Testament, for instance, saw celibacy as something to do for a time in order to retain holiness, but never as something to long for their lifetime. Some see Paul’s address of wishing for everyone to be celibate as stating that celibacy should be the norm if one is able to curb their sexual desires; others see Jesus’ not being married as further evidence of this. However, the rest of the Bible makes it clear that lifelong celibacy is a gift for some. (At this point I will mix in some of my own thoughts of Brownson’s). If one is to take God’s statements in Genesis seriously, that “it is not good for man to be alone,” how can one assume that anyone should be called to a life of celibacy. “But celibacy doesn’t mean alone,” you might counter. True. However, God didn’t make Adam a friend. He made Adam a partner; a lover; a companion. Someone for him to become one with forever. While that’s not exactly the same as celibacy, one of the greatest blessings of marriage is to engage in sexual activities. Expecting everyone to remain celibate robs them of one of the joys of marriage (something clearly seen throughout the Bible.) Furthermore, marriage in Biblical times was centered more around the responsibilities and duties required to sustain a household (and therefore a society) than it is today. While Christ and Paul both recognize that it is a gift for some to remain single (and for married people to refrain from sex for brief periods of time) the entire canonical witness is clear that celibacy is not a lifelong gift, or calling, for everyone. What then, do we do with the idea that people are born with a homosexual orientation? Is that entire group of people called to lifelong celibacy? Is it suddenly good for these people to be alone?

(The next four chapters address four key elements in Romans 1:24-27, the most widely used passage to condemn homosexuality activity in any form)
Lust and Desire
It’s clear the Paul views the activities he describes in these verses to be something negative. Words like “lust” and being “consumed with passion” have no inclination of a good meaning. In the Biblical world, all homosexual relations were viewed in this way. Those who opposed homosexual relationships show no notion of sexual orientation and seem to believe that those who engage in homosexual activity are doing so out of uncontrollable lust and desire, that has lost its thrill in normal sexual relationships. Closer examination of the verses indicates that Paul may have been alluding to specific people and actions, rather than humanity as a whole. Brownson paints the portrait of Gaius Caligula who was incredibly idolatrous and many sexual relationships that would be deemed lustful-including women within his own family (a connection to “their women” in the Romans passage) and men. With that, Caligula was killed by being stabbed in the genitals, which has a very relevant echo in Romans. It is important to note, though, that Paul does not see sexual desire itself as evil, but only when it becomes controlling of the person. When sexual desire becomes out of control, and entirely self-seeking, it is lustful and sinful no matter whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual. However, most traditional interpreters try to focus primarily on the fact that it is homosexual lust, the objective, rather than the nature of the lust- that it’s all consuming, out of control. Something even they would agree is sinful even for straight lust. Modern readers, including many traditionalists, also try to differentiate between the “objective” and “subjective” in a different way. While most are becoming more willing to admit that sexual desire is more of an orientation that a choice, they still view the act as sinful. The homosexual activities (the “objective”) are sinful and should be condemned; the homosexual desire (the “subjective”) is something they cannot necessarily control. However, this causes conflict within the person. Scripture ultimately doesn’t necessarily hold up this view. According to scripture, if an act is sinful, even the inclination to that act is sinful. (Brownson argues that thinking something would, therefore, be sinful. I would argue that dwelling on the thought would be sinful, but thinking it and dismissing it or trying not to dwell on it would not be sinful because it shows you are recognizing the sin and taking action against it.) This then leaves the Christian who has homosexual desires feeling shameful all the time; while they may not be objectively acting on these desires, they cannot control the subjectiveness of them, and according to the traditional view that makes all of their desires sinful, and the person has no control over them (as most tests have shown change of sexual orientation as nearly impossible.) This causes one to question whether or not you can view homosexual action as sinful but not also the orientation. However, when we re-look at what Paul is actually saying, we go back to the out of control lusts. The desires that take over one’s entire being. Perhaps committed same-sex couples who are not doing those things are not even addressed in this passage.

Purity and Impurity
Not only does Paul speak of these actions as “lustful” he also addresses them as “impurity”. That’s not a word we use often today, it often doesn’t really mean anything to us at all, so it’s important to really discover what it meant to the Romans to whom Paul was writing. In the Old Testament, and specifically in the Pentateuch, purity is defined in three ways: conforming to structures God created, protecting the ways life is stewarded, and showing Israel’s distinctness and separation from the surrounding nations. However, we see much of this change in the New Testament. First, Christ brings purity from without to within. When He declares all foods clean He says that it isn’t what goes into a man that makes him impure, but what comes out. This shifts the focus of purity from the outside to the inside- the “motives and dispositions of the heart and will” to use Brownson’s exact words. We also see purity change from being distinct and separate to being confident and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, we see a move from wanting to replicate the original creation to a desire to fulfill the transformation of the creation into the new creation. This is something we discussed earlier in the Patriarchy section. While the culture abides by certain things that they see as natural and ordered, God’s plan and design are much broader than that. The job of the Christian is to move toward the redemption of creation where all will be as God intended once again. This means that Paul’s idea of impurity in this section of Romans focuses on the internal of those committing the actions. The passage, therefore, condemns those who are engaging in excessive desire and showing a lack of restraint (going back to the lust section above) as impure because of their motives and heart (they are doing it purely for their own self-gratification) not because of some external moral code about what is pure or impure. Then, would committed same-sex relationships that are not characterized by an excess of desire and lack of restraint but, rather, are disciplined in showing passion and desire in lifelong commitment, seeking the best for each other, be condemned as impure by this passage? Brownson would argue no, and so would I.

Honor and Shame
Like impurity, honor, and shame, are things we don’t deal with nearly as much in our modern context as they did in Biblical times. Unlike today, they lived in what is called and “honor-shame” culture where public esteem is very important (even more than today) and male and female roles are very different (because it was a patriarchal society with very established gender hierarchies). With this context in mind, and for many other reasons, it is more reasonable to view v. 26 are talking about dishonorable heterosexual activities rather than as female homosexual activities. Likewise, v.27 is seen as shameful because, in this type of culture, lowering another man to the level of a woman and penetrating them is degrading to the man and extremely shameful. It is true that showing respect and honor to others is a universal moral quality, the forms it takes varies vastly from one culture to another (even within the United States things are acceptable in one state but shameful or dishonoring in another. Culture and context are key). The shame in these passages has less to do with what is happening, and more to do with how the society views those actions. It’s not shameful for a man to be with a man unless society says it’s shameful. Furthermore, the Church has contributed to unhealthy amounts of shame for many within its congregation by its views on homosexuality. They essentially say to them, “We welcome you, but we abhor the way you operate emotionally.” (Brownson’s own words). When churches say they are welcoming, but affirming this is exactly what they do. The very things you desire, the people you long to be with, we hate that. But we love you. There’s no way to “love the sinner and hate the sin” in this instance because the sin is so much of what makes up the person. This creates unhealthy shame in the individual because no matter what they do, they can never be right. They can never be full loved and accepted because they can never get rid of these feelings and desires. This shame causes many to keep their desires hidden, perpetuating more shame and eventually leads to depression, sex or alcohol addiction, or even suicide for many. Is that the way we want people to feel after coming to church? I pray not because that’s not the way Christ made anyone feel whilst on Earth. He loved and welcomes and affirmed them, no matter what. Why are we any different? The shameful things in this passage that can be carried over to life today are those actions that are lustful, self-centered, abusive, and without restraint. They aren’t shameful today because of violations of gender roles because those have vastly changed. However, if anything is done by an out of control desire (again, either homosexual or heterosexual) it is shameful, lustful, impure, and sinful. But if heterosexual marriages operate out of mutual love and desire for the other person alone (not only physical but emotionally and for their well-being) why can’t we bless that same thing for homosexual couples?

Nature
Unlike the last two discussions, the discussion on nature as more common understanding today. Paul describes these actions as contrary to nature. Most traditionalists interpret this to mean against the natural order or creation. However, is that what Paul was actually saying? More and more scholars are finding this view to be inadequate, and contrary to the one Paul actually had. The word Paul uses for nature never occurs in the Greek writing of the old testament, which leads one to believe that this idea is not one defined in the Scriptures that both the Jews and early Christians had, but rather something extra-biblical that they are relating to their own understanding of the world. (With that, no mention of nature using any word is ever used to describe sexuality or the condemnation of homosexuality within the old testament, so the very idea is already coming from something outside the scriptures they had). When Paul used this word, though, there were three things meant: 1) one’s individual nature or disposition. Most of the time when Paul uses the word, he’s talking about someone’s nature (what we might call personality today). With that, the idea that homosexuality was against nature was the idea that engaging in homosexual activities was due to an insatiable lust for exotic sexual experiences that could not be satisfied with relations with opposite sex individuals, as their nature would normally have happen. (Brownson states that they had no notion of sexual orientation, which is half true and half untrue, but I’ll get to that later.) 2) Nature was also understood as what was good for society as a whole. In this sense, what is against nature is that which is against established societal norms (much like that which is shameful). Therefore, things that go against established gender norms, or hierarchy, (like men with long hair for instance) are unnatural not because they go against the order of nature/creation (hair grows naturally… it’s unnatural to cut it) but because it goes against societal expectations and set norms for various individuals. Many of those norms make no sense to us today and change constantly throughout each societies history. 3) Nature was also seen as that which goes against the natural use of sex as procreative. However, there is no indication that they viewed the complementary sexual organs of males and females as the main reason for this unnaturalness of sexual acts that resulted in non-procreative sex. (Like many people try to assert today). Furthermore, it’s already been addressed that this idea of sex as only for a means of procreation is not an entirely Biblical concept, and should not be used as the reason for viewing homosexual activity as sinful. While it’s still important for us to converge our personal, social and physical worlds together, we must recognize that this will look fundamentally different to us today than it did in Biblical times. Because of that, what was “unnatural” then cannot be deemed “unnatural” now as well, just because it was then. One must look at all of the Biblical narrative to see whether it’s unnatural because of societal norms, which have changed dramatically since the Bible was written, or because it’s something that God actually views as wrong. We also must look at how we can take this view into the new creation of God, where everything is brought back into a restored relationship with Him. Perhaps that includes committed same-sex relationships that are longing to know God better and serve Him and each other.

Conclusions
When reading anything in the Bible, it’s important to take into account the historical and cultural contexts and understandings that influenced it, as well as were the primary understanding of it. Upon doing so, along with finding the underlying moral principle in the texts, the negative mentions of homosexual activity can be seen not to be addressing committed same-sex relationships that we see today, rather the rampant lustfulness that is indicative of all humanity (both homosexual and heterosexual). It doesn’t say that being homosexual, or having feelings of someone of the same gender is wrong; what it does say is that lust that is out of control, desire that is purely self-serving, and anything abusive to another is wrong. This happens both within homosexual and heterosexual circles, and should not be used to condemn an entire group of people, especially those who are serving God the best they can, yearning to know Him more, and yearning to find someone to love (as most straight people do) and love and serve Him together with, out of mutual love and companionship. While the book has primarily focused on a proper understanding of sexuality within the Bible and Romans 1, Brownson now takes the time to address various other texts used to condemn homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah (and less often the Levite’s concubine) are often used to show God’s wrath against homosexuality. However, these stories are more about the abusive nature of the situation (the rape, and the loss of honor to the other men) then about homosexual desires in general. Would it make any sense for the entire city to be gay? Not likely. Would it make sense for the entire city to be so hateful that they want to rape (not for sexual pleasure, but to show power and to shame greatly) visitors who they did not like? That’s more likely. It’s not homosexuality that’s the sin in these places, it’s out of control desire, abuse, hatred, and violence-just like in Romans. Likewise, the prohibitions in Leviticus are not addressing homosexuality as a whole, but they are dealing with concerns of purity, being distinct from cult practices around them, preserving the male honor, and with procreative purposes. We have already seen how much of these are concerns that are not as culturally relevant today (purity is from within now, male honor looks much different than it did before, purity isn’t about being set apart from other cultures but about being confident in Christ, and procreation is not the only reason for sex), and therefore cannot use these prohibitions as a means to condemn all forms of homosexual activity. Lastly, the vice lists in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy address pederasty, that is the use of young boys in male-male sex, and not homosexuality as a whole, and therefore, also, do not condemn homosexuality as a whole. Is this all inclusive? Not at all. There’s still more to be said, more to be asked, more to be researched. But it’s pretty clear that, when read historically and culturally, the Bible does not condemn homosexual desires or activity, and that committed same-sex relationships deserve the same blessings from the church as a heterosexual relationship, because they get it from God.

Nick’s Final Thoughts
This is the point where I bring in my final thoughts that I didn’t sprinkle in (which I noted when I did). First, I found Brownson to contradict himself a little bit. He said that the ancient world did have an understanding of people being made homosexual (as is found in Plato and Phaedrus’ writings), and then said that the biblical writers had no understanding of sexual orientation as we did today. Perhaps they hadn’t heard these stories before writing the scriptures, we don’t know. But the way Brownson addressed it seemed to contradict himself slightly. Also, I wish he had spent more time on 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. I know the book wasn’t about homosexuality in general, but those are some of the more difficult texts to interpret because of their use of words Paul made up. It’s hard to understand something someone made up and gave no clear understanding of what it meant. Ultimately, Brownson views “malakoi” as referring to those who are penetrated in these homosexual activities and “arsenokoitai” as those who are doing the presentation. That makes more sense than the way we’ve done it. It’s interesting that these words have changed interpretation over time to fit our common understanding. For instance, “arsenokoitai” has transitioned from “male prostitutes” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” to “homosexuals” and not to “practicing homosexuals” now that we understand the difference between orientation and behavior. Likewise, the link between “arsenokoitai” and the Greek words used in Leviticus is uncanny. Arsenos and Koiten are used in Leviticus when talking addressing same-sex relations. Would it not make sense for Paul to coin this new term with those words and the understanding of said verse in mind? It would make sense to his readers. They would see the connection and understand it. We just lost the meaning in translation.

Furthermore, I very well could be wrong about all this. Just like those who see homosexuality as a sin could be wrong about all their thoughts and I could be right. So I’m left with a dilemma. I can either be wrong and invite more people into Christ’s love and acceptance, or I could be right and condemn people to hell for something they can’t necessarily control. Which would I rather do? For me, I can’t think of anything worse than turning people away from God. If our mission is to call people to Him and show them His love, then anything we do that does the opposite is wrong. I’d much rather bring people to Him and be wrong about some of the things I believe than be responsible for turning people away from Him. What about you?

Lastly, I know I wasn’t descriptive in much of my summarizing. It’s hard to summarize an entire book in a blog post. If you would like to know more, I honestly suggest you read the book. If you do not want to, or cannot, I will answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.