Amendment One and bigotry

Last night North Carolina voters chose to add an Amendment to the State Constitution which declares that marriage between a man and a woman would be the only legally recognized domestic union in NC.

The fallout in the social media and blogosphere worlds has been predictable:

Conservatives cheering for this “victory of righteousness” in the democratic process and Liberals expressing outrage over such “bigotry” and “ignorant” action.

I find myself in a peculiar place on this one.

As someone who leans toward Libertarian principles when it comes to social issues, I wasn’t a big supporter of this Amendment and didn’t think it was necessary (though of course I recognize that in the minds of Conservatives it was most likely a safeguard measure to prevent “activist judges” from legalizing same-sex marriage from the bench). I’m just not very comfortable with the idea of secular government determining who can and cannot choose to live together in a legal manner. I believe if people want to have some type of civil/domestic union (whether gay, straight, or other) I’m okay with that, from a legal/civil standpoint, so long as they aren’t violating the rights of others.

So unlike many of my Conservative friends, I don’t see this Amendment as a victory for “righteousness” in any truly Biblical sense of the term. It may bolster the facade of civil religion, but I don’t think it advances the Kingdom of God in any tangible or meaningful way really.

However…

I have been disturbed by the continued cries of “oppression” and “bigotry” that have been thrown around by my Liberal friends who opposed Amendment One. Borrowing such language from the Civil Rights struggle is rhetorically effective…but is it consistent and honest?

Of course there are likely many who voted for the Amendment because they harbor a genuine hatred of gay people. Such hatred and actual acts of bigotry are indeed sinful and should be repudiated by any follower of Jesus.

But here is my genuine question to all those who cried “bigotry!” and “intolerance!” after the vote:

If Amendment One had limited legal domestic status in NC to “unions of two individuals” instead of “marriage between one man and one woman”, would proponents of plural marriage be justified in being outraged and labeling those who supported it as “bigots”?

If not, why not?

This is not, as many may immediately dismiss it as, the “slippery-slope” argument (remember, I don’t oppose civil unions), nor is it purely hypotheical (as any viewer of “Sister Wives” can attest). Rather, it’s a call for consistency on the part of those labeling others as hateful bigots who disagree with their domestic views.

In other words if proponents of gay couples being legally recognized want their view accepted, then are they willing to accept the view of those who want legal recognition for all mutually consenting adult domestic relationships?

If one’s answer to the above is “yes”, then fair enough and I can respect such a view for its consistency.

But if the answer is “no”…then perhaps it might be worth pausing for a bit of self-reflection next time you get ready to hurl the “bigot/hate” label at those you disagree with.

May we all be loving in word and deed,

Posted by jm on May 9, 2012.

Categories: Arts and Culture, Blog, Political/Social issues, Relationships

94 Responses

I guess the primary difference in my mind behind same-sex marriage and plural marriage is one chooses to involve themselves in a plural marriage whereas IMO one doesn’t choose to be homosexual. I think this lack of choice, in the same way one doesn’t choose their race draws the parallels to the civil rights arguments. As is stands now same sex couples have been stripped of their rights with no options for civil unions of any kind.
Having said all that, I don’t have strong opposition to plural marriages either, provided the parties are all consenting adults that have made the choice freely of their own volition.

by Dave on May 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Good thoughts Dave. I have to press your point a bit though. One may “choose” to enter into a plural marriage, but such individuals have often claimed that they are unable to find true happiness and fulfillment in monogamous relationships. In other words, they don’t “choose” to have such desires and not letting them have such relationships legally recognized is just as much a denial of their rights as it is for gay couples.

A question worth pondering, I believe, is “What should be the extent of a secular government’s role in legitimizing and regulating romantic relationships?” There seems to be a HUGE difference in how people answer this question and that’s what drives the various views they hold (along with a lot of emotion!).

by jm on May 9, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I hadn’t heard that argument before regarding plural marriages not being a choice. I would be interested to know if there has been any research conducted on that subject in a similar way that the basis for homosexuality has been researched over the nature vs nurture question. Having said all that, as I indicated in my original text, I don’t have strong feelings on plural marriage beyond the consenting adults part. I admittedly don’t know much about plural marriages beyond what I’ve seen in the media and that experience has led me to believe (right or wrong) that most plural marriages are byproducts of fervent (almost cult like) upbringings. My opposition is then drawn from children being raised in an environment where they are not free to form their own opinions and personality outside an overbearing influence.

by Dave on May 9, 2012 at 7:17 pm
I think it’s an important question because in many places around the world polygamy is normal and children do not seem to be more “at risk” in such families (from a purely physical/psychological perspective, that is) than others.

I’m not advocating for plural marriage anymoreso than I would advocate for same-sex marriage. But the arguments for or against any union should strive for consistency when it comes to legal decisions, IMO.

by jm on May 9, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Seems to me that you haven’t truly studied the WORD of GOD. YES, hate and bigotry is wrong, but that doesn’t mean we forget what GOD has told us and conform to mans way of living. So, if this acceptance of gay marriages is ok for you, What will you do if the world decides they want that to have sex with children? If the child agrees to it, are you going to vote to let it happen?? Bet not!! Cause in GODS eyes it is an abomination…same as sleeping with the same sex. I pray for you and for the people that you are leanding astray.You will one day be judged (as will I) I pray that you open your heart and follow GOD not man.

by Standing 4Christianity on May 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm
What makes you think I “haven’t truly studied the WORD of GOD” (especially given the fact that I am a BIBLE TEACHER)? Are you just saying that because I don’t outright oppose civil same-sex unions? Can you provide any Biblical evidence that believers must oppose such actions by a secular government? Or are you just dismissing me entirely and couching it in pious sounding language?

by jm on May 9, 2012 at 6:57 pm
So what does God say about marriage and homosexuality

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh. (Keywords man and wife)
Genesis 9:7 ….. be fruitful and multiply…..(Gay couples cannot reproduce)
I Corinthians 7:3-4 (repeatedly uses the words husband and wife)
Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurities for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchange the truth of God for a lie……because of this God gave them over to shameful lust; even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another, Men committed indecent acts with other men.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lieth with a man as one lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
Genesis 18-19 (You can read the story of how God destroyed the wicked city of Sodom and Gomorrah)
Genesis 19:4 (Tells of how the men of the City cried out to Lot to bring them the men that had came to see Lot for they wished to have sex with them, these men were angels of God. So Lot begged them don’t do this wicked thing, the group of men became so aggressive to get the angels that the angels hand to strike the men of Sodom and Gomorrah with blindness.)
So I believe the word of God, Marriage is between a man and woman and homosexuality is a sin. But please also remember, we are to love each other because we all have our sins. Remember love the people hate the sin 🙂
In love brother I cant see how you can call yourself a Bible Teacher and make a stand for same sex marriage.You above anyone should know better. Also you know what God says about false teachers and those whom lead his children a stray.You can not serve two masters my friend.
Do not mock God,Do not make Him out to be a liar or change His word to fit into the world, God forbid brother. Seperate yourself from the world and stand for Christ and the Word of God.
Please pray on this and know whom you are serving.
God Bless / This is not out of anything other then love for my God and You James

by Mike on May 10, 2012 at 12:30 am
I appreciate your post, Mike. But I’m confused.

Where in my post did I in any way “make a stand for same sex marriage”?

And where did I in any way “make God out to be a liar or change His word”?

I don’t see how anyone could come away with either of these from my post. Have you read any of my other posts that deal with the topic of same-sex relationships?

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 1:24 am
Hi James hope you are doing ok today.
Sorry I confused you yesterday.
I am not very good with post,typing and etc. lol
But any way back to the subject.
When I came to your site I saw your picture called the middle ground and read this…

I’m just not very comfortable with the idea of secular government determining who can and cannot choose to live together in a legal manner. I believe if people want to have some type of civil/domestic union (whether gay, straight, or other) I’m okay with that, from a legal/civil standpoint, so long as they aren’t violating the rights of others.

So lets make it clear for me.
Because I dont want to be unfair to you.
This is not a attack on you in any way. I just want to be clear where you stand.
So lets say leaving out goverment and all the politics,answer the below questions.
Now only using the word of God.(The Holy Bible)
Is homosexuality approved by God or not?
And is it a sin or not?
Last question my friend.
As a man of God, a same sex couple comes to you and ask for you to marry them in your church. Will you marry them and give them Gods blessing?
Thanks for your time
Last thing, any gay people reading this please know I am not attacking you or hate you. I hate the sin like any other sin, but not you. ok God Bless

by mike on May 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Mike,
Good questions. Please check out this 5-min video where I give my position on the subject more fully… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRDEdEGQF_0

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Now I am confused
My questions was not if it is a forgiveable sin.
Because praise God it is a forgiveable sin through Jesus Christ.
My question was not Can a gay person go to heaven?
To be saved we must know we are lost and repent of our sins and accept Christ as our savior. Hear that; Repent
That is to turn from and have a change of the mind on sin.
We can’t say ” save me Lord, but Lord I will not give up being gay”
We dont get to pick a sin to keep and expect Jesus to say ok.
If you are gay and truely wish to turn from your sin. Then there is hope.
But only God knows your heart, you can’t fool God.
But the one thing I am not confused on any more is where you stand.
Thanks for your time / I will check back time and time to see if you can ever truely answer the questions.
I will pray for you to find the truth and stand on it.
I hope to see you on the other side my friend, I truely DO.

by mike on May 10, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Mike, please read the links I shared with Sam above in which I clearly discuss my position on this subject. Between them and the video (and the discussion in these comments) I don’t see how you can arrive at such a conclusion honestly.

by jm on May 11, 2012 at 1:27 am
If this is what you were talking about.
You said….
But when it comes to same-sex sexual relationships, there is no such counter-witness within Scripture and it is completely prohibited whenever it is touched upon in both Testaments.
If you believe this,why did you not just answer the questions I asked?
If you believe your above statement, then it should be easy.
But I appologize for being a pain in your side.
But to think of a bible teacher,pastor or anyone else in a church believeing in homosexual marrage is unbelieveable and fires me up.
I see so much accepted sin in the world today, that it hurts me to think that we are now starting to even lose true MEN OF GOD.

by mike on May 11, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Mike, you’re not a pain. Believe me, I’ve gotten FAR worse responses in online discussions! 🙂

I know this issue “fires up” a lot of people. And part of my post is an attempt to move beyond “fiery” rhetoric and get Christians discussing the issue in a spirit of honesty and charity. For instance, your first comment to me on here seemed to assume guilt and heresy on my part without first seeking to understand what I was actually saying. This is something that I see among my fellow evangelical Christians that leads to a spirit that goes against Jesus’ prayer for us in John 17.

I don’t mind clarifying my position…but in a nuanced and careful way so as not to feed into the sound-byte approach that so many on both sides of the debate seem to want. That’s why I didn’t give simple short answers to the questions asked above.

However, all comments and respectful challenges are welcome here at Disciple Dojo, so I genuinely appreciate you joining in the discussion! 🙂

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 1:15 am
The first response was from me (Mike’s wife) it wasn’t an attack. I felt shocked that you didn’t appear to make a “Solid Stand” for GOD but instead it seemed you chose both sides of the fence. It appeared, through some of your comments that you sided more with society ( I have posted some of your own words below- along with how I felt after reading them)
Although I agree “Haters” are completely wrong. We are supposed to love one another. I really don’t see where or why a Pastor can be so caught up in the “political” side of it. As a child of GOD we are to stand for the “biblical” side of it. Yes, I am sure some of the people who voted for the amendment probably did so out of hate, (yes that’s “absolutely” wrong) but that’s between them and GOD and they will ultimately answer for it. I believe that as a Christian we were obligated to support the amendment “As clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong” and it also clearly states that we are to obey man’s law if it’s in accordance to GODS WORD.
I am not a hater, I even have a family member who is with a same sex partner (although I love this person very much, I DO NOT agree with their lifestyle choice)
I don’t go around condemning them, but I also to not agree to support it, because I “STAND FIRM” on the Bible and GODS WORD.
If you felt attacked, I am sorry, if I am wrong then I apologize and I will beg GOD for forgiveness, but I worry most that some of your words may hurt a newly born Christian, who looks at this blog and thinks it’s ok to follow the “Worlds” views instead of the “GOD’s” I felt you may be leading many people astray, maybe not intentional.

Your own words are in “”’
“”I find myself in a peculiar place on this one. -With a picture of you divided between sides””. As a pastor I felt there should be no division, you should stand for GOD and GOD alone. Seemed to me that you were straddling the fence afraid to make a solid stand. Trying to play both sides of the issue.

“”As someone who leans toward Libertarian principles when it comes to social issues, I wasn’t a big supporter of this Amendment and didn’t think it was necessary””.
Once again as a pastor, you should support the amendment, because it is GODS WILL.

“”I don’t see this Amendment as a victory for “righteousness” in any truly Biblical sense of the term’’.
How can it not be?? The Bible clearly states that Homosexuality is an abomination, thus it is a victory is for GOD. We supported HIS WORD!!

“”I’m just not very comfortable with the idea of secular government determining who can and cannot choose to live together in a legal manner.””
It clearly says in the Bible that we are to obey the laws of man, as long as they are in accordance to GODS WILL – which amendment one was!
There are many “New World” preachers, teaching only parts of the bible enough to make themselves look believable and changing other parts to conform to that of the world. Then faced with a serious Biblical question, they avoid it and run from subject to subject trying to steer away from it. A new Christian or even any Christian who has not read the WORD of GOD for himself will never see through the façade.
This is a very sad win for the devil.

by 4christ on May 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Hi Mike’s wife. 🙂

Thank you for clarifying where you are coming from. However, I think your notion that certain laws are “God’s will” is problematic from a New Testament perspective. Let me be clear:

I think the Gospel ALLOWS someone (such as yourself) to seek to make laws like Amendment One, which they believe will make for a more beneficial society. But it does not DEMAND that we seek to make such laws. Not everything that is MORALLY right must be declared by a secular nation (such as ours) to be LEGALLY established.

And just because a secular state prohibits a particular form of sinful behavior, that doesn’t mean that the state is automatically more righteous in God’s eyes.

I believe that you are confusing political action with Biblical teaching. The two are not entirely separate…but they certainly don’t overlap in a one-to-one manner. And someone (such as myself) who upholds and proclaims God’s Inspired Scripture should certainly be able to disagree with fellow Christians on the political role that a worldly government should play without being immediately labeled a false teacher or heretic. Yet your initial comments implied that this was the case and didn’t seem to recognize that faithful committed followers of Jesus who stand on the authority of Scripture (as I do!) could disagree with your view of Amendment One. That is what I found most troubling.

Thanks for joining in the conversation and for sharing your views though. Like I said, everyone is welcome here in the Dojo as long as they are respectful and sincere! 🙂

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Well thought-out JM. Glad you wrote this. I am closer to your position than either extreme.

by Russ on May 9, 2012 at 6:49 pm
There is a reason we have ages where we consider people legal adults with the metal capacity to make their own choices. We don’t consider people under the age of 18 legally capable to make these decisions themselves so your argument about sex with children is inherently flawed. I would argue that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home has no impact on your life. Sexually molesting children is a grave injustice to children and infringes on their rights in perhaps the deepest way possible.
I’m not a biblical scholar and won’t even try to hang in an argument over the intricacies of the Bible but I do know we accept things in our everyday lives that God considers an abomination. However, I will even grant you that God considers homosexuality an abomination. My response is “So What”. I’m not proposing that the government mandate that churches allow for gay marriage. Simply that the government recognize civil unions between same sex couples. We live in a country that is supposed to separate issues of government from issues of faith so any argument based on religion should be immediately moot. If you want to live in a country basing it’s laws on religious doctrine I would invite you to live in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, better yet, try being a woman or a homosexual in one of those countries and please tell me if you feel the quality of life is better there or here. The problem with basing legal laws on God’s laws is it becomes quite difficult to find council on changing those laws when the author is not present in any physical form to offer input.

by Dave on May 9, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Sorry, my previous post is meant as a reply to ‘Standing 4Christianity’

by Dave on May 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm
I actually agree with you JMS. If you banned polygamous marriage I believe that would also be bigotry. Especially since the Bible sanctions polygamous marriage in two different places, to David and his wives and in the case of Levirate marriage.

by Christopher Bowers on May 9, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Ironically, Chris, I think one can make a FAR stronger argument for the legality of plural marriages than one can for same-sex marriages (though I believe both to be contrary to God’s original definition and intent for marriage, of course).

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 5:12 am
There is no “original definition”. The Bible is not a dictionary. God approved of three different forms of sexuality in the Old Testament. Polygamy and Levirate marriage were sexualities that were part of God’s plan.

by Christopher Bowers on May 10, 2012 at 6:07 am
Where does it say polygamy was an approved part of God’s plan? It was a part of culture at the time, but not prescribed by God…Israelites were acting out of the cultural understanding at the time. Once the law came (through Moses), it was clear that you were not allowed to give your wife a notice of divorce, have her marry & divorce, and then take your ex-wife back to have sex with her. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) There are other clear laws about sexuality and purity in marriage within Deuteronomy.

After the law came, David as king was reflecting the cultural kings at the time. To my knowledge, we cannot assume that all of Israel was concerned about their lineage (as a king would be) and engaged in polygamy. It was not the case with Uriah, who was faithful to one woman Bathsheba. David’s kingly polygamy was not outright condemned by God or approved by Him, from my understanding. However, David’s adultery with Bathsheba was covetous. Instead of taking a widow (as in the case of Abigail), he made a widow (by having Bathsheba’s husband killed).

Levirate is not a common term I was familiar with. So, I looked it up. Turns out, it is simply being required to marry your sister-in-law if your brother dies…in order to carry on his line. That has less to do with sexual orientation and more to do with arrangement of marriage, IMO.

I will let James-Michael clarify or diffuse this line of reasoning, as he is the scholar…not me. 🙂

by Melissa Alagon on May 10, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Melissa, Chris is going to point to 2Sam. 12:7-8, Nathan’s rebuke to David:

“Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
(2Sa 12:7-8 NIV)

He believes this is God specifically endorsing polygamy. (Despite the fact that the language of God “giving over” something in the Hebrew Bible can speak of God allowing or permitting something rather than condoning it, despite the fact that this would be a normal way of speaking of God handing over total regal authority of Saul to David–including care for Saul’s remaining household–rather than an explicit reference to plural marriage, and despite God’s previous command in Deuteronomy 17 that does specifically prohibit Kings from taking multiple wives, which David and nearly every other King disobeyed.)

Am I right, Chris? 🙂

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 8:08 pm
In response to JMS:

>Nice try, Chris. If you spent half the time in studying actual ancient Near East >background (particularly vassal covenants) as you do in eisegetical and >anachronistic revisionist readings, you’d be a pretty good Bible interpreter!

You can call it a “vassal covenant” if you like JMS, but Jonthan is clearly passing down the ownership of his kingdom to David’s descendants.

Given the romantic nature of David’s relationship to Jonathan, and that in the military he acted independently (David and Jonathan never served together) , the charachterization of David as a “Vassal” of Jonathan is laughable.

Melissa said:
>Levirate is not a common term I was familiar with. So, I looked it up. Turns >out, it is simply being required to marry your sister-in-law if your brother >dies…in order to carry on his line. That has less to do with sexual >orientation and more to do with arrangement of marriage, IMO.

You are forgetting that you are required to marry your sister in law EVEN IF YOU ARE ALREADY MARRIED.

That’s why Onan was killed by God in Genesis. He wanted to have sex with his second wife that he took in Levirate marriage, but didn’t want to give her children (in Levirate marriage you are required to have sex and bear children to your second wife so as to honor her).

Levirate is SPECIFICALLY COMMANDED by God in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. It is God specifically commanding that you should take your Brother-in-law’s wife, even if you are already married (and to do it again for other brothers if you have more than one.) It was an approved part of God’s plan, and approved of by God.

And yes, God did say that he GAVE wives to David in conquest to take in polygamy in 2 Samuel 12. If polygamy is morally wrong according to God, then what is God doing? Working evil and directly contradicting himself? Since God cannot sin, and God gave David wives, clearly Polygamy is not a sin.

The conservative call that the Bible enshrines marriage as “only between one man and one woman for life” is the worst kind of cultural propaganda.

It’s simply a case of European Anglo Saxon Culture trying to superimpose it’s own sexual culture onto the Bible and claim that the Bible affirms their culture, when it in fact does not. Nothing but a fantasy, like saying “See, the Bible supports only America as the new Holy Land.”

And that’s not to mention that Abraham was polygamous, so was every King and patriarch that Israel has ever had. Abraham’s polygamy was at the pleading of his first wife, who was barren. To say that the culture or the Bible thought that Polygamy was wrong is to be completely ignorant of Jewish culture as well as all Ancient Near East cultures.

That’s God specifically commanding Polygamy (and what some cultures would consider incest).

by Chris Bowers on May 10, 2012 at 9:36 pm
>To say that the culture or the Bible thought that Polygamy was wrong is to be >completely ignorant of Jewish culture as well as all Ancient Near East cultures.

With all do respect, I think your understanding of Jewish culture may be just as lacking. Where did you come to these conclusions about what Judaism has traditionally understood about marriage/polygamy. Are you just reading the text of the Bible and coming to your own (or other Christians’) conclusions or have you studied Jewish texts and history and the way the nation of Israel actually traditionally understood these issues?

by Jacob I. on May 11, 2012 at 12:09 am
Jacob, if you can specifically talk about where you disagree with me, I can point you to whatever resources are neccesary in order to prove my case.

by Chris Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 1:39 am
JM…

I agree with the first half of this blog almost entirely. Why should we care what the state says marriage is or isn’t???? The church is where such a sacrament should be taken care of… and any church would then be able to apply marriage as is consistent with their theology.

I think that refusing rights to any minority people group is wrong, and in this case to do so to our LGBTIQ friends falls into this category. Justice is set in a culture by the conditions that the laws of the land facilitates. In other words, justice is a sphere that is created or obstructed. Therefore, Jim Crow creates a space of injustice to a minority group, Black Americans. In the same way, the anti-marriage-equality movement of the evangelical right creates a space of inequality. People, in a free society, must not be denied rights because such go against the religious convictions of a majority group. This is why we have the separation of church and state. We are not afterall, a Christian nation.

Let me add that your extending this argument to polygamy is a bit of a slippery slope. Marriage in our country functions as a delegater of tax rights for couples. It seems to me that “mass marriages” would damage the tax system significantly. In such a case, perhaps that group of people wishing to be “married” could be paired into groups of two for taxation purposes. If that were the case, I see it as virtually a non-issue. Again… this is speaking from legal point of view, not a religious one. The perspective of the New Testament basically seems to rule out polygamy… but those not bound by our commitments ought not be forced into such. That is a Christendom model… and well, that leads to violences of all sorts. Again… the separation of church and state is at stake here. Hope this makes some sense as I’m typing on the run 🙂 As a libertarian, wouldn’t we almost agree here? 😉

Now when it comes to laws in general, we have to ask if they create conditions for suffering or not. Thats why when it comes to taxes for the social uplift, I’m usually for them. But when it comes to legislating the segregation of rights that all should have equal access to, I’m against it. Laws create spaces… we need to have laws that do so with both justice and equality at their heart. When this is not the case, christians should speak truth to power.

Have a good afternoon.

by Kurt on May 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Thanks Kurt. I don’t see how plural marriages would “damage the tax system significantly”; but even if they did, is tax-law a reason to deny such families “rights that all should have equal access to”?

Also, I don’t think this is a “slippery slope” argument at all since there are many flesh-and-blood examples of such unions around the country.

And just to clarify, I said I “lean Libertarian on social issues”…but I’m not a Libertarian. I’m unaffiliated/independent. 🙂

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 5:11 am
“Now when it comes to laws in general, we have to ask if they create conditions for suffering or not.”

Kurt, I think there is an inconsistency here. How do we define suffering and who gets to draw the line in the sand for what suffering must be addressed by the legal system?

If all sin leads to suffering (and we choose to define homosexual practice as sin, which is a totally different topic), then I suspect there is a real bind.

by Andy on May 11, 2012 at 8:48 pm
I don’t believe we should legislate religion, but don’t we legislate our morals? How do we separate our morality from our laws? Isn’t morality how we justify a graduated tax system?

by Mark on May 9, 2012 at 10:00 pm
I am almost persuaded that efforts to limit marriage to man and wife do more harm to the country than living in a society that accepts all forms of unions between consenting adults. One of the larger stumbling blocks for me is the demand for equal representation that would surely follow legalization. In other words, would there be demands that “Bobby has Two Daddies” be read to our grade-schoolers? Would middle-school reading lists be made to include an equal sampling of material that includes LGBT and polygamous relationships? Would colleges have a quota system that gave preferential admissions treatment to the LGBT minority?

If government could just keep us safe and honest, and equal, that’d be great. But I feel like government shoves morality on us and our kids just as much as Christians try to shove morality on government.

by Mark on May 9, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I just had this same conversation with my husband today. I don’t agree with the amendment. I also don’t agree with same sex marriage. Regardless of my opinions though throwing around the hate card just b/c someone did not get what they wanted is not appropriate. I have heard too much over the last few weeks (between this and General Conference) where if a person doesn’t agree with same sex marriage they are labeled as hating the LGBT community. I am just not sure it is a fair assessment. I do know (as you said) that some who voted yesterday did so out of hate, but I cannot believe that all people who voted for the amendment yesterday voted out of hate. Thank you for saying what I was trying to say, but in a much more eloquent way.

by Sara Beth on May 10, 2012 at 1:23 am
Hello JM, I appreciate your post as I had a very similar thought not too long ago. I also appreciate some of the nuanced comments above–especially the comment Kurt makes about tax status as a special case. I hadn’t considered that.

In concert with many Christians who support queer marriage and ordination in the church and society I answer your thought experiment this way: the line to be drawn is indeed that *consenting parties* are able to administer the sacramental act (or Sacrament, depending on one’s connexion) to one another in God’s sight, and them alone. Plural marriage is outside that normative boundary because plural marriages aren’t a space for consent.

I argue we have a religious imperative as Christians to oppose a marriage or form of marriage (and any other relationship) which fails to foster an atmosphere of equality and mutuality. Polygamy–which in the vast majority of cases features one man and two or more women–is a situation where one person controls the emotions and relationships of the others. There is nothing necessarily true about this, you may say, and you’re right–there’s nothing necessarily true about almost anything in marriage. Witness many woman-man marriages that foster abuse. As with adult-minor marriages (indeed, the term “consenting adult” may be redundant because children can’t truly consent), polygamy overwhelmingly *tends* this way and we have to oppose it on that ground. (Marriage between two adults regardless of sex/gender identity does not overwhelmingly tend this way. That’s a hard point to argue with, though not impossible, and sadly I anticipate its argument below.)

To conclude: in direct contradiction to Scripture we as a church allow for divorce and remarriage because we commit ourselves to building up holiness via working, loving, equitable relationships. In this spirit and in a less direct contradiction of Scripture–indeed, many scholars would say this is not a contradiction at all–we ought to agitate for the opportunity for queer marriage in the church and in society. Marriages ought to be seen as special relationships for fostering holiness, an opportunity available to all who are called to it. Thanks JM!

by Sam on May 10, 2012 at 4:45 am
Sam, I appreciate your comment but I have to challenge you on a few points. Plural marriages do not intrinsically lead to abuse, nor are they without consent. This is the perception of them among those who do not have much firsthand contact with polygamists.

To argue that polygamy should be illegal because some (or even many) polygamists act immorally or in ways where people are harmed is to do the very same thing that people who argue against same-sex marriage do by citing statistics about the immoral and harmful behavior among many LGBT relationships (such as this, for instance: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1&fb_source=message)

I also must challenge your notion that divorce is in “direct contradiction to Scripture.” It is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ words in a conversation He had regarding whether it was permissible “for any reason”…but there is the counter-witness of the Torah allowance for it (albeit due to hardness of heart within Israel) and Paul’s words on it when an unbelieving spouse initiates it. In fact, God even uses it as an illustration of how He is treating Israel, according to Jeremiah and Hosea (though thankfully not permanently). Jeremiah 3:8 often goes overlooked in discussions about how the Church has “ignored Scripture” when it comes to divorce, I would argue. Regardless, my point is that while divorce is painted in a very negative light in general, there seem to be some allowances or times where it is seen as a sad last option (and where God Himself chooses to utilize it!). But when it comes to same-sex sexual relationships, there is no such counter-witness within Scripture and it is completely prohibited whenever it is touched upon in both Testaments.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts though; I hope you don’t mind them being respectfully challenged. 🙂

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 4:58 am
Just leaving a comment here:

Polygamy was not at ALL ruled out by the New Testament. There is nothing whatsoever in the New Testament that rules it out. In fact, Paul takes note that early Christians sometimes had polygamous marriages, by saying that he didn’t want polygamous Christians to be Christian leaders or Bishops. Polygamy was a fact of life in Judaism, (and thus for Jews who were newly Christians) in fact, it was a fact of life for many Jews up until the establishment of the nation of Israel in the 1940’s when it was finally outlawed.

The reason that polygamy died out in Judaism is because Jews (and Christians) faced persecution in countries (northern Europe) where polygamy was seen as a “perversion”. Similarly Christianity flourished, but the sexual practices of the new adherents were frowned on by Ireland, Britian, France, and the rest of northern and western Europe (which had a tradition of Monogomy).

Middle eastern cultures were WIDELY polygamous. Monogomy or celibacy was the result usually of being too poor or ugly not to have multiple wives, it was the exception, rather than the rule. Every culture, though worshipping different Gods, all had the practice of polygamy in common. This is why Judaism has a practice of accepting wives, and why David, Solomon and so forth had so many wives: Every leader that they defeated was the big man on campus, with many (sometimes hundreds) of wives that, now that the leader or king was dead, had no one to provide for them. Thus taking multiple wives was a moral neccesity. You needed to take care of the wives of the leaders you conquered. The alternate was to let them starve to death (wives, by and large, couldn’t own property), or to just kill them all. The only other option was to marry them and take over the job of providing for them. This is also why Judaism accepts people as “Jewish” through the matrilinial geneology: because wives were taken in war and conquest.

In any case, the polygamy question doesn’t have anything to do with morality or ethics. It has everything to do with culture and what certain cultures find appropriate and inappropriate.

The idea that God “originally intended” people to be monogamous is nothing more than an Anglo Saxon fantasy, projecting wish fulfilment onto the scriptures. God did not “intend” monogamy in the first place because he selected as his “chosen people” the Jews, WHO WERE ALWAYS POLYGAMISTS. Despite this fact, and despite the fact that two forms of polygamy are specifically enshrined in scripture, Christians often continue to assert the monogamy myth: that God always intended for sexual habits and culture to be the way that Anglo-Saxons have sex, and not the way that anyone else has sex.

by Christopher Bowers on May 10, 2012 at 6:33 am
Chris,

If you’ll forgive me, where in the world did you get your understanding of Jewish history? Did you study Judaism in a university or somewhere else?

I would have to disagree vehemently with some of the conclusions you’ve come to about what Judaism has traditionally believed regarding polygamy (I’m Jewish).

Jacob

by Jacob I. on May 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Jacob, I have studied Judaism at temple and through courses and discussions with several Rabbi’s. I’ve also studied the History of Judaism in University of course.

Here are some links on the topic, demonstrating that what I’m saying is true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Christianity

Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility[60] like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother’s widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era because it required a significant amount of wealth.[61]

Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE.[62]

—Michael Coogan, God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says.

The Torah, Judaism’s central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife (specifically, her right to food, clothing, and conjugal relations). Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son’s mother and likes another wife more;[63] and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.[64] The king’s behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 8. Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines. Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and “sub-standard” wives with prefix “to” (lit. “took to wives”).[65]

Perhaps, Jacob, you could explain specifically what you disagree with?

by Christopher Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 1:16 am
Here’s another really good article on the subject:

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm#__4

by Chris Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 1:52 am
Right on, thanks for the pushback JM. As I wrote, I figured someone would comment both that inequality in plural marriage isn’t absolute and that queer marriage features more inequality/abuse than straight marriage.

It would be rude for me to simply dismiss your comment about plural marriage by folding my arms and saying “yes they do so,” so I won’t. I concede now as before that plural marriage doesn’t necessarily or “intrinsically” lead to concrete abuse–indeed, the only time I mentioned abuse was in the context of traditional marriages. Nor have I spent any time with polygamists. And I’m not making my case based on concrete instances of abuse; my argument is about consent and equality. I argue only that a marriage where one man has two or more wives (again, this is not the only way polygamy happens, just by far the most common) is not conducive to equality among the partners involved. I want to state this plainly and I predict we won’t agree going forward, so I’ll ask a sub-question: are you in favor of decriminalizing polygamy? If so, why, if not, why not?

With respect to the statistics you cite about queer relationships, I’m glad you bring that up. Neither of us has the time or inclination or resources to do thorough research when we need to make points about the way things actually are, so I don’t begrudge your using Family Resource Council material to make your case. It does bear noting that FRC is, by their own admission, not neutral on this question and not committed to fostering conversations like ours. They are committed to keeping queer marriage illegal, and that’s worth talking about when we’re discussing their treatment of statistics and in some cases the statistics themselves (again, this is not a critique of your choice of statistical analysis, but of their presentation).

As an example of the problematic presentation of facts that FRC uses, they quote a Bureau of Justice Statistics report that outlines how women legally married to men suffer lower rates of abuse than women who aren’t. This does not indicate that lesbians abuse one another more than men abuse women–indeed, the opposite is true (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1999/00000014/00000004/art00006). Rather, this indicates that women who aren’t married get abused more than women who are. One could see how easily this turns into an argument *for* allowing lesbians to get married.

I won’t dwell on the FRC problem specifically, but in a general sense, when people present you with statistics about how much more queer people get diseases and commit promiscuity than straight people, it doesn’t scream “keep them from getting married” to me. It suggests that people are sexual and that marriage commitments are the principal way to maintain responsible stewardship of our sexuality as given by God. That seems pretty plain vanilla to me.

As for the Bible question, I defer to your more extensive research on the question of divorce in Scripture. In fact I’m glad you make the case you do–that divorce in the Bible really isn’t as clear as we may think it is, that a careful reading of context is in order, etc–because as you can imagine it is *exactly* what I’m going to say about gay marriage. (Honestly, I’m not trying to bait you, JM. I really didn’t know about the nuance that is present in Jeremiah 3:8 and I’m glad you wrote about it!) I don’t have the capacity to respond point by point to each of the 7 or whatever verses in the Bible that seem to speak on this subject, but there is a video on youtube of a young scholar from right here in Kansas who researched the topic and presents on it as concisely as possible. The gist of what he says is that the Bible isn’t really talking about queer marriage as we’re talking about it now, and I think he is absolutely right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY).

In response to your quote, “there is no such counter-witness within Scripture” about queer marriage, I hope you’ll forgive my obvious hyperbolic language:

There is no such witness within Scripture (to what we’re talking about).

Anyway, I welcome your response!

by Sam on May 10, 2012 at 7:14 am
Thanks for the dialogue and for being civil, Sam! 🙂

I should point out that I only cited the FRC page as an example of what I believed your argument was doing (but from the opposite side). I’m not necessarily endorsing it (though such stats shouldn’t be brushed aside lightly, regardless of whether one ends up being persuaded one way or another on the legality of same-sex unions).

Regarding the Biblical teachings on same-sex sexual relationships, I would encourage you to read the discussion I had with a fellow Methodist on this subject which can be found here:

https://jmsmith.org/blog/two-methodists-discuss-same-sex-relationships-and-scripture/ (part 1)

https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-discussion-between-two-methodists-part-2/ (part 2)

https://jmsmith.org/blog/humanizing-the-same-sex-discussion/ (part 3)

The Biblical arguments used to defend same-sex sexual relationships as being permitted by Scripture are simply unfounded. I don’t say that as someone who has not read and studied such arguments. I have studied, listened to, and interacted with many revisionist proponents over the past 10 years. But at the end of the day (as Richard Hays put it so well in the third link I just shared), Scripture cannot be said to in any way allow for same-sex sexual relationships as an option for God’s people. This does not denigrate LGBT persons in any way, but it does place a limit on how they can pursue sexual fulfillment (just as it does on people with any other innate desire to do things God has said to be sin).

But to clarify the purpose of my post…the Biblical/religious/moral view of same-sex sexual relationships cannot be conflated with secular/legal/civil judgments on it. This puts me in a place of tension (as do many other social issues that go against Christian ethics) and doesn’t satisfy people on either side of the issue, of course. But I have to hold the balance as best I can, so that’s where I end up at the moment.

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Again, I appreciate the patience it takes for a blogger to sustain conversation on topics like this, so thanks JM. The background conversation you had with Chad is helpful as well.

With regard to the biblical record, my knowledge is closer to cursory and yours is closer to comprehensive. I can’t muster an interpretation of a text which compels better than yours, and I’m comfortable admitting that. All the same, for scholars who carry this conversation on as a matter of professional interest, I observe that the question is open, not closed. Richard Hays is talking to McNeil and Nelson and Scanzoni because there is ambiguity and openness to Scripture, not clarity and closed-ness. Note the general fact that questions aren’t settled or settleable with respect to “what the Bible says” even long after the church adopts a stance on scriptural content. For example, we still need to talk about what’s going on in Philemon even though the UMC has been clear on slavery for a long time. Did Paul (indeed, any Bible author/community) think slavery is permissible, with all the proper nuance in place? That’s an open question. Should we think slavery is permissible? That’s a closed question. (Parallel ethical Scripture readings with theological ones, if you’ll permit the distinction for a moment: Paul may not have been a Trinitarian as the question wasn’t present for him; for United Methodists today, we’re theologically compelled to accept the Trinity, and that’s good.) Even if we ask a basic question, “Does the Bible say God exists,” with the expectation that the answer is an easy yes (and thankfully acknowledging that the UMC has closed the book on this a long time ago), we still have the task of wrestling with the meaning of the question and its implications–to the extent that Paul Tillich writes that “God does not exist” in his _ST_ in order to differentiate God as the ground of being, and not just another being.

This has been a long way to address the question you ask Chad: if the Bible were shown to demonstrate that queer relationships are always necessarily sinful, would you still agitate for them in the church? This is a great question because it gets at the motivations for why we argue for the interpretations we do. It rightly presupposes that no one comes to the text without a position already in hand–witness you and me, Hays, Scanzoni, Chad, and anyone else. That’s notable for discussions about whose interpretation “wins.” More to the point, the force of the question compels me to admit I want the church universal to celebrate queer marriage and ordination in its walls and outside, and I wanted that when I entered the text (“again for the first time,” as Marcus Borg might say) for this conversation. We shouldn’t pretend not to be partisans with respect to the issue and acknowledge our interpretive lenses.

The question thus shifts to a discussion about what Hays’ introduction indicates and you make explicit: what matters is real people in concrete circumstances. He wants to nuance the discussion beyond unequivocal celebration or forbiddance of queer actions in the church; he concludes there is absolutely no “counter-witness” to the clear Scriptural moral injunction against queer acts. The way I’m reading you it seems (without critique!) that your principal interpretive lens follows Hays closely.

I too would like to nuance the discussion beyond attacks ad hominem and “plain” readings of the Bible on divorce/queerness/slavery, but like you and Hays, we can’t pretend the nuance comes from the conclusion we make. You and Hays want queer acts to remain sinful in the eyes of the church; I want queer acts celebrated in the context of marriage and ordination in the church. That much is clear. We’re all Christ followers in the light of Revelation 3:15-16. Our nuance comes from the process of getting there. In your initial post you challenged queer advocates to pause before throwing around the term “bigot.” That’s a fair point, and that’s your nuance.

Lots of good theology is done in a counter-Kierkegaard mode, an embrace of the Both/And rather than the Either/Or. But with respect to concrete people and their lives, queerness in the church *is* an either/or. Are queer people called paradigmatically to the Cross of celibacy (perhaps among other meaningful crosses)? Or are they called to participation in what Duke professor Randy Maddox brilliantly called “responsible grace”–exercise of their sexuality inside the same boundaries within which straight Christians covenant to live? Celebrating same-sex marriage and queer ordination in the church is a sin or it isn’t, and that means lots of people are sinning or aren’t, and that’s it. (To stray into the personal, confronted with the starkness of that truth, as with the starkness of the children of light/darkness discourse in 1 Thessalonians 5:5, I am shocked into recognition of the presence of the Holy Spirit and the pertinence of my response to that Spirit for the way people really live.) Blithely put, for every Gary, there are also lots of very-not-Gary queer people, and they want change. That’s the fact in the church.

Finally, you rightly pointed out in your conversation with Kamin and elsewhere that our religious conviction must be a ground for our participation in the secular world. As a possible means of easing the tension you encounter in your last paragraph, I would suggest just what you say to Kamin (in paraphrase, if I read you right)–let your status as a Christian decisively influence how you engage the world. The Christian way of doing things is, descriptively, not the way the world does things; prescriptively, may I be bold enough to suggest with the cloud of witnesses that it *ought to be* the way the world does things? If you’re concerned about melting down the wall of separation between church and state, don’t be–the Holy Spirit isn’t. Secular society outside the question of faith has no compelling reason to bar gay marriage. “Even the demons believe that, and shudder.” We don’t get points for thinking that. And I want to make the point that society doesn’t have such a reason BECAUSE the church doesn’t have such a reason.

Permit me to say: it takes courage to witness in word and deed the call of Christ to personal and social holiness. I think recognizing sexuality as God’s good gift and acknowledging its proper place in marriage translates ecclesially and secularly as the imperative to require marriage of all those who consent to God’s call to edifying sexual expression. Acting in the world in fidelity to our call to holiness is, if I may say, the very most Methodist thing we can do. And I think you’ll agree that doing the Methodist thing is good!

Again, thanks JM, I look forward to more conversation here.

by Sam on May 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Thanks for your comments Sam. Very well-articulated.

I agree that *within the church* the issue is an either/or. Either gay sexual relationships are in the category of ‘porneia’ and are thus forbidden for those claiming to follow the way of the Cross or they are not. That’s a huge question…but one that the VAST majority of Christians who have been called to preach, teach, and minister God’s Word have come to similar conclusions on (as have their Jewish friends) for the past 2,000 years. Now of course that doesn’t mean they are 100% right. But what does it say of the Holy Spirit if for 2,000 years His Kingdom has been almost entirely wrong on an issue of such importance? On other such debated ethical issues with human life implications (i.e. slavery, etc as opposed to, say, views of the age of the earth) there have been voices throughout the centuries who have nuanced and/or opposed various ecclesiastical stances. But not this one. Has God left Himself without a witness among His people for two millennia on an issue of such importance? If the revisionist position is correct, then He has indeed. And it is only with the rise of Western 20th century hermeneutics that the truth can finally come to the Bride of Christ.

This is something I’m not sure gets the consideration it deserves before being dismissed as irrelevant.

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Once again, I need to pause and say thanks for guiding this conversation in a positive direction, JM. The question of whose voices count in the church is precisely what needs talking about on this issue and so many others.

As you rightly say the consensus position in the church, derived from a reading of scripture and the world and our place in each, has for centuries been that two women or two men can’t covenant together in the sight of God for a lifetime sexual (and other-than-sexual) relationship. First I want to think out loud about the history of this fact and then talk about what it may mean for one dominant voice to be taken as the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We agreed on the fact of the general anti-queer ecclesial consensus going in, but I may need to convince you of the fact that the reasons for this prohibition have shifted over time. It’s actually an easy case to make, since we both know marriage itself has shifted radically even as it remains largely regarded as opposite-sex-only in most Christian connexions. In some times and places in the Christian world, marriage was (or perhaps still is) a property exchange; a symbol of strategic unity between families; a means for procreation without a great deal more significance attached; a means of releasing sexual energy (as Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 7); and, most recently, an expression of romance. This is not a list of all the legitimate things that marriage is for us; it may ALSO be that. Rather this is a list of separate things marriage has been considered to paradigmatically or even exclusively be. And the takeaway is this: whatever marriage *is not*, we have not been clear as Christians on what marriage *is*. Put another way, to the extent that it’s needed “definition” (which we agree hasn’t been an active question for the voices that mattered in the past), marriage has tended to be defined *apophatically*, by negation, more than by another means.

This leads me to conclude that our discussion can’t be that queer marriage compromises a model of what marriage is (“‘union’ between a man and a woman,” or whatever other formula), since we haven’t had consensus on such an ideal. Note that I still concede that there HAS been more or less a consensus that queer marriage is out. So we move to my second point, asking why that is. Why has the Christian consensus been against queerness even as it’s failed to deliver a comprehensive definition for itself?

The answer I’d like to pursue is that sexual minorities are silenced in the church, as they are in wider society. (This is why the term “queer” is important to keep in our vocabularies; in contrast with “gay” or “lesbian” or “same-sex,” it’s a term that gestures toward the unfinished, living, not-defined-by-those-outside-it character of un-approved-of human sexual activity.) The consensus to which you rightly refer is true not because there weren’t queer people who loved one another and were full of the Holy Spirit in the past. It’s true because such “voices throughout the centuries who have nuanced and/or opposed various ecclesiological stances,” as you appropriately term them, have been silenced and/or ignored… BY the ecclesia.

This is also the case with women’s ordination in the history of the church; there was exactly the same force of consensus with respect to ordaining women in the church in, say, the 13th century as there was with prohibiting queer marriage. If I were a woman who genuinely felt called by God to the ordained ministry, the consensus would have regarded this call as false and my pursuit of such a goal sinful. If I were a man who felt genuinely called by God to a life of marriage with another man, the consensus would have regarded my call as false and my pursuit of such a goal sinful. And now, this is an honest question to you, JM: acknowledging that the UMC currently officially regards one of these historical consensus exclusions appropriate and one inappropriate, what is the salient difference between the two?

As something of an epilogue to the argument I just tried to lay out, I feel you’d agree it is of the utmost importance as followers of the Risen Christ to seek out those marginalized and to listen to their voice, their expression of the presence of God within them. As always I look forward to more conversation here.

by Sam on May 11, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Sam, good comments. I disagree with your claim that there has been the same degree consensus regarding women in ministry. From the time of the NT there have been women preaching and teaching the Gospel. The decision on whether or not they should be “ordained” and what capacity they can serve in is one of ecclesiastical structure and tradition (which is not the case with the Church’s universal prohibition of same-sex sex).

Likewise, (and to answer your honest question) there is a STRONG Scriptural counter-witness to claims that women cannot serve in authoritative positions over men. From Deborah to Huldah to Priscilla to Junia, we have the witness of the Holy Spirit’s Inspired witness that such a concept does not conflict with God’s ethic for His people. Again, there is not only no comparable example of such counter-witness, but every time the topic of same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in Scripture they are unequivocally condemned as a type of sinful sexual behavior.

So far I believe that the revisionist arguments have all, individually and cumulatively, lacked the logical or Biblical backing needed to overturn the two points above. I’ve seen many appeals to emotion and vague notions of “love” (many are quite rhetorically and emotionally effective, I readily admit). But the human capacity for rationalizing sin is often underestimated by same-sex sex proponents and the arguments they put forth really do mirror the “Has God really said…?” approach that took us down this road of sin and death to begin with.

Our love, compassion and affirmation of the dignity of those with same-sex sexual desires should be authentic and unquestioned (something that has yet to happen among most Christians, shamefully!). But it must never be grounds for overriding the authoritative Words of God entrusted by the Holy Spirit to His people.

How we hold that tension is a challenge. But hold it we must. Those embracing your position, I would argue, have let go of one end of the spectrum in order to embrace the other (just as many Conservative/Fundamentalists have done in the opposite direction). I believe, in almost everything, truth is in the middle. Thus, I wholeheartedly echo the UMC’s position on this particular subject because I think it demonstrates the necessary balance beautifully.

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 1:36 am
Excellent. I think it may be helpful to respond to your latest comment paragraph-by-paragraph, as the comment is thoughtful and well organized (more so than my post, I think!). So, first paragraph:

I take it your point is mostly a reflection on the (chronologically) post-Scriptural tradition of the church. There are indeed examples of women who authoritatively preach and teach and lead the people of God in the Bible, especially Phoebe the “servant” or “deacon” in Romans 16:1. And more to the point there is some indication that women were ordained deacons in the early church connexions of the East. But for a very long time, and to this day in the largest communions of the universal church, women couldn’t/can’t be ordained leaders in the Body of Christ. Here’s my point: the consensus can be wrong. The fact that “the VAST majority of Christians called to preach, teach, and minister God’s Word” can be wrong and have been wrong is important and has consequences. It meant that genuinely called women were kept out of the pulpit and the Table for centuries in God’s name. And the fact that this problem rests in “ecclesiastical structure and tradition” doesn’t mitigate the harm done. This isn’t knock-down-drag-out in favor of queer marriage/ordination, and I admit that, even as I find it a compelling piece of the puzzle. But am I wrong to say it should promote a little pause before placing rhetorical weight in the strength of common Christian agreement at some period in history? In other words, sin can (and has) impel(led) a minority AND a majority in the church. Is that unfair?

In your second paragraph, I sense a move from tradition back to Scripture. You answer the question very well, as I judge it–for you the difference is that Scripture allows for women’s leadership in a way that it doesn’t allow for queer acts, consistent with your line of argument from the beginning. And you re-state the view concisely. My response is this, another genuine question: what is it about a “counter-witness” that compels your view so thoroughly? I sense it has been really foundation upon which you build your strong opposition to queer acts: you say there is no room in the Bible for it, no one ever says anything in support, there’s no counter-witness to Leviticus and Romans and so on. Why is the term so important for Hays and for you? I honestly (really, seriously) don’t understand its rhetorical value, and I apologize for asking!

In this third paragraph, I would like to strike a deal by uncritically accepting the term “revisionist” (which isn’t normally a term I’d choose) in this conversation in exchange for your patience on three points. First, I’ll split hairs and say that your claim against Biblical backing for what I say is still an open question for us–one that we’ve fruitfully pursued–but claims against any *logical* backing really isn’t fair to me. Second, and more substantially, you may have heard revisionist arguments of all kinds, but you’re hearing mine now. I don’t believe I’ve made an appeal to emotion or a vague notion of love, and I haven’t asked if God has really said anything. You and I have made appeals to the Christian privilege and responsibility of reading the Bible and reading the world in the Spirit’s presence. We’ve established that we read the Bible differently on the question of queerness (and in my question above I want to get at why that is). I’m now trying to establish that the Holy Spirit is opening straight Christian ears and putting air into queer Christian lungs, in this world, right now. I want to establish that God calls us to celebration of responsible, consenting sexuality in the church–with the understanding that “responsible, consenting sexuality” precisely means marriage. I’m trying to say that the church and wider society have, for a long time, meaningfully prohibited queer acts (read: same-sex sex) and that this has not been fitting given the content of our faith. I deny that it’s maudlin or inappropriate to say that. Third and finally, I appreciate that you may be referring to “death” in that last sentence as a spiritual term, and that is fair game. But we ought not to forget the ones who *literally* die from time to time when same-sex sexual revisionism happens. It’s the revisionists.

(Thank you for indulging the points above, JM!)

I will treat your fourth and fifth paragraphs together, as they fit well one into the other. I’m glad to read that you desire love and compassion for all. Notice, though, what two things you want to “hold in tension”: love/compassion/dignity of queer people on the one hand and the authority of God’s Words on the other. I venture to say that this is not the dichotomy you want to make, nor the extremes on either side of a spectrum with the UMC in the middle. If I were you (and, again, please believe that I truly want both of us to bring our best thoughts to the table here, JM), I would say something like: “We love/affirm queer people *because* of the authority of God’s Words.” Or again: “We confirm that the Scripture is true *because* of the love of queer people (and all people) it brings us to.” You’re saying something a little different than those two possible phrases. I venture to say this wasn’t a mistake in phrasing because you’re an excellent writer and you’ve thought a great deal about this topic. This is, rather, a serious rhetorical problem to the non-revisionist stance you hold, and here’s why: spectra are about maximums and minimums. What you and I and the UMC and all Christians want (or should want) is maximum love/compassion/dignity for queer people, maximum respect for Scripture, and maximum causal relationship between the two, and that’s not spectrum-able (though it is indeed the position I claim to hold). And the reason this isn’t nit-picking is because there’s a certain way you’re obligated to go about living as a genuine Christian in the world who also thinks queerness is sinful. You’re really kind of forced into saying, “Well, hold on, I need to occupy the middle between revisionists who misinterpret the Bible and bigots who fail to love LGBTQI people.” It presumes that inappropriate treatment of queer people stems from holding a strong stance against same-sex sex, and that there must be another source for balancing that inappropriateness. You critique revisionists for authentically and unquestioningly incarnating love/compassion/dignity among queer people at the expense of proper Biblical exegesis. But you do not claim for yourself that you hold both to their greatest extent; don’t you want to? May I be bold enough to say that those who share your view are *unable to do so* because reading the Bible as saying “queerness is always everywhere sinful” *prevents* them from full love/compassion for queer people?

Hopefully this makes sense and maybe speaks to your experience a little, JM.

by Sam on May 12, 2012 at 5:00 am
Yes Sam, it makes sense and I appreciate your points. Let me respond to a few of them:

“And more to the point there is some indication that women were ordained deacons in the early church connexions of the East. But for a very long time, and to this day in the largest communions of the universal church, women couldn’t/can’t be ordained leaders in the Body of Christ.”

Yes! This is PRECISELY my point. While there have been dominant views on the issue of women in ministry that various denominations/traditions have enforced over the millennia, there has never been UNIVERSAL consensus on the subject. That in and of itself sets it apart from the issue of same-sex sexual relationships. That is also why I don’t think the comparison between the two (which nearly EVERY proponent of revisionist positions that I have come across regularly declares that it does). So I agree that it should promote a little pause–but that pause should be sufficient time enough to recognize the illegitimacy of the comparison once all the facts have been taken into account (which I recognize that many on both sides of the issue do not often bother to do!).

(BTW, I am avoiding use of the term “queer” out of a personal conviction and sensitivity to LGBT friends who I know are not comfortable with it. I don’t begrudge you using it and I know many in the LGBT community prefer it. But I choose to use “same-sex sexual” out of a desire for specificity and to keep the emphasis on the behavior/action rather than extending it to encompass the whole identity of the person who engages in it. I also use the term “revisionist” in a non-pejorative manner. Someone seeking to argue for the acceptance of certain forms of same-sex sexual relationships being acceptable among God’s people is seeking to revise the universal consensus of the historic Christian faith in all its major branches throughout history. This is the definition of “revisionist”, so I believe the term is most applicable. Just wanted to clarify where I’m coming from on that point. Not a big deal for this discussion though.)

“My response is this, another genuine question: what is it about a “counter-witness” that compels your view so thoroughly?”

That’s a very good and fair question…and one that gets to what I believe is the absolute heart of this debate (I think same-sex sexual relationships is merely the symptom that has manifest rather than being the root issue itself) so let me answer it as clearly as I can with the following points that outline where I am coming from:

* I believe that Jesus placed the utmost authority in the revealed Word of God–this includes the Hebrew Scriptures and His own teaching and life which He in turn entrusted to His Apostles who were filled with the Holy Spirit in order to preach and teach the full Gospel, as He Himself promised most clearly in John 14-17 and Matthew 28 (among many other places).

* Thus, I believe that the revealed Word of God is the final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine among God’s people and none of it can be discounted or rejected (though how it is applied is most definitely a matter of faithfulness to allowing the Spirit who Inspired it to direct and lead His people in the process of application as cultural settings into which we minister change over time).

* So any doctrinal or ethical claim must conform to the full canonical witness of Scripture, though there is room for variation when Scripture is not unanimous or clear on a subject.

* Scripture is unanimous on the subject of same-sex sexual relationships being a form of sin. And in both Testaments they are seen as going against God’s intended and stated desire for human sexuality, with no exceptions made for how “loving” or “faithful” such relationships may be said to be. (Of course this is the point with which revisionists most often disagree! See Chris’s comments in this discussion for a prime example, as well as the more nuanced discussions by Boswell, Scroggs, Nissinen, Martin, Gomes, etc.)

* Therefore since Scripture is unanimous on the subject of same-sex sexual relationships being outside of God’s accepted ethic for human sexual relationships, the follower of God who wishes to remain faithful to God’s authoritative Word and the leading of the Spirit who Inspired it, cannot condone same-sex sexual relationships as legitimate expressions of human sexuality. To do so is to reject (despite intricate rationalization attempts) the authority of God’s Word and God’s Spirit in this important area which strikes at the core of what it means to be bearers of the Imago Dei.

* In cases where a behavior or practice seems to stand in tension with a particular passage or group of passages in Scripture (such as the issue of women in ministry), one must listen to the full council of Scripture to determine whether or not Scripture itself provides evidence that such a practice may in fact be compatible with the overall message of God’s Word. This is why the concept of such “counter-witnesses” within Scripture is so crucial. In the case of women in ministry there are indeed such voices (as there are with other issues often appealed to by revisionists such as slavery). William Webb as done a magnificent job in laying out the hermeneutical foundation that I’m referring to and I think every proponent of revisionist views should at least familiarize themselves with his work in “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis“). In the case of same-sex sexual relationships there simply are none. And no suggested form of same-sex sexual relationship that I have ever heard of exists that does not stand in contradiction to what Scripture does in fact teach on the topic.

If what I have put forth above is accurate, then regarding your final question, I would say that it is the revisionist position which actually prevents true love and compassion for those who struggle with same-sex desire. If the above approach is correct, then revisionist approaches–albeit in the name of tolerance and with the intention of being loving–actually contribute to Sin’s continued enslavement of people, just as someone advocating for acceptance of drunkenness would be enabling alcoholics in their continued bondage to Sin. In other words, I believe the irony of Christians who seek to affirm and celebrate same-sex sexual relationships is that such an approach, from a Kingdom perspective, consigns people to bondage rather than offering the freedom Jesus came to bring. This is why, in part, I believe the NT emphasized that those seeking to allow for Sin must “not be deceived” (1Cor.6). I believe revisionist views of same-sex sexual relationships, in fact, ultimately being deceived.

Okay, hopefully this is enough to wade through for now. Let me know if I haven’t answered something satisfactorily and I’ll do my best to clear up my thoughts as time allows. 🙂 Blessings, brother.

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm
BTW, Sam, here is a gracious and well-put article written from an Anglican sister which touches on a few of your points that I thought worth sharing (if for no other reason than the Simpsons shout-out in the photo! haha!)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/05/anglicans-rom-126-27-and-homosexuality/

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm
As you suggest at the end, I know your time is valuable and I’m in your debt for the time you’ve taken to respond on this thread, JM. You make plain an implicit argument stemming from the women’s ordination question I raise: if there’s ANY evidence for it, if there’s a crack in the armor of bigotry, so to speak, then we do have a way of challenging the bigoted majority view. I getcha.

If it’s all right to talk about the parenthetical, I want to do so as follows. First, as much as the recent conversation in mainline and Catholic theology circles has shifted from a focus on “orientation” to a focus on “acts” (and this is very recent), at least for the UMC the language on the books is that “self-avowed practicing homosexual” persons can’t be ordained. “Homosexuality,” a term of orientation which refers to a constituent part of a human person (and not, in the first place, to acts of any kind) is officially the barrier to ordination for us. In the same light, in BoD paragraphs 613 and 806.9, which are about the use of UM funds, the church prohibits contributions to “any gay caucus or group” and in the latter paragraph again refers to “acceptance of homosexuality.”

Like me, you may find yourself a Discipline revisionist soon enough, JM, because these statements don’t at all focus on acts; they focus on what you call “the whole identity of the person” (or their sexual identity, anyway). My point is this: you and I can share a commitment to talking about whether discrete sex acts are sinful or not all we’d like, and thankfully we have done. The church hasn’t. We permit each other our own vocabularies because we’re civil, but the world isn’t, the church hasn’t been, and that’s a sin. It’s humbling to think the problems we face are expressed in certain terms, debated in time and at a place, and engaged by people who breathe the Breath of God!

Second, I believe the way you use “revisionist” isn’t intentionally pejorative, and you helpfully (no sarcasm) offer *your* definition of the term. But don’t think I’m rude to point out that using the phrase “the universal consensus of the historic Christian faith” in the definition of the word is a little unfair. It’s at least not neutral with respect to the content we’re discussing here, since I’ve argued that such a consensus isn’t present in the Bible and (to the extent that it did exist) has existed in the church sinfully. But, quid pro quo, this is not sufficient cause for me to think you’re less than hospitable, JM.

Next, you’re absolutely right: the Bible-consensus question is the centerpiece of our conversation. We may always disagree about what to draw from the Bible here. I’ve said it doesn’t meaningfully/specifically address the issue; you’ve said it presents a clear, unopposed argument against same-sex sex. (The funny thing is, if there’s anywhere a middle ground to be found, it’s here: someone else could argue there’s a witness *and* a counter-witness in the Bible!) OK. But there’s a lot more to talk about because now I’m seeing why a lack of “counter-witness” matters to you so much.

Your argument hinges, as I think we’d both agree, on whether what you say in your fourth point is true. If the Bible’s clear, it’s clear; if it’s not, it’s not. OK. But suppose we each asked ourselves, “What if what JM/Sam said is right and I’m wrong” about only this specific point. Where would we end up? If I were convinced that what you said was true, I could either admit that Scripture is not the final authority for my life of faith–which as a United Methodist I won’t do–or I could acknowledge that same-sex sex acts are sinful and work as much as I could to show love to queer people.

What would you say? Again, the only thing you’d have to change is that you come to regard Scripture as silent on the subject of queerness (or, again, the subject of same-sex sex) as we encounter it today. It’s another honest question and I’m willing to wager (except I’m not, since I’m UM!) that your answer can give us rich ground for conversation in the future.

I confess that counterfactuals like this aren’t the best way to have conversations, because both of us have formed our views in part on the data that’s forbidden in the question. I only bring this up to get around the stalemate we might find ourselves in: you think this about the Bible, I think that about the Bible, and for both of us, final authority is in the way we read the Bible.

I’m glad you end your fifth bullet point the way you do. It’s always tricky for queer advocates to ask, “If ‘same-sex sex’ is a sin among others, and you admit the church struggles with sins of all kinds, why do you spend so much time on discussing this one issue?” That’s tricky because the non-revisionist (to modify a phrase) can always dodge by saying, “I think it’s wrong that we focus so much on this. There are lots of sins, and though we can’t bend on this one, we need to address all sins. I only talk about it to the extent that revisionists bring it up.” But thankfully you’ve gestured toward a genuine answer to the question: something about queerness “strikes at the core of what it means to be bearers of the Imago Dei.” Would you mind elaborating on that thought, JM?

Your last large paragraph is also a really rich area for conversation, probably the element of your comment that I’d like to speak the most about. I’ve brought up a couple of examples of Bible verses addressing (what we would now call) civil rights issues–especially women’s rights in the church. You’ve said the comparison falls apart because, despite the fact that Scripture on the whole doesn’t promote women as equals to men in the ecclesia and society, there are some counter-witnesses who give us an entree into promoting such rights.

In the same light, I want to treat your alcoholism/queerness comparison at some length. The context of alcoholism and queerness, as you compare them, is that both are sinful but both are insidiously so, such that we actually hurt people by affirming the behavior they feel compelled to do by their unchosen orientation. I follow you.

The discrete acts are what’s at issue for you vis-a-vis queerness. But that’s not unequivocally the case with alcoholism, is it? Probably neither of us think that Christians drinking alcohol is, in and of itself, sinful. Even Nazarenes and other teetotalers don’t conflate an act of drinking with alcoholism, even if they think it’s always inappropriate for a Christ follower. So the acts that constitute alcoholism aren’t sinful, but alcoholism itself is. But for you, *any* act of same-sex sex is sinful; indeed, the ONLY aspect of queerness which is sinful. (Am I right about this last phrase? It may depend on how you answer my question about the Imago Dei.)

Or let’s say that the constituent parts of alcoholism worth talking are situations of *drunkenness*, rather than any one moment of alcohol consumption. That’s fair. Why is acting on an impulse for overconsumption of alcohol–to which alcoholics are predisposed–a sin? Well, it says so in the Bible (Eph. 5:18, Gal. 5:21, etc). OK.

If we are willing to admit this is the end of the line for discerning the boundary between what is sinful and what’s not, well, we’re not very good at theology, JM. You and I both know that the Bible’s finality for matters of faith and doctrine does not entail an admission of its comprehensiveness. So when we’re asking the question, “Why is drunkenness a sin?,” we have a lot of options, many or all of which *connect to* the Bible but which do not appear in its pages arbitrarily. Why is it a sin to be drunk? It’s a misuse of money, it places other people in bodily danger, it’s unhealthy, it tends to (but does not necessarily) estrange us from those we are responsible to/for, etc. The Bible doesn’t list all of that; we know this from living in Creation and we connect these reasons to the words in the Bible, acknowledging that the Bible says it because it’s true (not the other way around).

I don’t need to give you a Bible lesson because you’re a Bible teacher. You know that the Bible is not arbitrary, that God has ordained its content and our faith-act of wrestling with that content for the purpose of discipleship in the world (I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth!). And I imagine you know where I want to go next: to say that this analogy doesn’t work because we don’t have reasons outside the Bible for regarding queerness as sinful. Two women or two men having sex doesn’t harm the body any more than a man and a woman doing so; it doesn’t contribute to mental disorders; it doesn’t constitute an act of idolatry nor promote a symbolic discord with Bride/Bridegroom imagery in the Bible; it doesn’t necessarily tear families apart (and if it does, this is a disordered nature in the family, not the queer couple); it yields as many children as a sterile straight couple, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard it before and it’s all true.

The really important thing to say here is that God doesn’t call us to live inside the moral boundary of Scripture arbitrarily. Reading Scripture yields moral lessons insofar as those lessons apply to the world in which we live. This is what you’re getting at when you speak of “allowing the Spirit who Inspired [Scripture] to direct and lead His people in the process of application as cultural settings into which we minister change over time,” and I couldn’t say it better myself.

I become more and more curious to hear your answer to my question about the Imago Dei, because I feel like this could be the theological category which makes your rejection of same-sex sex non-arbitrary. If you have an idea about the Imago Dei bearer as necessarily celibate or straight, we could make some conversational hay!

I’d like to close by pointing out that there have been–and, as Family Research Council demonstrates–continue to be Bible-exterior evidences for the sinfulness of queerness. These evidences are misreadings of accurate studies or just plain first-level inaccuracies, and I advise against making them the means by which Christians who oppose queerness avoid the arbitrariness problem. And finally, thanks for that link, as I’m happy to report I find your approach to this issue much less condescending (balancing queer-straight listening means *queer* people need to listen more?? being white and western are the only ways we can be colonial??) and better thought-out than Sarah and Michael’s!

by Sam on May 13, 2012 at 1:50 am
Sam, there’s a lot of good stuff in here to discuss…so much in fact that I would like to do so in a follow up post or series of posts so that it doesn’t get buried in a comments thread where very few people will read it!

Thus I would like to invite you to synthesize your comments above into a guest post that I can share here in the Dojo as a follow-up to this post. That way others can read it and follow our discussion (which I believe is fruitful and necessary), much like I did with Chad in the past. Is this something you’d be willing to do? If so, you could email me what you’d like to say/ask/clarify and I could post it this week as its own entry and then do a follow up entry of my own in response.

Let me know if this is something you’d be interested in.

Blessings,
JM

by jm on May 14, 2012 at 2:10 am
That’d be awesome, JM. I’ll email you directly!

by Sam on May 14, 2012 at 4:35 am
I think what Jms means by “there is no counter-example” in scripture, is that there is no example of a same sex couple entering into a covenant out of love whereby their families become legally affiliated. If there was, that would be a scriptural example of same sex marriage.

Let me go over that again: Two men, who proclaim their love for each other, before God in a sacramental sense (a covenant), who then have their two families be legally related so that property and titles can pass from one to the other. There is no example of that in the Bible.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Samuel 18
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 20

And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee;
The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan: but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace: and the LORD be with thee, as he hath been with my father.
And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:

But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See? If something like THAT were in the Bible, there would be a Biblical basis for same sex marriage. But unfortunately there are no examples of a same sex coulple swearing their love to God in an eternal covenant so that their descendents are legally related. No such thing. Nope. None.

by Christopher Bowers on May 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Nice try, Chris. If you spent half the time in studying actual ancient Near East background (particularly vassal covenants) as you do in eisegetical and anachronistic revisionist readings, you’d be a pretty good Bible interpreter! 😉

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Seems to me that Jesus and his disciples spent 99.9999% of their time witnessing, teaching, loving, serving, and ministering to the individuals around them… and gave very minimal effort to government policy and law in the areas where they lived.

Granted, we here in America have unprecedented freedom and privilege to be governed “by the people” and we should very much use this freedom to ensure that liberty and prosperity continue here.

But if we use Christ as our perfect example, a far bigger portion of our concern, time, energy, and effort should be toward reaching individuals in love and presenting the good news of the gospel for the salvation of their souls.

Not sure what my point is, other than to encourage myself (mostly) and others to remember the great commission (which *wasn’t*, by the way, legislate America according to God’s ways.) For every time we get riled about public policy, have we shared the good news of the gospel infinitely more times?

by Kamin on May 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I feel you, Kamin. But I think that the Gospel does have implications in the world we live in, and thus will overlap into the realm of political at times (just ask William Wilberforce!). We can’t divorce the Gospel from impacting this world (that would lead to a pious form of Gnosticism…and it has done so throughout Church history at times unfortunately). There are real socio-political implications from the Gospel. But the key, I would argue, is to maintain the balance and not get swept into *partisan* politics or ideology. Easier said than done, of course. But I believe we have to live in that tension somehow.

Good comments though, and I agree that the Gospel is bigger than any government or earthly institution.

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 3:42 pm
JM,

I have three thoughts on this…

1. The issue of gay marriage and the church has always reminded me of Jesus’ admonition to “remove the plank from your own eye before you worry about the speck in your brother’s.” I believe that homosexual relationships are clearly prohibited by both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament (a discussion for another time), but I think this issue of gay marriage has become an issue that the church can shout about to avoid talking about the BIGGER issues.

Most notably the fact that 60% of men and 40% of women IN THE CHURCH are addicted to pornography (according to most studies I’ve seen). It should be no surprise then that the divorce rate within the church falls directly between these two numbers (50-55%). Yet I haven’t seen any Christians out protesting for Congressional legislation regarding pornography or divorce (at least not the way they do with the issue of gay marriage). Seems to me the biblical position is to clean up your own house before you try to clean up someone else’s.

2. The problem with the Government dictating who can and cannot get married, and this really scares me, is that if they decide that homosexual marriage is constitutionally valid they can FORCE religious institutions to recognize homosexual relationships. This very quickly then becomes a true issue of separation of church and state. This has already become an problem in parts of Europe.

My personal opinion is that according to the Constitution the government should have no say at all in who can and cannot get married (a religious issue) but should only recognize civil unions, at whatever level they deem constitutional.

3. As a Libertarian I’m sure you can appreciate JM what happened yesterday. I noticed that both President Obama and Governor Romney, when discussing this issue said “my PERSONAL opinion is…” I’m not even a libertarian and I have no interest in what their personal opinion is. How about we talk about what the Constitution says instead of what their personal opinion is.

by Jacob I. on May 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Govern according to the Constitution?? That’s just crazy talk, man!! 😉

Thanks for the comments. Well said.

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm
there are a number of issues present that we (everyone emotionally involved in this issue) have muddled together in this debate and you have struck at a couple of them . . .

the religious institution’s definition of marriage – which is as varied as mainline- evangelical-polygamist-et al.
our culture’s definition
our government’s definition (and now with an almost civil war like battle line drawn between state’s rights and federal power)

the libertarian in me does wish government would stay out of it – except there are legal issues involving taxes, adoption, medical and estate issues – our government has to define some kind of union for these purposes.

which is why I am not opposed to the (federal) government defining civil unions and authorizing such for the sake of legal order.

but at the same time, I lament that the “definition or marriage” is being redefined by both our culture and state. my heart wishes the term “civil union” would suffice for government purposes while letting religious institutions/private entities define marriage along any line of consenting adults

practiically speaking – get married according to your personal faith/beliefs and then apply for a civil union certificate – as defined by the government – for matters of legality

part of our struggle is our identity as a Christian nation and the slow erosion of that notion upon which we (still arguable) were founded. “Christian” still makes a poor adjective. Still in a Christian democracy, the people could establish laws consistent with their biblical world view. and that is the crux of our divide today – a fight over culture – and the church’s and government’s role in molding it. there is reflected even in these comments that deep divide.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is still Biblically applicable especially in light of our nation and government turning more secular in its worldview. The NC ammendment among others is in response to this.

LGBT rights is merely the surface issue of a deep divide in how we view our church, our government and our culture. Democracy means we all have a say in it.

Thanks for sharing and helping me articulate my thoughts.

by vineman on May 10, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Thank you for this incredibly well-thought response, vineman.

by jm on May 10, 2012 at 7:50 pm
From someone who voted FOR to someone who voted AGAINST:

God made you, but he didn’t make you gay. Sin did. Sin makes people gamble, do drugs, have affairs, murder etc. Scripture tells us that we must not create false gods, or place any other gods before God. What you have done, through deception, is create a “god” that suits your lifestyle. This is a trick of Satan to get you to stay as you are. You were put on earth for 2 things: to glorify God and reach the lost. God’s unaltered word – whether you understand or believe it all or not, it’s true. Trust it. Get in a Word based church. One that says the hard stuff no one necessarily likes to hear. I love all my homosexual colleagues, friends and family. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with your decision. Just as you do not have to agree with all the decisions I’ve made in life. God does love you very much.

by Anonymous on May 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm
>Nice try, Chris. If you spent half the time in studying actual ancient Near East >background (particularly vassal covenants) as you do in eisegetical and >anachronistic revisionist readings, you’d be a pretty good Bible interpreter!

You can call it a “vassal covenant” if you like JMS, but Jonthan is clearly passing down the ownership of his kingdom to David’s descendants.

by Chris Bowers on May 10, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Of course he is! He recognized that David, rather than himself, is the true annointed King of Israel and he is giving him the rightful allegiance that Saul refused to.

Nothing in this account even remotely hints of a romantic/marriage element to anyone at all familiar with ancient Near East treaty dynamics and honor & shame cultures such as Israel at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.

That’s why no reputable scholar gives such a reading any serious consideration.

by jm on May 11, 2012 at 1:57 am
>Of course he is! He recognized that David, rather than himself, is the true >annointed King of Israel and he is giving him the rightful allegiance that Saul >refused to.

Jonathan (and Saul) knew nothing about David’s anointment. It was done in secret. It’s not even clear that David himself knew that he was anointed. Samuel did it under the guise of sacrificing a heifer, with God talking secretly to Samuel.

Samuel complained to God that Saul would kill him if he anointed David, so
Samuel did it in secret.

To say that Jonathan recognized the anointing of Samuel makes no sense. Jonathan knew nothing about that.

>Nothing in this account even remotely hints of a romantic/marriage >element to anyone at all familiar with ancient Near East treaty dynamics

There was no need for a treaty with David. He was already the King’s son in law (married to Michal). There is nothing in the covenant that in any way hints of military or land aspects or a treaty of any kind.

The covenant is said to be based on LOVE, not any sort of “Vassal” or “treaty” or land. Jonathan’s kingdom isn’t even mentioned. What is mentioned is that the covenant is made out of LOVE, not out of allegiance.

by Chris Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 4:34 am
Here’s a good article from a seminary about Vassal treaties. You’ll notice that all three of the aspects are missing from the Covenant of David and Jonathan.

http://elearning.thirdmill.org/theme/standard_thirdmill/lessons/KOT3text.html

Now to get a flavor of what these imperial arrangements were like, it will help to describe the contents of typical suzerain-vassal treaties. With rare exceptions, the formal features of these ancient treaties followed a predictable threefold pattern.

First, the treaties were introduced by a focus on royal benevolence, the kindnesses the emperor had shown to his vassals. They began with a preamble in which the king identified himself as a glorious king, worthy of praise. And at certain stages in history, the preamble was followed by a historical prologue in which the king described many good things that he had done for the people.

The second major portion of suzerain-vassal treaties focused on the requirement of vassal loyalty; they spelled out the kinds of obedience required of the emperor’s vassals. Lists of rules and regulations were given to explain how vassals were expected to live in the suzerain’s kingdom.

The third major portion of suzerain-vassal treaties drew attention to the consequences of loyalty and disloyalty from the vassals. Faithful servants were promised further blessings or rewards, but unfaithful servants were threatened with curses or punishments of various sorts from their emperors.

by Chris Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 4:38 am
Great article on same-sex marriage in Christianity.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

by Christopher Bowers on May 11, 2012 at 6:39 pm
I would just like to say some final points here. I’m going to try very hard not to sound snarky or inflammatory, but I’m not making any covenantal promises.

0 🙂 <— This is me with a Halo.

Conservative Christians, by and large are completely unaware of how other cultures work. They have rarely studied other cultures, and almost never near east cultures or Judaism. There are exceptions (JMS is an example).

More often than not, these Christians get on their high horse about how God "intended" sex to only between one man, and one woman forever.

When I point out that the entire Old Testament is based on polygamy (over 50 Biblical figures engaged in it) HOWLS of protest rise up about how I'm wrong, and that God never meant to do that.

Then I point out that not only did God ALLOW for Polygamy, but also claimed to directly have given David wives, and that besides that, Levirate marriage is mandated in the Bible, all of the sudden everything gets quiet.

REAL REAL QUIET.

You'll notice that after I put up all the links that I did explaining the historicity of Polygamy and Levirate marriage, there's simply nothing more for Conservative Christians to say. Their high horse has been completely knocked out from under them.

You see, for a xenophobic culture, they basically superimpose their own sexual habits and sexual taboos onto Scripture, ignoring the fact that Ancient Near East sexual practices were radically different than their own.

Levirate Marriage (as mandated in the Bible) to us in this day and age is MORALLY REPULSIVE. The idea of being mandated by God to take your brother's wife in marriage and have sex with her (especially if you are already married) intrinsically strikes us in our culture as morally wrong both because you certainly don't have any romantic feelings for her, and secondly it's very close to incest, and we would consider it incestuous according to our culture. Would any Christian preacher suggest this be done in america? He would be denounced as a pervert (and possibly legally prosecuted) in an instant. Yet that's what God commands in Deuteronomy 25.

The idea of God giving MULTIPLE WIVES to someone as a gift for being a good soldier or general (as David was) seems to us COMPLETELY immoral.
Women are sexual gifts to a man? And he has hundreds of them who have to give him sex whenever he wants??!! Monstorous! Inhuman! Yet that's exactly what God did in 2 Samuel 12.

Let's talk about Eunuchs. The ancient Jewish cultures believed that creating Eunuchs was good for public policy. As a eunuch they would have no desire for power and would be a good public servant, highly desired in affairs of the state and could either devote themselves to God or civil government.
They dressed as women in public. Let me explain how this worked: They would castrate a boy usually in his early years, at five or six, sometimes earlier and castrate him, cutting off his lower extremities. Let's say that we did that now. That a Christian preacher entreated families to select some young boys for this. MONSTROSITY! CHILD ABUSE! CALL THE POLICE! We find the idea of taking away a man's genitals and sexuality completely immoral! Yet this is exactly what God commanded in Isaiah 39.

Now let's talk about marriage in the Judaic tradition. When did people get married and have children? At age 12 for girls and age 13 for boys. That's right, they got married, got a job and moved into a house, before (or on the first day of) their teen years. That's what the Bar-Mitzvah was: it was intended for when you were old enough to BE A MAN and get married. Can anyone name any Christian preacher who has ever EVER advanced this idea? EVER? No, of course not. We consider marrying at 11 to be possibly the most immoral thing possible. BABIES HAVING BABIES! UNTHINKABLE. We reserve pregnant 12 year olds to the most scandalous time slot on Jerry Springer, we don't consider it the "blessed age" to be married.

Conservative Christians like to throw up illusions, ignore scripture, and most of all, maintain total ignorance of other cultures and history. In this way they can claim that everything their culture does sexually is in complete keeping with the Bible.

But it isn't. Not by a long shot. NONE of the sexual practices in the Bible would be morally tolerated FOR A SECOND today. Following any of them wouldn't just bring scandal, but EVERY SINGLE ONE is illegal in the United states. Marriage at 12 is statutory rape. Castration is child abuse. Taking your dead brother's wife is incest (and also could be considered rape of a grieving widow), and Polygamy is illegal. What would happen if you said "Hey, I know these things aren't accepted, but sorry they're commanded by God." You could say that from your jail cell I guess!

As Christians, we don't follow any of those sexual practices anymore. We've evolved our understanding of sexuality. EVEN IF the Bible REALLY WAS against homosexuality, So what? The Bible isn't a guide to sexuality, every sexual practice in it we now consider immoral.

Thank you and goodnight. I take it from everyone's deafening silence that you can't muster a counter-argument.

by Chris Bowers on May 12, 2012 at 4:47 am
Chris, I can’t speak for others (they can feel free to respond), but I find your caricatures of nearly every view and passage you cite as simply too exhausting to correct one by one in a blog comments section. My discussion here with Sam is much more fruitful as he desires to stay on point and engage the points of the person he is in dialogue with. You, on the other hand, always employ the shotgun method in such debates whereby you throw out multiple points that are often only tangentially related, state things which are not at all agreed upon is if they were indisputable fact, and then declare moral and intellectual victory. I only have so much mental energy and I just can’t see it being well-spent in an endless bickering over your eccentric interpretations at this point.

by jm on May 12, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Jms, I did go a little too far in my last post. Please ignore my opinion and lets talk just facts. If you think my facts are in error: levirate marriage mandated, polygamy participated in by god giving wives, god commanding castration to specific people, and pre teen marrying age. If you can refute any of those facts, game on. We’ll confine it to that and let readers form their own opinions. I won’t declare victory but if you can’t refute those things, yes I think i’ve demonstrated that the bible is not a good sourcebook for sexual ethics.

by christopher on May 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Chris, the Bible makes a terrible “sourcebook” for many things…because it is not intended to be an instruction manual (as I discuss in Bible for the Rest of Us).

That being said, your understanding of Levirate marriage was indeed a very limited and specific means by which God ensured that tribal land allotment and family inheritance/name was carried on and widows were not neglected (which is of the utmost concern to YHWH in both testaments). But it was very different from polygamy/plural marriage according to Torah.

I very much dispute your understanding of the passage in Samuel and believe that God was idiomatically proclaiming His giving the throne to David, not endorsing polygamy. See, for example, Deut. 29:4, for how God’s “giving” in Hebrew is often idiomatic. You go beyond what the text (and overall teaching of Torah) can bear when you claim that polygamy was approved and sanctioned (rather than allowed/permitted) by God…and certainly beyond what the NT can bear, as Jesus and the NT authors definitely did not condone it.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to regarding God “commanding castration to specific people”; please let me know what passage/s you are talking about.

As for pre-teen marrying age, our cultural idea of a “minor” being under 18 is pretty arbitrary and I readily allow for that.

While some of this might be unsettling to many who embrace various folk-theological understanding of Biblical ethics, it does not detract from our ability to form a broad outline of sexual ethics from the overall narrative of Scripture…and it certainly does not in any way validate or imply that sexual relationships between members of the same gender are acceptable in God’s eyes (as His overall view of that practice is consistently negative in both testaments with no exceptions–despite imaginative attempts to read such relationships into texts as you are fond of doing).

by jm on May 14, 2012 at 1:56 am
Disclaimer: I’m solidly in JM’s camp.

I have a different question for those adamantly opposed: If Christians should be against a secular government legalizing gay marriage based on God’s plan, then shouldn’t we just pass law prohibiting ANY marriage outside of Christianity? Like muslim unions, or hindu unions as well?

Have at it, I’m NOT a bible teacher.

by Joe Tolley on May 13, 2012 at 3:41 am
Good point Joe.

However, I believe most on the conservative end of the spectrum would respond that even “unbeliever” marriages are still part of God’s ‘common grace’ and are vestiges of the original command to humanity from Gen.1-3, despite being marred by the sin of unbelief. Thus they are part of how God is testified to in the “natural” world (Psalm 19, Rom.1, etc.).

by jm on May 14, 2012 at 2:06 am
I’m just going to leave a comment here. This is sort of my final comment on the matter, and I think JMS is not even truly responding to me anymore.

1. I do not believe the scriptural injunctions against Homosexuality were injunctions against ALL HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, rather, I believe that they were injunctions against Homosexuality as were practiced in the time period by people who used homosexual acts for immoral purposes, namely Idolotry, prostitution and temple sex, where these sex acts were used to worship other Gods. I believe that this is precisely the thing which Paul and Leviticus is referring to, NOT homosexuality in a general sense.

2. Scripture DID have specially reserved respect for the “Saris” or Eunuchs. Eunuchs were not always castrated, “Natural Eunuchs” are a reference to Homosexual Orientation in ANE cultures. Castrated Eunuchs also were known to dress as women and engage in homosexual sex acts as the passive partner. The positive mention and affirmation of Eunuchs as having special blessings from God and having a legitimate place in Jewish and Christian society serve as a counter witness to the idea that homosexuals should marry in violation of their orientation. These passages indicate that God loves homosexuals as persons and doesn’t restrict the saris to any sort of sexual act (pro or con). Other evidence from other writings at the time (Writings by Clement and from the Talmud) back up this idea.

3. Claiming that modern Christianity takes its cues for sexual ethics from either Bible and ANE cultures is incorrect. The sexual practices of modern Christianity are closer linked to Anglo Saxon taboos. Christians do not practice any of the sexual acts or taboos mentioned in the Bible such as Polygamy, Levirate Marriage, Marriage after Bar Mitzvah, the Niddah, Castration of children, the concept of women as property, and so forth. None of these sexual practices are still used by Christians and to say that sexual ethics is written in stone is contrary to scripture (wherin it changes). To say that we should follow Biblical injunctions against Homosexuality (and not follow the other sexual rules in the Bible) is cherry picking and hypocritical. It’s an attempt to justify current Christian sexual taboos and confirmation bias: pay attention to Biblical injunctions against homosexuality, ignore the rest of the sexual injunctions in the Bible (since those don’t fit with our culture).

4. There are witnesses of same sex romantic/erotic relationships in the Bible, namely Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz. While conservatives may dispute that these relationships are homosexual in nature, and that opinion and bias comes into play, I genuinely believe that to an unbiased observer these relationships are homosexual in nature and recounted by scripture in a positive light.

5. The Law of Love in Christianity is supreme over any Biblical injunction in the Old or New Testament. Christians do not follow rules simply because they are written in the Bible, they follow rules or injunctions SOLELY based on if they violate the Law of Love. Anything that violates it is prohibited, anything that does not violate it is permitted. Christians aren’t prohibited from same sex acts because the “Bible says so”. They are prohibited if and only if those acts violate the Law of Love. Christians do not have to follow a law or a proscription “Just because God says so.” They are only bound to follow the Law of Love written on their hearts. As such homosexual acts, if they are done though true love of another person, are not prohibited.

by Chris Bowers on May 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm
>That being said, your understanding of Levirate marriage was indeed a very >limited and specific means by which God ensured that tribal land allotment >and family inheritance/name was carried on and widows were not neglected >(which is of the utmost concern to YHWH in both testaments). But it was very >different from polygamy/plural marriage according to Torah.

Levirate Marriage COMMANDS (not allows, COMMANDS) for you to take a second wife even if you are already married. A second wife is polygamy. You’re not going to get out of it. Yes there were tribal land reasons, care of the widow reasons, and even priestly reasons. But it’s still God commanding you to take a second wife.

The claim that God intended sex to be “Between one man, one woman, forever” is false. Polygamy is commanded by God. It’s required. The End. This sexual practice of Levirate Marriage doesn’t match up with your personal sexual taboos, or that of your (Anglo Saxon)culture.

Your sexual ethics are not the same as Biblical sexual ethics. Sexual ethics change over time. They are not universally and eternally true. Levirate marriage was instituted and then abandoned when the temple was destroyed. Sexual laws and practices change, even within the pages of the Bible.

>I very much dispute your understanding of the passage in Samuel and

You can dispute it all you want. Talk to a Rabbi. I’ve talked to three. Polygamy is an accepted practice in Judaism. It is permitted in both the Torah and the Talmud. The burden of proof is squarely on you to disprove that God in the Bible and that ANE culture was against polygamy. Ahkenazi and Sepheradi Jews have been practicing polygamy for centuries. There are Sepheradi Jews that still have multiple wives as it was only banned recently when the new state of Israel was formed.

All the Patriarchs were polygamous. All the Kings. More than 50 Old Testament figures were polygamous. And then there’s God saying “I’ve given you these wives and I would have given you more if they weren’t enough.”

>I’m not sure what you’re referring to regarding God “commanding >castration to specific people”; please let me know what passage/s you >are talking about.

Isaiah 39
And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

This is God commanding Hezakiah to make his sons Eunuchs, to castrate them when they are born and send them to the palace of the King in Babylon.

>As for pre-teen marrying age, our cultural idea of a “minor” being under 18 >is pretty arbitrary and I readily allow for that.

Great! So as a preacher, you will now preach to people about how they should be married at 12 and 13, so that your sexual practices can match those of the Bible, right? After all, you ARE committed to the sexual practices laid out in the Bible correct?

by Chris Bowers on May 17, 2012 at 7:19 am
“Isaiah 39
And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

This is God commanding Hezakiah to make his sons Eunuchs, to castrate them when they are born and send them to the palace of the King in Babylon.”

Wow.

Did you seriously just make this claim, Chris?

And you wonder why I can’t take your understanding of the Hebrew Bible seriously?

by jm on May 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Hey if you’ve got the guns to shoot it down, go for it. Tell me where i’m wrong.

by christopher on May 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Chris, you can’t be serious. Isaiah 39 says:

“Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord Almighty: The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the Lord. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. ”

Surely you’re not suggesting that the prophecy to Hezekiah regarding what the Babylonians would do to his dynasty and kingdom is a command from God that Hezekiah castrate his sons, are you??

If you are suggesting this, it is the absolute worst case of Biblical interpretation I’ve ever heard in my life by someone attempting to make a serious point.

Ever.

And I’ve heard A LOT of bad interpretations over the years, so that’s saying something.

by jm on May 18, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Okay. That’s fair. God is not commanding that he do it, god is commanding it to be done to him. So god is using the castration of little boys to punish zecheriah. You see no problem with that?

by christopher on May 18, 2012 at 7:49 pm
*shakes head*

God is telling HEZEKIAH (Zechariah has nothing to do with this passage) what will happen as a result of Israel’s disobedience, at the hands of the very people whom Hezekiah was trying to impress with his riches.

This is what’s always been so frustrating about your approach Chris. You put forth such confidence and dogmatism, but then at times seem completely unaware of the basic facts and details you are trying to muster to make your arguments. To be clear, I’m not faulting you for not knowing the historical background of a relatively obscure passage from the Hebrew Bible…but I am faulting you for exhibiting a level of confidence and dogmatism that goes far beyond your understanding of the overall content of the Hebrew Bible–as well as castigating those who study and teach it as their profession for being ignorant or blindly following “anglo-saxon” tradition whenever they disagree with you.

by jm on May 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm
> I am faulting you for exhibiting a level of confidence and dogmatism

Hold on. Recap.

Me: God commands someone to be castrated.
You: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Me: Okay. Tell me where I’m wrong.
You: It’s a prophetic judgement against the person, not an instruction.
Me: Okay that’s fair. I was wrong.

You: You’re so dogmatic!

??????

by Chris Bowers on May 19, 2012 at 4:31 pm
In any case, it doesn’t matter if it’s a prophetic judgement to an enemy or an instruction to a subject. The point is the same.

God is saying that he will castrate Hezekiah’s sons, so that he will have no heir. The ANE sexual culture of that day would have no problem with that. Why? Because in their minds it’s perfectly fair to punish Hezekiah that way. BECAUSE they didn’t think there was anything morally wrong with castrating young boys.

In out Anglo saxon sexual culture, castrating a young child would be looked on as MONSTROUS. And saying that Steve did something wrong so God is going to castrate Steve’s sons is even MORE MONSTOROUS. Why? Because that would be profoundly immoral. You can’t punish steve by torturing and maiming his sons!

But in the ANE sexual culture of the time castration wasn’t seen as maim or torture. Because they had different sexual ethics. To them, making Hezekiah’s sons eunuchs isn’t a punishment to the sons at all. It’s only a punishment to Hezekiah because his line won’t continue.

by Chris Bowers on May 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm
See, Chris…if you had stopped with your previous post then you might have had a point.

But you didn’t.

You went ahead to make more completely ridiculous and 100% false statements that anyone who knows BASIC Biblical historical context knows better than to say:

“But in the ANE sexual culture of the time castration wasn’t seen as maim or torture.”

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

by jm on May 19, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Jms just because YOU think castration is a horrible practice doesn’t mean THEY did. Parents would castrate their children for political purposes at the time when they had an excess of male sons. The castrated sons would then get hgh positions in the kings government. Again i invite you to contradict me and prove me wrong.

by christopher on May 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Dude, now you’re just trolling. I don’t have time to teach OT 101, I’m afraid. So no need continuing it seems.

by jm on May 19, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Also, if your interpretation is that castration IS viewed as torture, then God punishing this mans sons with torture is completely immoral and God is acting like a monster. a book where God orders sexual abuse as a punishment hardly seems like a reliable source for sexual ethics.

by christopher on May 19, 2012 at 9:08 pm
No more so than Jesus was acting like a “monster” in the Olivet Discourse or the Seven Woes. :-/

by jm on May 19, 2012 at 9:28 pm
JMS,

It appears that we have come to the end of a long and hard fought debate. I’m going to simply have my say here and then let it be. It seems you think that I’m argumentative, or trolling, or am engaging in sophistry, or arguing just to argue. I am going to be as kind and loving and respectful as possible in this last post because I am arguing on behalf of your immortal soul.

I believe that not only are homosexual acts permissible under the New Covenant, but that maligning them and claiming that all “homosexual acts per-se are a sin”, in and of itself is sinful, and is akin (while not exactly the same) as the unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Ghost. That is, it is sinful because you are maligning a good and loving act, just as the Pharisees were maligning Jesus (and saying he was evil) for curing people of demons. Homosexuals acting out of pure and true love for one another is not sinful. By prohibiting and reviling a loving act you yourself are committing a sin and perpetrating oppression. I am not just saying that it’s okay to do a homosexual act, I’m saying that by prohibiting it you are doing an evil thing.

I don’t believe your or any person’s sexual ethics are derived from the Bible. Your sexual ethics are derived from your culture and not from the Bible. When your sexual ethic matches something said in the Bible, you laud it and use it to justify your sexual ethics. But when something in the Bible doesn’t match your sexual ethic you look for excuses, special pleading and Houdini style hermenutics. You aren’t willing to own up to the fact that the sexual ethics of Conservative Christians (Which involves celibacy up until marriage, and then marriage to only one woman for the rest of your life), does NOT match with the sexuality of Judaism in the Bible.

I have pointed out many issues, from castration of children (eunuchs), to polygamy of the patriarchs, the niddah, marriage at a young age and so forth that doesn’t in any way match your personal (or Conservative Christianity as a whole) in terms of sexual ethics. On some of these cases (like teenage marriage) you go against the majority (to some degree). But even allowing for that, your personal code of sexual ethics does not “match” nor “come from” the Bible.

While we may have disagreed on the minutia of specifics, your contention that God laid out specific, eternal immutable laws for sexuality is completely undone by the practice of Levirate Marriage: that of marrying the wife of a deceased male relative, even if you are already married.

There is a time in the Bible and Jewish history, when Levirate Marriage was NOT mandated, and then a time when it was. Then after the destruction of the temple, it was no longer mandated. Levirate marriage did not exist, then was mandated by God, and then was abandoned. That’s sexual ethics and God’s plan for sexuality being changed RIGHT IN the scripture. First it didn’t exist, then it was started, then it ended. Sexual customs and sexual ethics do change, and they change right within the pages of the Bible.

The contention that God laid out specific rules for sexuality is wrong, flat on it’s face. God changed the rules for sexuality by instituting Levirate marriage, and then they were changed again when the purpose of this marriage was no longer relevant.

While you may disagree with me on other issues and argue that David and Jonathan aren’t gay, or that God meant to “give” wives to David metaphorically instead of literally, or that eunuchs weren’t really gay, because there aren’t commands that are “explicit enough” for you to believe that God endorsed them, there is no such possibility for that with Levirate Marriage. It did not exist, was instituted SPECIFICALLY BY GOD, and then later abandoned. You can’t wriggle out of it or escape it: God changed sexual laws.

Ironically enough when I point out this sexual practice, (which is, by the way MONSTROUS to the mind of any American White Christian), you excuse it by invoking the law of love, by saying that it was out of love than men took a second wife of their departed brother because otherwise the woman and children would be destitute. The law of love justifies it.

But when we turn to homosexuality, you refuse to allow the law of love to justify anything, and instead insist on the fact that by following this “immutable plan of God for sexuality” and “following the Bible” is more important than the law of love.

As Christians we are not supposed to follow the Bible. We are supposed to follow Christ, and moreover, we are supposed to follow Christ’s commandments, not the culture of a homophobic White Anglo-Saxon Culture.

Christians aren’t “staying true to God’s word” by maintaining all homosexual acts are a sin. They are staying true to their own culture. I think that you personally, are good in your heart and are not trying to claim that homosexuality is a sin because you are hateful or bigoted. But is the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Conservative American culture at large trying to malign homosexual acts as a sin because they are bigoted? I would answer that with a resounding yes. Just as there were people who believed that interracial marriage was immoral, EVEN THOUGH they weren’t racist(oh, we are only thinking of the children), I think that your belief, and advancing those beliefs is causing oppression, even if you don’t harbor hatred in your heart (which I don’t think you do).

I urge you to abandon the White Anglo Saxon American Conservative Homophobic Christian Culture and instead to embrace the Law of Love. Cultures change, the Law of Love abides. Now that our society is more enlightened, less bigoted and more informed, people have realized that Homosexuality when practiced in accord with the Law of Love doesn’t violate anything, and that these people deserve not to be reviled for doing something they do out of genuine love and commitment.

I urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue because your stance is not logically consistent, consistent with scripture or consistent with Jesus’ command, the Law of Love.

by Chris Bowers on May 20, 2012 at 7:40 pm
This is a very well put post, Chris. If all your arguments took this tone I think you’d find more people willing to debate you.

That being said, there are deeply problematic points you make which undermine what you’re trying to claim.

“Homosexuals acting out of pure and true love for one another is not sinful. By prohibiting and reviling a loving act you yourself are committing a sin and perpetrating oppression. I am not just saying that it’s okay to do a homosexual act, I’m saying that by prohibiting it you are doing an evil thing.”

This is question-begging par excellence, I’m afraid. The reason is that the very question we are discussing is whether or not same-sex sex is deemed sinful by God. If it is (and that is where the discussion should remained focused in order to get at the truth), then it is BY DEFINITION not “pure and true love” no matter how emotionally tempting such a claim is to make.

All discussions of the “law of love” become meaningless because that law (which was the SECOND greatest commandment…not the FIRST) is violated by the very act itself. One might as well argue for “pure and loving” group sex between consenting adults who are in a polyamorous relationship.

Discussions of changing sexual ethics (including your entire argument riding on Levirate marriage) and misleading uses of rhetorical terms such as “White” and “Anglo-saxon”* do nothing to address the fact that whenever and wherever same-sex sex (both male-male and female-female) is mentioned in BOTH Covenants in Scripture, it is not only condemned…but is condemned in incredibly strong terminology and God’s people who embrace it are warned against being deceived.

Thus, you are taking an act which Scripture explicitly, repeatedly and universally condemns in the strongest terms possible (an ACT, not an ORIENTATION, nor the TEMPTATION to engage in it, mind you) and not only declaring it okay, but also declaring that anyone who agrees with the historical and canonical view of it that God’s people have held for 3,500+ years is actually the one who is guilty of sin.

This is exactly how satan works throughout Scripture–in both testaments.

Like Eve listening to the serpent, you have decided that same-sex sex is good and pleasing and therefore surely can’t be wrong because you can’t see how it could be. I’m afraid you (and nearly every other advocate for same-sex sex within the walls of Christendom) have chosen a position based on your own criteria of what constitutes right and wrong, and then attempted to marshal elaborate arguments based on a variety of poorly-interpreted conclusions from Scripture to bolster it. Such an approach appeals to many who WANT to accept the validity of same-sex sex because of their love and care for those who have a propensity for it (which is certainly understandable and which, having spent time talking with and praying with those who struggle with it myself, I can absolutely sympathize with!)…but simply cannot be squared with an honest assessment of the teaching of God’s Inspired Word or the leading of the Holy Spirit through the past 2,000 years of the New Covenant Church’s existence.

So I hear your claim and while I respect your right to make it, I must reject it as dangerously misguided due to it contradicting the overall witness of Scripture and the ministry of Jesus and His Apostles. I’m afraid I must stand with the historic Christian faith on this issue.

I’ve invited Sam share his own views and critique in a guest post in the coming week, so if you’d like to respond why don’t we just wait until then and give this a rest for now?

Your voice is always welcome in the Dojo and will always be lovingly challenged (as I expect to be!), Chris. 🙂

JM

—-
* The use of “white” and “anglo-saxon” is meaningless in this discussion since by far the strongest opposition to same-sex sex comes from “black” and “African” (as well as Southeast Asian) voices in the Church. One need only look at my Denomination’s recent General Conference to see this). The same goes for “Protestant”, as Mainline/Liberal Protestants typically take the very approach you advocate, while Catholics overwhelmingly reject it. You would do well to discontinue using such terms in future discussions as they only serve to discredit your argument.

by jm on May 21, 2012 at 6:05 pm
JMS, I am tempted to bow out now, but I will address your points as respectfully as I can.

>This is question-begging par excellence, I’m afraid. The reason is that the >very question we are discussing is whether or not same-sex sex is ?>deemed sinful by God. If it is (and that is where the discussion should >remained focused in order to get at the truth), then it is BY DEFINITION >not “pure and true love” no matter how emotionally tempting such a claim >is to make.

This is the point on which we disagree but can go no further, which is why I am not sure the debate can progress past this point. You claim that there is a category of laws or events which are loving to one’s fellow man, but yet are still deemed immoral by God. I don’t agree such a category exists. If they are truly loving to one’s fellow man, then they would have to be upheld under the Law of Love. Nothing truly loving offends God. Nothing truly loving can be prohibited by God.

>All discussions of the “law of love” become meaningless because that law >(which was the SECOND greatest commandment…not the FIRST) is >violated by the very act itself. One might as well argue for “pure and >loving” group sex between consenting adults who are in a polyamorous >relationship.

Again, you are assuming that the two laws can be in conflict. There is no such possibility. It’s not possible that you can do something loving (truly loving) to another person and have it offend God. This is why I’m explaining that your mindset is that of a Judaizer not of a Christian. If you could do something loving and it offended God then God would not be Good. He would be someone who requires abstention from love of one’s fellow man, and that’s not what God is. Like I said, you hold contradictory thoughts in your head about God: that he can be all loving, but object to certain acts of love. You are capable of holding contradictory ideas about God in your mind simultaneously (as can many Theologians, no offense intended). I do not.

>Discussions of changing sexual ethics (including your entire argument >riding on Levirate marriage) and misleading uses of rhetorical terms such >as “White” and “Anglo-saxon”* do nothing to address the fact

Yes it does. You refuse to view the issue under the lens of Anthropology, because you want to claim that your (and Christianity’s) sexual ethics come from the Bible. But that’s simply not true.

Northern and European Cultures have always had a tradition of Monogamy and two-person marriage. Middle-Eastern Cultures have always had a culture of plural marriage. These cultures were nomadic and lived in hunter-gatherer societies. They lived in tents and makeshift shelters. Even their “Cities” could be moved, or they moved, set up shop, and then moved again. In such cultures polygamy was popular. You can see this spreading from the middle east all the way in to India and South into Africa.

Because of the often colder climate and different living conditions of the North, people lived in separate sequestered dwellings. In this culture monogamy was favored. Why? Because people didn’t want people on THEIR LAND in THEIR HOUSE, and so on.

You want to claim that culture has nothing to do with sexual ethics. That one day, Christians just rose up out of the ground and adopted every single sexual practice in the Bible. But that is false. They continued to practice their own sexual taboos, and when the taboos of the Bible didn’t match, they ignored them. They don’t practice castration, the niddah, Levirate marriage, or Polygamy. It is THIS fact that influences Christian history and sexual practices, NOT the Bible.

>but also declaring that anyone who agrees with the historical and >canonical view of it that God’s people have held for 3,500+ years is >actually the one who is guilty of sin.

I don’t agree with you in that contention in the arguments I’ve laid out. But even if I did, it’s irrelevant. Because of Levirate marriage God changed the sexual rules and laws, he changed his rules for sexuality: rules that you claimed were eternal and immutable. For thousands of years of history(10,000? 100,000?) there was no Levirate marriage. Then for +2500 there was Levirate marriage instituted by God. Then for 2000 after that there was no Levirate marriage.

Your contention that sexual rules are static and fixed in time in the Bible is false. They change within the Bible’s very pages. There are no immutable permanent sexual laws. Sexual laws are based on culture and they change over time. Always, they should depend on the law of love, and not anything else (as does ALL OF ETHICS). If Levirate marriage can be around for 2500 years and then be abandoned, the ban for homosexuality can be around for 10,000 years and be abandoned. Your whole ethical framework for the argument, that God has provided eternal truths in terms of sexual practice is completely undone.

>Like Eve listening to the serpent, you have decided that same-sex sex is >good and pleasing and therefore surely can’t be wrong because you can’t >see how it could be.

I can certainly see how it COULD be, but the question is whether it is INHERENTLY wrong. Whether is violates INHERENTLY the law of love by being unloving, harmful and evil at all times. And the answer is no, it does not. You’ve admitted this yourself, so why are we arguing about it.

>This is exactly how satan works throughout Scripture–in both testaments.

I will tell you another tale of how Satan works: through making you think that your actions are justified even though your actions violate the Law of Love AS LONG AS you can interpret the reason from Scripture. Like Zionist Nationalists convincing soldiers that even if killing violates the law of love, they should do it because Scripture points to Israel being the promised land. Like believing Ham was cursed, and that even though slavery is evil and wrong and cruel, a passage in the Bible justifies your actions over the law of love.

You see, any time you place a hermenutic or an interpretation of scripture OVER the law of love, you are committing a grave sin. In fact if you ever put anything over the law of love it is a great sin: like nationalism, culture, money, power, the end justifies the means, taboos, stigmas, status and so forth. Nothing supersedes the law of love. Nothing contradicts it. The moment you say “Yes, that is a good and loving thing to do but….” you’ve already “lost the game”. Once you say “That is unloving and evil but….” you’ve also “lost the game”. There is no “Law of love, but” in Christianity. It’s the law of love. That’s it. Love of God and love of neighbor. And there’s nothing you can do to love neighbor (if it is really loving neighbor) that would anger God. If you claim there is, then your universe is in contradiction.

>So I hear your claim and while I respect your right to make it, I must reject >it as dangerously misguided due to it contradicting the overall witness of >Scripture and the ministry of Jesus and His Apostles. I’m afraid I must >stand with the historic Christian faith on this issue.

I don’t agree that you stand with the historic faith on the issue. I think rather, that you stand with the Judaizers and the Pharisees, those who seek to enforce the old law even though it would cause people to suffer greatly. Those who would refuse to heal on the Sabbath. Those who would not help the Samaritan and instead hurry off to temple so they wouldn’t be late. Those who desire a sacrifice, not compassion.

by Chris Bowers on May 21, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Chris, I won’t get into your overly-simplistic anthropological arguments, or your continued misconstrual of my position because I think they’re pretty self-evident to anyone who may be reading this. But the one misunderstanding that you repeat multiple times (and therefore which is worth addressing) is found in statements like this:

“You claim that there is a category of laws or events which are loving to one’s fellow man, but yet are still deemed immoral by God.”

Once and for all…No, I most emphatically do NOT claim this.

My claim (which is the historic Judeo-Christian claim on the matter, regardless of discussions of any other type of marriage forms between men and women, which are tangential and do not affect the Scriptural teaching on this issue) is that same-sex sexual acts are in fact most UNLOVING (as are ALL forms of sin), despite claims to the contrary by those who engage in them. I say this because I actually agree with you…practices among people which God completely and universally prohibits under both Covenants cannot, by definition, be carried out in a way that does not violate the law of love.

As I said before, to claim that there is such a thing as “loving” same-sex sex acts is like claiming that there are “loving” group-sex acts.

I know you disagree with this, but at least I hope this clears up the confusion as to where we specifically disagree.

by jm on May 21, 2012 at 7:45 pm
>My claim (which is the historic Judeo-Christian claim on the matter, >regardless of discussions of any other type of marriage forms between >men and women, which are tangential and do not affect the Scriptural >teaching on this issue) is that same-sex sexual acts are in fact most >UNLOVING (as are ALL forms of sin), despite claims to the contrary by >those who engage in them. I say this because I actually agree with you…>practices among people which God completely and universally prohibits >under both Covenants cannot, by definition, be carried out in a way that >does not violate the law of love.

I didn’t understand this about your argument. I thought you were saying that these relationships/ acts can be loving, but are nevertheless still prohibited.

In what way can you demonstrate that these acts are harmful, unloving or evil per-se (intrinsically) in all cases? How is there harm, evil, malice, abuse etc. intrinsic to a homosexual act?

>As I said before, to claim that there is such a thing as “loving” same-sex >sex acts is like claiming that there are “loving” group-sex acts.

Wait, again I’m confused. So you think that Levirate marriage was unloving? So God ordered something “unloving” for people to do to one another (since the man had two wives and possibly could have sex with both of them simultaneously)?

>I know you disagree with this, but at least I hope this clears up the
>confusion as to where we specifically disagree.

Nope, I’m still confused.

In order to demonstrate that something violates the Law of Love, you need to demonstrate that it’s INTRINSICALLY evil. That by doing it, you are harming, maligning, or hurting or being unloving to your fellow man.

Raping, Murdering, Torturing, and so forth, we can prove that there is demonstrable harm, both physical and psychological from these things. In order to prove that Homosexuality is evil intrinsically, you need to provide proof of inescapable intrinsic harm.

People who are murdered are harmed (in every case). People who are tortured are harmed (in every case). People who are raped are harmed (in every case). People who are physically abused are harmed (in every case). And so forth.

Do you have anything to back up that Homosexual Acts (all of them from kissing to anal sex) are harmful EVERY single time, intrinsically? Saying “I think the Bible says that they are evil or violate the law of love” doesn’t cut it.

I can say “I think eating shellfish violates the law of love.” but if I can’t prove that it always causes evil to my neighbor, then there’s no reason to restrict it under the new covenant. Saying “I think God doesn’t like it, or I think God thinks it’s harmful,” or “The I think the scripture says not to do it therefore it’s harmful” isn’t sufficient.

Okay. Let’s start with that:

“Scripture has universally condemned eating shellfish. Since Scripture condemns it, it is obviously harmful, and therefore violates the law of love. I don’t need any extrinsic demonstration to show that eating shellfish always harms a person. Scripture says not to do it, therefore it’s unloving to my neighbor.”

Prove me wrong. Go.

(BTW, I was not trying to misconstrue your argument. I genuinely thought that you had admitted that homosexuals can commit sex acts out of love.)

>Chris, I won’t get into your overly-simplistic anthropological arguments

Hold on, do you REALLY believe that current American Christian views on sex came 100% from the Bible? That European culture had NOTHING to do with current sexual taboos? And that Christians discarding of polygamy had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Middle East was polygamous while Europe was not? I just want to know if you honestly believe that. I want to know if you can really say that European Culture has nothing to do with modern Christian sexual practices. If you REALLY think that European Customs had NOTHING to do with Christian sexual practices, then I can respectfully say that I am shocked and incensed.

by Chris Bowers on May 21, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I’m moving on from this conversation. But I should clarify that I completely reject the criteria of “demonstrable harm” as the determining factor in what constitutes sin. This is an unbiblical presupposition that I do not share. If God prohibits something then for whomever was prohibited from doing it to do it is by definition sin. If the prohibition of same-sex sex is universal to humanity (which is the case exegetically, I believe), then regardless of whether we can find any “demonstrable harm” in it, it is sinful and thus spiritually harmful (just as coventness, idolatry or lust…none of which can be shown to have universal and intrinsic “demonstrable harm”, from a purely scientific perspective/nonreligious).

by jm on May 22, 2012 at 8:52 pm
>But I should clarify that I completely reject the criteria of “demonstrable >harm” as the determining factor in what constitutes sin. This is an unbiblical >presupposition that I do not share.

It is a completely Biblical presupposition. What is unloving is immoral and what is loving is just and good. This is written all over the New Testament backwards forwards and sideways. This is why Christians don’t have to obey Jewish laws. Because Christians only have to obey the moral law, not the written law. Since you can in no way demonstrate it violates the moral law, that means it’s not prohibited in the New Covenant.

>If the prohibition of same-sex sex is universal to humanity

Then it would be known to our hearts as universally wrong through our conscience in the same way that Paul says that the Gentiles can be a “law unto themselves:” Because everyone already knows what’s right and wrong, the law of love is written on men’s hearts.

You could simply demonstrate how the action is always wrong in every case. Like you can with everything else that is sinful.

There is no category outside of harming self and others that has “wrongness” to it. This is again the error of the Judiazers: that something can be wrong and sinful even though it doesn’t harm anyone (Like eating Kosher, or observing the Niddah). We are not Jews: we don’t have to follow laws we don’t understand, just because God said them.

This is the difference between the Old and New Testament. In the Old, procedures were laid down that had nothing to do with harm. In the new, nothing is a law EXCEPT in that it violates the Law of Love.

Otherwise, why wouldn’t Christians have to be circumcised and abstain from eating shellfish?

>If the prohibition of same-sex sex is universal to humanity (which is the >case exegetically, I believe), then regardless of whether we can find any >“demonstrable harm” in it, it is sinful and thus spiritually harmful (just as >coventness, idolatry or lust…none of which can be shown to have >universal and intrinsic “demonstrable harm”, from a purely scientific >perspective/nonreligious).

Covetness is harmful because it places objects over people: you love the objects more than the people. Against the law of love.

Lust is sinful because you turn a person into a sexual object: you place sexual desire over your spiritual love for them as a person. Against the law of love.

Idolotry is sinful because it equates material objects with your love of God, and your love of others: Idolatry through money or by worshiping craven images is essentially materialism, which places love of a material object over love of God and Neighbor.

Point blank: If you are someone who has never read the Bible, how would you know that homosexuality is wrong? If you answer is that they could only know that it is wrong by reading the Bible, then that affirmation that it is wrong cannot be a universal moral truth: because that truth is only particular to the Bible (that culture).

You also didn’t answer my question: if something is wrong simply because God says so (and not because it is unloving or causes harm) why are Christians not bound to the prohibition against shellfish?

by Chris Bowers on May 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Again, your grasp of basic Biblical theology is stunning, Chris. Watch my video “Do Christians Keep the Ten Commandments” on my “Tough Questions” section of my Resources page for why New Covenant believers do not follow the Sinai Covenant as our covenantal law…but rather the underlying moral/ethical/spiritual principle contained within it (which same-sex sexual relationships violate intrinsically).

As for your assertions that no one would know same-sex sex was wrong if they didn’t read the Bible, that’s not true (given how it has almost always been in some way stigmatized, even among cultures where it was tolerated throughout human history); but even if it were true, it does not change things because you could argue that people wouldn’t know that idolatry was wrong unless they knew the story of God (either through Scripture or personal retelling of it).

Finally (and I do mean finally, as I will be closing comments on this post after this), your assertions of why lust, idolatry or covetness are “demonstrably harmful” are merely religious/subjective claims that they do–not actual evidential proof which you seem to require in the case of same-sex sex. It’s a double standard that you regularly embrace in such discussions and I’m baffled that you can’t see this.

As I said, this conversation has run its course, so if you have anything that hasn’t been said already, you’re free to share it in future posts. But it’s time to put this one to bed.

by jm on May 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm
[…] previous post from a few weeks ago regarding the passing of Amendment One and charges of bigotry generated a lot of conversation in the comments […]

by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Guest post affirming same-sex relationships within the Church on Jun 1, 2012 at 5:21 pm

Art Of The Dojo – JMSmith.org

Amendment One and bigotry

94 Responses

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Pages