Review Essay
Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on
Homosexuality, edited by James M. Childs Jr.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pp. ix + 132. $9.00.
Robert A. J. Gagnon
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
gagnon@pts.edu
Taken as a whole, this book is an imbalanced and not very helpful
collection of essays on homosexuality for the Evangelical Lutheran Church
of America. It has one significant essay, by Mark Allan Powell, but this
essay is deeply flawed at critical points.
The
editor of this slim volume is James M. Childs, professor of theology and
ethics at Trinity Lutheran Seminary and director of the discussion of
homosexuality currently going on in the ELCA. According to Childs, “the
presidents of the eight seminaries of the ELCA, in concert with the
Division for Ministry of the ELCA have commissioned this volume as a
contribution” to that discussion (p. 2). The book contains five essays
ranging in length from 16 to 23 pages. All are written by professors from
different ELCA seminaries:
- “The Bible and
Homosexuality” by Mark Allan Powell (professor of New Testament at
Trinity Lutheran Seminary)
- “The Lutheran
Reformation and Homosexual Practice” by James Arne Nestingen (professor
of church history at Luther Seminary)
- “Rethinking Christian
Sexuality: Baptized into the Body of Christ” by Martha Ellen Stortz
(professor of historical theology and ethics at Pacific Lutheran
Theological Seminary)
- “We Hear in Our Own
Language: Culture, Theology, and Ethics” by Richard J. Perry Jr. and
José David Rodríguez (professor of church and society and urban ministry
and professor of theology, respectively, at Lutheran School of Theology)
- “Talking about Sexual
Orientation: Experience, Science, and the Mission of the Church” by
Daniel L. Olson (professor of pastoral care at Wartburg Theological
Seminary)
The
book is framed by a seventeen-page introduction by Childs and a
twelve-page “Authors’ Forum” in which the authors respond to four
questions about the book’s significance, its use, the value of the ELCA’s
sexuality study, and the importance of listening to the experience of
homosexuals.
Although the book was conceived and written by Lutherans, and addressed to
Lutherans, the only essays that give significant attention to Luther and
Lutheranism are the ones by Nestingen and, to a lesser extent, Stortz. The
essays by Perry/Rodríguez and by Olson make only marginal mention of
Luther and Lutheranism. Powell’s essay opens with a discussion of “A
Lutheran Approach to Scripture” but Powell recognizes that “most
Christians” hold to the principles of interpretation expressed therein
(pp. 19-20). Later Powell refers briefly to the historic Lutheran stance
against “lifelong celibacy requirements” (p. 30). Yet Powell’s application
of this point to the homosexuality issue is not distinctively Lutheran;
many Lutherans would reject the application and many non-Lutherans would
accept it. In short, although readers receive periodic reminders
throughout the book that the main addressees are Lutherans, the discussion
in these essays sounds very much like the discussion taking place in other
mainline denominations (note the book’s subtitle: “Christian
perspectives,” not “Lutheran perspectives”). This in turn raises the
question of how much value there is to limiting contributors to Lutherans,
to say nothing of Lutheran professors teaching at Lutheran seminaries.
Overall the book tilts decisively in the direction of affirming at least
some forms of homosexual behavior. The essay by Olson falls in the range
of neutral to slightly prohomosex. Childs makes a modest attempt at
neutrality in his introduction and in the “Author’s Forum” but his
sympathies with an affirmation of at least some homosexual unions are
apparent at several points. The essay by Perry/Rodríguez repeatedly
stresses themes consistent with a prohomosex position. Stortz’s article is
strongly prohomosex. Powell’s leadoff essay, which provides the only
extended discussion of Scripture, supports a policy of thousands of
“exceptions” to the “normal” biblical prohibition of homosexual practice.
Only Nestingen’s essay expresses a desire for rejecting homosexual
practice per se and even then does so clearly only in the last two
sentences of the article.
Given
this decisive, prohomosex tilt, the book will do little to allay
suspicions that the outcome of the homosexuality discussion in the ELCA is
a foregone conclusion against the “traditional” (read: scriptural) view—a
perception noted in pp. 129-30 of the “Author’s Forum.”
“Traditionalists”—code for people who uphold the authority of Scripture as
decisive and accordingly maintain an other-sex prerequisite for sexual
relationships—are given a place at the table but only as a minority
witness. Particularly striking is the book’s omission of a biblical
scholar who upholds Scripture’s other-sex requirement—an omission
replicated in the ELCA Task Force on Sexuality where the only biblical
scholar put on the Task Force, Terence Fretheim, had already published in
favor of a prohomosex position. Since Scripture is widely acknowledged as
the main obstacle to endorsing homosexual behavior this omission is
devastating for a procomplementarity, antihomosex position. This book will
be of little help to Lutherans or others seeking a balanced
Christian presentation on homosexuality.
Beyond
the assessment of the book as a whole, what can be said of the individual
articles? I will assess them in descending order of importance. The bulk
of my attention will be given over to the first.
I. Mark Allan Powell, “The Bible and Homosexuality”
By far
the most important essay in the book, but seriously flawed, is Powell’s.
It is not possible in the short compass of this review to give it a
complete critique. For that I refer readers to my 20,000-word essay
entitled “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically
Sinful?” in Christian Sexuality (ed. R. Saltzman; Minneapolis: Kirk
House, forthcoming in Oct. 2003), ch. 8, along with additional online
material forthcoming at http://robgagnon.net.
Powell’s essay has material in it that will be disagreeable to some
prohomosex positions. For example, his “(limited) focus is on how a Church
that does accept the relevance of the biblical perspective . . .
might interpret the biblical material for contemporary situations” (p.
33). The Bible regards homosexual relations as a “departure” from God’s
original design at creation that is “normally” sinful, though “not
necessarily” so (pp. 21-22, 29, 32). “The argument that God creates or
intends some people to be homosexual . . . finds no warrant in Scripture”
(p. 21). To his credit, he does not put forward an absurd notion that has
currency in some academic circles today; namely, that Scripture’s
opposition to same-sex intercourse can be reduced entirely or primarily to
a misogynistic desire to keep women down. Powell believes that “the
overwhelmingly negative portrayal of homosexual activity in the Bible
places a heavy burden of proof on anyone who wishes to argue for
exceptions to what appears to be a unanimous judgment of scripture” (p.
28; similarly, p. 35).
Despite this
comment about “a heavy burden of proof,” Powell insists on three key
points that lead to his personal advocacy of exceptions at the end of his
article:
1.
While the Bible depicts homosexual practice as “normally contrary
to God’s will” and “intrinsically unnatural,” it does not view such
behavior as “intrinsically sinful.” By “not intrinsically sinful” Powell
means that approval of some homosexual activity is possible, at
least hypothetically (pp. 21-22, 26, 28, 35).
2.
No one can know whether Paul would have disapproved of same-sex
intercourse by a Christian who (a) had a relatively exclusive and fixed
homosexual orientation; (b) experienced a deep personal dissatisfaction
with celibacy; and (c) acted in the context of a loving and committed
“life partnership” (pp. 19, 31, 34-35).
3.
To insist on an absolute ban of all homosexual relationships is to
“fly in the face of Scripture” because: (a) there are “thousands of
homosexual Christians for whom neither therapy nor celibacy appears
viable”; and (b) Genesis 2:18 allegedly tells us that it is God’s will
“for all people to have the opportunity of sharing life with a partner”
(pp. 34, 36).
Given these intermediate suppositions, it is not surprising
that Powell reaches the following personal conclusion: “I believe that . .
. exceptions to the prohibited behavior must be granted in some instances
to enable homosexual people to experience life as abundantly as possible”
(p. 39). Each of the suppositions, however, is erroneous.
* * *
1. Scripture characterizes same-sex intercourse as
intrinsically sinful and always contrary to God’s will, not just normally
so.
a. Powell himself correctly acknowledges that the Levitical prohibitions
of male-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13) treat such behavior as
“necessarily” wrong; moreover, that “Paul’s apparent citation of the
prohibitions against same-sex activity (through the use of the word
arsenokoitai) carries those commandments over into the New Testament
in a way that does make them relevant” (p. 29). Unfortunately,
Powell does not draw out the negative implications of this acknowledgement
for his thesis.
b. In both Rom 1:24-27 and 1 Cor 6:9 there are clear intertextual echoes
back to the creation stories in Gen 1-2. For Paul same-sex intercourse was
wrong and sinful first and foremost because of what it was not: the
requisite model of a male-female union given in the creation accounts. The
only “exceptions” that Paul could possibly have allowed would have been
instances of male-male or female-female sexual intercourse between a man
and a woman—a complete oxymoron.
c. The reference to nature in Rom 1:26-27 also precludes the possibility
of exceptions. Powell cannot reasonably claim that for Paul some acts of
same-sex intercourse might be unnatural but not sinful. For Paul deduces
their wrongness from their character as actions contrary to nature; that
is, as actions contrary to male-female complementarity transparent in
material creation. Elsewhere Powell appears to admit this, though failing
to note the inconsistency: “Paul does not object to what he calls
‘shameless acts’ involving same-sex partners because they are promiscuous
or exploitative; he specifically objects to them because they are
‘unnatural’” (p. 27). But if “unnatural” in the context of discussing
homoerotic behavior does not necessarily mean “sinful,” how could Paul
object to such behavior as sinful, “unclean,” self-dishonoring, and
indecent? If, too, the question of exploitation is beside the point (as
Powell suggests in the quotation above), how then can modern-day committed
homosexual unions make any difference to Scripture’s indictment?
d. Powell’s claim that “the condemnations of arsenokoitai and
malakoi [in 1 Cor 6:9] . . . do not disallow instances in which men
who have sex with each other are not behaving as arsenokoitai or
malakoi” (p. 26) cannot stand up to scrutiny. It runs up against the
specifically Judeo-Christian formation of the word arsenokoitai
from the absolute prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. It finds no
justification in extant usage of the word arsenokoites and related
forms in antiquity. It ignores what Paul finds wrong about same-sex
intercourse in Rom 1:24-27 (i.e., its same-sexness). It overlooks the
analogue with the case of the incestuous man that dominates 1 Cor 5-6—a
form of sexual immorality that likewise involves structural
incompatibility due to too much sameness, regardless of degree of consent
and commitment. It disregards the other-sex requirement for sexual
behavior enunciated in Gen 2:24, which Paul cites in the immediate context
(6:16). It sidesteps the relevant discussion of marriage in very next
chapter (1 Cor 7), which presumes, as everywhere in Scripture, the sole
legitimacy of other-sex marriage.
In sum, the Bible clearly regards same-sex intercourse as
intrinsically, or necessarily, sinful.
* * *
2. It follows that there is no great mystery about what Paul
would have prescribed for the homosexual Christian who continued to
experience relatively exclusive erotic desires for persons of the same
sex. He would have said: Refrain from all sex outside of marriage to a
person of the other sex. A person who engaged in same-sex intercourse,
serially and unrepentantly, would have been treated precisely like
the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 (cf. the vice lists in 5:10-11 and 6:9-10).
If Paul could advise celibacy for women who bore some measure of
responsibility for a divorce and who chose not to reconcile with their
husband (1 Cor 7:11), he would certainly have proscribed what he regarded
as the grossly unnatural act of same-sex intercourse for those who
confessed ongoing and relatively exclusive sexual attraction for same-sex
persons. Historically, this is a no-brainer. The very fact that Paul could
exhort believers in Rom 6:19 to no longer be “slaves of (sexual)
uncleanness”—Paul uses same-sex intercourse as “exhibit A” of “(sexual)
uncleanness” in Rom 1:24-27—indicates Paul’s recognition of the ongoing
power of such impulses in some Christians’ lives. Paul certainly did not
believe that becoming a Christian put an end to various immoral sexual
impulses of the flesh. What he believed was that the indwelling Spirit
could enable obedience to God and right behavior in spite of the power of
such impulses (Gal 5:16-25; Rom 6:19-21; 8:12-14; 1 Cor 6:9-11).
Extant evidence indicates that the modern concept of sexual
orientation would not have made any difference to Paul. There were a
number of theories in the ancient world attributing strong biological
influence to one or more forms of homosexual attraction—particularly adult
passive/receptive partners in male-male intercourse (Paul’s malakoi).
Yet some of the very same Greco-Roman doctors, moralists, and philosophers
holding such theories could still speak of such biologically induced
behavior as wrong and “contrary to nature.” Not everything given “by
nature” is constituted “according to nature”—a point that we still
recognize today. Are we to suppose that Paul, a Jew beholden to Scripture,
would have been more “liberal” on such matters than his “pagan”
contemporaries? The concept of a persistent and powerful innate impulse is
precisely what Paul defines sin to be in Rom 7. As regards the issue of
committed homoerotic relationships, there were enough examples of such in
antiquity that Paul could have made exceptions to the biblical prohibition
if his main complaint about same-sex eroticism had been the dearth of
monogamy and love.
* * *
3. Understood both within their historical context and in
later interpretation by Jesus and Paul, the Genesis creation stories view
sexual intercourse as something more than an activity designed for
pleasure or even for establishing durable bonds of intimacy (contra
Powell, p. 21). Sexual intercourse is about remerging with another into a
single sexual whole, which requires the two constituents parts—male and
female—split off from that whole (Gen 1:27; 2:18-24). Accordingly, the
creation stories regard the presence of complementary sexual others, male
and female, as an absolutely essential prerequisite for acceptable
sexual intercourse. While the creation stories may treat being in a sexual
relationship with a person of the other sex as merely “the normal state of
affairs,” they view the other-sex status of one’s sexual partner as
nonnegotiable. Genesis 2:18, “it is not good for the human to be alone,”
cannot be used as a crowbar to pry exceptions from this prescriptive
biblical norm. At most it offers a conditional opportunity for
sexual intimacy. The prerequisites for acceptable sexual intercourse,
including an other-sex partner, must first be met.
* * *
Toward the
end of his article Powell tries to reassure those who might be reluctant
to embrace “exceptions” for thousands “what the Church would not be
doing” if it sanctioned “some relationships between some homosexual
persons who meet certain criteria defined by the Church (for instance,
public commitment to a lifelong, monogamous union).” The church, Powell
claims, would not be: (1) “endorsing homosexuality as an alternative
lifestyle,” (2) “redefining marriage,” (3) “condoning any specific sex
acts,” or (4) “discrediting the views or efforts of those who encourage
celibacy or therapy as ‘first options’ for gay and lesbian persons” (pp.
36-37).
The
evidence is overwhelming, though, that the church would be doing precisely
these things. (1) If the church adopts the view that homosexual relations
are not contrary to God’s will in certain circumstances, then how would
the church not be “endorsing” homosexual relations “as an alternative
lifestyle” for some? The term “exceptions” would become meaningless
since the “usual policy” of forbidding homosexual behavior would apply
only to those not particularly “oriented” toward violating it. (2)
Marriage would certainly be redefined inasmuch as the main scriptural text
that Powell employs for justifying such exceptions, Gen 2:18-25, is the
chief marriage text of the Bible. (3) If the church is going to sanction
some relationships between some homosexual persons, it will inevitably
have to turn a blind eye to the practices that typify homosexual
relationships. (4) It is also politically naïve not to recognize that even
a very limited acceptance of some homosexual unions would merely serve as
a transitional stage to a coerced full acceptance. Once in control of a
denomination, prohomosex advocates are not going to tolerate in the long
term any qualms that “homophobes” might have about “committed” homosexual
unions.
* * *
There
are other problems with Powell’s essay. His easy dismissal of the Sodom
and Gibeah narratives and of the interpretation of Sodom in Ezekiel, Jude,
and 2 Peter, shows no awareness of strong arguments for their relevance
(cf. my The Bible and Homosexual Practice [Nashville: Abingdon,
2001], 71-110). He fails even to mention the story of Ham’s act against
Noah (ibid., 63-71). There is virtually no discussion of Jesus’ views even
though the evidence that Jesus agreed with the prevailing consensus in
Scripture and early Judaism against homoerotic behavior is overwhelming
(ibid., ch. 3). While showing incomplete knowledge of my work, he leaves
out of his short list of “further reading” any reference to the two most
important prohomosex treatments: the books by Martti Nissinen and
Bernadette Brooten. Due to the aims of the book to which Powell’s article
belongs there are no notes and no explicit interaction with other
scholars.
Powell’s essay is worth reading. It is certainly better than the vast
majority of prohomosex or prohomosex-leaning pieces on the Bible and
homosexuality. However, its overall thesis—that a policy of exceptions for
thousands of homosexual relationships is a “biblically consistent view”
(pp. 37-39)—is simply untenable. In the end this essay should be seen as
one more sincere but failed effort at giving scriptural respectability to
the endorsement of homosexual unions. This kind of essay is a dying breed.
Soon even the pretense of scriptural respectability will have to be given
up.
II.
James Arne Nestingen,
“The
Lutheran Reformation and Homosexual Practice”
James
Nestingen’s essay focuses on what the Lutheran heritage has to say about
sexual ethics. Most of the essay has an “on the one hand . . . on the
other hand” feel. The law is not the last word but it is a word.
Disordered sexual longings are not the prime sin but remain an important
area of regulation. Early Lutheranism was realistic about the negative
effects of repressed desire and rejected a celibacy requirement for
clergy. Yet it also gave no support to the notion of sexual entitlement
for those beset by persistent immoral sexual desire. Homosexuals in the
church should not be marginalized but cared for and welcomed. Yet the
church has a duty to set higher standards for those who hold office in it.
Times change but Luther and other early leaders accepted the condemnation
of homosexual practice in Scripture and in the broader Catholic tradition.
In the
last page-and-a-quarter of his article Nestingen briefly mentions four
issues that “require examination as the church debates its policy of
homosexual practice”: (1) the effect of a change in policy on ecumenism
with the majority of the world’s Christians; (2) the legal ramifications
that might arise from ordaining practicing homosexuals (cf. pp. 49, 52);
(3) Christian opposition to thinking of sex as a right, entitlement, or
private matter; and (4) the possibility that homosexual sex uses another
as an object for sexual self-gratification (pp. 55-56). Nestingen
concludes: “Having examined the Lutheran heritage . . . it is impossible
to avoid the conclusion drawn by Wolfhart Pannenberg. . . . that a church
that rejects the traditional teaching on homosexual practice can be
neither evangelical nor Lutheran, no matter what it calls itself” (pp.
56-57).
While
I agree with Pannenberg’s view, I am not sure that Nestingen has made the
case in his article that this conclusion is “impossible to avoid.”
The four issues mentioned in the preceding paragraph do not lead, either
singly or collectively, to an inevitable conclusion that same-sex
intercourse is wrong. At best they raise concerns, especially the effects
on ecumenism (1) and claims to sex as a right (3). Legal ramifications (2)
may soon cut against the scriptural perspective as secular culture
becomes increasingly intolerant of alleged “discrimination” against
homosexual unions. Nestingen does not develop the fourth point. Prohomosex
interpreters like Stortz could simply respond that some homosexual unions
exhibit greater love than some heterosexual unions. Where the argument
needs to be pressed, in addition to appeal to Scripture itself, is over
the sexual dysfunction of being erotically attracted to what one is
as a sexual being: male for male, female for female. Nestingen might have
argued more clearly that the attempt to find sexual completion with a
sexual same is a narcissistic or delusional endeavor that ignores the
necessity of the other sex. The benefit of Nestingen’s essay is not so
much in establishing why same-sex intercourse is wrong as in showing, in
part, that the Lutheran tradition is compatible with a strong stance
against homosexual behavior.
From a
Pauline perspective, the matter of grace and law has to be taken further
than Nestingen’s essay goes. Although Paul rejected human merit as a basis
for salvation and regarded the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law as abrogated
for those “in Christ,” he continued to maintain that serial and
unrepentant immoral conduct, including sexual misconduct, could lead to
the perpetrator’s exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Thess 4:3-8; Gal
5:18-21; 6:7-10; Rom 6:15-23; 8:12-14; cf. Eph 5:3-5; 1 Tim 1:8-11). Only
those who were being led by the Spirit of Christ were free from the
Mosaic law’s jurisdiction and curse (Gal 5:18; Rom 7:5-6; 8:1-14). This is
the whole point of the discussion of the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5-6
(compare 5:9-11 with 6:9-10). Precisely because the incestuous Christian
man was running the risk of not inheriting God’s kingdom Paul recommended
temporary suspension from the life of the community. Paul’s intent was
pastoral: to stimulate in the offender a repentance that would lead to
restoration and salvation. Paul puts serial, unrepentant
participants in incest, male-male intercourse, adultery, and prostitution
in the same boat. Nestingen’s apparent acceptance of a membership policy
that grants automatic and complete immunity from ecclesiastical discipline
to practicing, self-affirming homosexuals is in tension with this Pauline
view, as is Nestingen’s inference that salvation is not at stake.
III.
Martha Ellen Stortz,
“Rethinking Christian Sexuality: Baptized into the Body of Christ”
Martha
Stortz contends that the church needs to take primary Christian identity
in baptism as the starting point for discussions of sexuality. Her essay
has two parts.
The
first part (pp. 60-71) asks what Scripture, tradition, reason, and
experience tell us about homosexuality. Her discussion of Scripture is
quite confused. She states, “the Bible has nothing to say about ordaining
homosexuals or blessing their relationships,” failing to note that the
Bible’s strong condemnation of homosexual behavior makes obvious an
implicit rejection of such things (p. 61). She alleges that the Sodom
story is relevant only in warning us not to have “impolite conversations”
about homosexuality (p. 62). She does not bother contemplating the
historical evidence that the Yahwist—as with the Deuteronomistic Historian
in the parallel story in Judg 19:22-25—regarded any attempt at a male
being penetrated by another male, coerced or consensual, as a revolting
denial of a male’s maleness. She also makes the far-fetched claim that the
gender of one’s sex partner did not matter much to Paul in Romans 6 and in
1 Cor 6:12-20 (pp. 63-64). She ignores the reference in Rom 6:19 to
turning away from “sexual uncleanness” (akatharsia), which clearly
alludes to the “sexual uncleanness” of same-sex intercourse strongly
abhorred in Rom 1:24-27. She glosses over the fact that the example in 1
Cor 6:12-20 of not soliciting prostitutes illustrates the fact that sex
matters, not only in terms of fidelity and exclusivity but also as regards
structural compatibility. Hence, sex between a man and his [step]mother,
which is the governing case of chs. 5-6, is prohibited, as is sex between
two males, mentioned by extension in 6:9. According to Stortz, the
citation of Gen 2:24 in Eph 5:31-32 ostensibly shows that Paul moves the
mention of “one flesh” in Gen 2:24 “out of the realm of human sexuality
entirely” (p. 64; my emphasis). Yet, while the author of Ephesians
does interpret Gen 2:24 as a mystical reference to Christ and the church,
the text provides no support for Stortz’s overstatement. Indeed, the
overarching context of earthly husband-wife relationships (5:22-30, 33)
and the preceding warning against “sexual immorality” (porneia) and
“sexual uncleanness” (akatharsia; 5:3-14) all demonstrate
conclusively that the author of Ephesians continues to ground the concept
of “one flesh” in human male-female marriages; that is, in a requisite
structural otherness-within-likeness. The same is obviously true for
the citation of Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16, made in close proximity to the
prohibition of male-male intercourse in 1 Cor 6:9; and for the clear
intertextual echoes to Gen 1:26-27 in Paul’s repudiation of same-sex
intercourse in Rom 1:24-27.
Stortz
fares no better in discussing tradition and reason. With respect to
tradition, Stortz emphasizes Luther’s rejection of celibacy requirements
and his emphasis on sexual relationships as a “basic human need” (p. 65).
Stortz does not delve into the difference between a celibacy requirement
(which Luther rejected) and prerequisites for valid sexual unions (which
Luther accepted). Nor does she give attention to statements such as the
following from Martin Luther (here commenting on Rom 6:19 in his
Lectures on Romans): “The person who serves uncleanness, that is,
dissipation and carnal uncleanness, is already becoming more and more
unrighteous, for sin now rules over him, and he has lost faith and has
become an unbeliever.” As for reason, Stortz finds the current scientific
evidence on homosexuality “confusing.” Instead, she turns to “the
importance of promise-making” in the work of philosopher Hannah Arendt,
not stopping to consider whether “promise-making” is a sufficient
prerequisite for valid sexual unions (pp. 67-69). Stortz’s treatment of
experience is better. While advocating for the importance of experience,
she cautions (with Nestingen) that sexuality is not a right and that “it
is not the case that anything goes as long as two adults give their mutual
consent and no one gets hurt” (pp. 70-71).
In the
second part of her essay Stortz tries to develop “a sexual ethic shaped by
baptism” (pp. 72-77). She declares that baptism makes fidelity to Christ
primary, turns sexuality into a public matter, and shows that legitimate
sexual expression requires faithful promise-making (pp. 73-75). So far, so
good. But is that all that baptism—which transfers believers into
the sphere of Christ’s ownership—asks of sexual relationships? Differently
put, doesn’t the lordship of Christ have something to say about the gender
of the participants? The entire witness of Scripture says it does. Yet, in
Stortz’s view, if sexual relationships are characterized by “fidelity”
(which Stortz defines as “sexual exclusivity and long-term commitment”),
“service” to neighbors, and “generativity” (investing in the next
generation, with or without procreation), “they should be supported by the
church” (pp. 76-77). Of course, if these were the sole criteria, then the
church would have to approve of all adult incestuous unions exhibiting
such traits, to say nothing of some adult-child unions.
Stortz
insists that “sexual unions should be contoured along lines suggested by
the ‘most perfect marriage’ in the body of Christ” (p. 77). Presumably
this is what leads her to advocate for “sexual exclusivity.” But if two
people can “promise to be faithful to one another” (p. 69), why not accept
a faithful union of three or four (three = the Trinity; four = the Trinity
+ the church)? After all, Stortz deviates from the model of Eph 5:21-22 in
other ways. Not only does she ignore the pervasive biblical image of
“bridegroom” and “bride” on which it depends (cf. Mark 2:19-20; Matt
25:1-10; Rom 7:4; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17), but also she is
content with commitment to a “long-term” union rather than to a lifelong
one. In addition, Stortz never explains to us why “fidelity” is important
to maintain—albeit in her watered-down “long-term” version—but not
standards of structural complementarity that Scripture deems to have
precedence. Concessions to non-monogamous unions are made in the Old
Testament, but not for sex with one’s mother or with a person of the same
sex. Making an incestuous or homoerotic relationship “long-term” or
“exclusive” does not improve it. Indeed, the point is to cease and desist
from the union immediately, not to continue it. Both incest and same-sex
intercourse are judged by Scripture to be wrong because they attempt to
conjoin or merge persons who are too much alike (familial or gender). Why
insist on fidelity when Scripture’s essential prerequisites for acceptable
sexual unions have been ignored? If there is no intrinsic link between
baptism and an other-sex prerequisite, then there is certainly none
between baptism and monogamy or between baptism and a “long-term”
commitment. Stortz has not thought through the ramifications of her
position.
IV. Daniel L. Olson, “Talking
about Sexual Orientation:
Experience, Science, and the
Mission of the Church”
Olson’s essay is the most neutral essay in the book, although Olson leans
in the direction of making “new responses to new situations” and not
treating the Bible “as merely a repository of timeless propositions”
(“Authors’ Forum,” 128-29).
Consistent with his expertise in pastoral care he devotes the first part
of his essay (pp. 97-111) to the dynamics of listening and anger avoidance
in the discussion of homosexuality. He contends for both “empathetic
listening” of one another and “critical listening” of scientists instead
of “vigilant listening” (the listening of one guarding a camp in a war
zone)—begging the question of whether the church is under siege (pp.
97-98, 103). Olson emphasizes that feelings of betrayal, contempt, and
exclusion inculcate intense anger and destroy relationships (pp. 108-109).
For Olson, the main mission of the church in the sexuality discussion is
to model to the world a vigorous dialogue without attacking one another or
turning away in disgust; in short to maintain unity (citing John 17; pp.
98-102, 110).
Olson’s approach, while helpful at points, also truncates the biblical
perspective. It gives little attention to matters of truth, boundaries,
scriptural standards of sexual purity, and the eternal fate of offenders.
I doubt whether Paul’s handling of the case of adult incest would have
complied with Olson’s guidelines. Even so, it was the Corinthian stance
that was schismatic, not Paul’s compassionate recommendation of temporary
suspension of the offender from the life of the community. Would Olson
have recommended that Paul stay in dialogue and not be so dismissive and
exclusionary? Granted that truth should be spoken in love (Eph 4:15), are
there some forms of behavior that Scripture regards as so extreme as to
transcend concerns for unity? Ephesians 4-5 stresses a unity that is
constructed on adherence to apostolic teaching (4:13-14) and even
recommends disassociation from serial unrepentant participants in immoral
behavior (5:3-14). Condoning a form of behavior that is categorically,
strongly, and pervasively condemned in Scripture is already a schismatic
act. Christian unity cannot be defined merely as agreement among
believers. It requires, first and foremost, agreement with the core values
of Scripture, one of which is the definition of acceptable sexual
intercourse as the (re-)merging of two sexual others into a sexual whole.
The
second part of Olson’s essay (pp. 111-17) focuses on the scientific
evidence. Olson tries to steer a middle course: we do not know what causes
homosexual orientation or higher rates of mental health problems among
homosexuals. Nor do we know whether sexual orientation can be changed or
whether homosexual parenting adversely affects child development. Only in
two instances does Olson cite explicit research. Olson adeptly shows the
strengths and weaknesses of recent studies showing a mild correlation
between handedness or fingerprints on the one hand and homosexual
orientation on the other (p. 115). In his other specific reference, Olson
gets it wrong: “In twin studies, if one identical twin is gay, the
likelihood that the other one will be gay is about fifty percent” (p.
111). It is true that three of the four major identical-twin studies
published from 1991 to 1993 found such a concordance rate (the other major
study found a concordance rate of only twenty-five percent). However, in a
study published in 2000, J. Michael Bailey, co-author of two of the
previous “fifty percent” studies, found a way to eliminate much of the
sample bias of earlier studies. This time he found that only twelve
percent of the identical twin pairs with at least one self-identified
nonheterosexual had a co-twin who likewise self-identified (reported in my
book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice [Abingdon, 2001], 404-405
and in Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality
[Intervarsity, 2000], 75-78). Olson should have been aware of this study,
although he could not have known an even more recent identical twin study,
published by researchers from Columbia and Yale, which concluded that
“less gendered socialization” in childhood, not genetic or hormonal
influences, plays the dominant role in the development of same-sex
attraction (Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and
Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology
107:5 [2002]: 1179-1205). We now know enough from science to say that
congenital influences play a role in some homosexual development but they
are not a direct cause and require the medium of specific socializing
influences (Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395-429). There is also
ample evidence that disproportionately high rates of negative side effects
associated with homosexual behavior are due in large measure to the same-sexness
of the behavior; that is, to the absence of a gender complement that might
temper the extremes of each sex (Bible and Homosexual Practice,
452-60, 471-85). Olson’s five-page description of what science tells us
could be much worse but it could also be much better.
V. Richard J. Perry Jr. and José
David Rodríguez,
“We Hear in Our Own Language:
Culture, Theology, and Ethics”
The
least insightful essay is the one by Perry and Rodríguez. The aim of the
authors was to show that a “multicultural perspective”—meaning primarily
an African-American and Latino-American perspective (the ethnicity of the
authors, respectively)—is essential for a church study of homosexuality.
Yet running counter to this aim is the authors’ candid admission that,
“when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, these communities’ attitudes
and beliefs appear to be the same as the dominant culture’s” (p. 90). If
there is any difference, it is a difference that favors the “traditional”
view: African-American and Latino-American Christian perspectives on
homosexuality are generally more conservative than Euro-American
Christian perspectives (pace Perry and Rodríguez, p. 92).
Although Perry and Rodríguez do not advocate explicitly for homosexual
unions, the generalizations that they make favor such unions. For example:
According to the authors, “surely one of the crucial absent voices
[in the ELCA’s study of homosexuality] is one representing the homosexual
community” (p. 94; my emphasis). The reality is the exact opposite: no
group has greater proportional voice and input on this issue. Perry and
Rodríguez also speak about the diversity of cultures as a basis for being
open to new sexual standards (pp. 83, 86, 93). No thought is given to the
fact that Paul rejected every cultural perspective on same-sex intercourse
in his own day that was at variance with Scripture’s witness. Perry and
Rodríguez compare the present ELCA position on homosexuals with racial
discrimination (pp. 91, 92, 94) when probably most African-American and
Latino-American Christians would be offended by such an analogy. Perry and
Rodríguez make no attempt to discern critical points at which the
comparison breaks down (e.g., “skin color is a benign, non-behavioral
characteristic,” sexual orientation is not [Colin Powell]; the New
Testament embraces ethnic difference but strongly rejects many innate
sexual desires and behaviors, especially homoerotic manifestations). The
authors select only prohomosex books and articles “for further reading.”
Overall, Perry and Rodríguez adopt the standard prohomosex clichés
employed by many Euro-Americans, with little or no critical reflection.
Their essay represents a minority view within African-American and
Latino-American Christian communities and yet it is presented as the
multiculturalist voice of the book.
VI. On Faithfulness
A
final word about the context of ecclesiastical discussion is in order.
Powell tells us: “Discussions of application of Scripture. . . .
are matters on which good and faithful Christians will disagree” (pp.
33-34; cf. the book’s title: Faithful Conversation). I am afraid,
however, that as regards the issue of homosexual practice and a number of
other core biblical concerns, the statement is presumptuous. Yes, good and
faithful Christians have leeway to disagree about various important, yet
nonessential, applications of Scripture (e.g., as regards mainline
denominational differences over baptism and the Eucharist). But no, not
every disagreement about the application of Scripture can be described as
a dispute within the circle of “good and faithful Christians.” If it were
otherwise, Luther would never have initiated the Protestant Reformation.
Faithfulness is not decided merely on the grounds of the interpreter’s
intent. Some applications can be grossly unfaithful, despite the best
intentions of the interpreters, and can lead to catastrophic results for
the community of faith.