Return to the Middle (part 2)
I pick up with the idea I alluded to in the last post
regarding Paul's statement in Romans concerning homosexuality. For many
Christians, and those outside the faith, the question does arise, "What
are the Christian teachings on this subject? Where does the New
Testament speak to this issue?
Before we address that, we have to visit the idea of
relationships – specifically marriage. While Jesus is never
presented as married, Paul articulates that he thinks people should be single,
and the disciples leave their families (which is assumed to mean their wives),
there is the story in the Gospel of John of Jesus’ presence at the wedding at
Cana. The United Methodist Book of Worship contains this phrase in
the service of Christian marriage: “With his presence and power
Jesus graced a wedding at Cana of Galilee, and his sacrificial love gave us the
example for the love of husband and wife.” The story from John,
though, focuses less on the wedding than the actions of Jesus after the
wedding.
Jesus does respond in the Gospel of Mark (and Matthew) to
a question about divorce, a subject which Jesus does address. In
that response, Jesus says, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them
male and female.’ ‘For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God
has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9)
For some, this is indicative of God’s order for marriage
(one man, one woman). The Old Testament agrees that men should marry
women, but also allows for a man to marry several women (think of Moses, David,
and especially Solomon).
Beyond this, though, Jesus says little about marriage and
nothing about homosexuality. With regard to the New Testament, there are
approximately 7 passages that are commonly utilized to speak against
homosexuality. The passages are as follows:
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
Romans 1:23-27
Galatians 15:19-25
1st Timothy 1:8-11
2nd Peter 2:6-11
Jude 7
Of these five, two make reference to Sodom and Gomorrah
as examples of ungodly behavior (Peter and Jude). 1st Timothy
makes reference to “sodomites” which is often interpreted to mean homosexual
behavior, as is the passage in 1st Corinthians which lists
‘sexual perverts’ as those deemed unrighteous. Galatians lists
“sexual immorality” as a ‘work of the flesh.’ This could mean
homosexuality, but it could mean other things as well or other things in
addition to homosexuality.
It is only Romans that speaks specifically of homosexual
behavior.
"Claiming
to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or
reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because
they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this
reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations
with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing
shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for
their error." (Romans 1:22-27)
There is, as always, some debate on the interpretation of
this passage. Adam Hamilton, in his book Seeing Gray in a
World of Black and White writes with regards to this passage and
a ‘progressive interpretation’, writes,
“Finally, regarding Romans 1 where Paul speaks of persons
worshiping idols and turning their backs on God, and God thus giving them over
to depravity, he notes that some gave up their natural heterosexual
drives and substituted them with unnatural homosexual drives. These
persons would point out that Paul had no concept of sexual orientation, and
that for a homosexually oriented person, homosexual acts are natural, not
unnatural. Hence they believe Paul is condemning heterosexuals who
pursue homosexual acts. Others believe he is condemning here
sexual acts conducted in the worship of pagan idols.”[2]
A traditionalist view would be summarized as this:
“it is clearly indicative of Paul’s understanding that
homosexual intimacy is unnatural and its practice represents an example of the
brokenness in all of us. They would note that homosexuality is no
worse than the other sins Paul mentions, and that all of us commit these
sins. But they do want to recognize that homosexual practice is
something to be overcome by the grace of Christ, not something to be affirmed
as acceptable practice. […] They believe that the Bible teaches that
heterosexuality is God’s design and order for creation.”
What Adam Hamilton does in such a masterfully concise
manner is sum up positions held by people in the United Methodist Church. We
are a denomination who tries desperately to hold the middle, and often we come
to that position by much struggle, debate, and study. Our stance on
abortion, our views of capital punishment, and our social creeds are from long
and intense thought processes and debates. Homosexuality is no
different. However, it is the hot button issue at present and,
as such, garners the most attention.
Paul does mention homosexuality once. Yet we
must be careful in quoting Paul, not just because Tertullian called him the
apostle of the heretics (mostly because everyone quoted Paul when they had a
point to make), but because Paul’s discussion of homosexuality in Romans is far
from conclusive.
Paul equates homosexuality as one of the results of
idolatry (Romans 1:18-32). Their sin is in knowing God but not
honoring God (1:21). Thus, God gave them over to their desires –
which in the end are those desires that lead to death. Paul also
implies that God let them choose this and so gave them over to their
destruction – not from being homosexual, but by being
idolaters.
Fair enough. Yet before we can go around
proof-texting the first chapter of Romans, we need to be clear as to whether or
not this is all Paul has to say. Much to the surprise of the
would-be proof-texter, Paul has just begun his argument.
Paul continues by saying, “Though they know God’s decree
that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve
those who practice them.” But look at the list of death-penalty
actions: wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife,
deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and
ruthless. So the people that deserve to die are not necessarily
homosexual, but any individual who falls into the aforementioned
categories. It seems strange, then, that the issue of homosexuality,
which appears as a side-effect of idolatry in Paul’s understanding, is the
focus of such attention when the death-penalty list includes such specific sins
as to make all of humanity cringe.
Paul recognizes that the list he has given with regards
to the category of those who deserve to die is lengthy and that it is also far
from complete. So where should one go for such a list? Leviticus
would be a good place to start. As would several chapters of Exodus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And indeed, Leviticus is a
good place to start because lo and behold, there actually is a law that states
a man shall not lie with another man as one would with a woman, for it is an
abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
The problem with quoting Leviticus 18:22 is the simple
fact that if we (as alleged followers of Christ) quote the Mosaic Law in this
instance, we have to quote Leviticus in all instances. If we believe
homosexuality is a sin because Leviticus says so, then we must be equally
adamant about other sins in Leviticus and the Torah. Such as having
a tattoo (Lev. 19:28), beating our slaves to death (Exodus 21:20),
cross-breeding animals (Lev. 19:19), shaving (Lev. 19:27), wearing clothes of
mixed material (Lev. 19:19d), committing adultery (Deuteronomy 5:18), and
murder (Deuteronomy 5:17).
Wouldn’t it seem to follow that if we fall back on the
law for ammunition in one instance, we have to fall back on it in every
instance? And if we don’t, but only pick and choose, then what
validity does Leviticus, or any other book for that matter, have?
So our choices seem rather limited. Either we
submit to the seeming Judaizing tendency of the ultra-conservatives, or we move
to the ultra-antinomian stance and throw everything out.
But if by implying that these are our only choices, then
we have already moved to the realm of black and white, clear-cut
theology. The absence of gray areas signals a polarizing tendency
usually only reserved for particular bickering in political arenas. If
the Untied Methodist Church has reached a point where sides are being chosen,
we have closed the via media and are constructing one-way streets to our
dissolution. And it would seem that our side-choosing theology comes
not from scriptural debate and interpretation, but from some deep-seeded desire
to label all the sins of the entire world and identify everyone who falls into
those preordained categories.
What is remarkably ironic is that if the people actually
read past Romans chapter one, they would hear Paul saying something far more
damning than the list of death-penalty sins.
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are,
when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself,
because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing.” (Romans 2:1)
We often protest in response to this passage, “I am no
homosexual!” But if that is the protestation, then you have missed
to what Paul refers. Remember the death penalty list in 1:28 and following? Heartlessness
and ruthlessness stick out. Because in labeling the sinner to simply
call them a sinner is hardly doing the work of the Lord. But don’t
think that this applies just to conservatives. Both sides of this
foolish battle (and foolishness is also on the list) have sought to outdo one
another, though not in honor, but in malice and pride.
I have found that neither side has persuaded me against
the other. But what has occurred is that I am persuaded that both
sides have committed great evil in vilifying the other beyond redemption. Both
sides have so flayed themselves and the other that all of the blood has
impaired our vision. And I fear that for every strike we make
against our fellow human beings, we draw another lash across the burdened back
of the Christ.
“Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God, they are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption which is
in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood to be
received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in
his divine forbearance he has passed over former sins; it was to prove at the
present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has
faith in Jesus.”
(Romans 3:23-26)
Of course, I’m sure both sides have read and re-read
Paul. Curious, though, how both sides still find themselves
justified and the other vilified in the same passages.
The message Paul brought was not an antinomian one,
however. The Law still held a position
of authority for Jewish Christians and Gentile converts. Though the Law does not lead to salvation,
the morality and the ethics of the Law are still important. The Law did not impart righteousness but,
once one understood salvation through Christ, it did provide guidelines as to
how to live righteously. Therefore the
Law did have bearing on the Gentile, inasmuch as it was to be understood as a
guideline for righteous living and not to be confused with righteousness
itself, which only came through Christ.
What Paul understood about Christ, though, was probably
much more of the pivotal issue. Paul
understood that through Christ, God had dealt with the issue of sinfulness,
which was a universal problem. No one
could escape sin, which Paul states clearly in Romans 1:23: “all had fallen
short of the glory of God.’ God had
provided the law as a means to overcome sin, but it could not (in Paul’s
estimation) eradicate it. Therefore,
according to Paul, God dealt with sin apart from the law, and thus the only way
to a right relationship with God is through Christ and only through
Christ. As Paul explained in Romans
3:21-26:
“But
now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the
law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God, they are
justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus, whom God
put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to
show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over
former sins; it was
to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies
him who has faith in Jesus.”
Paul claims that the righteousness of God – that is, his
salvation – which the law and prophets had promised would be demonstrated, has
now been revealed. But it has been
revealed apart from the law, and not on the basis of whether or not one has
kept the law (Romans 3:21), and is therefore effective for all who have faith
(Romans 3:22). This is what took place
in the resurrection of Christ. Though it
paradoxically implies that there were those who were unrighteous, those very
same people were made righteous through Christ.
This event is what drove Paul.
His working out this understanding was so that he might explain how the
event benefitted not only Judaism, but also all humanity.
Leander Keck is able to get to the heart of the matter
when he makes the profound statement, “Faith in Christ is fine as far as it
goes, but your relation to God is not really right and your salvation not
adequate unless…” (Keck Paul and His Letters p. 86) For Paul there was
no ‘unless.’ And to his listeners and
readers (ancient and modern), this would pose extreme questions. Yet for Paul it was all or nothing. If you had faith, that was that. It was not a matter of degree or
understanding. Faith in the Christ did
not mean conformity to anything else.
Conformity implies requirements.
“If one bases life on law, if one’s relation to the divine is the result
of meeting requirements, it does not really matter under which law one’s life
takes shape.” (Keck p. 84) If salvation via faith in Christ could be extended
to different ethnic backgrounds and religions, then there could be no
requirements apart from faith itself.
This ultimately was the issue that existed between the individual and
God. Hence Philippians 2:12-13: (ESV)
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my
presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his
good pleasure.
Perhaps this only complicates the issue further. Paul seems to insist we have to approach our
salvation and work it out on our own in fear and trembling. Why?
Because though the Law is a guide, if we were born outside of it, it is
not something we know or utilize. For
the Christian, depending on your own background, Leviticus either has
tremendous bearing or almost none at all.
With this foray into Paul’s thinking on the Law, we see that even he
would not push the law over the grace of Christ.
And perhaps
the grace of Christ should be center
to our conversation, our dialogue, and our discussion with one another.
end part 2
Comments
Post a Comment