Finding
a Christian Gay Ethic
Part
2 of the series: The Spirit and the Flesh
By Bruce L. Gerig
Why
is there such disagreement today over what the Bible says about homosexuality?
Also, are all Biblical pronouncements
meant to be applied to every time and place? If so, what about such NT verses that support slavery,
forbid divorce (except for adultery), and tell women not to speak in church,
come bareheaded, or wear expensive clothes? Moreover, when one looks at the Bible more closely,
one is amazed to find a Divinely-accepted range of sexual expression much
wider than what most churches today would approve, that Jesus broke Scriptural
rules to meet basic human needs, and that Paul emphasized above all else God’s
amazing grace in Christ, which is offered freely to anyone and everyone who
will accept it.
Yet,
returning to the “works of the flesh,” some readers are going to point out
that even though porneia (“fornication”) is linked here with idol-worship, drunken
parties and prostitution (Gal 5:19-21), there are other NT passages that condemn
sex outside of marriage in and by itself, e.g., in 1 Thess 4:3. In the larger passage here,
Paul appears to be addressing men in particular, since he speaks about ‘earning
your own living’ and ‘not depending on anyone else’ for what you need (4:11-12). So the Good News Bible reads:
“God wants you to be holy and completely free from sexual immorality [porneia = fornication = sex outside of marriage]. Each of you men should know
how to live with his wife [footnote: or ‘control his body’] in a holy and
honorable way, not with a lustful desire . . . . In this matter, then, no man should do wrong to his fellow
Christian nor take advantage of him” (1 Thess 4:3-6a). Now the word “holiness” (hagiasmos,
Strong G38) means basically to be “separated”
or “dedicated” to God.4 Beyond this, Paul’s concern is that married Christian
men seek sexual fulfillment within their marriage vows and avoid lusting after
another man’s, or another believer’s, wife (an idea that he also emphasizes
in 1 Cor 7:3-5). Of
course, this does not address the problem of gay men who married, thinking
that then their predominate same-sex desires would simply disappear.
Jesus almost never mentions porneia,
no doubt because he himself could be and was accused of being an illicit child
(cf. John 8:41b); and when he does so, it is usually in a neutral, non-condemnatory
fashion, as when he told the Jewish leaders who refused to believe in him
that “You can be sure that tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the
kingdom of God before you ever will!” (Matt 21:31b, CEV). Yet, in Matt 15:17-19 (NRSV), Jesus
declared that it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of one’s
mouth and therefore one’s heart that “defiles” a person. Then he explained, “For out
of the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery [moicheia,
G3430], fornication [porneia, G4202], theft, false witness, slander” (v. 19).
Since “fornication” here is joined with “adultery,” the former no doubt
refers primarily to the single man who might deflower a Jewish maiden (Deut
22:23-27), although if the virgin was
not engaged (non-betrothed) the man simply had to marry her (vv. 28-29);
and in practice (in this patriarchal society) the woman often was condemned
while the man got off scot-free (John 8:1-11). Sometimes Jesus issued very hard pronouncements,
such as: cut off your hand if it causes you to sin (Matt 5:30); don’t ever
swear an oath (5:34); if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other
as well (5:39); be perfect as God is perfect (5:48); and sell what you possess
and give the money from this to the poor (Matt 19:21). All of these admonitions contain seeds of truth;
and yet such ideal and perfect standards are probably best understood as pointing
to the profound human need for Christ’s eventual atoning death, rather than
to be applied as strict moral law.5 Clearly Jesus cared about the hard life of common
people (Matt 9:36), felt compassion toward the sick and suffering (Matt 14:14),
identified with the poor and homeless (Luke 9:58), defended the life of an
adulteress who was brought before him for stoning (John 8:1-11), reached out
without condemnation to a Samaritan woman who had lived with six different
men (John 4:7-19ff), and had positive words to say about eunuchs and others
who did not fulfill the Divine
command to “Be fruitful and multiple” (Gen 1:28) nor the Jewish expectation
to marry and raise a family (Matt 19:11-12).
In
1 Cor 6:15-18, Paul condemns “fornication” as it relates to visiting prostitutes;
yet at the same time he also recognizes how strong the sexual drive can be
(7:2-9). Father Andrew Greeley once
described sex as “a raw, primordial, basic power over which we have only very
limited control” and he noted that these urges, including “the cravings for
sexual satisfaction, for sexual relief, and for sexual union” can “permeate
our being and frequently dominate our behavior to the exclusion of all else.”6 Paul urges believers, if they
find themselves in such a tormented state, to seek a companion (in marriage),
which is better than living “aflame with passion” (7:9, NRSV). Actually, Paul wished that
all believers could live a life entirely free from the troubles of sexual
passion and be celibate as he was; yet he noted that God gives different ‘gifts’
in this area, and only one of them is celibacy (7:7). Not every person, even who
might want it, receives the ability to live a celibate life; nor should this
be demanded unless a person believes (independent of outside pressure) that
God has given him or her this special gift. As Father Gregory Baum wrote, “[P]ersons who are
constitutionally homosexuals must accept
this orientation and live accordingly,” expressing “their sexuality in a manner
consonant with Christ’s teaching on love.”7
Conversely, persons with strong
gay sexual desires who are told by fundamentalist leaders that they cannot
accept these nor act on them often become hate-filled homophobes obsessed
with “fighting homosexuality” in society and in the church, as a way of trying
to keep the lid on their own unfulfilled, restless desires. The problem for gay people
relating to NT texts that condemn “fornication” (all sex outside of marriage)
is that for them heterosexual marriage would be sexually unfulfilling and
a tragic disaster for both partners. One can imagine what would happen if somebody came
into a fundamentalist summer camp and declared that it was God’s will for
all of the heterosexual young people there to henceforth either make themselves
homosexual or live the rest of their lives in celibacy. This would be such a preposterous
and unacceptable idea that such a ‘prophet’ would immediately be railroaded
off the premises! Yet,
this is exactly what fundamentalist preachers and ex-gay leaders demand of
gay and lesbian Christians, only in reverse. Moreover, these cultural crusaders
have done everything in their power in recent years to deny gay people the
opportunity and incentives to form lasting relationships that lead to marriage
and thus they actually promote promiscuity among gay people and in society
at large. Paul, who
sought practical solutions for difficult problems in his churches, along with
emphasizing the central message of God’s love and grace, would certainly have
advised any gay Christian to try to find another like person with whom to
share his or her life, had he known what we know today about homosexual orientation.
Here, however, we must avoid the dual pitfalls, of the social constructionists,
who think they can explain through ‘social influences’ why some individuals
choose such a difficult, against-the-grain, and even persecuted life for themselves
to find same-sex love, and the ex-gay ministries, whose warped pseudoscience
blames parents for their kids turning out GLBT. The best summary of biological
evidence for prenatal factors determining homosexual orientation (often varying
testosterone levels in the womb) is now found in Born Gay (2005), written
by the British psychologists Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman.8
Yet,
what should be our view toward gay people who are ‘promiscuous,’ while they
are trying to find someone with whom to share their life? While promiscuity carries health dangers that one
needs to guard against, I cannot condemn promiscuity in total because I met
my partner in a gay meeting place, which led at first to what I thought would
be only a one-night stand.
However, Jim later moved in, came to know the Lord, was filled with
the Holy Spirit, and was given special spiritual gifts. (For a Biblical case where the Holy Spirit fell
on other individuals who were not supposed to be accepted within God’s community,
cf. Acts 10:44-48.) Thereafter God blessed us in our service for him.
Cambridge theologian Norman Pittinger notes that the real issue here
is not promiscuity, but inner spirit and intention. No one can predict with certainty that any couple
will remain in love forever even in a heterosexual marriage. Of course, one of the jobs
of a counselor or pastor ought to be to do all that can be done to keep a
relationship in tact, with the hope that it will last. Yet, as Richard Mickley notes,
“Not all sex outside of marriage is bad and not all sex within marriage is
good.”9
Also, gay couples have many things working against them (such as social
bigotry, gay bashing, lack of legal support, and hostile churches) that heterosexual
couples do not face.10 Webster’s Seventh New College Dictionary (1969)
defined “promiscuous” as having sex “not restricted to one sexual partner.”
However, the more recent Webster’s New World College Dictionary
(4th ed. 2002) defines “promiscuous” as “engaging in sexual intercourse indiscriminately
with many persons … without plan or purpose; casual.” The latter definition is more precise and useful,
since it suggests distinctions based on degree (fewer incidents as opposed
to many) and purpose (seeking a permanent partner rather than simply random
acts). Therefore,
a gay Christian may go out with a desire in the Lord to find a committed relationship.
As a practical matter, it should also be noted that same-gender sex
never results in pregnancy, which can be a serious consequence
in any heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage. In 1 Cor 6:16 Paul speaks
of a man who has sex with a “harlot” (KJV) as becoming “one flesh” with her
(the same language is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve come together);
yet, relating in 1 Cor 6 to a passing encounter, Paul could hardly have meant
by “one flesh” the blending of two personalities together (the usual reading
given to “one flesh”11); instead he must have been referring to the simple
act of intercourse, which can produce “one flesh [a child].” One has to wonder, moreover,
to what extent many couples ever become truly “one,” in the light of the disjoint
and conflict in marriage that is predicted in Gen 3:16b and the fact that
opposites often attract―although two people, as distinct individuals,
certainly can come together to share and enjoy a rewarding life together.
The point here is that to say that gay people may never have sex outside
of marriage is cruel and crippling, and neither compassionate nor credible. As John E. Smith noted, “[P]roblems
arise when the ethical standpoint is absolutized and becomes free of any critical
vantage point beyond itself [and then] legalism and moralism result.
The ethical must be limited by . . . mercy and forgiveness . . . and
if it is not, the ethical will absolutize itself with evil consequences.”12
Interestingly,
Paul broke so many traditional Biblical rules in his attempt to bring non-Jews
into the kingdom of God that the fundamentalist Jews never forgave him for
it. He even bent Jesus’ ban on
divorce “except for marital unfaithfulness [adultery]” (Matt 19:9, NIV), advising
Christian wives in Corinth whose non-believing husbands wanted to leave them
to go ahead and get a divorce (1 Cor 7:15, sometimes called the “Pauline exception”13). Today most evangelical churches have come to approach
broken and apparently irreparable marriages with a compassion which allows
for divorce and even remarriage. Jesus also broke rules to meet human needs. For example, when his disciples
were condemned by Jewish leaders for ‘working’ on the Sabbath (plucking grain
to satisfy their hunger), Jesus defended them (Matt 12:1-8), recalling how
David had obtained food on the run by persuading the high priest to give him
“holy bread” from the Tabernacle (1 Sam 21:1-6), even though the Law of Moses
specified that such bread was only to be eaten by priests (Lev 24:5-9).
Then Jesus quoted God’s word from Hosea 6:6 (NIV), saying, “I desire
mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt 12:7, also 9:13).
On another occasion Jesus harshly criticized the Jewish leaders, saying,
“Woe also to you lawyers [religious experts and legalists]! For you load people with burdens
hard to bear, and you yourselves will not lift a finger to ease them” (Luke
11:46, NRSV). Fundamentalist
leaders who demand the renouncing of one’s deep-seated sexual nature and the
forcing of celibacy of all gay people may be compared to the steward in Jesus’
Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:21-35), where a slave had a large
debt that his king completely forgave; but then the slave turned around and
showed no compassion toward another slave who owed him a much smaller debt,
which he could not pay. When the king heard about this, in his anger he
reinstituted all of the first slave’s debt. Those who are sinners and who have received God’s
undeserved grace and forgiveness should not lack compassion for others, who
although they may be different from them wish to come God “just as I am” to
share also His abundant grace, for God “is rich in mercy” and reaches out
in “great love” to all people, that they might be saved (Eph 2:4-5). So Jesus warned, Be careful
how you judge, lest God judge you, in turn, with the same harshness (Matt
7:12, cf. CEV).
Still,
some will argue that gay sex and sex outside of marriage do not fit into the
Biblical view of sexual ethics.
Yet, as Walter Wink notes, when one looks at the Bible one finds not
a single sexual ethic but a variety of sexual mores (customs), some of which
have changed dramatically over the long period of Biblical history.14 In the OT and for over a millennium, the Israelites
lived with a Divinely-proscribed sexual ethic that was very different
in many ways from what Christians commonly hold to today. For example, an Israelite man could take multiple
wives (polygamy; cf. Gen 29:26-30, Judg 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 2 Sam 3:2-5) as well
as female captives and slaves as sexual partners (concubinage; cf. Gen 16:1-4,
Num 31:15-18, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3). The NT condemned neither of these practices, and
in fact Jewish sources show that polygamy continued to be practiced within
Judaism for centuries following Jesus’ time.15 A widow could ask to sleep
with her deceased husband’s brother to obtain an heir (levirate marriage;
cf. Gen 38:8-10, Deut 25:5-10), and Jesus mentions this custom without criticism
(Mark 12:18-27). There
was no ban in the Law of Moses on an Israelite male visiting secular prostitutes
and they seem to have done so on repeated occasions, with prostitutes freely
within reach (cf. Gen 38:12-19; Josh 2:1, 6:22; Judg 11:1, 16:1; 1 Kings 22:38;
Prov 29:3; Amos 7:17; Jer 5:7; Matt 21:31; poss. John 8:1-11; cf. Luke 15:30).
In Solomon’s day, two harlots openly brought their dispute before the
king (1 Kings 3:16-28), who treated them with respect like any other citizens. Wink suggests that allowing
prostitution for males was probably considered necessary to safeguard the
virginity of brides and the property rights of husbands;16
and one proverb notes that visiting a prostitute was to be preferred over
committing adultery (Prov 6:23-26, esp. v. 26).17 Poems in the Song of Songs celebrate erotic passion
between lovers, with no mention of marriage or procreation.18 In fact, the entire Song of
Songs is a ballad in praise of erotic desire, a rapture “as strong as death
. . . [which] burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame” (Song 8:6, NIV). So, what is one to make of
this very different sexual ethic found in the OT? Did God not ‘get it right’ the first time around? God could have demanded a
more ‘modern’ sexual ethic of Moses and the Israelites right from the beginning,
but he did not; and this is probably best understood as an example of Divine
“accommodation.” This
theological principle refers to God’s adaptation of his revelation to humans
in their fallibility and fallenness and in the light of their limitations
and incapabilities, with his Word given in thought forms to which people could
relate in their specific time and place.19 In fact, many similarities have been noted between
customs and laws in the Pentateuch (Genesis―Deuteronomy) and those found
in other nations surrounding Israel, although significant differences appear
as well (such as the special attention given in the Law of Moses to the needs
and rights of the poor and underprivileged).20 I must add that I do not think that
prostitution is a good thing; yet this example may show that God sometimes
allows the unexpected in the face of the weakness of human nature; hopefully,
in this OT case, this would keep the Israelite men from turning to engage
in adultery, to deflower virgins, and to visit pagan shrines. Although it may be argued
that polygamy and concubinage occurred infrequently in Israelite and Jewish
practice, still it must be acknowledged that God’s law clearly ordained ‘exceptions
to the norm’ in Israel’s sexual practice.
Yet,
certain Biblical passages do appear to condemn homosexuality. Conservative interpreters argue, for example, that
Sodom was destroyed simply because the males there had sex with other males
(Gen 19:1-29, cf. 18:20), that Levitical law proscribed the death penalty
for all homosexual behavior (although only ‘sex as with a woman [penetration]’
is actually mentioned and lesbianism is absent in Lev 18:22, 20:13), that
a person who practices any kind of homosexual act will not be allowed into
the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10), and that in the end both male and female
homosexuality are condemned (Rom 1:18-27).21 However, as Jack Rogers notes, such interpretations
often do not reveal a good understanding of the passages’ linguistic, historical
and cultural contexts; and they are used inappropriately to condemn a whole
modern group of people (“homosexuals”).22 Instead, more astute scholars
have noted that: (1)
Biblical references to same-sex acts are few, scattered and ambiguous; and
homosexuality appears only as a secondary theme in a variety of contexts.23
(2) The ancients knew nothing about homosexual orientation, only about
certain kinds of negative, demeaning same-sex acts.24 It simply cannot be said that
the Bible condemns all homosexual relationships (Rogers).25 (3) Moreover, all of these
passages appear to describe bisexuals,
not true homosexuals. For
example, Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom to try to fulfill their sexual
desires, the Levitical ban was directed to Israelite men in general (the great
majority of whom were married, so any other sexual activity would be on the
side), and 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Rom 1:18-32 were directed to cultures which had
established certain same-sex traditions as part of the norm for all (mostly
heterosexual) male citizens.
(4) All of the passages that condemn homosexuality also involve other
clearly negative actions, and so the question remains as to whether these
sins, or homosexuality, are or is being judged. For example, the sin at Sodom involved a longstanding
ritual of abusing and gang-raping strangers (notice how quickly and methodically
the males gather together, Gen 19:4); and there is nothing about love here.
The Levitical ban no doubt involved purity interests (e.g., do not
mix blood and semen, both vital issues of life, Lev 18:19, or semen and waste,
18:22), a matter that in the NT is essentially replaced by Christ’s atoning
death (Acts 15:9-10).26
Malakoi and arsenokoitai (NASB: “effeminate [men]” and “homosexuals”) in 1 Cor
6:9-10, although the precise meanings of these Greek terms are still debated,
in their cultural setting probably referred either to the well-known Greek
tradition of paiderasty (man-boy sexual liaisons) or to prostitution, which
was widespread in Roman times; these cannot be referred in general to “men
who have sex with other men” (Martin), as no Hebrew or Greek word existed
for “homosexual.”27 Then in Rom 1:26-27 Paul views same-gender sex
strictly tied to and derived from idolatry, which cannot be applied to gay
and lesbian Christians who have generlally only sought to worship and serve
the true God.28
Moreover,
as Rogers notes, it must be remembered that the Hebrews and Greeks had patriarchal
cultures, where men were held dominant sway over the women.29 Therefore, Lot at Sodom is
willing to sacrifice his own daughters to protect two male strangers he has
only just met, one should note the gender emphasis in the wording “You shall
not lie with a male as with a woman”
in Lev 18:22 (italics added), malakoi
commonly had to do with effeminacy in males which was considered by many ancients
to be a moral failing, and Paul’s reference to “their [the males’] women”
in Rom 1:26 suggests that women here were violating gender boundary expectations
by taking the active role in their sexual activity.30 As Martti Nissinen notes,
distinctions in ancient times were not based on individual identity or sexual
desire, but on the basis of one’s gender, gender roles and gender behavior.31 Ancient civilizations, from
Mesopotamia to Rome, were polarized cultures, where men were in charge and
women were subservient; and sexually men were to be the active, initiating
partners and women the passive, receiving partners. Transgressions of these gender role boundaries
were severely condemned—although with certain exceptions, since socially-inferior
boys, slaves, foreigners, and defeated enemies could become targets of male
sexual aggression. However,
for a woman or another socially-inferior individual to move up the social
ladder with regards to sexual role was considered “contrary to nature,” as
the Greeks put it, because this turned the “natural” (patriarchal) order upside
down.32 These patriarchal notions are still with us today,
seen in the typical male response toward female prostitution (the world’s
“oldest profession”) as opposed to male prostitution (viewed with confusion
and disruption of social order).33 Yet, do we really want a patriarchal
world today, as it existed in OT or even NT times? Among the Israelites, the
female was considered under the absolute authority, if not the property, of
her father, until she came under her husband’ control (Gen 19:6-8; Judg 11:30-39,
21:20-23). A man
could divorce his wife (some rabbis held for simply spoiling his food, cf.
Mishnah, Nashim, Gittin, ix.10)
at any time (Deut 24:1), while the woman had no legal recourse if her husband
abused her. Adultery with another man’s
wife was to be punished by death for both parties (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22).34 Even in NT times, women usually
received no formal education, they were not considered competent to act as
a legal witness, and they could not even allowed to say a blessing over a
meal. Philo advised
women to stay indoors as much as possible. When they did go out, they were expected
to veil themselves and not speak to men other than family members. Every morning the Jewish male
thanked God that he had not been created a gentile, a slave or a woman.35 Is this the kind of view we
wish to perpetuate in our world today, where so many women are every bit as
well-educated, experienced, and capable as men? Why should they not share an equal place with men
in leadership and contribution to society? Why ignore the talents and gifts of half the human
race? Such ancient
Biblical texts as these may have had certain relevance in earlier centuries,
but they contribute little or nothing to the modern world in which we live.
Krister Stendahl, Paul Jewett, and Virginia Mollenkott note how some
Biblical texts must be superseded by fuller insight that is given in other
Biblical texts, such as Gal 3:28, which tells us that “There is no longer
Jew nor Greek . . . slave or free . . . [or] male and female . . . in Christ
Jesus.”36
In
fact, a whole range of cultural and social rules in the NT must be questioned,
as to whether they were really meant to be, or should be, applied automatically
to every time and place―including directives related to slavery, women’s
roles in the church, divorce and remarriage, fashion (hair length and church
attire), and certain sexual matters (GLBT people). If we apply NT rules on church attire, for example,
a woman should never speak in church with her head uncovered, men should never
wear long hair or women short hair (1 Cor 11:5,14), and women should not display
braided hair, gold or pearls, or expensive clothes in church (1 Tim 2:9).
Jack Rogers, in his ground-breaking book Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality
(2006), shows how the Church, by continuing to enforce certain archaic cultural
rules in Scripture, has actually contradicted the central teachings of our
Lord (and of Paul) and at the same time has inflicted great hardship and suffering
on various disenfranchised groups. For example, he notes how 19th-century theologians
and preachers, seeking to apply the Bible literally (no matter the hurt inflicted
on people), used various passages to support SLAVERY (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-25,
1 Tim 6:1-2, Tit 2:9-10). A great controversy erupted as Abolitionists, atheists
and others concerned with social justice raised the cry that this practice
was absolutely unjust, inhumane and cruel, even though Christian legalists
insisted that the Bible justified slavery, God ordained it, and tradition
supported it. (Do
these arguments not have a familiar ring relating to modern-day homophobic
rhetoric?) Even after
the Civil War, white Southern preachers appealed to deep-seated fears in their
white male congregations, warning that this was ‘a moment of life or death
for the church.’37 Rogers notes a similar struggle that ensued over
the ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, legalists again holding up certain Scriptural
passages (1 Cor 14:33b-35, 1 Tim 2:9-3:13), in spite of the fact that many
women today are in an entirely different place (in terms of training and experience)
than Jewish women in the first century. Even Paul seems uncertain here, since in one place
he declares (probably in a hyperbole) that “women should be silent in [all]
the churches” (1 Cor 14:34, NRSV), while in the same letter he instructs women
to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy in public (i.e., in church, 11:5); and in Rom 16:1-2 he asks
everyone to do whatever they can to support Pheobe, who is leader of the church
at Cenchreae (near Corinth).
Rogers recalls, however, how through most of the 19th century women
were instructed to be ‘silent ornaments of piety’ and not to speak in church
or seek any position of authority.38 Where Christian leaders got it so wrong is that
they followed marginal proscriptions in the Bible while neglecting the broader,
central principles, such as “[L]ove your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18,
Rom 13:9, Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Gal 5:14, James 2:8) and “Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt 7:12, Luke 6:31). They also forgot that Jesus,
the central figure of Scripture, always displayed love toward the oppressed
and marginalized and sought to remedy their injustice.39 Fortunately more and more
Protestant churches today have revised their former unbending stance against
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE, shifting the emphasis away from a legalistic application
of Scripture to one which emphasizes the spirit and totality of Jesus’ teaching
of love and that is geared to help and care for people.40 Prayerful attention must be
given to the written Word to discover God’s saving message in Christ; and
yet in applying its rules of conduct one must be open to the Holy Spirit’s
leading (even in new directions), utilize the best tools of scholarship, and
apply Biblical principles with understanding and empathy, especially in areas
of controversy. Above
all, one must focus on Jesus’ central two commandments to love God and to
love our neighbor.41
Finally,
returning to Gal 5-6, how are gay Christians to walk with the Lord and in
the Spirit? Paul shows us the way: We should live in a manner
that above all expresses agapē
love, which is self-giving and which cares about others (5:13-14) and which
seeks the good of all, especially other believers (6:10). This is nothing less than
the Golden Rule. We
should daily “crucify the flesh [our fallen nature] with its passions and
desires,” but these last terms are not necessarily sexual terms. Sex is from God and is good,
although this does not mean that the Christian is freed for sanctified hedonism
(Mickley).42 It is no coincidence that the last “fruit of the
Spirit” is self-control, which can save us from many harmful acts, to ourselves,
to others, and to the work of God. Instead, we are to “be guided by the Spirit” and
our conscience. Yet,
as R.C. Mortimer warns, ‘conscience’ should not be thought of simply as a
little (infallible) voice whispering in the ear, or the guilt that plagues
one when one feels that he or she has done something wrong, or listening to
the prejudiced, misinformed and cruel judgments of fundamentalist homophobes. Rather, conscience should
be thought of as “an act of practical judgment of the rightness or wrongness
of a particular action.”43 Attitudes toward marriage, divorce, women, contraception,
and other controversial issues, deeply rooted in the past, often reflect both
insight and wisdom and also ignorance and prejudice. Ancient social codes have
no absolute significance, but
can sometimes provide guidelines, if it is recognized that good reason is
needed to evaluate them and sometimes revise them. As Richard Mickley writes, “Christian moral judgment is made by the individual, motivated by love for God
and others, guided by the Holy Spirit and reason.”44 Also, sometimes one really
has to research an issue before arriving at a sound, wise judgment. GLBT people have witnessed
how much wider and farther God’s grace and mercy have flowed in the world
than legalists have yet become aware. Such is the magnitude of God’s love. Daily we must trust the Holy
Spirit to bring into blossom the beautiful “fruit of the Spirit,” radiating
from agapē love (5:22-25);
and at the same time we must turn away from those “works [expressions] of
the flesh” which reveal themselves in conceit, competition, and envy (5:26).
The way to do this is through prayer and yielding to God. This does not mean that believers should not make
value judgments about what others are saying and doing (as Paul demonstrated
so vividly in his letter to the Galatians). The paradox is that sometimes
we need to take a stand on very important theological issues (like the truthfulness
of the Gospel message and the recognition that God is working today in the
lives of GLBT people and other former ‘outcasts,’ as in Acts 5:33-39), and
yet at the same time we are called to love all people and pray for our enemies
(Matt 5:43-44). Fundamentalists say that they ‘love’ GLBT people;
but they rarely come to listen to their stories, to find out what it means
to walk in their shoes, and to discover the awful harm that ex-gay ministries
have done and continue to do to gay people. Yet still, the evangelically-oriented
Barna research group in one poll found that at least half of regular church
goers ages 16 to 29 think that their church is too judgmental, too political,
and too negative about homosexuality. And one hears voices such as those of Rob Bell,
pastor of the Mars Hill mega-church just outside Grand Rapids, who advises
his youthful audience that only those who have gay friends are in a position
to judge homosexuality; also, one should not keep a “score card” with regards
to sin, because once you’re converted, “you’re loved, you’re accepted, you’re
forgiven, you’re in.”45
In the end, Paul tells the Galatians that their (and our) main concerns
should be to “bear one another’s burdens” (6:2), to test the genuineness of
our own Christian walk (6:4), and to do everything we can, financially and
otherwise, to spread God’s wonderful Gospel of love and hope in this burdened
and hurting world (6:6-9).
The
Spirit and the Flesh: Part 1: Fulfilling Christ’s Law of Love
Bailey, J. Michael, “Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation,”
in Garnets, Linda D., and Douglas C. Kimmel, eds., Psychological Perspectives
on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, 2003, pp. 50-85.
Childress, James F., and John MacQuarrie, eds., The Westminster Dictionary
of Christian Ethics, 2nd ed. 1986.
Dailey, Timothy J., Dark Obsession (ex-gay booklet), 2003.
Huitt, William G., “Motivation to Learn: An Overview” -- a summary
relating to “[Abraham] Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
- retrieved 11/8/07
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), ed. G.W. Bromiley,
vols. I-IV, 1979-1988.
Matera, Frank J., Galations (Sacra Pagina Series), 1992.
Mickley, Richard R., Christian Sexuality, 1975.
Myers, David G., and Letha D. Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together: A
Christian Case for Gay Marriage, 2005.
Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective,
1998.
Patai, Raphael, Family, Love and the Bible, 1960.
Pittenger, Norman, Time for Consent: A Christian’s Approach to Homosexuality,
3rd ed. 1976.
Rogers, Jack, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, 2006.
Strong, James, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible…, with Hebrew/English
and Greek/English dictionaries, 1890, reprinted 1980.
Van Biema, David, “The Pastor’s No Square,” Time,
12/17/07, pp. 60-61.
Vine, W.E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, four vols.
in one, 1940.
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. 2002.
Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 17th ed. 1969.
Wilson, Glenn, and Qazi Rahman, Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation,
2005.
Wink, Walter, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Walter Wink, ed.,
Homosexuality and Christian Faith, 1999, pp. 33-49.
Witherington III, Ben, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1995.
Witherington III, Ben, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter
to the Galatians, 1998.
Yancey, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, 1995.
| Main Menu | Back to Homosexuality & the Bible |