The division in the UMC over the affirmation or rejection of same gender sexual relationships is often portrayed as the expression of a deeper divide over the authority of scripture. Tom Lambrecht in a recent article in Good News Magazine stated: One view “gives the Bible primacy in determining what we believe and how we are to live.” The other view “is based on an understanding of God’s revelation as continuing over time, based on but sometimes superseding the witness of Scripture. It values the incorporation of new insights and new understandings from science and philosophy that can reinterpret or even render obsolete the teachings of Scripture.” For some this is such a fundamental divergence that it is a potentially church dividing issue. Now there are clearly differing and even contradictory views on scripture and its authority within the UMC – these were present in its predecessor denominations since the end of the nineteenth century. (See James V. Heidinger II, The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism) The question is whether differing positions with regard to same sex relationships are necessarily expressions of such divergence or may they be a reflection of different interpretation of scripture. Is it possible to affirm that the Bible has “primacy in determining what we believe and how we are to live” and to affirm covenanted monogamous same sex relationships? If this is the case this issue ceases to be a fundamentally church dividing issue.
To assert that the Bible is Scripture is, particularly in a Wesleyan perspective, to confess that the Bible has its origins in the work of the Spirit of God who continues to use it to draw human beings into a deep transforming relationship with the triune God. As Wesley described it in his Notes on 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is inspired of God – The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer. Hence it is so profitable for doctrine, for instruction of the ignorant, for the reproof or conviction of them that are in error or sin, for the correction or amendment of whatever is amiss, and for instructing or training up the children of God in all righteousness.
That the man of God – He that is united to and approved of God. May be perfect – Blameless himself, and throughly furnished – By the scripture, either to teach, reprove, correct, or train up others
To assert that Scripture is authoritative is to assert that it is the instrument that God uses to assert God’s own authority over our lives to bring them into conformity with God’s purpose for them. In The United Methodist Church this is asserted through in the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith as follows:
“The Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” (Article 5 – Articles of Religion)
“We believe the Holy Bible, … reveals the Word of God so far as is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide of faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scripture is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.” (Article 4 – Confession of Faith)
These paragraphs do not prescribe a particular theory of scriptural authority or inspiration, and a number of diverse theories are compatible with them. But they do assert that the Bible is the supreme authority for Christian life and practice. It is the Bible which provides the norms for how we should live as Christians. The Bible does this because it “reveals the Word of God” who took human form in Jesus who is the ultimate revelation of God in history.
To assert that Scripture is our supreme authority does not provide a simple answer to the question of how we should live. The Bible is a collection of writings written over around a thousand years in different places in three languages. We need to determine what particular texts meant. Then we have the complex task of relating this to our very different time and culture. All this requires data that comes from outside the Bible – knowledge of ancient languages, cultures, history, etc and knowledge of our own context. Inevitably changes in our understanding of science, history, culture, society, etc. change the way we interpret the Bible and relate it to our contemporary context. Wesley, with the vast majority of the church until the nineteenth century, understood that the Bible taught that the God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago. With this went the understanding that all suffering both human and animal was a consequence of Adam’s sin. This was a key part of his understanding of how God related to evil in the world. Today most Methodists in Europe and the USA, even those who describe themselves as conservative, would not agree with such an interpretation. The major reason for this change is the evidence from science that the earth is millions of years old. Animal suffering predated humanity; carnivorous animals existed on the earth millions of years before human beings. Alternative interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and Romans 8 were brought about by scientific developments. Further, discoveries of creations stories from Israel’s neighbors have suggested new ways of interpreting the Biblical passages. The relationship between authoritative scripture and developments in human knowledge is complex. But it must be recognized that such developments can and do provoke alternative interpretation’s of scripture that cannot be reduced to a simple divide between “conservatives” and “liberals”
The present controversies in the UMC arise in part from the challenge that new understandings of human sexuality and the experience of Gay and Lesbian Christians pose to traditional interpretations of the biblical texts. The question is whether alternative interpretations of these texts are compatible with the confession that Scripture is our supreme authority for faith and live. There are numerous book length studies of the relevant passages and I cannot address this in detail. My aim here is not to argue that any alternative interpretation is the correct interpretation but rather to argue that the meaning is not as obvious as often claimed and that there are other possible interpretations of these passages. We will briefly look at some of the relevant texts.
The account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has played a significant role in the condemnation of homosexual relationships, yet as Richard Hays, who argues against the affirmation of some sex relationships, affirms this story is “irrelevant to the topic” (The Moral Vision of the New Testament p. 381). It is a description of an attempted gang rape and cannot be used to condemn consensual homosexual relationship.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are often interpreted as providing a universal condemnation of male homosexual relationships. However, a careful analysis of the passages opens up alternative possibilities. A more literal translation of the texts would read “You should not lie with a male the lyings (or the beds) of a woman (or wife).” Reading the text in context it is addressed to adult (presumably married) males. If it simply said “You should not lie with a male” the meaning would be quite straight forward as “lie with” is a common euphemism for sex in the Old Testament. However, the addition of the phrase “the lyings (or the beds) of a woman (or wife)” – raises further questions and its significance is debated. It only occurs in these two passages in Leviticus and its exact meaning is uncertain, but it clearly refers to some form of sexual activity. It is important to note four things. The first is the question of whether this is a qualification of the phrase “lie with a male” indicating particular contexts in which this is forbidden, or is it a more detailed explanation of what is meant by “lie with a male”. Second, the Hebrew text does not have any words that are the equivalent of “as with” that we find in English translations. The original is thus not necessarily making a comparison as suggested by the English translations. Third, the use of the Hebrew word for “male” in the first part is not paralleled with the equivalent for female but with a different word meaning either wife or woman. The effect of points these two factors is that the “the lyings (beds) of a wife/woman may be a qualification of “lie with a male”. Fourth, why does the text use the plural lyings or beds? There are a number of proposed translations of this phrase some scholars argue that it refers to penetration and thus other homoerotic are permitted. Others note that the one occasion that the word lyings/beds in the plural occurs in the OT relates to incest, and thus argue that it refers to homosexual incest. If the emphasis is on “wife” then it could refer to a married man having a relationship with another man. Further, there is the question of what is the reasoning that underlies this ban? Is it moral or ritual (the mixing of semen with excrement similar to the ban on sex with a menstruating women)? It is not that the common translation is not possible but there are other possible interpretations.
When we examine the New Testament passages that have been interpreted as universal condemnations of homosexual relationships we need to briefly describe the dominant understanding of marriage and sexuality in Greco-Roman culture. This can be illustrated by the Greek word moicheia usually translated as adultery. In contemporary English “adultery” refers to a spouse having a sexual relationship with somebody who is not their spouse. While there is some overlap in meaning between moicheia and the English “adultery”, the Greek has both a narrower and a broader meaning. Moicheia referred to a sexual relationship between a man (married or single) and a female citizen under the protection or guardianship of a free male citizen. This could be the citizen’s wife but it could also be his unmarried daughter or sister, or his mother if her husband was deceased. Moicheia did not refer to relationships between married male citizens and slaves, prostitutes, or foreigners; given the power relations of the time these relationships inevitably involved the overt or covert use of power, but they were considered morally legitimate. As there was no word in the Greek moral vocabulary to describe and condemn these relationships. Jews and Christians used the word porneia for this. This word originally meant prostitution which was not subject to moral condemnation in the Greek society, in fact it was viewed as socially benefial. Jews and Christians expanded the meaning of the word to refer to illegitimate sexual relationships thus giving the word a new morally negative meaning. These relationships had in common with prostitution, not only that they were extra marital, but that in most cases they were exploitative (see I Thess. 4:6). It is important to note that marriage itself was not understood as a partnership based on mutual love. Most marriages were entered into for economic and political reasons. They were arranged without requiring the consent of the woman and, in some cases, the man also had little say in the marriage. In all cases the women was transferred to the guardianship of her husband who had final authority over her.
I Corinthians 6:9 uses two words that have been interpreted to describe a general condemnation of homosexual relationships. The first is malakos which literally means soft or smooth. This is a word that is used widely in Greek literature to relate to diverse behaviour patterns that were condemned as morally weak and/or effeminate. These included cowardice, laziness, decadence, someone who drank too much wine, a man who loved women to much, a man who dressed up to attract women, a male sexually penetrated by male, a man who had too much sex (with women) . In the middle of the twentieth century it became common to translate it as male prostitute. While such a person could be described as malakoi this not a designation for a male prostitute. As most prostitutes would have been slaves who had no choice in what they did, this is a strange interpretation involving blaming the victim in a context in which Paul is dealing with exploitation of others. Given the wide range of possible meanings there is no reason why it must be translated to relate to homosexuality. Decadent or self indulgent would be more likely and would fit the general context. John Wesley proposed that it referred to those who refused to “take up their cross”. The second word is arsenokoitai. It is made up of two words arseno – male koitai – bed/lying. The plural of koitai can be use metaphorically for illicit sexual affairs. There are a number of problems with translation – the major one is that Paul’s use of it in Corinthians is the first known use of the term. The second is that the reference here and most other references are in lists of sins with no context. Does it refer to having sex with a male, or possibly to a male who has illicit affairs? Some have proposed that Paul invented the word to refer male – male sexual relationships. This is an argument from silence, and there are many possible reasons why we have not as yet found earlier uses of it. Working on the assumption that Paul invented the word others have argued that Paul’s use of the term comes from Leviticus where in the Greek translation both arseno and koitai are found – but they are not used as single word. While they are next to each other in Leviticus 20, they do not belong to the same grammatical clause. While it is still possible that Paul invented the term based on Leviticus it seems unlikely that Paul, writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, would have made up a word based on a fairly obscure Old Testament passage when there were other adequate Greek words. There are two indicators that suggest another possible translation. First, the context is people treating others unjustly or exploitatively. Second, in one of the few texts that use arsenokoitai in the context of a narrative it is paralleled to adultery (moicheia) in an allegorical interpretation of the temptation of Adam and Eve. The temptation of Eve is described as a seduction that is the beginnings of the sin of adultery and that of Adam as the beginnings of the sin of arsenokoitai. Given that in Greek culture the sexual relationship between a married man and another male was not considered adultery it possible that arsenokoitai could refer to a man who engages in sex with a married man – or possibly a married man who engages in sex with another man. In both cases there is a clear case of unjust behaviour that violates a marriage.
The final passage that is commonly used to condemn all homosexual relationships is Romans 1:18-32. The passage reflects a typical Jewish condemnation of Gentiles which Paul uses rhetorically as part of his argument on the universality of sin. Having critiqued the gentiles he then turns and critiques those who condemn the Gentiles for their failures to follow the law that they know. His argument is as follows: The Gentiles have rejected the revelation of God in the natural world and worshipped idols. As a consequence God gives them over to their lusts. As a prime example of this, men and women give up natural relationships for unnatural ones. Men became consumed with passion for other men. Paul then goes on to list numerous other sins. Given Paul’s specific context of addressing what were for Jews the typical sins of Gentiles, the question is whether this a universal condemnation of all homosexual relationships. How does this, for example, relate to a young woman who is brought up in a devout Christian family, who comes to faith as a child and then discovers as a teenager that while most of her school friends are attracted to boys she is attracted to girls? She was never a worshiper of idols, she has never experienced attraction to the opposite sex that she could give up, she was not “consumed with passion”. She discovered something about herself which perhaps she did not want, in fact, she desperately wanted to be like her friends who were attracted to boys. Paul’s description of homosexual relationships does not fit her experience. Either Paul got it wrong or he was describing something else. For many of us the first option is incompatible with a view of scripture as our supreme authority therefore we must conclude that Paul is addressing something else. It is worth noting that many people who use Romans 1 as a universal condemnation of homosexuality, often refer a range of psychological explanations as to why some people are attracted to people of the same sex but ignore Paul’s argument that it is a consequence of idolatry.
While not directly addressing homosexuality, some have argued that Jesus’ discussion of marriage and divorce in Matthew 19: 3-12, where he links together the statement in Genesis 1:27 God made humanity “male and female” with the description of marriage in Genesis 2:24, is an affirmation that heterosexual marriage is the normative form of marriage established in creation. Is this the only or the best interpretation of this passage? Given the context is divorce we need to first examine Jesus’ quotation in relation to divorce before we make any deductions about its relevance to same gender marriage. Why does he quote Genesis 1:27 as the basis for forbidding divorce? To contemporary readers there appears to be no clear reason. However, there is a text in the Dead Sea Scrolls which quotes Genesis 1:27 in an argument against polygamy together with the account of the animals going into the ark two by two. The point is that God created animals and humans as pairs. Both ancient Hebrew and Greek have no indefinite article hence the text could mean “a male and a female”. If this lies behind Jesus’ statement then he saying something like God made an original pair and joined them together in marriage. Hence divorce violates God’s intention that marriage is the monogamous union of a pair. If this is the case then the focus of the text is not on maleness and femaleness as a creation order, but on God creating a pair. Clearly a heterosexual pair is intended as same sex marriage was unheard of in the culture of the time. However, the text does not necessarily mean that same sex marriage is contrary to the order of creation. It should be noted that Paul argues that in Christ this distinction of “male and female” has no significance. (Galatians 3: 28)
The point of this blog is not to argue that other possible interpretations of the passages used to forbid all same sex relationships are the correct or even the best interpretations. Such an argument would require a much longer discussion. The point is that the meaning of the passages is not as clear as is often asserted, and that there are other possible and in some cases probable interpretations of these passages. If this is so, then it is possible to hold to the understanding of the authority of scripture set out in the Articles of Religion and the Confession of faith and to affirm covenanted monogamous same sex relationships. However, as the traditional interpretations can also be seen to be possible and in some cases probable interpretations of the texts, the convictions of people who hold these views must be respected. Both positions are in conformity with our doctrinal standards dealing with the authority of scripture.
The reasons we come to interpret particular passages in particular ways depends on numerous factors. Some of these are related to discussions of the language of the texts in their original context. Others relate to the way we understand the overarching narrative of scripture. But there are often unconscious factors that arise out of our own culture, personal experience, education, social context, etc. It is for this reason that we need to read scripture in dialogue with others who disagree with us in order to overcome the limitations and distortions our individual perspectives. It is precisely reason that we as a church need to remain in unity as we wrestle together with the meaning of scripture.
Grace in the Fractures 