The Joy and Justice of the Gospel, #2

 Last week I said that the phrase “joy and justice of the gospel” is my way of overcoming the false divide between ‘evangelism’ and ‘social justice.’ Let me express why that is such a passion for me, with reference to my religious upbringing. As you may have heard me say on occasion (okay, on many occasions), I was raised in the Pentecostal Holiness tradition. We put a lot of emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as, in my humble opinion, too much emphasis on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues. Ironically, I think when many Presbyterians think about “those whacky Pentecostals,” they also put too much emphasis on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues and overlook the whole matter of what it means to be “baptized with the Holy Spirit.” By the way, it was John the Baptist who popularized that term initially, not Pentecostal folk. 

Being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” is a biblical thing. I’m not saying that every depiction of what that phrase means is a biblical thing, but the idea that God’s Spirit of holiness can become part of our faith journey is absolutely a biblical thing. And how we imagine that being part of our own faith journey may help bring the phrase “joy and justice of the gospel” to life. 

In the tradition of my childhood, the power of the Holy Spirit was always presented with enthusiasm, as an exhilarating experience that brought joy, sometimes even laughter, and was incredibly uplifting. Sometimes that exhilaration was expressed in some really odd ways, but the point is that it was a bubbling of joy that filled the heart and had a lasting effect on one’s life. It was true that one who might be feeling ecstatic on Sunday evening during a prayer meeting would turn around and go to work as usual on Monday morning, but they would do so as a changed person. It was an “experience” with all of the passing temporality of human experience, but it was a real experience. That kind of enthusiastic joy was what I was taught to expect as the result of being “baptized in the Holy Spirit.” 

However, what is missing from this perspective of the Holy Spirit is the kind of vision that is part of our gospel reading for Sunday, Luke 4:18-19, where Jesus says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because she has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. She has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (My translation. The word for “spirit” in Greek, Πνεῦμα, is a feminine noun.) This depiction of what the Spirit does in and through us is not at all about our personal feelings of joy, but about doing liberative work through the power of this Spirit. It is about justice. And I can honestly say that I never recall hearing any sermon about our call to do justice when I was growing up. It wasn’t a thing, even though the justice that comes through the Holy Spirit is a biblical thing. 

I should add that too often in the Presbyterian Church I think we have the exact converse problem, with lots of talk about justice and lots of suspicion about the kind of joy that seems to lie behind other biblical expressions of the Spirit, like speaking in tongues. We in the “justice” camp would do well to welcome joy, one of the “fruit of the Spirit” according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians. I think it is part of our tradition’s preference of the mind over the emotions, which sounds like a control issue to me. Maybe we can deal with that later. 

In the end, despite our churchy struggles over joy or justice, there’s a Spirit moving among us that empowers joy and justice. That is what our good news is all about. 

Mark of St. Mark

The Joy and Justice of the Gospel

In my last essay, I began exploring a way of making “evangelism” more approachable, in terms of both language and practice. Today I want to lay some groundwork for continuing that exploration. 

Years ago, as I was preparing for my ordination exams as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I ran across the phrase “the joy and justice of the gospel.” It struck a chord with me that has been vibrating ever since. I’ll reflect on it shortly, but first this anecdote. I cannot remember the text where I first came across the phrase. I googled “joy and justice of the gospel” once and realized that I had to put the phrase in quotes or else the search engine breaks it apart.  When I did, the first three links that came up were links to my writings! So, I leave open the possibility that I didn’t read it somewhere and made it up myself, but I am almost certain that it originated elsewhere. 

The phrase, “the joy and justice of the gospel,” overcomes what I think is one of the most unmerited divisions in the way we think about the Christian church. We seem to imagine that, on one side, there are churches that focus on the joyof the gospel – under the banner of “evangelism” or “evangelical” – and with a primary emphasis on personal salvation. Then, on the other hand, we think there are churches that focus on the justiceof the gospel – under the banner of “social justice” or something like that – with a primary emphasis on the communal nature of salvation. It would seem that we have to choose between the joy orjustice of the gospel, if not absolutely then at least in terms of whether the personal or the communal is of primary importance. 

The phrase “joy and justice of the gospel” resonates with me because I think it offers a way to overcome this either/or approach of the personal and the communal, evangelism and social justice. But, it’s not a simple matter of having it both ways by replacing the ‘or’ with an ‘and.’ It challenges us to rethink the way we speak about differences. To use the language of some philosophical circles, we tend to assume that ‘difference’ means ‘opposition.’ To use the language of numerous areas of public discourse today, we tend to treat differences as ‘binary.’ To use language suggested once by Richard R. Niebuhr – hang with me on this one – we could use the language of “co-inhering polarities.” What that means is that we can recognize difference, even extreme difference, but also recognize how concepts that are different rely on one another. With regard to the individual and the communal, a necessary part of individual identity is to know who one is by virtue of who one’s people are. That is why many communities put so much emphasis on genealogy. And, with regard to the communal, a necessary part of a community identity is for the individuals within it to embrace, embody, or reflect what the community is all about. That is why a genealogy is a list of the names of individuals. So, while we can name the difference between the individual and the communal, we also need to name their mutual relianceon one another, in order for either of them to have meaning. 

That’s the direction I want to take as we continue to explore the meaning and practice of “evangelism.” 

Dear Jerri, #1

I have written these “Letters to Jerri” in response to a question sent to me by a friend. Jerri and I began our Christian journeys as part of a theologically conservative and biblically fundamentalist faith tradition. I have moved on from that tradition, but my commitment to biblical theology is one of the many gifts that I received from that religious upbringing that I continue to appreciate. 

Dear Jerri, 

You asked if I could show you where in the Bible it is that God justifies or blesses same-sex marriage. My answer has been long in coming, because I am trying to find a way to be both succinct and thorough, to honor your question without going on and on. Alas, I give up. This is part one of I-don’t-know-how-many future editions. Trying to articulate a “biblical view of marriage” really is that complicated.

Frankly, I don’t think we can really speak of “the” biblical view of marriage. Like many issues there are biblical ‘views’ of marriage, most of which are shaped by the predominant social view that was ongoing at that time. For example, bigamy and polygamy are “biblical views of marriage” that were widely practiced – without condemnation – among almost all of the Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible, as well as by people like David (“a man after God’s own heart”) and Solomon the wise. Of course, it was always ‘one man and his women,’ never ‘one woman and her men,’ because of the social patriarchy that was taken for granted at that time. That’s very significant: The specific configurations of marriage throughout the Scriptures were socially, not religiously, determined. 

Abraham, for example, was no different from any of his contemporary pagan neighbors in his view of marriage. So, when Abraham sleeps with Hagar and produces Ishmael, that coupling is not seen as a sexual sin. It is, perhaps, a sign that Abraham did not understand the covenant that God had made with him, but the sexual part of Abraham’s relationship with a woman who is not his wife is never condemned by God or by the community. In fact, it was Abraham’s wife that put him up to it. And even after the 10 Commands were given, explicitly forbidding adultery, the prohibition of adultery did not preclude having a concubine. 

Isn’t that kind of weird? Does it not at least tell us that the precise definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘proper sexual relationships’ has been a changing social reality over the years – as opposed to a fixed religious reality? 

There were also other social realities that shaped marriage throughout the Hebrew Bible, which I’ll mention without commentary: People typically married a close relative (a half-sister in Abraham’s case); fathers literally gave their daughters away to be married; marriage was an economic contract; people shamelessly married to obtain a higher status or more wealth; widows were legally the responsibility of the next of kin male, who could bargain her off onto another kinsman if he wanted; kings shamelessly took beautiful single women into their harem with or without permission from their families; slaves (slaves!) were sometimes sent to ‘find a good wife’ for an owner; and so forth. None of these practices was either condoned or condemned as ‘religious’ practices. They were simply the acceptable social practices that defined marriage at the time for everyone in the ancient near east – God’s people as well as their pagan neighbors. 

The understanding of sex was likewise socially driven. Menstruating women were either too holy or too unclean to touch, much less to have sex; mandrakes were supposed to be fertility drugs; barrenness was shameful; baby boys were better than baby girls and women who gave birth to baby boys were more honored than those who gave birth to baby girls; and so forth. None of these practices or beliefs was explicitly religious. Almost all of them were based on the need for survival, economic necessity, and good ole’ human passions. There was little or no distinction between God’s people and their pagan neighbors when it came to their understandings of sex or marriage. 

And that’s just the beginning. Next week, we’ll look at a few of these Old Testament more closely. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Jerri, #2

Dear Jerri, 

Last week I gave a brief overview of the multiple ways that marriage and sex are represented in the Hebrew Bible. I am not arguing that any of those arrangements were normative for God’s people. The whole point is that those arrangements were far more determined by the times and the cultures in which they were embedded than in a specific religious understanding of marriage. 

Two particular texts from the Hebrew Bible stand out, however, as potentially vital to the topic of marriage and same-sex relationships: The creation story and Leviticus 18:22. Let’s look at the creation story first. 

Whenever people refer to the creation story as a way of structuring marriage, they are typically speaking of the second creation story, which begins in Genesis 2. This is the story where Adam is created first, then Eve is created from his side as a companion. There are some interesting features of this story worth knowing. 

First, “adam” is not a proper name at this point, but the Hebrew word for ‘human’ that is derived from the word for ‘ground’ (adamah), the substance from which the adamwas made. It is like the relationship between the English terms ‘human’ and ‘humus.’ The first creature was originally what one Old Testament scholar calls “the groundling.” God breathed the breath of life into the groundling and it became a living being. Since the word “breath” in Hebrew is the same word as “spirit,” adamis now an inspirited groundling. Significantly, adamis not yet gendered. 

Second, unlike the first creation story where each day’s creation is declared “good” or – in the case of humans – “very good,” God looks at this inspirited groundling and says, “It is notgood for the adamto be alone.” The inspirited groundling needs community. You know the story: God puts adamto sleep, takes a rib, and fashions a woman, yes? Well, almost. The word translated “rib” there is not terribly precise. It means, more or less, “side.” God took the groundling’s side and made another being. One rabbinical tradition argues that this story means that God took the one being and tore it in half, making two corresponding beings. That sounds gruesome, but it is not unlike some of the other creation stories to which the Israelites could have been responding in their time. At any rate, adamsays of the woman, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken,” pointing toward an original unity at the root of their community. The groundling, which was inspirited with God’s own breath, is now differentiated into two inspirited beings, male and female, the most basic differentiation of humanity. It is, at once, the beginning of diversity and the beginning of community. 

Then, the story concludes with what appears to be the narrator’s voice: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” That conclusion shows that this creation story is an “etiological” story. That is, it is not a story of how the world came into being, but a story that explains the origins of a community’s practices. Etiological stories tell why we do things ‘this’ way and not ‘that’ way. The Hebrew way was for sons to find a mate, separate from the parents and begin a life with her that is similar to how his father and mother did years before. This creation story describes that cultural practice as something that is rooted in the nature of humanity itself. 

There are three final things to notice about this story. First, the word “love” is nowhere to be found here. This is not a story about marital bliss. It is a better explanation of why human beings have such an overwhelming desire to have sex than about why we fall in love. You and I have a mutual friend who described his impending marriage as when he and his lover would become “one flesh, one soul, and one spirit.” That was a lovely sentiment, but the biblical writers stopped with “one flesh.” Second, the story itself only mentions the man leaving his father and mother. I point that out because it is important to remember that this story is embedded in a specific culture of patriarchy, where only the man leaving his family home needs explaining. One can appreciate this story without accepting the cultural practices in which it is embedded. We do it all the time. And finally, I suspectthat there is an economic issue behind this story that prompted the explanation. Every family land ends up running into the Malthusian problem that land produces arithmetically and families reproduce exponentially. The idea that a son “leaves” his father and mother to mate might address one of the really pressing issues of the agrarian community: “If you’re going to start producing mouths to feed – and you will; that’s what humans do – then you need to grow your own crops to feed them.”  

Thanks for your patience. Next week we’ll look at the Leviticus text, before turning to the New Testament.  

Dear Jerri, #3

Dear Jerri, 

Last week I looked at the second creation story from Genesis 2. Per its conclusion, the story seems to have the function of explaining the origin of the Hebrew practice of a man leaving his home and beginning a new family unit. The Genesis story only explains why a man leaves his home, not the woman. Why? Because it is a story that is deeply embedded in, and reflective of, a culture that did not need any rationale for why a woman leaves a home. We cannot escape the culturally embedded assumptions that are laced throughout these stories. The way to be faithful is not to pretend that those cultural assumptions are not there, but to acknowledge that they are andto admit that we do not share some of them. That’s okay, because when we read the Scriptures we will find that some of the texts do not share all of the cultural assumptions of other texts either.

This week, I’d like to look at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The same sentiment is repeated in Leviticus 20:13. Here is how I want to approach this verse this week: I want to see how the Old Testament uses the word “abomination.” It is such a powerful word that seems to mean the most horrific of sinfulness. At least that’s how it is presented by people who are decrying one thing or another. 

There are 102 uses of the word “abomination” in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Of the 102, all but 4 are in the Old Testament. Reading them all,[1]I have seen some interesting things. The first use is in Genesis 43:32, which explains why Joseph did not eat with his brothers, saying “the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” Think about that. The Egyptians had their abominations, which the Hebrews certainly did not share. In other words, abominations are culturally and religiously specific, not universal truths that are equally valid for all peoples. 

In the main except for the book of Proverbs, ‘abomination’ refers to three types of practices: Practices around sex, around food, and around the worship that marked the religions of Israel’s neighbors (and sometimes the people of Israel themselves). In fact, in many cases those three types of practices seem interrelated. 

Leviticus refers to abomination 10 times, 5 of which are in chapter 18. Two of those references are about same-sex relations. Four of them are summary statements about practices of the people who lived in the Promised Land before the Hebrews. The rest seem to be about food. Two of them call the practice of eating meat on the third day after it is offered as a sacrifice an abomination. (Eating that meat the first two days is fine.) The last two uses distinguish between clean and unclean birds; the unclean are an abomination as offerings or food. 

Some people have argued that the same-sex relationships that are called an ‘abomination’ in Leviticus are actually temple-centered acts of pagan worship. First Kings 14:24 makes an explicit reference to this when speaking of the evil religious practices under King Rehoboam: “There were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” We will look at Leviticus 18 more closely next week, but for now, consider the flow of these references to “abomination” in Leviticus generally. 

Flesh-eating birds, like eagles, osprey, and vultures, were part of God’s creation and were not, in themselves, considered abominations. Likewise, unclean animals – some birds, some creepy crawlers – are part of creation and are not, in themselves, considered abominations. Unclean animals were named as passengers on Noah’s ark! However, eagles, etc., were considered “abominations” as food. Unclean animals were considered “abominations” when presented as offerings. It is quite possible that – just as eagles are only abominations as food or unclean animals are only abominations as sacrifices – the same-sex relations that are called abominations are specific to the male temple prostitute sort, not same-sex relations in general. In light of how the writers of Leviticus use the term “abomination,” not as something abominable in itself, but only in its dietary or religious function, we have to at least hold it as a possibility that the “abomination” of same-sex relations is specific to male prostitution or male temple prostitution. 

Moving on, the book of Proverbs uses “abomination” 19 times, mostly about scoffers and cheating scales, but none of them is about same-sex relations. Jeremiah uses it 11 times, most often about idolatry, which may have included literal prostitution or maybe prostitution is a metaphor for being unfaithful to God. Ezekiel, however, is the mother lode of “abomination” in the Bible, with 31 references – almost 1/3 of the Old Testament uses. Ezekiel 16:2-22 is an extended, almost narratival account of Jerusalem’s “abominations.” The references are often undefined, but when they are defined they are a curious mix of literal and metaphorical sexual references. None of them, however, is a reference to same-sex relations.  

On the whole, of the 102 references to “abomination” in the Old Testament, only the two references in Leviticus refer to same-sex relationships. So, that’s where we will focus next week. 

---

[1]You can use the web site bible.oremus.org and scroll down to where you can enter a word or phrase to search, and key in ‘abomination’ and see them all for yourself. It will show 114 uses in total, because it includes books that we consider the Apocrypha. 

Dear Jerri, #4

Dear Jerri, 

Today I want to look closely at Leviticus 18, probably the most relied on text for anyone who feels that same-sex relationships are wrong, no matter how loving or affirming they might be to those who participate in them. It is Leviticus 18:22 that says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” That is raw and specific language. We saw last week how I Kings 14:24 made reference to temple-centered male prostitution and I suggested that this cultic practice may be behind the reference in Leviticus to homosexual activity. The reason I make that connection is because of some structural parallels between Leviticus 18 and I Kings 14, particularly the reference to how some practices that are wrong for the Israelites are practices that were common among other cultures. The second half of I Kings 14:24 says, “They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” That reference to the “abominations” of other nations is exactly what Leviticus 18 is all about. So, let’s look at those abominations – and get ready for a surprise. 

Leviticus 18:3 states the point of the chapter: “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes.”[1]This emphasis is repeated at the end of the chapter in v.30, “So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.” Please note that, while homosexual activity is specified as an “abomination” in v.22, this summary verse 30 declares allof the sexual relationships in this chapter to be “abominations.” And here are the abominable sexual relationships that are forbidden, usually with the euphemistic phrase, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of ….” Generally speaking the chapter forbids uncovering the nakedness of anyone near of kin. Of course, “near of kin” is a very broad and vague category. Later, priests were required to marry within their extended family, so the listings of Leviticus 18 seem to specify how near is ‘near.’ 

So, here is the list of those whose nakedness one is not to uncover: One’s father; One’s mother; One’s step-mother; One’s sister; One’s half-sister, born at home or abroad; One’s granddaughter; One’s half-sister (again); One’s paternal or maternal aunt, blood-related or by marriage; One’s daughter-in-law; One’s brother’s wife; Both a woman and her daughter or her granddaughter; One’s wife’s sister, as long as the wife is living; A menstruating woman. In addition, the people of Israel were forbidden from having sexual relations with a kinsman’s wife (using slightly different language than before), from sacrificing their children to Molech, from a man lying with a man as with a woman, and from sex with animals. 

Now, here is the surprise I promised. If you read through the rest of the Old Testament, you can see a number of folks who violated these standards of holiness by having precisely the kinds of sexual relations that Leviticus 18 prohibits. My non-exhaustive list:  

Abraham – married to his Sarah, his half-sister. 

Lot – having sex, unwittingly since he was drunk, with his two daughters. 

Jacob – married to sisters Leah and Rachel while both were living. 

Judah – having sex with his daughter-in-law Tamar. In his defense, he thought she was just a regular prostitute.  

Reuben – maybe. Technically, he slept with his father’s concubine, not his wife. 

David – married to two of King Saul’s daughters. Maybe. There is some discrepancy in the stories. David might also have kidnapped and married one of Saul’s wives. The man was a walking soap opera. 

Ammon – David’s son who raped his half-sister. 

As we can see, some of the sexual relations that are expressly considered “abominations” in Leviticus 18 were not referred to as such elsewhere and, in some cases, were perfectly acceptable ways of mating. In other cases, they were considered sinful, but for reasons specific to their story, not because they violated the rules of Leviticus 18. 

Please understand, I am not suggesting that Leviticus 18 has no place in our conversations about sexual ethics. I am suggesting that Leviticus 18 is not the “open and shut biblical case” against same-sex relationships that it is often pretended to be. It is one presentation among othersin the Bible regarding acceptable sexual relationships and it is clearly contradicted elsewhere in the Bible about what constitutes acceptable sexual relationships. More importantly, while the topicof this chapter is primarily sexuality, the overall purposeof this section of Leviticus is to establish Israel as different than the other nations surrounding them through their sexual ethics, as well as how they eat, dress, shave, and worship. 

Next week I want to move to the New Testament and see whether this complex portrait of sexual relationships in the Old Testament is made clearer. 

---

[1]Most scholars note that this chapter – part of the “Holiness Code” of chapters 17-26 – was written longafterthe actual journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, perhaps during or after the exile. Within the story, these laws are given on the journey. In real life, they were compiled and expressed as a unit many years later, perhaps more in response to having lived among Babylonians than Egyptians. 

Dear Jerri, #5

Dear Jerri, 

Over the last few weeks I have written about the complex descriptions and contexts of marriage and sexuality in the Old Testament as part of my attempt to answer your question about my support of same-sex marriage. Thanks again for asking. I know you’re trying to understand how I can embrace same-sex relationships when you and I were raised to reject them outright. So, let’s turn to the New Testament. 

By the New Testament era the social understanding of marriage was no longer King Solomon and his many, many wives, but looked much more like what we are accustomed to today: Typically, one man, one woman. And, just as polygamy had been common among Jews as well as their neighboring cultures back in an earlier era, by the New Testament era monogamy was common for Jews, Christians, as well as their pagan overlords, the Romans. In fact, Caesar Augustus instituted a program aimed at stamping out adultery among Romans. It only applied to out of marriage sex with citizens, not with slaves, and it was modified by the Senate about as often as it was violated by Augustus. In the end, Caesar’s Family Values program failed, but it is reflective of how monogamous, heterosexual marriage was the norm of most of the peoples throughout the Roman Empire. Significantly, it was not a unique approach that had been introduced to their society by Jews or Christians. In fact, initially, a primary question among Christians was whether they should marry at all in light of their expectation of the immediate return of Christ. (More about that later.) 

Whenever people speak of homosexuality and the New Testament, they typically go to four texts: Mark 10 (and the parallel text in Matthew 19); Romans 1; I Corinthians 6; and Jude 1. I would like to address each of these in order, but first I think it is important to recognize something about how we interpret the Scriptures. 

Any faithful reading of the Scriptures – in my mind, anyway – requires an honest admission that we bring certain prejudicesto the text. I am relying on Hans Gadamer’s use of ‘prejudice’ as the assumptions that we bring when we read texts.[1]We are aware of some of them, but I suspect we are not aware of others until something challenges our assumptions and we have to recalculate. Gadamer also says that some of those prejudices enable us to read a text well, while others disable us and create blind spots when we read texts. For example, I once read a story about a king who was seeking a queen and had his courtiers gather eligible women put them into his harem, and after having sex with each of them he selected the one who pleasured him the most. The others were not able to go back to their lives, since they were “ruined goods,” so they stayed in the harem and lived a somewhat dignified life as one of the king’s concubines. I suspect that story was based on the book of Esther, but it wasn’t until I read that ‘non-biblical’ story that I was able to see all of these raw dynamics at play in the story of the Esther. Until then I was totally blind to the sexual implications of this story.  

Another example: Years ago I read someone who argued that Jonathan and David were lovers. I dismissed the argument, supposing that it was simply the writer’s way of portraying a genuine model friendship as something it was not, in order to justify his opinion about homosexuality. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn’t. I just remember that instead of questioning my own disposition toward the text, I only questioned the writer’s disposition. Later, when I read about David’s words as he mourned the death of Jonathan, I began to wonder if I was the presumptuous one in rejecting the possibility of a same-sex love. In II Samuel 1:26, David says, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” I still don’t know the exact nature of David and Jonathan’s love, but after all these years I now think that the way we see these words is determined by what we want to see or do not want to see as much as what is written. That should give us pause as we continue looking at “biblical” views of same-sex relationships. Without humility and the willingness to be surprised by the text, we probably end up looking at the text and simply reading our assumptions.

Next week, let’s look at Mark 10 and try to yield to it as much as possible. 

---

[1]Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2^ndEd, (London: Sheed and Ward), 1989. 

Dear Jerri, #6

Dear Jerri, 

Last week I spent some time exploring the prejudices that we bring to reading Scripture texts, and how those assumptions shape the way we approach and interpret Scripture. Please be aware that the assumptions that we bring to Scripture are not fixed assumptions. They are ‘in play,’ as Hans Gadamer puts it. They are what we bring to the text and they shape how we read the text, but they are also being challenged by the texts and – if we are open to it – being reshaped by the texts. That process of allowing the Scripture to reshape our assumptions is what I meant last week by “yielding” to the Scriptures and letting them transform us. 

Today, let’s look at Mark 10:2-12, one of the texts that is often used to argue for one man and one woman as “thebiblical view of marriage,” because Jesus quotes the second creation story, about a man and a woman, when speaking about marriage. This is an interesting text because it challenges the reader to let the text decide its own topic and it says something intriguing about the Scriptures themselves.  

In Mark 10:2-12, some Pharisees test Jesus with a question about divorce between a man and a woman. Note that this question is about a marriage and divorce of a man and a woman. Note also that the question is a test, not a genuine inquiry. Its purpose is to catch Jesus saying something actionable so he can be discredited, not to explore the will of God or to provide guidance for a real person facing a real dilemma. The point is, these Pharisees knew that there is an internal tension in the Scriptures. It was something they debated often, just as readers of the Scriptures debate it often today. Do the Scriptures permit divorce? The answer is yes. And, the answer is no. The fact that King Herod was part of a divorce and remarriage meant that those Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had to deal with this issue in some way or another. It was the issue over which John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually martyred. It was a hot topic with consequences for taking one side or the other. Like the question of paying tribute to Caesar, Jesus faces the choice of being accused as a traitor with one answer or as a law-breaker with another answer. As such, we may ask whether Mark’s story intends to portray Jesus’ words as a standard or as a way of subverting yet another challenge from the leaders in Jerusalem. 

Here’s the question: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? The question has to do with what is “lawful,” which, for 1^stcentury Jews means what is allowed in the Torah. In response, Jesus asks, “What does Moses say?” because their view was that Moses wrote the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy).[1]What Moses said is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which I will leave for you to read on your own. (Go ahead. I’ll wait. …) Did you read it? Did you notice that the actual topic of this “law” is not really divorce or marriage, but re-marrying someone from whom one has been divorced and who, in the mean time, was married and divorced from someone else? What isnotpermittedin that text is remarrying someone who has been “defiled” by an intermediate marriage, which is “abhorrent.” (This is where the saga involving Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Wallace-Davis-McIntyre-Davis becomes biblically ridiculous.) What ispermitted– by inference, not directly – is for a man to send away a wife who doesn’t please him and for that wife to marry someone else. The Mark text brings this out well. Jesus asks, “What did Moses commandyou?” and they answer, “Moses permittedto write a writ of divorce and to divorce.” They were recognizing the difference between what Deuteronomy specifically commandsor prohibitsfrom what one can infer is permittedor allowed. 

Then, Jesus does something that poses a challenge for everyone who takes the Scriptures seriously as a rule of life. He agrees that Moses permitted divorce, but says that Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 24 are a concession to human weakness, not God’s will. To see God’s will, Jesus points to the second creation story (Genesis 2) to argue that, in marriage, two individuals become one flesh, joined by God, so not to be separated by humans. To the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” the answer is that God’s will is to remain one, while divorce is a concession that Moses made to human weakness. If we want a principle here, it might be: The Scriptures show us both God’s will and God’s concessions to human weakness. 

One can make the case that, since Jesus points to the second creation story to address God’s will regarding divorce, one can also point to that story to show God’s will regarding marriage itself as between a man and a woman.[2]Even if one makes that argument, there are other considerations at hand. Moses permitted divorce, even though it is not what was given in Genesis 2. Moses permitted remarriage, even though it is not what was given in Genesis 2. All of those incidents of polygamy were permitted, even though they are not what was given in Genesis 2. The question is, even if we accept ‘one man, one woman’ as “the biblical view of marriage,” what do we do with all of the exceptions, which are “permitted biblical views of marriage”? For Jesus and his interlocutors, the same Moses who permitted divorce in Deuteronomy 24 is the Moses who gave us the creation account of Genesis 2. Perhaps one reflects the ideal and the other reflects reality. Even if one see Genesis 2 as “the biblical definition of marriage,” it would seem to me that the next biblical step would be to recognize that not every marriage is going to fit that definition and that other definitions are biblically “permitted.”  

I cannot get away from this text without restating this: The topic here is divorce, specifically the divorce of a male and a female. Jesus and the disciples pick up that topic afterward, when there is no trick question at hand. Then, Jesus likens divorce and remarriage to adultery. And yet, we all know persons for whom divorce was necessary and for whom remarriage has been a blessing. We embrace that ‘permitted’ form of marriage, even it if is not the ideal. We embrace it because we are humans, we are frail, and we long for loving relationships, even if we are divorced. We understand why Moses concedes to the possibility of divorce and remarriage. It is grace. My hope is that we who invest in grace regarding divorce would do so regarding same-sex relationships. 

---

[1]Very few biblical scholars today believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible  (especially the part about his own death). It’s a topic for another day. I will use that language because those are the terms of the conversation in Mark 10. 

[2]I do not agree with this argument, but I think it is one way of looking at this text and topic. 

Dear Jerri, #7

Dear Jerri, 

Last week we looked at Mark 10:2-12, a Scripture that is often invoked to address same-sex relationships, but which requires us to ignore the fact that divorce and remarriage is actually the topic there. Of course, the Pharisee’s mistake in Mark 10 is that they were trying to trick Jesus with a question about divorce using a Scripture which addresses remarriage to a first spouse after divorcing a second spouse. There is some comfort in knowing that we didn’t invent the practice of taking Scriptures out of their proper context in order to build a case for our opinion. Ah well. 

For today, look at these two Greek words and tell me if they look similar: 

                        Σόδομα                       {][}                  ἀρσενοκοίταις            

No, of course they are not similar at all. And if one were familiar with the Greek alphabet, it would be easy to see that the first word is “Sodom.” Like most proper names in the Greek texts of the New Testament, it gets transliterated into English. The second word, while obviously looking nothing like the first, has been translated for many years into English as “sodomite.” “Sodomite,” along with “sodomy,” are words in English that refer to same-sex sexual activity, intended to relate in some way to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the twin cities that were destroyed by fire in Genesis 19. We will look at what the second word actually means later, but for now let’s hold onto this: A reader of an English language Bible might read “sodomite” (as a translation of ἀρσενοκοίταις) and naturally infer that the biblical writer – who was writing in Greek, not English – was also using a word that points to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And that would not be true. 

This is the kind of situation where the biblical translators reveal their prejudices. That is not a criticism, because I do not believe anyone is able to translate without also interpreting, so everyone brings prejudices into the act of translating. By and large, most Bible translations have been carefully and conscientiously worked over again and again, with teams of translators challenging one another, to where we can read our Bibles with a lot of confidence. And each one of them is a far better Bible scholar than I. But, each one of them is human, each one of them has brought theological and social prejudices to their work, and there are moments when the effects can be rather strong. 

My point is that we have several generations of Bible reading folk for whom the word “sodomite” is a biblical word, with connotations that are informed by current social use, specifically referring to illicit same-sex sexually activity such as “sodomy laws.” The biblical question is: Is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah about illicit same-sex sexual activity? Most people would look at that question and answer, “Yes, of course.” Others would answer, “Not necessarily.” And who are those who would say, “Not necessarily?” One might think it is clever liberal-minded folk who don’t read the Bible as the Word of God. However, the best answer is, “Other biblical writers.” 

Take Ezekiel, for example. He refers to Sodom quite often, usually criticizing Israel by referring to Sodom as her “older sister.” Here’s how Ezekiel 16:49 describes the horrific sin of Sodom, which caused her to be overthrown forever: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” Just imagine what “sodomy laws” would look like if we followed Ezekiel’s lead on defining the guilt of Sodom. Imagine who would fit the term, “sodomite” if greed, excess, and disdain for the poor were our working definition of that term. Ezekiel would refer to the entire industry of the so-called “prosperity gospel” as a manufactory of sodomy! 

Or take Jeremiah 23:14, which refers to Sodom in critiquing Israel’s prophets: “They commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.” For Jeremiah, Sodom and Gomorrah are a type for all manner of evil activity, but not specifically “illicit same-sex sexual activity,” which is how our language imagines them. Elsewhere in Jeremiah, and in Isaiah, Amos, and Zephaniah, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about permanent and total destruction, as opposed to Israel’s exile, which was for a limited time and from which there remained a “remnant” who were saved. The point is, our language has rendered Sodom, sodomy, and sodomite as terms referring to illicit same-sex sexual activity, while the biblical witness as a whole sees the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in a variety of ways. In none of the prophets’ uses could one derive the definition of “sodomy” that our language has rendered. None. 

And yet, for generations of English-speaking bible translators and readers, Sodom represents illicit same-sex sexual activity. It is deeply imprinted in our minds and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is simply assumed to be the defining story about how God sees homosexual activity. This tendency is particularly strong among churches that presume to call themselves “Bible believing churches.” And it’s wrong. 

Next week, we’ll look at how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is understood in the intertestamental period, and how that influenced its use in the gospels. 

Dear Jerri, #8

Dear Jerri, 

Last week we looked at how the English language – through the words ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomites,’ has reduced the destruction of Sodom to a judgment of illicit same-sex sexual activity. And then we looked at how the prophets defined the guilt of Sodom in ways that have nothing to do with same-sex sexual activity at all. This week, we’ll look at how God’s people in the “intertestamental period” and the New Testament look at Sodom and Gomorrah.

The phrase “intertestamental period” generally refers to a period of time in between the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament. During this time, books like I and II Maccabees, I and II Esdras, Tobit, and Judith were written. It was a very rich period of theological development, with the rise of doctrines like eternal life, apocalypticism, the Son of Man, and the desolating sacrilege, as well as groups like Pharisees, Essenes, and others that New Testament readers would recognize. The books written during this time have not been included in the Protestant Bible.[1]But, so many of the terms and titles that emerge in the New Testament were shaped during this period. And the meaning of Sodom is one of those. 

II Esdras 2:8-9 says this: “Woe to you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous within you! O wicked nation, remember what I did to Sodom and Gomorrah, whose land lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes.That is what I will do to those who have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty.” The writer here sees Sodom largely as an example of God’s utter destruction – similar to how many of the Old Testament prophets saw it. However, some of the manuscripts of II Esdras 2:8-9 have been modified a little bit. Instead of “pitch and heaps of ashes,” some manuscripts read “whose land descends to hell.” What that change suggests is that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – described in Genesis 29 as sulfur and fire falling from heaven – was becoming a way of understanding the emerging concept of “hell.” By the time the New Testament was written, this depiction of hell was common. 

So, what does this have to do with our topic of same-sex relations? I want to show that by the time the New Testament was written, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had long been a vivid picture of God judgment – even a way of understanding the fires of hell. But, it was not always a picture of how God responds to homosexuality. That’s an assumption that we have been taught, wrongly. 

And so, we get to the New Testament. In the gospels one can see the influence of the intertestamental period, as Sodom is a symbol of God’s judgment. Matthew 10:15 and 11:23–24 and Luke 10:12 compare Sodom to cities that do not accept the disciples and say that on the day of judgment, “it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.” For Jesus in the Gospels, whatever sin caused the destruction of Sodom was less onerous than the sin of the cities that reject disciples who come in his name.  Paul only mentions Sodom once, in Romans 9:29, quoting Isaiah’s way of speaking about Sodom’s as a symbol of total destruction. 

There is one text, however, that speaks of Sodom in such a way that it deserves a little closer look. II Peter 2 is a powerful condemnation of false teachers who, out of greed, deceive those who have escaped the bondage of sinful flesh and entice them through their weakness back into living a life of adultery and exploitation. Read this chapter. It will sound like the strongest of strong sermons that have been preached against homosexuality – with rough language and anger (“These people … are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed.”) But, notice that – even with a reference to Sodom – the sins of the flesh that are named here are not same-sex sexual sins. The language is general enough that it could includesome forms of same-sex sexual sins. But, that would have to be an assumption that we bringtothe text. It is not givenbythe text. That is why I think it is so important for us to check our assumptions. If we assume that the worst sins of the flesh are same-sex sins, then we could read this chapter as a “case closed” condemnation of every form of homosexuality. But, there are other ways of reading this text. Read it again, as if sex-trafficking is the issue. Wow. Read it as if someone were trying to revive concubinage for rich men, based on the Old Testament. Again, wow. This chapter certainly condemns leaders who engage in sexual exploitation. The sin here is greed. The means is the weakness of the flesh. In the end, this chapter says nothing about a loving, committed, same-sex covenant relationship. Anyone who sees that in this chapter brought it with them. 

Jerri, I hope you understand what I am and what I am not trying to do through these letters. We need to read the Scriptures and pray for the Holy Spirit to bring them alive to us according to God’s will, not our opinion. But, you and I were raised with certain assumptions about what the Scriptures say about same-sex relationships and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – an assumption that is even present in the development of the English language. And that assumption has been the lens through which we were taught to read chapters like II Peter 2 and see homosexuality all over them - even when it is not there. So, while I am not trying to make you agree with my opinion, I am trying to alert you to this assumption that we were taught to bring to our reading of the Scriptures. Unless we are aware of this assumption, we treat the Scriptures as a mirror, which simply reflects our assumptions and gives them divine sanction. 

Next week, more New Testament texts. Sorry. That’s just how I roll. 

---

[1]I am convinced that part of Daniel was written during this period and there was a lot of editing, translating, standardizing and general activities that the church would later call ‘canonizing’ of Old Testament that took place during this period. 

Dear Jerri, #9

Dear Jerri, 

For the last two weeks we have looked at how the prophetic, intertestamental, and New Testament writers spoke about the destruction of Sodom (and sometimes Gomorrah). The story of Sodom – an attempted gang rape of two visitors to the city – is a horrific story of extreme wickedness and utter destruction. The reason I have looked at how other biblical stories make reference to Sodom is not to minimize the wickedness or the destruction, but to show that there are differences regarding what, exactly, the wickedness of Sodom was. From what I can tell, when other biblical writers make reference to the story of Sodom, they do not make a connection between Sodom and same-sex sexual activity. That is something that the English language and many churches do, not the Scriptures themselves. 

This week, I want to look at Romans chapter one. It seems that any time the issue of homosexuality has arisen in a Presbytery meeting (a meeting of local church representatives), someone will get up and quote Romans 1:26-27. Sometimes they will quote a few verses more on one side or the other of these two verses, but these two verses are at the heart of the reading: 

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 

That is a very difficult text for gay and lesbian persons and their allies to hear in the context of a church discussion regarding the rightness or wrongness of same-sex relationships. But, let me be clear what I mean by that. To the extent that a biblical text is painful to hear because it convicts us of our sin or challenges our point of view, then so be it. I don’t like to hear “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Reign of God” – especially when I return from a developing country and remember how excessively wealthy we are in the US. Again, so be it. In that case, I would assume that the problem lies with me, not the Scripture. So, on the one hand, if I don’t like what Paul says in Romans simply because I disagree with it, then so be it. That’s my challenge. 

On the other hand, for someone to read these Scriptures asthe open-and-shut case against each and all same-sex relationsis painful because it is offensive. Disciplined students of the Scriptures know that in order to take the Scriptures seriously – and not just to use them to further our purposes – we have to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves by reading them within their literary context and not taking them “out of context.” To imply that Paul is talking about conscientious, faithful persons in a committed, covenantal relationship in Romans 1 is simply false. 

The topic in this section of Romans 1 is idolatry. Particularly, Paul is speaking of a way that people (this is plural, communal language) exchange the glory of the immortal God to serve and worship of something mortal, such as humans or animals. We cannot overstate the effects of a people who live as if there is no God. Paul agrees with the consistent witness of the Old Testament in believing that the absence of God would mean there is no punishment for wrong, no reward for right, no motivation for ethical action beyond what pleases us and no sense of justice beyond “might makes right.” Idolatry is high stakes sinfulness, because it denies any ultimate, transcendent value or arc to life. For Paul, reflecting his training in the Hebrew Bible, idolatry makes us less than human, because humanity is created in the image and likeness of the divine, not the other way around. 

Within this worship and service of the creature and not the creator, the idolatry Paul describes is a religious way of degrading God andhumanity, including all things sexual. And as people exchanged the immortal for the mortal, God gave them up “in the lust of their hearts” to where they degraded themselves and exchanged their natural sexual proclivities for what is unnatural to them. But that’s not all. They further spiraled downward into all kinds of evil, including: Envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, gossip, haughtiness, rebelling against their parents, and being hateful, heartless, and ruthless. Aside from murder, we tend to give a lot of these evils a wrist slap at the most. Paul says they are outgrowths of idolatry, where God and humanity have been debased among us. 

I beg anyone who cites Romans 1:26-27 to please honor what Paul is truly saying, by keeping this larger description in mind. The topic is idolatry and its effects. To exchange the immortal God for a mortal replacement has enormous effects that devastate the human mind, human desires, and human community. These devastating effects of idolatry are serious matters. And Rome, with its worship of Caesars and human violence, was chock full of the worst effects of idolatry.

However, there is one place here where I believe those who disagree over what the Scriptures teach about same-sex relations can have a fruitful conversation. Paul clearly sees a difference between “natural” and “unnatural” sexual intercourse. What is not so clear is whether he is speaking of an individual’s own “natural” proclivity or whether he is speaking out of what might be called a “natural theology” perspective, where there is only one kind of sexual intercourse that is “natural” for all creatures and everything else is unnatural. I don’t know if any of us can read Paul’s mind on that question. Still, it could be a productive question to discuss because in exploring what Paul might be thinking, we could also uncover questions about ourselves that could be mutually beneficial. Do I, should I, operate out of a “natural theology” set of assumptions? Do I, should I, think a problematic text indicates a problem on my part or the text’s part? Am I, ought I be, willing to let a text convince me of something when my heart feels otherwise? To me, this is how the church ought to be gathering around our differences: Letting our differing perspectives of the Scriptures reveal how God is at work among us. We can do that if we cultivate a context of mutual trust and support, not of fighting to win the day. 

Next week we’ll look at this text a little more. Until then, God be with you. 

Dear Jerri #10

Dear Jerri, 

In my last letter I explored Romans 1:26-27, a text that is often presented as a final word whenever people of faith discuss same-sex relationships. What I tried to show is that human sexuality is actually a middle word in Romans chapter one, the point of which is that the originating sin of idolatry affects the human mind, desires, and community. This message was especially pertinent to people living in Rome, where not only were many of the graven images like the golden eagle symbols of Roman deities, many of them were also explicit phallic symbols, making sexuality part of the whole Roman ideology of domination. 

To reduce the first chapter of Romans to a final word of judgment about loving same-sex relationships violates not only the spirit of the chapter; it violates the overall flow of the letter in general. The second chapter of Romans begins with these words: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” In fact, the first subsection of Paul’s letter to the Romans concludes with the third chapter, in which we find phrases like: “There is none righteous, not even one,” and “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” It is a bit of mockery to use a few verses from the first chapter of Romans to condemn others when the flow of the letter is that we all are sinful and, therefore, have no right to assume the position of righteous judges. 

However, the purpose of Paul’s letter is not to leave us all with a word of condemnation, but with redemption. Paul’s topic is the gospel, which literally means “good news.” That is why, in chapters four and five, Paul repeatedly uses the curious redundant phrase, “much more surely.” Paul Ricoeur refers to this over-the-top language as the “logic of superabundance” to show that however present sin might be in the human story, grace is much more surely present.[1] Romans 5:15 sums up this thought nicely, referring to the effects of Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 and the grace that comes through Jesus Christ: “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.” Whereas Reinhold Niebuhr once famously observed that “sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine” of Christianity, Paul would answer, “Nonetheless, grace is much more surely abundant. 

My point is that it seems disingenuous to quote two verses out of the beginning of this letter as if its purpose is to condemn any and all same-sex relationships. In truth, the purpose of the letter is to declare us all alike as sinners, in order to declare much more surely that we all alike share in the free gift of redemption through Jesus Christ. That flow continues throughout the first major section of this letter, concluding with a doxology at the end of chapter eight: 

What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written,

‘For your sake we are being killed all day long;

we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.’

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I’ve used works like “mockery” and “disingenuous” in this letter. I don’t mean to be caustic. I know that folks who latch onto two verses out of the first chapter of Romans are trying to be faithful, even if I believe they are doing so in a very wrongheaded manner. Still, I honestly believe that if we are attempting to be faithful to the Scriptures, we need to quit quoting Romans 1:26-27 at one another and joyfully share this concluding doxology. It is Paul’s point. It is thepoint whenever we speak of God’s view of the human condition. 

Next week, we’ll look at I Corinthians 6, another text that is often used in this conversation. Until then, Blessings on your journey. 

---

[1]Paul Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination(ed. Mark I. Wallace; trans. David Pellauer; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), pp.281ff. 

Dear Jerri #11

Dear Jerri, 

Over the last two weeks I have looked at how people often read two verses out of Romans in a way that does not honor the context and movement of Paul’s letter. What I suggest is that, within the overall structure of this letter, Romans 1:26-27 can be a gathering place of fruitful conversation, peopled by we who are humbled by our mutual sinfulness and yet empowered by our mutual salvation, to explore issues like this: 

1. What is the relationship of sexuality to “idolatry”? 

2. What Paul does Paul mean by “natural” v. “unnatural” affections? 

3. Do we agree with Paul’s understanding of “natural” affections?  

I suppose you might find issue #3 objectionable, since you and I were taught that every word, every opinion, and every declaration of the Scriptures was inspired and therefore is absolutely true, despite any declaration otherwise coming out of “human wisdom.” This may really be the point at which you and I have grown apart the most over the years, not the hot-button issues on which we might disagree, but the meaning of biblical authority and how we read the Scriptures as authoritative. The view of inspiration that we were taught as kids was expressed in a song we used to sing at camp: “God said it! I believe it! That settles it for me!” But, of course, it is more complex than that. None of us who sang that song endorsed slavery, even though the Scriptures at times tolerate it, at other times expect it, and at other times regulate it. None of us would have said we are pro-slavery because God said it, we believe it, and that settles it. None of us. Even the “verbal, plenary inspiration” view of biblical authority that we sang about is more complex than our song let on. 

I would argue that our encounter with the authority of Scripture is always a dance of sorts. We could even call it a form of wrestling, since the name “Isra-el” means “one who wrestles with God.” One of the things with which we must wrestle is captured in these twin questions: When is the biblical writer speaking a “Word of the Lord” in a way that is powerful and true for the people of God, despite whether we agree with it or not? And when is the biblical writer speaking out of her/his own time and context, in a way that we can say is no longer the way of faithfulness (like verses that condone slavery)? I know that you and I were not taught to ask questions like these, but we can take solace in this: These are precisely the kinds of questions Paul asks himself when he writes. 

Consider the first letter to the church in Corinth, a church deeply divided over theological schism and ethical scandal.[1]Let’s start with something small and innocuous, like Paul’s account of the people he baptized. I’ll use color coding for us to notice how Paul makes a statement; then corrects himself; then qualifies himselfjust in case he is wrong, in I Corinthians 1:14-16: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” This is the letter of a human being, with finite human memory, trying to ensure that his finitude does not get in the way of his larger point – which is the true word of God that those who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized into one faith and not into schismatic cults of baptizer-worship. Taking the Scriptures seriously – or, reading them in the spirit in which they were written – means embracing the truth that comes from the depths of God’s wisdom, as well as acknowledging the finitude of the writer. Paul does both repeatedly in this letter.  

Consider I Corinthians 7, Paul’s chapter on marriage and singleness. In earlier chapters, Paul has drawn some very sharp distinctions between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. However, in this chapter he shows incredible awareness of his own finitude even as he speaks on God’s behalf: 

1. He qualifies his statement in v. 6:

This I say by way of concession, not of command. 

2. He sets a principle and recognizes exceptions and concessions in vv. 7 and 8-9: 

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 

3. He delineates between God’s wordand his own opinionin vv.10-11 and 12. Even with God’s command (v.10), he considers ‘plan B’ (v.11).  

To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the restI say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 

And, frankly, there is one deep theological principle at work in Paul’s writing on marriage and sex that is simply wrong. (I know, I know. Grab a stone and get in line. I deserve it.) Paul is sure that the return of Christ will happen in his audience’s lifetime. That is why Paul says people should not marry, unless they are incapable of harnessing their passions. Marriage brings obligations but it also relieves passions. So, married folks should stay married and try to fulfill each other’s sexual needs, yet they should otherwise live as if they are single in order to focus primarily on the coming of the Lord. Single folk should remain single and keep their focus on the coming of Christ, but if they cannot control their sexual passions they should marry.[2]The point is, Paul’s most adamant principle at work in this chapter is simply wrong. He and his correspondents are all dead and Christ has not yet returned. It is amazing to consider how much of the early church’s theology was shaped by the delay of Christ’s return – but that is a matter for another day.[3]

Taking Paul’s letter seriously – indeed taking biblical authority seriously – involves both honoring the wisdom of God that is contained there and reckoning with the human finitude that is contained there. That is what we will do next week as we look at what Paul says about same-sex relations in this letter. 

---

[1]I call this the “first” letter because that is the standard manner of speech about it. Many scholars have noted that there are some references in the letters to Corinth to other communications that suggest we only are privy to part of the conversation – and totally without the Corinthians’ own letters to Paul. We may well be looking at letters two and three of four or more letters from Paul. 

[2]People who go on and on about how marriage is the greatest calling, written into the heart of the human story from time immemorial – are not named Paul the Apostle. His is not a romanticized or a romantic view of marriage. For Paul, marriage is simply the lesser of two distractions. 

[3]Of course, if you want to read more about it now, you can find my book, Left Behind and Loving It: A Cheeky Look at the End Times(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), and do so.