A Time to Embrace

Johnson, William S. (2006). A time to embrace: Same-gender relationships in religion, law, and politics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

ISBN-10: 080282966X ISBN-13: 978-0802829665

William Stacy Johnson has been a lawyer, a Presbyterian (USA) pastor, and now a professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He was also a key member in the Presbyterian Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity – a group formed in 2004 which discussed the issue of marriage as well as same sex relationships and how the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been responding to them and how they ought to respond to them. The first half of the book is largely a recapitulation and refinement of the product of those discussions from the Task Force, but clearly more representative of Johnson’s own argument. What I want to do here is briefly discuss the argument he makes from the case of religion. In a later post I will discuss one or two shortcomings that ought to be further addressed for a more complete account to be rendered. There is also a website for the publication that can be found here.

One of the more helpful pieces of the book is that Johnson discusses the different kinds of responses to same sex relationships and orientations one can have from a religious, biblical, and theological account. He lays them all out in a clear typology from the outright prohibition of homosexuality as a source and sign of human sin and depravity, to full inclusion of homosexuality and the cultural manifestations of it for various individuals and groups. His own view takes seriously the various kinds of positions that do not affirm homosexual lifestyle and claims made that are fully accepting of it. Further, he puts each of these responses within a distinctly Christian framework in terms of Creation, Reconciliation, and Redemption arguing that each comes from one of these perspectives more so than the other two.

The typology in the book (p. 108) is basically as follows:

I do not intend to go through each of the various positions here, but wish only to point out a few of the general ideas that Johnson presents since they tend to run through each position in various forms. Much of this is reproduced here on the PCUSA website with further explication of the various positions. Note that Johnson made some changes here in the book I am discussing which was published later (e.g. the positions accommodation and legitimation and the removal or revision of a position called “pastoral care”).

First, Johnson’s biblical grounding of the argument focuses on the context of the texts that are oft referenced as prohibiting of homosexuality, and the application of the spirit of the texts to generations that followed the context in which they were written. To this end the specific address of the texts is to situations of slavery and domination where homoeroticism was forced or reveled in without any ordering or disordering of cultural norms and often at the expense of dominating another human being for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment (specifically in the Levitical setting and Paul’s context in Romans). Where these texts are silent is with situations in which same-gender relationships have to do with mutual love and support in the spirit of serving one another even as Christ served the church. He argues that the writers did not have those kinds of situations in mind and so, it is not a credible argument to unevenly apply these texts to all situations of same sex love.

The first three positions start at out right rejection and then move to more open stances that still fall short of affirming the behavior of a same sex relationship. He characterizes the welcome but not affirm position as “cruel” since it does not leave the homosexual with much choice other than to follow a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for living. It allows you to be homosexual since being as such might have been caused not by your own choosing. It is something that you might not be able to just “change” by a choice overnight. Nonetheless, you cannot seek out partnerships or seek out mutual love befitting of that orientation.

The affirming positions do allow for full inclusion for different reasons where we should not look at sexual or gender difference or should celebrate the diversity, or come to a richer understanding of the variety of gender preferences without acting in any discriminating sense toward any of them. But for Johnson, these often allow for an overly slippery slope. What these positions do is open the door for any kind of manifestation of sexual behavior that can lead into situations of sexual gratification without commitment and so forth. These situations are clearly not biblically founded and so, another ground needs to be sought.

Second, in this context he argues that pro-creation is not a reasonable argument to legitimate marriage since sexual union and child rearing itself are not, in the eyes of the church, sources to legitimate marriage bonds. If this was the case then even heterosexual marriages in which reproduction was an impossibility would not be legitimate either. Again, this perspective on the legitimation of marriage falls not on gender boundaries, but on the ability to reproduce offspring. This basis to legitimate a marriage is incorrect under any circumstance.

Third, Johnson comes down by somewhat splitting the difference between outright prohibition and outright affirmation by suggesting an alternative that allows same sex relationships to flourish in the sense that they are committed and stable reflections of the love that God evokes to order the universe. In this sense gender preference is not the issue, but it is the degree of commitment and faithfulness one has to a partner which is key. If the scripture writers were talking about sexual sin more in the likeness of the events of Abu Ghraib where homoeroticism was taken to levels of humiliation and degradation in order to gratify violent desires, then the union of suitable partners for one who has a natural inclination towards someone of the same gender does not fall within those boundaries and cannot be outright rejected or non-affirmed on those grounds.

Not only does this fall within the clear boundaries established by the prohibitions of the biblical witness, but it actually falls within the guidance of scripture from the perspective of what partnering with another in the bond of love is to entail. The issue is that scripture calls for suitable partnership and for humans not to be alone (Gen. 2:18). Therefore, if one is homosexual and not by any arbitrary choice and the purpose of partnership is for one to have a suitable partner, in such cases the suitable partner is one who is also drawn to the same gender. This would discount anyone who attempts to live a heterosexual relationship who is homosexual for such partnering is counter to the natural inclinations of to whom that person is attracted to find partnership and togetherness in the bonds of love. Along these lines a homosexual relationship of mutual self-giving and upbuilding love is not only something that the scriptures do not deny one from having, but it is something that appears more favorable to being gay and alone – especially if being alone is the result of a position that calls for one to be alienated from one’s own sexual identity.

But this argument, as convincing as Johnson makes it on the grounds offered here, also creates questions with regard to relationships that are mutually self-giving and upbuilding outside of monogamy. It also raises a hermeneutical question since the biblical argument seems overly rooted in contextualization of the text itself without, it seems, adequate account for the overall context of the culture that conditions the text itself.

No related posts.