Regardless of one's opinions about the Newsweek article on the Bible and same gender love, it is clear that this, along with the passing of California's Proposition 8 and Florida's passing of Amendment 1 among others, has generated a lot of discussion and energy around the issue. The problem that I continue to see in the arguments that pervasively deny any opening for same gender erotic love in any form is an uneven hermeneutic.
Now perhaps all hermeneutical propositions are unevenly applied across texts and I think a case can be made there on philosophical grounds. However, when there is an obvious philosophical problem with one's hermeneutical applications, should there not be a more concerted effort to critical analyze one's assumptions that one brings to the texts in order to interrogate how they are founded?
The problem continues to be a loss of distinction between what we read and how we read it. For example, a clear interpretation that certainly has scholarly merit has to do with the purpose of the biblical injunctions against male on male sex (I am not including female-female because the Bible is specific with respect to injunctions against male-male sex) which were to point out clear disruptions of social structures that were sacred. Namely, the place of the female receiver of the seed as submissive to the male. You simply cannot separate social structures from biological structures in the way these texts are read. Thus, if the purpose for Romans, for example, was to reinforce a differentiation between Jewish and Gentile social structures and all Christians must agree that those social structures are quite different in our current context (women's equality, race equality, illegalization of slavery, etc.) then we must not read these as simple prescribed injunctions against same gender love. For "Mollie" there is no discussion of why these social structures were prescribed as they are written in the Bible. The purpose is assumed and ignored in order to proof-text a position. She presents not as much of a straw-man argument as much of an asserted position of correctness that I think we need to critically engage with very good reason.
The purpose of marriage only until rather recently in human history was an economic deal between patriarchs. It was not about freedom of conscience to choose a mate in order to consummate love. Marriage was about genetic propagation in order for family property to stay in the family and so, marriage was about rearing off-spring. Male-male erotic love and marriage would screw up the entire social system. That is the assumption that continues to be made by organizations like the Family Research Council and among much of the outrage at Miller's statements in Newsweek.
McGinty's, Mollie's, and Shepherd's reading of the text should allow us to outlaw divorce as well as permit stoning of people caught in adultery (among numerous other Biblical social injunctions that are as clear if not clearer than the positions taken against male-male intercourse). Even in the highly suspect John 8 Jesus never told them not to stone the woman. It was, at best, a bet that their guilt would press them not to kill her. The hermeneutic applied to the abomination of all forms of same gender love is uneven and irrational rooted in a weak notion of "Natural Law", the assumptions of which we need to be highly critical if we are to render as true an understanding of the text's application to any form of contemporary living. To suggest that the unquestioned hierarchy of men over women was not a part of the same natural laws of social order that govern these texts is to selectively ignore the text itself (cue so-called "trajectory hermenuetics" which is another way of using the text to legitimate current structures of society).
So why is this a problem? It falls firmly and hangs precariously on the proposition that "Natural Law" is an absolute and non-negotiable proposition. I argue that the non-negotiable status of "Natural Law" is explained more by the socio-cultural intuition that male-male sex is grotesque. This has much more to do with socially constructed boundaries than a direct command of God and so, it is both mutable and tentative since it is directed by fallen human inclinations. Moreover, even if these social structures were indeed commanded of God, as we can argue with good reason was the case among the Hebrews and Israelites, it is also clear that again with good reason, these structures have been radically changed in the course of both Jewish and Christian history.
Yet, because we still have this intuitive sense that specifically male-male sexual activity is disgusting, it is a non-negotiable social structure that must be obeyed and enforced outside of all human activity that has radically changed since when these texts were addressed to their specific audiences. For example, to suggest that Jesus had a medieval Catholic hierarchy or even a Congregational system in mind among Christians is a stretch at best if we look to the source. Yet these structures are considered to be media that specially reveal God as special means of God's grace.
The Bible clearly reveals to us frail human social structures that have a track record of consistent failure in their duty to reveal the grace of God. This includes how people of color, the poor, women, and even people who are attracted to those of the same gender have been treated. What needs to happen is an embrace of the frailty and mutable tentativeness of all of these structures in order to divine the greater purpose for which they are constructed. And, yes, that means that there is room for homosexuals to fully participate in that purpose.
UPDATE: Adam presents a few more general thoughts on the issue here. Money quote:
For some, I believe the Bible has become an idol. Some place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity, and hold steadfast onto what they believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that speak about same-sex relations. To those who repeatedly start quoting Leviticus and Romans verses as soon as anyone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.
Related posts:
