Sexuality and Christian Faith:
Toward the Full Inclusion of Gay Persons (1)
(Part 1 of the essay)
Introduction
On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The Court's 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marked a watershed in American history and society, touching as it did on that most ancient of institutions -- the joining together of two individuals into a marriage. Supporters of the Court's decision saw it as enlightened progressivism, detractors as heralding a moral and societal apocalypse.
In this essay I will argue, in terms both as a citizen and as a believing Christian, that same-sex marriage should be permitted and even encouraged. I will also argue, more broadly, that there are paths to reconcile Christian faith with lesbian and gay sexual orientations. Indeed, my ultimate goal is to make a case for full inclusion of gay persons within the life of the Church. (2)
This essay is intended, primarily, for a people I know and love: conservative evangelical Christians. These folks -- not unlike adherents of other faiths -- sincerely believe that God has spoken as to what counts as legitimate sexual relations and that He has categorically forbidden that of the same-sex sort. When they say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner," they mean it sincerely. Other traditionalists about sexuality -- e.g., natural law theorists, Roman Catholics -- also fall within my intended scope. Likewise, progressive evangelicals will, I hope, find it helpful. Both the self-consciously secular person and the merely non-religious one may, too, find it valuable, if they desire to know why traditionalists believe as they do and what's at stake for them in this debate.
These audiences noted, I must make three direct appeals:
(Labels like 'traditionalist' and 'progressive' are of course loaded ones. I use the former not pejoratively but as a convenient reflection of historical fact. I use the latter because it's now a common way to refer to non-traditionalists. I suppose it's true of me, now, that I count as a progressive in these and similar debates. However, I am aware that not everything that goes by the name 'progressive' constitutes progress. I'm also cognizant that 'homosexual' is considered an outmoded term by many and so typically use the word 'gay' instead. Traditionalists, though, still frequently use the former, and so I will revert to that usage occasionally.)
On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The Court's 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marked a watershed in American history and society, touching as it did on that most ancient of institutions -- the joining together of two individuals into a marriage. Supporters of the Court's decision saw it as enlightened progressivism, detractors as heralding a moral and societal apocalypse.
In this essay I will argue, in terms both as a citizen and as a believing Christian, that same-sex marriage should be permitted and even encouraged. I will also argue, more broadly, that there are paths to reconcile Christian faith with lesbian and gay sexual orientations. Indeed, my ultimate goal is to make a case for full inclusion of gay persons within the life of the Church. (2)
This essay is intended, primarily, for a people I know and love: conservative evangelical Christians. These folks -- not unlike adherents of other faiths -- sincerely believe that God has spoken as to what counts as legitimate sexual relations and that He has categorically forbidden that of the same-sex sort. When they say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner," they mean it sincerely. Other traditionalists about sexuality -- e.g., natural law theorists, Roman Catholics -- also fall within my intended scope. Likewise, progressive evangelicals will, I hope, find it helpful. Both the self-consciously secular person and the merely non-religious one may, too, find it valuable, if they desire to know why traditionalists believe as they do and what's at stake for them in this debate.
These audiences noted, I must make three direct appeals:
- First, to the devout, religious traditionalist: As unpleasant as you may find this topic, it's not going away. We live in a pluralistic society. As a result, straightforward appeals to tradition or to Scripture -- no matter how well-intended -- come across as tone-deaf and self-serving. They are ultimately counterproductive. Moreover, if you are a believing Christian, part of your creed involves reconciliation. That doesn't require a wholesale jettisoning of important beliefs. It does require a willingness to listen. Crucially, it involves actually getting to know gay people. It is my experience that when we humanize an issue, when we take it out of the abstract domain of right and wrong, new paths forward often emerge. I should also say: I was formed in a deeply conservative social and religious context -- so I understand your concerns. I've come to my views after much prayerful study, conversation, and observation. You may disagree with my arguments, but please hear them out.
- Second, to the self-consciously secular or progressive person: Pluralism cuts both ways. Progressives should offer respect to traditionalists, if not to their dogmas. And respect begins with understanding. From the fact that the Christian Scripture and tradition are ancient, it does not follow that they aren't relevant. For hundreds of millions of people -- both living and dead -- Christian faith has proved reasonable, has provided an ethical framework to live a virtuous life, and has given meaning, comfort, and hope. Moreover, as strange as this may sound to progressive ears, tolerance is a Christian virtue. Tolerance, mercy, compassion, kindness -- these virtues didn't truly enter the moral lexicon until the advent of Christianity. Moreover, tolerance, as an ideal and as a practice, is at the heart of the Christian idea of being forgiven and living as forgiven, by God and by others. That many professing Christians fail to be tolerant -- or, due to a sincere belief that homosexuality is ethically wrong and socially destructive, find themselves unable to accommodate gay people -- is not a reason to be intolerant in turn.
- Third, to the gay person who is absolutely perplexed that in this day and time you must justify your personal identity, or who has been hurt by people who claim to speak for God: At the risk of being inconsiderate, I ask you -- if you are able -- to please continue to dialogue. And please forgive Christians who fail to live in love.
(Labels like 'traditionalist' and 'progressive' are of course loaded ones. I use the former not pejoratively but as a convenient reflection of historical fact. I use the latter because it's now a common way to refer to non-traditionalists. I suppose it's true of me, now, that I count as a progressive in these and similar debates. However, I am aware that not everything that goes by the name 'progressive' constitutes progress. I'm also cognizant that 'homosexual' is considered an outmoded term by many and so typically use the word 'gay' instead. Traditionalists, though, still frequently use the former, and so I will revert to that usage occasionally.)
Plan of the Essay
Here is how this essay will unfold:
Here is how this essay will unfold:
- I begin with a set of preliminaries -- statements of fact and observation -- that seem to me uncontroversial. These provide critical presuppositions to, context for, and parameters of this debate.
- I then set out the case -- from what I take to be an objective, non-sectarian standpoint -- for what gay people find obvious: That being gay involves no harm and that it is perfectly compatible with a good life.
- A brief, somewhat technical, yet crucial discussion of human sexuality and thus of sexual orientation follows.
- I next consider who bears the burden of proof for establishing, as it were, that a gay sexual orientation does or does not exist and whether, at the level of experience, it is or is not valid. Given these, I ask what genuine empathy requires on the part of the straight person.
- I then turn to issues specifically pertaining to Christians and to Christian beliefs about sex and sexual orientation. I begin with a straightforward appeal to move from dogma to dialogue, asking what a humble, God-honoring rationality requires of us on this matter.
- A too brief account of what the Christian Scriptures have to say -- both Old and New Testaments -- about sex in general and homosexuality in particular follows. This will require exploring several important terms, chief among them the Greek word 'porneia'.
- Next, I consider several theological concepts and doctrines, deriving from both the Scriptures and historic Christian conceptions, relevant to sexuality.
- Subsequent to that, I ask whether this entire matter rises to the level of an essential element of Christian belief or whether instead it belongs to a second-tier of issues over which believing Christians might sincerely disagree. I then consider three examples of other practices -- divorce, usury, and race-based prejudice -- over which Christians have, across the centuries, held radically different opinions as to their morality, and then ask how these illuminate the present topic.
- Next, I evaluate a number of attempts made by progressive Christians, on some bases from Scripture or theology, to justify same-sex relations. I conclude that, by and large, these are unsuccessful.
- I turn, at this point, to making my case that Christian faith and teaching are sufficiently broad to warrant full inclusion of gay Christians. Indeed, I frame the situation in terms not of an irreconcilable difference but rather of a problem that can be resolved given a bit of open-mindedness and creativity. As a paragon of such qualities, I consider the so-called Apostolic Decree as that is recorded in Acts 15 and ask what guidance it might offer.
- Toward making my case, I explore how a careful understanding of what porneia might amount to in our context might give conceptual room for a broader sexual ethic than the one traditionally assumed.
- I next consider the New Testament idea, coming especially from St. Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians, of nature and the natural as that pertains to sexuality. I query Paul to see how contemporary understandings of sexuality intersect with what he writes, and attempt to reconcile the two.
- Because Genesis 1 through 3 are foundational to the traditional Christian sexual ethic, and moreover are the background to Paul's teaching on sex, I turn then to an assessment of what these ancient texts actually have to say to us about human sexuality.
- I close the essay with what I call the positive case for inclusion. I consider how the notion of the Divine Image might inform this debate; I propose a brief sketch of a genuinely Christian theory of sexuality; and I consider several final arguments.
Preliminaries
As usual for emotion-laden topics -- Confederate war memorials spring to mind -- this debate quickly runs into sand because the disputants don't understand the presuppositions from which their opponents begin. Indeed, quite often they don't even understand their own such starting points. I propose here to clear the ground: To point out such propositions, and to make certain observations, that, it seems to me, all disputants should simply acknowledge before we proceed to more disputable questions.
As usual for emotion-laden topics -- Confederate war memorials spring to mind -- this debate quickly runs into sand because the disputants don't understand the presuppositions from which their opponents begin. Indeed, quite often they don't even understand their own such starting points. I propose here to clear the ground: To point out such propositions, and to make certain observations, that, it seems to me, all disputants should simply acknowledge before we proceed to more disputable questions.
- Our society now decisively accepts homosexuality as morally acceptable and same-sex marriage as socially legitimate. Though the discontented will continue to rage, the settled consensus is as I've stated. Moreover, our children and young people are even more open to these things. Traditionalists may hope for "revivals" of one sort of another, but short of some miraculous intervention, odds are that our society will continue down this path and that in fifty years opposition to same-sex marriage will seem as bizarre as opposition to biracial marriage would be now.
- Historically-speaking, same-sex relations have largely been viewed as a deviation from the social norm. Though we have plenty of evidence -- think of Greco-Roman history -- of homosexual practice, in the broad sweep of history homosexuality has mostly been viewed as aberrant. Condemnation of the practice and persecution of its practitioners are woven into the fabric of very many societies predating ours. (Indeed, such condemnation and persecution are the rule in enormous swathes of the world today.) I won't venture an explanation except that the ultimate reason must revolve around biological facts: Namely, by and large, humans are attracted to the opposite sex and that heterosexual sex is how the human species propagates. Any behavior that contravened such realities would ipso facto be proscribed and considered deviant. (3)
- These historical facts aren't sufficient as an argument against same-sex relations. For millennia intelligent people thought the moon was as polished as a mirror; then one day Galileo pointed a telescope at it. Simplistic appeals to tradition or history are logically insufficient and practically unhelpful. On the other hand, it is also insufficient and unhelpful for militant same-sex advocates to either ignore these social-historical facts or to dismiss traditionalists as mere bigots. Same-sex advocates often compare homophobia to racism. While that comparison is apt in some ways, it's not perfect. A person's race is set by their DNA. Sexual orientation is a much more complex phenomenon. Assuming that a person's orientation is outside of their freedom to choose, actual actions largely are not. After all, some heterosexuals choose to be celibate. To say that a homosexual could not aspire to the same discipline, if she so chose, would be to disrespect her agency.
- It is a truth that American society is sexually permissive; libertine is closer to fact. We have epic divorce rates; cohabitation is de rigueur; pornography has gone mainstream; casual "hook-up" sex is not uncommon. (I am not assuming equivalences, moral or otherwise, among these; nor am I rendering judgment.) Explanations diverge. Devout folk would say that we've simply rebelled against God's design, that the Sexual Revolution was instead a Sexual Devolution. Certainly, media and technology are part of the story, as is consumerist capitalism and its "sex sells" ethos. It seems to me, though, that the best, overall explanation is the outworking of the logic of personal choice as made possible by modern contraceptives. When sex was decoupled from procreation, the short-term costs -- both financial and social -- were vastly reduced. The social stigma against sexual permissiveness was progressively erased, and people were set free to do as they would.
- Whether, on the whole, this has been good for society or for individuals is a large question and beyond our present scope. (4) However, in the context of this essay, it is worth pointing out that, except for a minority of devout Catholics and similarly hardy folk, all of us are implicated in this story. The devout and the secular alike are much more sexually "liberated" than two generations ago. We are -- to use the word in the old moral sense -- much less continent in our desires. So, when a heterosexual, religious man, who, though devoted and (very) faithful to his current wife, has been divorced and remarried once or twice and who "struggles with pornography," rails against same-sex marriage, such a person is open to the charge of hypocrisy. To the secular gay man who has been faithful to his partner for decades, the religious one gets excused for his occasional failures and general incontinence merely because his proclivities lie one way rather than another.
- Against this backdrop one might wonder why the traditionalist isn't in fact delighted that new people are pursuing long-term monogamy -- even if it is of the same-sex sort. The reason is that marriage as an institution -- as beleaguered as it is -- still remains a powerful cultural symbol. As symbol, different people import different meanings into it. To the traditionalist, marriage is how a society consecrates a particular union between a man and a woman, thereby establishing the basic social unit, providing for children, and ensuring the survival of the species. To the non-traditionalist (straight or gay), however, marriage means something different. It has more to do with personal love and commitment, and with what two people can accomplish versus one alone. These different conceptions lead to mutual incomprehension: The traditionalist wonders why someone would want to attack things that should be preserved. The non-traditionalist asks why one kind of love is superior to another.
- A crucial point -- usually ignored in the rhetorical melee -- has to do with the differing worldviews of the respective parties. When two people share virtually zero background beliefs or values, when their answers to ground-level questions such as the existence of God, the origin of the world, the place of humans within it, the activity of God in human affairs, the validity of putative divine revelation (such as Holy Scripture), and so on, differ radically, why should anyone be surprised that they also have radically different understandings on something like human sexuality? With an eye toward being rational and courteous, wouldn't it make more sense for the two parties to begin by acknowledging their differing worldviews and to start at the level of worldview assumptions in their discussions, rather than leaping to a "headline" issue like same-sex marriage?
- A connected point has to do with the knowledge that the various disputants bring to the conversation. The philosophically precise conception of knowledge -- a true belief held with justification or warrant (that is, a non-accidentally true belief) -- is immensely helpful in this regard. What counts as prima facie knowledge -- that is, a reasonable starting point for making larger claims -- often differs wildly between individuals due to differing worldviews. A conservative Christian, for instance, believes that she has knowledge -- true beliefs that are justified because God has revealed them -- about various questions, including God's creating, and thus intending, the two sexes and the roles between them. From such, it's just a short hop to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is anathema. Whether or not she actually has such knowledge is an open question (to be considered, in part, below). What is not in doubt is that, even if she does, most other people in our society do not. How is it fair -- or, indeed, demonstrative of Christian love -- for her to proceed in debate without attempting to address this "knowledge disparity"?
- While pure objectivity is impossible for any of us, striving to be objective is a laudable goal -- especially in an age as given to absolutisms as ours. Seeking in good faith to understand why someone believes as they do, without prejudging, is a necessary first step to dialogue and, possibly, to expanding one's own perspective. Given our pluralistic context, it's also a de facto necessity, if we're to retain any kind of shared civic life.
I turn now to a consideration of human sexuality and a flourishing life especially as that concerns gay persons.
Footnotes:
(1) This essay was precipitated by a short Facebook post I wrote immediately after the Obergefell decision. The intent of my original post was quite narrow: Simply that I thought that the Supreme Court's decision was the best for our nation at that time. Even though popular opinion had swung decisively in favor of same-sex marriage, the laws -- neither at the state nor the federal level -- had not caught up. Nor were they likely to any time soon. Consequently, we were headed toward a major social "smash-up" because of this deep disconnect between our society's beliefs and its laws. The Court's decision to, essentially, legalize gay marriage by judicial decree served as a "relief valve" for our society at this juncture. As I wrote in my post, I wasn’t trying to make any “points,” theological or philosophical, about homosexuality per se. However, it was foolish to think I could leave it at that. With the aim of furthering dialogue, and crystallizing my own views, I then wrote an essay, dated 7/3/2015, which I shared with my interlocutors. That essay was the genesis of this current piece. I wish to thank my friend Philip Spradlin for providing insightful comments on the original essay.
I wish to thank the following people for commentary on various bits of this essay: Quinton Beckham, Philip Spradlin,
(2) Transsexuality is not a central part of my scope though much of what I say can be extended to that phenomenon.
(3) For an excellent, concise discussion on the history of homosexual practice, on social / cultural understandings of its morality, and on philosophical and theological arguments for and against its acceptability, the entry in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Brent Pickett is hard to beat.
Brent Pickett, "Homosexuality," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/homosexuality/>
I have nothing like conclusive information about the relative tolerance of various societies and cultures across history and geography toward gays, lesbians, and other sexual identities. (I doubt even the best anthropologists do, given the remotenesses of time and distance involved.) The sense I often get is that defenders of homosexuality tend to overemphasize its prevalence in the past and in different cultures, perhaps as a way to "set the record straight" or some such thing. But just because we find evidence of homosexuality among, e.g., certain medieval monks doesn't constitute a strong case as to the prevalence, at a given place and time, of the practice. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of evidence (again, Greco-Roman history is replete) that the practice has been considered acceptable at particular points. I assume that, in societies influenced by the three great Abrahamic religions, a major factor in considering homosexuality as deviant is due directly to religious doctrine per se.
(4) As with most "progress," there have been bad aspects and good aspects to modern contraceptive technologies. Who can complain about the effective decoupling of sex from procreation and the concomitant fall in the birthrate? Are any of those virtue-espousing conservative evangelicals who rail about the evils of sexual immorality really willing to go back to the days before modern contraceptives? I doubt it. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the near meltdown in the nuclear family unit -- with the very real evils that have followed -- would have happened without such technologies. Again, "progress" cuts two ways.
A note: I use what to the reader may seem an unseemly number of apostrophes, quotation marks, and italics. One part of the rationale has to do with what's known as the distinction between use and mention. Thus, in the sentence "I love dogs," I am using the word 'dog'. However, when I refer to the word itself -- as in the sentence "The word 'dog' has three letters" -- I am mentioning the word. I use apostrophes, i.e., single inverted commas, to indicate that I am mentioning the word itself. As to quotation marks, I use them to indicate either actual quotations or as so-called scare quotes. As to italics, I use them to emphasis a word or to indicate that a word is not English, e.g., Latin or Greek.
Credits for images:
"White House Illuminated by Rainbow Colors" by White House Photographer - White House Press Office, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41232018
"View from aircraft" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/7203
"Stairs" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/935288
This essay was finished on May 28, 2018.
(1) This essay was precipitated by a short Facebook post I wrote immediately after the Obergefell decision. The intent of my original post was quite narrow: Simply that I thought that the Supreme Court's decision was the best for our nation at that time. Even though popular opinion had swung decisively in favor of same-sex marriage, the laws -- neither at the state nor the federal level -- had not caught up. Nor were they likely to any time soon. Consequently, we were headed toward a major social "smash-up" because of this deep disconnect between our society's beliefs and its laws. The Court's decision to, essentially, legalize gay marriage by judicial decree served as a "relief valve" for our society at this juncture. As I wrote in my post, I wasn’t trying to make any “points,” theological or philosophical, about homosexuality per se. However, it was foolish to think I could leave it at that. With the aim of furthering dialogue, and crystallizing my own views, I then wrote an essay, dated 7/3/2015, which I shared with my interlocutors. That essay was the genesis of this current piece. I wish to thank my friend Philip Spradlin for providing insightful comments on the original essay.
I wish to thank the following people for commentary on various bits of this essay: Quinton Beckham, Philip Spradlin,
(2) Transsexuality is not a central part of my scope though much of what I say can be extended to that phenomenon.
(3) For an excellent, concise discussion on the history of homosexual practice, on social / cultural understandings of its morality, and on philosophical and theological arguments for and against its acceptability, the entry in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Brent Pickett is hard to beat.
Brent Pickett, "Homosexuality," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/homosexuality/>
I have nothing like conclusive information about the relative tolerance of various societies and cultures across history and geography toward gays, lesbians, and other sexual identities. (I doubt even the best anthropologists do, given the remotenesses of time and distance involved.) The sense I often get is that defenders of homosexuality tend to overemphasize its prevalence in the past and in different cultures, perhaps as a way to "set the record straight" or some such thing. But just because we find evidence of homosexuality among, e.g., certain medieval monks doesn't constitute a strong case as to the prevalence, at a given place and time, of the practice. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of evidence (again, Greco-Roman history is replete) that the practice has been considered acceptable at particular points. I assume that, in societies influenced by the three great Abrahamic religions, a major factor in considering homosexuality as deviant is due directly to religious doctrine per se.
(4) As with most "progress," there have been bad aspects and good aspects to modern contraceptive technologies. Who can complain about the effective decoupling of sex from procreation and the concomitant fall in the birthrate? Are any of those virtue-espousing conservative evangelicals who rail about the evils of sexual immorality really willing to go back to the days before modern contraceptives? I doubt it. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the near meltdown in the nuclear family unit -- with the very real evils that have followed -- would have happened without such technologies. Again, "progress" cuts two ways.
A note: I use what to the reader may seem an unseemly number of apostrophes, quotation marks, and italics. One part of the rationale has to do with what's known as the distinction between use and mention. Thus, in the sentence "I love dogs," I am using the word 'dog'. However, when I refer to the word itself -- as in the sentence "The word 'dog' has three letters" -- I am mentioning the word. I use apostrophes, i.e., single inverted commas, to indicate that I am mentioning the word itself. As to quotation marks, I use them to indicate either actual quotations or as so-called scare quotes. As to italics, I use them to emphasis a word or to indicate that a word is not English, e.g., Latin or Greek.
Credits for images:
"White House Illuminated by Rainbow Colors" by White House Photographer - White House Press Office, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41232018
"View from aircraft" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/7203
"Stairs" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/935288
This essay was finished on May 28, 2018.