![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2011\/02\/1160854.jpg\" "\\"1160854\\"")
<\/a> It\u2019s\u00a0 St. Valentine\u2019s day,\u00a0 a day which once was a holy day, and now has become a holiday.\u00a0 While I could spend some time as I have before on this blog on the subject of who St. Valentine really was,\u00a0 in the wake of the recent provocations by Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan trying to reinvent the wheel in regard the Bible\u2019s supposedly mixed message on sexual ethics, in particular on the ethics of same sex\u00a0 sexual intercourse,\u00a0 it\u2019s time to say\u2014 enough, is enough.<\/p>\nNeither the Bible, nor for that matter, my own Wesleyan heritage can be used to further the sort of agendas\u00a0 Knust and Coogan want to promote. \u00a0 The Bible is not an ink blot which one can read whatever way one pleases on controversial issues such as sexual ethics, and when the pontification involves absurd remarks like, Paul has no sexual ethic<\/em> (has the author actually read 1 Corinthians 7?),\u00a0 or there can be little doubt that the love that David and Jonathan shared involved\u00a0 eros not just philos,<\/em> then it is indeed time to say, enough is enough. \u00a0 These are not only not plausible interpretations of key Biblical texts,\u00a0 in light of the highly conservative sexual ethic of honor and shame cultures in the ANE and in particular Jewish culture when it came to such matters, they are not even very possible interpretations of such material. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What follows here is an expanded version of a piece I have offered before, with some tune ups in light of the recent salvos by Kunst and Coogan, and in preparation for the next batch of salvos on this subject that the 2012 General Conference of the United Methodist Church.<\/p>\n ON DEALING WITH EROS IN A SEXUALLY CONFUSED AGE<\/p>\n Before speaking about the issue of the day, I need to just say a few things about myself.\u00a0 I have been a lifelong member of the United Methodist Church, indeed I am so old that it was the Methodist Episcopal Church when I was born.\u00a0 Rumor has it that my first two words were John Wesley.\u00a0 I personally doubt this, but my point is that this has been my faith tradition my entire life.\u00a0 I have taught at Methodist institutions like High Point University and Duke Divinity School (where I taught the theology and history of Wesley himself), I have done some teaching of the New Testament at a former Methodist institution known as Vanderbilt Divinity, and I know our Methodist ethos well.<\/p>\n I am also an ordained clergy person in the N.C. conference and I have served six churches along the way, full time.\u00a0 I am not an ivory tower theologian unaware of the pastoral issues and problems that are created by one or another sort of sexual ethic.\u00a0 And I have been a part of this debate about human sexuality, including the debate about homosexuality for the some thirty years and more that it has been going on.\u00a0 I have been mentored along the way by luminaries like Albert Outler, who coined the term quadrilateral if I am not mistaken,\u00a0 and I understand the issues of authority involved in assessing the relative weight of\u00a0 the Bible, tradition, experience, and reason in our tradition.<\/p>\n One thing that Outler made ever so clear to me is that he did not want to do or say anything that would compromise the Reformation principle that for any good Protestant worth their salt, the final authority<\/em> on all matters of faith and practice is the Holy Scriptures\u2014\u00a0 in other words the quadrilateral was not and is not an equilateral, nor a configuration of authorities by which \u2018experience\u2019 however defined should ever be allowed to trump Scripture in a matter as important as upholding the\u00a0 principles of holiness and entire sanctification that our Wesleyan heritage calls us to.<\/p>\n From a pastoral point of view, I quite agree with Richard Hays and many other Methodist exegetes and theologians that the church cannot afford the luxury of offering an ambiguous sexual ethic in an age in which sexual promiscuity and aberration is so rampant and prevalent.\u00a0 We cannot afford to encode multiple points of view on issues like adultery, pornography, same sex sexual sharing, pederasty and the like.\u00a0\u00a0 The Gospel trumpet needs to make a clear sound, even if all around us there is a cacophony of conflicting sounds.\u00a0\u00a0 More importantly we need to take a stand that comports both with Scripture and with our Methodist tradition of holiness of heart and life and in no way wavers from it, neither to the right or to the left.<\/p>\n Let me be clear that the position proffered to us by David Lull, Tex Sample and others in the United Methodist church is a position that John Wesley himself, Francis Asbury himself, and before them all the great theologians and exegetes of the Church rejected.\u00a0 Anselm said no to same sex sexual sharing of any kind, as did Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Knox, Cranmer, all the Wesleys and so on.<\/p>\n In terms of church tradition, the position which advocates the morality of same sex sexual sharing under certain limited circumstances is a position almost universally and certainly overwhelmingly rejected before the 20th<\/sup> century in western culture.\u00a0 There is no argument to be made otherwise on this front.\u00a0 So far as church tradition including especially our Methodist tradition goes, it says no. Emphatically so.\u00a0 If you doubt this I would urge you to spend some time reading John Wesley\u2019s little tracts \u2018Thoughts on Celibacy\u2019 and \u2018Thoughts on Marriage\u2019.\u00a0 Wesley, being the good son of his Puritan mother Susanna that he was, believed that sexual intercourse had one primary purpose\u2014procreation to be engaged in monogamous heterosexual marriage only.\u00a0 He would have affirmed wholeheartedly our current clich\u00e9 about celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage.\u00a0 There can be no reasonable doubt about this. So would his mother.\u00a0\u00a0 For them the holiness code of the Bible was to be strictly adhered to.<\/p>\n But what about the Bible itself?\u00a0 Well the Bible is quite frankly equally clear.\u00a0 I do not say this lightly or flippantly.\u00a0 I have spent 30 years exegeting the New Testament and the Old Testament and I have now written exegetical commentaries on every book of the New Testament.\u00a0 I speak as an exegete, a historian, and a theologian, as well as a NT ethicist.\u00a0 There is little room for debate I am afraid that same sex sexual sharing of any sort is seen as sinful in the Bible, both in the OT and in the NT.\u00a0 I will attend briefly to a few key points.<\/p>\n Firstly, it is simply false to say that Jesus has nothing to say against same sex sexual sharing.\u00a0 This is absolutely false.\u00a0 Consider for a moment what Jesus says in Mt. 19.1-12. Here he makes clear that he views marriage just as the author of Genesis did\u2014a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.\u00a0\u00a0 This one flesh union is seen as only appropriate in a context of heterosexual marriage.\u00a0 This rules out not only homosexual unions, it rules out extra-marital sexual acts of all sorts as well. This is not about androgyny, the notion that the original human being was both male and female.\u00a0 It involves a poetic story about how woman was created out of a portion of the man.\u00a0 Nothing in the Genesis text even remotely suggests Adam was originally androgynous.<\/p>\n And here it will be worthwhile to remind ourselves that our sexual ethic needs to be broad, and applicable to all. It is morally wrong to single out homosexual persons as if they were somehow worse sinners than heterosexual sinners.\u00a0 The Bible takes all sexual sin equally seriously.\u00a0 So should we.\u00a0 We cannot afford in this sexually confused age to turn a blind eye to one sort of sexual sin, and excoriate another sort. That is the worst sort of hypocrisy and anyone has a right to call us on it.\u00a0 Homophobia is as much of a sin as any other sort of sin.<\/p>\n The proper broad approach to this issue is to say the following\u2014\u00a0 all persons are welcome to come into the church as they are.\u00a0 But no persons are welcome to stay as they are.\u00a0 We should be equal opportunity exhorters in regard to all sorts of sexual sin, and not be baptizing anyone\u2019s sin and calling it good.\u00a0 This means we must be welcoming of all, but affirming no one\u2019s sin\u2014whoever they may be.<\/p>\n Back to Jesus.\u00a0 Jesus presents us with three key points. He offers his disciples\u00a0 two choices: 1) fidelity in heterosexual marriage, or 2) celibacy in singleness.\u00a0 He speaks of this in terms of being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom and the language could hardly be more stark and clear\u2014a eunuch is one who does not engage in intercourse with anyone, same sex or otherwise.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But there is a third point Jesus makes\u2014each of these conditions\u2014fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness should be pursued\u00a0 \u201cas it has been given to them\u201d.\u00a0 What Jesus means is that it requires a grace gift to either remain celibate in singleness or faithful in marriage. The phrase \u201cto whom it has been given\u201d\u00a0 means to whom God has given them the grace to live this way.\u00a0\u00a0 Paul says much the same in 1 Cor. 7\u2014he speaks of a charisma<\/strong>, a grace gift to either remain single as he is, or to be married in the Lord.\u00a0\u00a0 And while we are at it, Paul stresses in 1 Cor. 7 to those widows who want to remarry that this is fine \u201conly in the Lord\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 And here is where I stress that no form of behavior should be engaged in, perhaps especially sexual behavior, that cannot be done \u201cin the Lord\u201d\u00a0 in a way that would be pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ.\u00a0 You will notice that nothing in these discussions is said about sexual orientation.\u00a0 That is an entirely modern category.\u00a0 And even if one were to allow that some persons might be born with an inclination towards or attraction to members of their own sex,\u00a0 what an early Jewish theologian such as Jesus or Paul would say to that is that we are all born with an inclination to sin,\u00a0 all are born with fallen inclinations.\u00a0\u00a0 This is not an invention of later Christian tradition, say St. Augustine.\u00a0\u00a0 Ps. 51.5,\u00a0 a part of the great mea culpa of King David does indeed say he was conceived in sin.\u00a0 This is not because his mother was immoral. We have no evidence for that.\u00a0 Nor has this got anything to do with David\u2019s adultery with Bathsheba\u2014 that was much later.\u00a0 It has to do with David\u2019s confession that he had sinful inclinations from day one,\u00a0 as do we all. \u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s one of the reasons Paul says we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. \u00a0 Just because a person is born with this or that sexual inclination does not make it good.\u00a0 It has to be morally evaluated. \u00a0 At the same time, it should be stressed that David is certainly not saying the sexual expression itself is inherently sinful. \u00a0 Indeed Genesis says it was a good gift from God.<\/p>\n Since we have broached the subject of Paul, it will be well to walk down the Pauline road a bit further, but I want to stress that Paul is certainly not enunciating a sexual ethic any different from Jesus\u2019.\u00a0 His is more specifically Christian because he is writing to Christians, while Jesus was speaking to Jews, including his Jewish followers, but what the two men say comports not only with each other but with the rather clearly articulated sexual ethic of early Judaism\u2014 which is not a surprise.<\/p>\n The new element is that both Jesus and Paul affirm the equal goodness of remaining single for the sake of the kingdom as being married in the Lord, whereas in early Judaism the latter is overwhelmingly emphasized.\u00a0\u00a0 And herein lies a problem with my own church and indeed many Protestant denominations.\u00a0 We have done a very poor job in affirming the goodness of chaste singleness in our church. Indeed we have suggested or implied that if a person is not partnered off, they are an incomplete or unwhole person.\u00a0 In my own home church in Lexington Kentucky we used to have a Sunday school class called \u201cPairs and Spares\u201d\u2014horrible!\u00a0 As if a single person is but a spare tire until they get yoked to another person.\u00a0\u00a0 This needs to change drastically.\u00a0 We need to have an adequate theology and ethic of the goodness of chaste singleness. After all, both Jesus, Paul and others modeled such a lifestyle for us.\u00a0 Who are we to cast aspersions on it?\u00a0\u00a0 From a pastoral point of view, one of the very reasons we have so many marriages that are train wrecks in the church is because there is too much social pressure to get married in the church, and some people simple aren\u2019t grace gifted with the ability to be in a marriage relationship.\u00a0 This is a truth we need to grasp hold of now, for certain.<\/p>\n I will begin with 1 Corinthians because it is an earlier document than Romans.\u00a0 A little background is in order.\u00a0 In the Greco-Roman world, all sorts of homosexual and lesbian behavior was deemed, if not fully acceptable, at least tolerable.\u00a0 Pederasty, or sex between a man and a young boy was only one form of homosexual behavior that was condoned.\u00a0 There was also sex with a prostitute (male or female) which was allowable, and also sex between consenting male adults, though sex between consenting female adults was usually seen as a degenerate form of behavior, at least by the Roman patrician class.\u00a0 But we must bear in mind that the opinion shapers in that era were almost exclusively men, it was a patriarchal culture, and there was without question a sexual double standard in that world.\u00a0\u00a0 This double standard Jesus would have nothing to do with\u2014remember the story of the woman caught in adultery?\u00a0 One should have immediately asked, since it takes two to tango, where is the man caught in adultery?\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 famous Solomonic pronouncement \u201cneither do I condemn you, but go and sin no more\u201d\u00a0 is the sort of balanced ethical rejoinder we would want to strive for in this whole discussion.<\/p>\n Early Jews, like Jesus and Paul, would have stood out from the Greco-Roman culture due to their much stricter sexual ethic.\u00a0 Few would dispute this fact.\u00a0 The question then becomes, what sort of same sex \u00a0sexual activities are being condemned in 1 Corinthians, Romans and elsewhere in the NT?\u00a0\u00a0 So far as I can see,\u00a0 the answer is the same one given in general in early Judaism\u2014all forms<\/em> of same sex sexual sharing, whether it involves consenting adults or not.\u00a0\u00a0 Why do I say this?<\/p>\n Well consider for a moment 1 Cor. 6.9-10 which provides us with a rather all encompassing vice list.\u00a0 A list of those persons who, if they persist in their current chosen behavior, shall not enter the Kingdom of God, coming in the future on earth as in heaven. This list includes first all sexually immoral persons and idolaters (the two broadest terms used\u2014pornoi <\/strong>is the former term covering all sexual sins), and then Paul lists more specifically some of those he has in mind\u2014adulterers, then he mentions malakoi <\/strong>and arsenokoitai<\/strong>, then he adds thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers.\u00a0 It\u2019s a pretty broad list including a variety of types of sin, sexual and otherwise.<\/p>\n It needs to be understood about these vice lists that 1) Paul is addressing those who are Christians already and he is saying that this sort of behavior must stop if they hope to reach the Kingdom goal, and 2) the terms used suggest not a one time activity, but a persistent course of activity such that one could be rightly characterized as in general sexually immoral or in general a thief and so on.\u00a0\u00a0 This brings us to the terms malakoi<\/strong> which has as its root sense\u2014soft, or effeminate, and is used in a sexual context to refer to the person in a homosexual relationship that plays the more female role, the one that mostly allows themselves to be penetrated by the more aggressive partner.\u00a0\u00a0 The word arsenokoitai<\/strong> literally refers to a male who beds with a man. Since there are clear echoes of the Holiness Code throughout 1 Cor. 4-7 it is exceedingly likely that this term, perhaps even coined originally by Paul, is an echo of the LXX of the Holiness Code which condemns a man who lies with a male as if the latter were a woman.\u00a0 \u2018Male-bedder\u2019 or better \u2018male-copulator\u2019 is the sense of the term just as this language suggests in Leviticus and elsewhere.\u00a0 In other words, a different ethic is not enunciated in the NT on this issue than is found in Leviticus. There is a consistent reject of same sex sexual activity.<\/p>\n Here is where I reiterate that the NT has nothing to say on the issue of the modern notion of \u2018sexual orientation\u2019.\u00a0 It is behavior, not inclination that is at issue, and the assumption throughout the NT is that by God\u2019s grace one can at a minimum control one\u2019s sinful inclinations if not be transformed into one who ceases to have such inclinations. <\/em> As Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 10\u2014no temptation has overcome us that is not common to humankind such that with the temptation God can provide an adequate means of escape or overcoming it.\u00a0\u00a0 If I did not believe that grace could overcome fallen human inclinations and nature, if I did not believe in the possibility of changing from a fallen person to a new creature, I should cease to be in ministry altogether.\u00a0 The possibility and need for change is incumbent on all of us, as we seek to be conformed to the image of Jesus the holy one.\u00a0 He is both our paradigm and our paragon, our example and our goal.<\/p>\n What about Romans 1?\u00a0\u00a0 Here we have the only direct condemnation of lesbian behavior as well as homosexual behavior in the NT. Rom. 1.26-27 speaks of exchanging natural sexual relationships with unnatural ones, and by unnatural Paul means against the original creation order design of God.\u00a0 He is perfectly well aware that fallen human beings have all sorts of ungodly or unnatural inclinations.\u00a0 So the issue is not merely is it \u2018natural\u2019, but rather is it the way God designed nature in the creation before the fall, or not.\u00a0 And this brings up a very good point. It is not cogent to say \u201cI am naturally inclined to\u00a0 behave in X manner and therefore this is the way God made me\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 That is entirely forgetting the effects of human fallenness on our affections and emotions and predilections.\u00a0 A theology of creation without an adequate theology of human falleness becomes an unbiblical theology of creation.<\/p>\n And what the theology of creation enunciated in Genesis and repristinized in the NT says is that God made us male and female for each other.\u00a0 Only a male and a female can be a couple, because only they are capable of coupling to the divine end of procreation. Only they are able to share a one flesh union that could potentially create another human life.\u00a0\u00a0 There are of course many kinds of relationships that could be called partnerships, but only one kind of relationship the Bible suggests can create a couple\u2014 namely a male-female relationship.\u00a0 I have no doubt that both Jesus and Paul would be completely opposed to the attempt to reinvent the wheel and redefine marriage to include anything else other than the covenantal relationship between one man and one woman which God has joined together.<\/p>\n There are a few red herrings I would like to deal with at this juncture.\u00a0 Ours is an emotive and experiential age.\u00a0 We often here the phrase \u201cmy experience tells me\u201d and we have endless counselors asking \u201chow does that make you feel\u201d as if feelings were the ultimate guide to truth or what is right.\u00a0 The truth however about feelings is that they are notably unreliable guides to what is right and wrong.\u00a0 Feelings can be deep and genuine and immoral, and they can be the other way around as well.\u00a0 Sometimes we will also here the clich\u00e9 \u201cI cannot deny my feelings\u201d<\/p>\n My response to that is\u2014Of course you can. That\u2019s what ethical restraint of sinful inclinations is all about!\u00a0 All of us, if we are honest, have many feelings that we need to deny rather than indulge. Alas, our culture is so sick that it produces bumper stickers that say things like \u201cif it feels good, do it\u201d.\u00a0 Whenever \u2018experience\u2019 or \u2018feelings\u2019\u00a0 becomes the ultimate litmus test or measuring rod in a fallen person\u2019s life, they are well on the road to narcissism and all the sins that come with it\u2014self-centered, self-seeking, self-indulgent behavior.<\/p>\n What I know about fallen persons is that they have an infinite capacity for self-justification, indeed all of us do even Christians, which is precisely why it is so important for the church to uphold the clarion call to celibacy in singleness in a sex saturated lust- filled culture. Without some objective moral standard like the Bible we have no basis to tell the difference between heartburn and John Wesley\u2019s heartwarming experience.<\/p>\n I am well aware that a person\u2019s spirituality is closely entwined with their sexuality. Put another way, good theology and good ethics go together, and where one finds the endorsement of something unethical, it usually brings in its train bad theology as well.\u00a0 It is then necessary for the good of our souls that we uphold a high standard of sexual ethics, and we should always bear in mind the Biblical principle that whatever you cannot do in good faith and with a clear conscience is sin for you.\u00a0 In other words, when in doubt, don\u2019t, especially when it comes to sexual behavior.<\/p>\n Another red herring is of course asking \u201cWhat is the loving or compassionate thing to do?\u201d\u00a0 If one takes that question outside the context of the Biblical call to holiness almost any answer is possible.\u00a0 Our God is a God of holy love. Not holiness without love, and not love without holiness.\u00a0 Holiness without love is mere censoriousness, and it isn\u2019t loving or helpful.\u00a0 But love without holiness is mere indulgence without sanctified discipline, and it is equally wrong. The balance between love and holiness must be upheld\u2014we must always love the sinner, but never love their sin, for the very good reason that the sin is destroying their souls, their very spiritual life and relationship with God.\u00a0 However well meaning, it is not a loving thing to allow either homosexual or heterosexual persons to follow behavior the Bible and the long history of Christian tradition clearly says is immoral.\u00a0 Same sex sexual sharing even between consenting adults, even in a long term relationship, falls under this prohibition.<\/p>\n It is a great pity that our English lexicon of love is so truncated. In Greek we have eros, philia, agape, storge<\/strong> and a variety of other terms as well.\u00a0 Brotherly or sisterly\u00a0 love is a good thing. It is a wonderful thing to have loving friends. But when it trespasses into the area of eros, <\/strong> sexual sharing, it has violated the Biblical spirit of brotherly or sisterly love, never mind having violated the agape love, the higher spiritual love the NT calls us to over and over again.\u00a0 So many times in our culture people think they are in love, but in fact they are just lonely and in heat.\u00a0 There is a difference between lust and love, and that difference all Christians are called upon to make clear.\u00a0 When you muddy those waters you lose your moral authority to say anything with integrity when it comes to a sexual ethic.<\/p>\n What about the so-called evidence that there is a gay gene, or that people are born gay?\u00a0 In the first place, there is no such evidence as of yet of a gay gene, and even if there was, we would still need to ask whether this might not be an abnormality that we should work to remedy like other birth defects. I am doubtful we shall ever find evidence of a gay gene.<\/p>\n I put more stock in those who say that a gay lifestyle has far more to do with nurture than nature.\u00a0 I say this not only because over 90% of all gay persons live in cities of 300,000 or more where their lifestyle can be practiced and reinforced, but because there are good scientific studies of zygote twins, identical twins that share the very same genetic make up, and grew up in the very same home with the very same parents and the same schooling, and yet one adopted a heterosexual and one a homosexual lifestyle when they came of age. Why is this?\u00a0 If it were genetically predetermined then we would expect either both of these children to be gay or neither of them.\u00a0 But it is not so.\u00a0 So, I do not put much stock in arguments that say \u201cI was born this way\u201d.\u00a0 Even if it is so, we must still ask the ethical question\u2014is it a good thing that you were born this way?<\/p>\n Another red herring that one often finds in the relevant literature is the attempt to lump together the issues of women, slavery, and homosexuality. The logic usually goes like this\u2014\u2018the Bible says a lot of things we can no longer condone or agree with, such as what it says about slavery or women, and so there is no reason not to think we have outgrown the need to agree with the Bible about homosexuality. We are wiser than they were on these subjects.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 There are several problems with this, not the least of which is thinking we are smarter than the inspired writers of Scripture on key ethical issues. In view of the atrocities perpetrated in modernity against all kinds of persons, including against\u00a0 Jews in the Holocaust, and against the refugees in Darfur and against the unborn,\u00a0 I don\u2019t think we are in any position to be smug or just assume we have our ethical sensibilities more fine tuned than the writers of the Bible.\u00a0 Indeed, I would say just the opposite. They were far more rigorous in keeping their ethical codes than we are and being sensitive to the ethical nuances of positions taken.\u00a0 Never mind, that the church since time immemorial has said that these writers of the Bible were inspired by God to say what they say, unlike our present discussions!\u00a0 That gives them an authority we simply cannot pretend to have.<\/p>\n But the other major thing wrong with this whole approach to the homosexual issue is that there is a clear trajectory of change enunciated in the NT when it comes to the roles of women and when it comes to the abolition of slavery in a Christian context (see Philemon\u2014 \u201cno longer as a slave, but as a brother\u201d).\u00a0 There is no such trajectory of change found in the NT when it comes to the prohibition of same sex sexual activity. The NT position is little different from what we find in the OT.\u00a0 And finally, slavery, women, and homosexuality are three very different ethical issues, and they should each be addressed on their own terms as they present us with different ethical problems and issues.\u00a0 They should not be lumped together.<\/p>\n