Are Christian same-sex relationships an oxymoron? Or is claiming that God prohibits love – not lust but love – what is really strange in the current discussions?
If you follow the early reviews of New Testament scholar Richard Hays’ new book The Widening of God’s Mercy, written with his son Christopher, they are a very revealing exercise in missing the point. The complaints from conservatives consistently focus on Hays and Hays not making the argument through exegesis. In other words, in order to be persuaded, the conservatives are demanding that Hays and Hays should show that the passages that appear to condemn same-sex intercourse do not mean that.
Why is this revealing as well as misguided? Because that is exactly what the defenders of slavery did. The abolitionists on the other hand focused on deeper principles and the broader trajectory of scripture.
Christian same-sex relationships: A Slippery Slope?
Conservatives claim that it is a “slippery slope” to argue that the mercy and inclusivity of God not only widened over time across the pages of scripture but continues to do so beyond them. Of course, it isn’t God who is becoming more merciful over time, it is people. People wrote the Bible, and so what we are witnessing is human transformation. Surely the process of becoming more loving and inclusive is meant to continue.
Imagine what it would have meant to apply the “slippery slope” and/or “the scripture clearly says” argument at earlier points along the trajectory. Allowing Moabites into the people of God, even the ancestry of king David, when the Law clearly says they are excluded? Paul including uncircumcised Gentiles in the family of Abraham when Genesis 17 clearly says circumcision applies to anyone born into or added to Abraham’s household? The abolition of slavery when the Law and the Pastoral Epistles clearly say? Yep, that slope sure is slippery…and also biblical.
Just as with the abolition of slavery, so too here, there are more basic principles of scripture that may point in a different direction than the several passages specifically about it. Would you say it is good for those who experience same-sex attraction to be alone? Do you hold the view that the broad principle of creation articulated in Genesis 2:18 does not in fact apply to all human beings?
What Good Is the Bible?
The trajectory of God’s seemingly ever-widening mercy which is the focus of Hays’ book is a major biblical theme. Moabites were excluded until the 10th generation until they weren’t. Slavery was acceptable until it wasn’t. Canaanites were dogs until they weren’t. Christian interpretation of the Bible requires faithful improvisation and that improvisation has to take this characteristic chord progression of the Bible with the utmost seriousness.
If we who believe that same sex marriage can be thoroughly Christian have it the wrong way around, then so did the author of Ruth and so did Paul the Apostle. Did Paul in Galatians 3:5 have it exactly the wrong way around when he argued from their experience of God’s Spirit that they did not need to obey Genesis 17:9-14 to become part of Abraham’s household? Was the inclusion of the household of David in the assembly of the Lord (if you accept what the Book of Ruth says) sinful disobedience to Deuteronomy 23:3? Remember that the original recipients of Paul’s letters had to judge them as arguments about the scriptures they had in their time. They did not yet have scriptural status. By including Ruth and the letters of Paul in our Bibles the church has canonized not a once for all stance but on the contrary, scriptural evidence that our stance regularly needs to change as we grow deeper into the love and knowledge of God.
Christian same-sex relationships? But The Bible Clearly Says!
The issue here is not “making the Bible say whatever we want.” We seem to agree that the Bible clearly excludes Moabites but eventually does not, and clearly excludes uncircumcised Gentiles but eventually does not. It is crucial to read Paul’s letters as they originally were, not yet scripture, and ask whether Paul’s arguments would have persuaded you given what the Bible at that time clearly stated. To be clear, no one seriously disputed that the Gentiles would be made to worship the God of Abraham in the end, the question was whether they would observe the Torah or at the very least the requirements of the covenant with Abraham.
Most but not all churches have discerned that modern monogamous egalitarian marriages are at least an acceptable adaptation of the institution, and some of us consider it to be more in keeping with the overall trajectory of scripture than the patriarchal inequitable institution as it existed historically, in which a man could have more than one wife as well as concubines and it was not considered adultery, yet a woman could have only one husband, and so on. It is not at all surprising that, in response to the desire of those who experience same sex attraction to participate in this modern institution, many of us feel strongly that the modern redefinition of heterosexual marriage makes it natural and appropriate to welcome those who want to commit to a loving and respectful lifelong commitment to someone of the same sex. Some are convinced that this is not a twist and turn of which God would ever approve. Just as in Paul’s time, one side is presumably wrong. There is a risk in being open just as there is a risk in not being.
Interpreting and Applying Scripture Consistently
I think the most important thing is to bring into the picture on this topic of Christian same-sex relationships is whether there is a justifiable and consistent rationale for prohibiting those who experience love towards someone of the same sex from making a commitment of the same sort as those of the opposite sex. Childbearing doesn’t work since we do not prohibit the infertile from marrying nor penalize those who choose not to have children. The denigration and demonization of those who experience same sex attraction causes deep psychological trauma and loss of self worth in a manner that the things we would surely agree are sinful do not. No psyche is harmed by being prohibited from murdering, stealing, or being unfaithful to their spouse. No other prohibition calls people to stifle love – not lust but love.
When I make a comparison with the Bible and slavery it is not just the same approach to scripture that I have in mind. It is the fact that in this case as in that one human lives are subjected to serious harm by what this approach to the Bible insists is in conformity with God’s will.
I may not succeed in changing your mind, but I will settle for you perhaps having a less cavalier assumption that you are right, that you must be discerning God’s will correctly while those who disagree with you are not, and for you taking seriously that your stance might be harming other human beings including fellow Christians made in the image and likeness of God.
For more on the topic of Christian same-sex relationships:
Who Are You, O Man? (Maybe the Author of Wisdom of Solomon?)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In