The Reformed Review, Fall 2005, "Homosexuality and the Church"

Rev. Dr. Canon Kendall Harmon linked to this a week or so ago , and I have spent valuable procrastination time reading it.

The Edtor's note states, "The Publications Committee of Western Theological Seminary asked our writers to reflect more deeply on this challenge and what can be done about it. So they do not restate old arguments, but try to move understanding deeper and the discussion to a new level."

I am afraid that there was nothing in it I had not seen before (with one notable exception), which I will mention at the proper time. But still there is much good in it.

First, it is clear that the moderate Calvinist denominations such as the RCA and PCUSA will have a more positive and Scripturally coherent view of the status of women and their potential ecclesiastical functions in the future. Patriarchy is now a bad thing, despite being at the root of Calvin's views of polity (and certainly of his successors). And Robert Gagnon is especially insistent that his proposed Biblical critique of homosexual practice does not view homosexuals as emasculated or effeminated, because women are evil or inferior (or are ordained by nature to the sadistic use of men). Robert Van Voorst, the editor of The Reformed Review notes in his closing editorial that the Evangelical Covenant Church is very much clear in their opposition to homosexual practice and yet allows women more equality within its ecclesiastical polity. Gagnon is at his best when he points out that Greco-Roman society's growing intolerance of homosexuality during 2nd and 3rd centuries (especially in elite philosophical circles, since popular feeling oscillated rather wildly) was part and parcel of a growing appreciation of women and their potential as intellectual equals.

Second, it is also clear that few in the RCA probably are going to imitate their Dutch ancestors in this way . Even Gagnon, who is the strongest anti-homosexual voice, is only interested in being counter-cultural and supporting homosexuals in incorporating their struggles for celibacy into the general martyria of the Church. Although he feels obligated to cast doubt on the ineffectiveness of reparative therapy, Gagnon is clear that it doesn't matter, for reasons I will discuss. Celibate homosexuals are imitators of Christ in his suffering on the Cross and of Paul in his privations for the faith. His millstone is spiritual, not the temporal sword, and all more terrifying in its use in his rhetoric. His rhetoric, since he is reviewing David G. Meyers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni's What God Hath Joined Together seems primarily directed at those like me, who believe they are obligated to support fratrimony/sororimony by appeal to the Scriptures, reason, and Tradition. As far as Gagnon is concerned, those such as I have thrown out the Scriptures and really are depending on an unstable Wesleyan Quadrilateral (the "balanced" Three-Legged Stool) based on experience. And thus we are stumbling-blocks for our gay and lesbian brethren.

Gagnon's critique is one I constantly bring upon myself and place before God in prayer. But it's also a critique I find answered by God in my occasional failures to order my "sexual urges" to God's will, which are rather clear and well-known distortions of an entirely righteous desire for matrimony and children. This week I was thinking that I would like to have a child. I've never thought so seriously about this as a possibility and also realized that it is impossible in my present circumstances. If homosexuality is congenital (a position which Gagnon will not admit in full, tries to cast doubt upon, and finally discards as immaterial), my "experiential" tendencies do not lead me to suppress the Scriptural witness. Instead, they lead me to seek the telos of which committed homosexual practice could be a distortion. If there is such a telos , it will bear the fruit of the Kingdom. Most interesting is that Gagnon's proposed telos is one of suffering martyria and not that of liberation. And when I speak of liberation, I do not mean the end to homosexual urges that Gagnon suspects is impossible, I mean a transformation to something higher and in accord with God's will. In a Reformed view, Christ suffered on the Cross and was justified by God and thus rose again. Paul suffered for the faith, but he acknowledged that he, too, was liberated from being a persecutor of the Faith and transformed into "the least of the Apostles."

There is much more to say about Gagnon's piece and I will not likely say half of it in justice to him and his justified concerns that the two sides do not know enough about one another's arguments. But let us first take a look at James Brownson's piece on "Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation? An Evangelical Pastoral Dilemma and the Unity of the Church ." Brownson leaves us in no doubt about his assumptions and worldview, which is that God intends that human sexual expression in thought, word, and deed be limited to one man and one woman united in matrimony, which he believes is the consistent witness of Scripture "as the only final rule for faith and practice." I will not concern myself with his position, because that is not the purpose of his piece. Instead, he argues for a limited diversity of approaches to homosexuality, despite his own preference for the more conservative one. The table on the fifth page is a useful summary of possible approaches to gays and lesbians by Christian communities, only suffering from the difficulties of using "consistent witness" to describe the conservative position.

Brownson's most fascinating argument is that the orientation/behavior distinction in conversations about homosexuality is a theologically false and culturally imposed one. In other words, those who are homosexually oriented are often in sinning in thought, if not in word and deed, and the church must be more supportive than asking whether one is celibate or not, since that is not the totality of chastity. Brownson is perhaps more charitable than I pose him,

"It may be easier for heterosexuals to understand [ the question of to what extent homosexual Christians should be homosocial] if they recall their own state before finding a mate and becoming married. In that state, a great deal of emotional energy is devoted to meeting and interacting with people of the opposite sex, who hold a great deal of interest. Not all of this interest is overtly, or even covertly, sexual in character. Heterosexual men like to talk with women, to joke with them, admire them, touch them, and interact with them. Heterosexual women may spend a good bit of time thinking about the men who interest them, contemplating what it would be like to be with them and to experience life together. These men and women find those of the opposite sex interesting, attractive, engaging, enjoyable to be with, stimulating. They find that being with those of the other sex calls the best out of them and inhibits some of their less than desirable characteristics. In other words, the process of falling in love is about a whole lot more than just sexual attraction, even though that may be a significant part of it."

and also:

How is the church to advise those gays for whom reparative therapy has failed, and for whom celibacy is experienced as an overwhelming burden? Here is where two distinct paths begin to diverge from each other, and difficult choices must be made—choices that are, in many respects, mutually exclusive of each other. But before exploring these two paths, it is worth making an observation about our context that must be addressed clearly as we consider these questions. We address these questions from a North American cultural context that is sexually saturated, and which upholds sexual expression as a kind of inalienable right—even an obligation. Our society devotes itself almost fanatically to the cultivation and stimulation of desire: desire primarily for goods and services, but also for sexual fulfillment (often associated with the marketing of various goods and services which will enhance sexual fulfillment, from music to clothing to automobiles to enhancements to one’s physical attractiveness). We are trained from birth onward to see ourselves as creatures with needs and to see the meaning of life as the meeting of our needs. It is not coincidental that, in such a narcissistic society, we experience enormous sexual pain and brokenness: escalating divorce, abuse, loneliness, and hurt. We must recognize that, regardless of how we interpret the will of God for the sexual expression of gays and lesbians, we come to this question from a culture that generally handles its sexuality quite badly, conceiving sexuality almost exclusively as a means to self-fulfillment, in contrast to the biblical linking of sexuality with faithfulness and fruitfulness. Our culture is not wise on this subject, and Christian perspectives on the subject may well appear rather odd to those not formed by Christian practices.

It's a nice warning and one I've heard from other Anglicans, but Brownson starts to worry me when he says, "Secondly, while there are clearly ways in which all people are called to celibacy, at least for periods of time (e.g., before marriage, or after the death of a spouse, or when one is unable to marry for a variety of reasons, or during a spouse’s illness, etc.), there are also indications in Scripture suggesting that celibacy may be easier for some than for others over the long haul. [And for others a burden]"

A discourse on the joys or burdens of celibacy are hard for me to receive from a Calvinist theologian, when Calvinism brought to these shores a very poisonous view of society in which unmarried persons (of even advanced age) are perpetual children within church and state (and must always be under the supervision of the married). To some extent, this has been moderated. There's at least one unmarried woman RCA pastor to be found on the blogosphere. But maintaining a strong concern for the sexual purity of the Body and rejecting homosexual practice as Brownson does inevitably leads to the infantilization of gays and lesbians, who will of necessity be problematized by the community. Are such persons likely to be ordained (if called)? Will their membership in the community be dependent on how much they suppress their homosocial rather than their homosexual tendencies?

To be plainer about what I mean, I think there would be one element of a more conservative Protestant denomination that would attract me: the community would be concerned by my singleness and try to fix me up with "nice, Christian girls." You may laugh. It is a highly idealized view and probably ridiculous. But for a man of my age, I suspect there at least would be subtle pressure for me to get married, so that I would be "safe" and for my wife to have babies to boost the membership rolls (hat tip to Internet Monk for that cynical view...) There is no formalized tradition of lifelong celibates in this context. Now imagine a population of those who are necessarily lifelong celibates, who probably cannot be made "safe." Even if you accept Gagnon's numbers, there might be 10 of these in a community of 500. What are they to do? Place each under the supervision of a deacon or elder as an "accountability partner" and "second family?" That would be the Puritan way (...the non-violent Puritan way).

But Brownson at least is cognizant that his vision is incomplete and is willing to admit local diversity of pastoral practice as long as his basic postulate about the Scriptural view is honored, noting " The path of consistent witness can easily devolve into congratulatory self-righteousness, hypocrisy, or a narrow and unbiblical concern with behavior only, to the neglect of the redemption of the whole person. (And most churches committed to this position can point to little effective ministry to and with gays and lesbians.)" If only Brownson would be more challenged by this last observation. Fruitfulness after all is a general theological consideration, not just one of sexual ethics.

I am afraid to tell you that Brownson is only one of three voices in this issue. The majority of the pages are dedicated by Robert Gagnon's "Why the Disagreement Over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?" It would be unjust for me to respond point by point to this extended critique of a work of obvious weakness, since I have not read Gagnon's meisterwerk The Bible and Homosexuality. What I know of it comes from Gray Temple's critique of it, which is strongly focused on Gagnon reading Founcault in the very ways that Gagnon constantly complains liberals read him. Having read this extended piece of Gagnon, I am inclined to find a little time and go to Fuller to read it.

But first I would like to point out the surprising moment in the whole issue, in which Gagnon refers to Ham's rape of Noah as evidence of the general anti-homosexuality of the J source in the Torah. What? Ham raped Noah? Apparently, this is not original to Gagnon. But it was surprising as it stretches the "plain meaning of the Scriptures" in fascinating ways. Why would J, who is after all so very clear about the intentions of the men of Sodom, not be clear that the reviled ancestor of the reviled Canaanites "lay with his father Noah." Why make it so euphemistic using the verb "to see?" Unfortunately, this is not Gagnon's point.

Gagnon's guiding point is that sexual dimorphism is a clear and uncontroversial fundamental underpinning of the natural order ordained by God and expounded in the Holy Scriptures and that any sexual act or desire that would diminish the dualism and complementarity of men and women is abomination (to'evah) against God. He argues that this is the consistent Biblical witness and the fundamental truth to which all Scripture that condemns homosexual acts points. Homosexuality thus is worse than polyamory and heterosexual incest though better than bestiality in Gagnon's ordering of sexual sins. But he argues that many who support fratrimony and sororimony really promote polyamory and incest (and pedophilia and ephebophilia, to boot). Briefly, I thought that Gagnon should become a Wicca, since he projects the fundamental principle of sexual dimorphism and complementarity on the Scriptures so strongly and yet rejects misogyny so firmly that his sexually dimorphic view of human beings might lead him to conclude that we are made in the image of a goddess as well as a god. Fortunately, that feeling passed.

My first critique, however, would be the fundamental principle in itself, which is not as evident in nature as the ancients thought. Gagnon is somewhat responsive to this, contemning studies of "gay sheep" but generally trying to make it clear that nature cannot be any standard for us since there is pedophilia in the animal world as well. To this I reply that in modern North American culture, we regard it as pedophilia and thus especially reprehensible for a twentysomething to marry or have intercourse with a twelve year old. This view is quite new and probably stems from the proto-Victorian revolution in both attitudes toward sexuality and childhood that took place during the 19th century. Thus, it is very hard to define "pedophilia" in the animal world. As I have written before: God's gift of reason to us can transform the dictates of natural law from merely functional relations to those that participate in the work of God, though after the Fall, this was possible only through joint participation with Christ.

Next, I am very wary of Gagnon's exposition of the Old Testament on this issue, which on one hand, acknowledges the strong association of homosexuality with Canaanite religious practice and thus idolatry and apostasy, but yet attempts to say that the Old Testament prohibitions really rest on an understanding of complementarity and not the fear of idolatry. Gagnon does not help my path through his argument by being very historicritical and talking about the importance of J's views on homosexuality. I don't really care what J thinks about homosexuality. I do care what God thinks and how He legislated for man in the covenant with Israel. And except by suggesting that homosexuality is set out as the summa culpa of the Levitical code, Gagnon cannot divorce the prohibitions of homosexuality from the discourse of religious fidelity in which the prophets place them no matter how ingeniously he quotes Ezekiel. He also makes no mention of the homosocial and potentially homosexual covenant relationship of David and Jonathan. And the eunuchs of Isaiah feature nowhere. I am quite willing to be corrected on this. No doubt, these issues are dealt with in his meisterwerk . But this piece is so critical of his opposition that you would think he might take down the prophetic inspiration of folks like me a peg. And if you make absolutist statements about the Biblical witness, you should be careful to torpedo the chief contradictory arguments. Perhaps, I missed them in the voluminous footnotes, which likely are an excellent guide to further reading of Gagnon's works.

But it is his reading of the Lord Jesus with which I take most exception. Gagnon is very clear to condemn the view that Jesus was soft on sin (and sexual sin), which is a myth likely first composed by the Pharisees. But I would like to take this opportunity to warn Gagnon that he is vulnerable here. He is right that Jesus was very clear to proclaim the Gospel to the Samaritan Woman at the Well in John 4 in terms both of promise and of condemnation. So why in Luke 7, does the Lord not tell the Centurion a few things... If you don't know what I'm talking about: read the passage. The kicker is 7:6 and 7:7. The Centurion says that he is not worthy that Jesus come under his roof. Why? Because he is a Gentile? Possibly. And that seems to be Jesus' emphasis, since He says that he has not found such faith in Israel. But let's read further, "speak the word and my servant shall be healed." The Greek and the Latin Vulgate, however, use the words pais and puer , which connote children. Pais is used for the little girl Jesus heals later in Luke. When the elders of the local synagogue come to Jesus, we hear of doulos (a slave) in indirect discourse. Yet in the centurion's voice, the slave becomes "my boy" or "my child." Now if you know your Greco-Roman funerary epigraphy, you'll know that there are cases in which young slaves become so much part of the family that they become their master's children in all but legal status and are presumably freed if they reach the age when manumission is permitted by law. Perhaps, the centurion's slave was one such case.

Moreover, what other implication could there be? Surely, the elders would have not consulted Jesus about healing the centurion's "sex slave." Well, he did pay for the synagogue. I understand that this passage is hotly debated. But Gagnon's failure to mention it here is striking. It's a clear opportunity for Gagnon to fit the Gospels fully into his case in this specific essay by dispensing with the notion that the centurion could have said, "Speak the word and my darling shall be healed." Let me note that I am not suggesting that Jesus by silence was promoting sexual exploitation of slaves in the Greco-Roman world. We don't know anything about the relationship dynamics here, except that the faith of the centurion saves "his pais " as in other healing stories. In other words, the slave is not emotionally dispensable. Whether he was treated as a child or a lover, Jesus couldn't say no to a man with such faith in his power.

There is one point at which Gagnon essentially says of the Lord that he must have condemned homosexuality in his heart if not in his lips, since there was no Jew in the centuries surrounding his earthly life who had anything good to say about it. If Gagnon is to make such arguments, I also know of no other Jew of the day who claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that he would rise to life three days after his death. I know of no other Jew of his day who promised abundant life or claimed that He was 'the Bread of Life." Some claimed to be the Messiah. But Jesus' claims were uniquely extraordinary.

Finally, Gagnon exegetes the Apostle. I take major issue with him on two counts. First, Gagnon talks about possible Hellenistic influences on Paul in understanding the intrinsic nature of homosexual orientation. Paul, Gagnon insists, might think that homosexuality was congenital but think that it didn't matter to his position. This is wrong. Paul might know of some philosophical opinions on the aetiology of homosexuality from Platonic sources. But this was no guarantor that he would have received them as true. If Gagnon is right to say that Paul was insistent on sexual complementarity as the uniquely fundamental principle of human sexual practice, it is unlikely that the Apostle would have received Aristophanes' speech in Symposium as of any merit whatsoever. Gagnon's strongest argument of the essay appears in this context, in which Gagnon notices a homology of usage and analogy of rhetoric between the ends of Romans 1 and Genesis 1.

But the rest of this is weak. When Gagnon alludes to "para physin," he fails to mention the other key use of the idea of "nature" in Romans. It's too bad. Gagnon is so insistent that we place Romans 1 in the context of Paul's discussion of grace and justification up to Romans 6. But in Romans 11, we are told that the church is an unnatural graft on the tree of salvific covenant with God. Gray Temple somewhere or other makes a great witticism, which I will paraphrase, if homosexuality is unnatural, likewise is our salvation. Of course, this is merely a witticism. But there is a deeper point here. Paul is very much a Judao-Hellenistic thinker in the mold of Philo, and thus it is very easy for him to pipe the tune of the corruption of the idolaters as opposed to the righteousness of the Jews. It is indeed necessary, for the rhetorical purpose of Paul is to turn the righteousness of Israel on its head, for just as the Greeks mock God and nature, so do the Jews mock God and the Covenant. Paul thus is playing on the homophobia of Israel, who as the Rambam (Maimonides) says much later, "Israel is not suspected of homosexuality." Philo actually says something very similar. Is the homology that Gagnon cites then really Paul's? Might it be from an earlier Judaeo-Hellenistic source? After all, it is a homology in Greek. And thus might it just be possible that it is purely rhetorical and is not some considered statement on complementarity?

On the second count, I take great issue with Gagnon's speculation that if we brought Paul here and informed him that homosexuality was congenital, he would say, "I suspected as much." We also would have to tell him about certain difficulties in his understanding of Original Sin, if the Apostle can be said to have such a notion. In other words, homosexuality's presence in nature suggests it was prior to the Fall. See why I say creationists have it easy. If the Lord gives me the opportunity, I hope to talk with both Gagnon and the Apostle about this particular issue.

What do the Scriptures say? To a great extent, Gagnon reads them correctly or at least more correctly than those he poses as his opponents. His counterpoint against the misogynistic argument is one to read, learn, and inwardly digest. But nowhere does he take on the more difficult passages (I Samuel 18, or Isaiah 56:8 with Matthew 19:10 and Acts 8:27 etc.) that might complicate his view of homosexuality or marriage in general. In some sense, Gagnon is merely a renovator of "the clobber passages." And sometimes he's merely ridiculous. Not every use of "dog" in the Bible refers to male prostitutes, for instance.

The issue closes with an editorial by Van Voorst on the future of the RCA and homosexuality. It is of interest than Van Voorst is clearly the most open of the three authors in the issue to the possibility that homosexual orientation is set from birth and immutable, but he is clear that his theological tradition presents a quandary,

"7. Our dialogue should deal with what I call the two hard facts of this debate. First, as Robert Gagnon argues in this Reformed Review issue and as RCA policy papers have stated, the Bible affirms heterosexuality as God’s norm for human life, and rejects homosexual practice as running against this norm. A growing number in the academic field of religious studies and in the church—even those who advocate same-sex liberation—now are intellectually honest enough to admit that this is the case.4 But discerning what the Bible says about homosexuality has not been a problem for us in the RCA; discerning how to use the Bible is a growing problem. However, a Reformed approach to Scripture does not allow us to neutralize the Bible’s affirmation of heterosexuality, which is clear, consistent and comprehensive, by making room alongside it for same-sex practice. A second “hard fact” is that for most same-sex oriented people, their orientation is not consciously, deliberately chosen. A strong consensus among scientists holds that it is deeply rooted in personality. For most same-sex oriented people their orientation probably cannot be changed, and their calling to live chaste lives can only be enacted by a combination of divine power and great human effort. How to relate these two hard facts should be a part of our dialogue. Some say that science rules out Scripture, others that Scripture rules out science. Perhaps a better path is to let God’s voice in Scripture have its rule among us as we continue to live by “Sola Scriptura,” but let God’s voice in nature help to inform us about how we can best relate to same-sex oriented people among us."

This sets up a sad dualism that denies the unity of all truth that I believe lies at the root of my own tradition. If God speaks through nature, He says the same things that he does in the Scriptures. Or at least, the accounts of nature and Scripture are complementary even if they appear contradictory. But at least it expresses some desire to learn better how to care for gays and lesbians in a Reformed Christian community.

So was the issue worth reading? Yes. It was good to read perspectives that were less easy to impute with the leaven of malice and sometimes show evidence of the same general struggle, buoyant certainty, and frustrating uncertainty of one's own reasoning on this issue. It was good to read Robert Gagnon and get some appreciation of his methods and biases. Thanks to the Titusoneine commentariat for recommending this and to Kendall+ for linking to this issue.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may read the Holy Scriptures to your profit, gaining for yourself refined gold that will never rust and oil on your eyes that will restore your sight.