Shades of things to come

At some point, I'd like to be able to dedicate a series of posts to the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and the Church's response. As it is now, I simply don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves. I did want to share this article however. Regardless of your opinions on this opinion piece, this is a great example of how the debate is currently being framed. There is an unblinking equivocation - fair or unfair (I believe unfair) - between the issues of race and sexual orientation. Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sinful behavior (as I do) should not be surprised when they are labelled as a bigot. "I love gays. I just don't endorse the lifestyle and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry. I'm not a bigot though. I love gay people!" But when the argument is being framed in already long established civil rights lines, you will be perceived as a bigot - regardless of your attitude. A nice racist is still a racist.


Opinion: Bigotry drags marriage back to Supreme Court - CNN.com

Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals

Just finished Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb. The dominant purpose for the book is to provide some guidelines when making judgments about what is cultural and what is transcultural in scripture. In other words, how do we decide if a text in scripture is intended only for its immediate cultural context ("greet one another with a holy kiss") or if it is meant to be applied in every culture ("your sins are forgiven")? Some passages are relatively easy to categorize. Others are notoriously more difficult like Paul's comments about women in 1 Timothy. Webb's observation is that scripture teaches what he calls a multi-level ethic - not a simple static ethic. Scripture establishes a trajectory of faithful applications. We should apply the text differently as the culture changes. This isn't to strip scripture of its authority - quite the opposite. This gives scripture a contextual power whatever culture it may encounter.  In a multi-level ethic the principle and the application of the text are related but different. In a static ethic, the principle and application are seen together. The application may need to be translated into a more contemporary culture, but the application is essentially the same.

Webb calls his approach a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. He uses the case of slavery to illustrate his approach. Scripture does not openly condemn slavery, but it does establish a sort of trajectory which eventually led committed Christians to challenge the institution of slavery from scripture itself. From this case study, he moves on to talk about the situation of women and homosexuals in scripture - two hot button issues in our culture today. In the case of women, Webb argues that the trajectory established by scripture moves from patriarchy to what he calls "complementary egalitarianism." The case with homosexuals is far different however. The trajectory established by scripture is not one of acceptance and endorsement but one of condemnation. You can see a summary of his position here.

I liked this book overall. I think that there were times that he seemed to be stacking the deck in favor of his already decided positions, but it is hard to argue with his observations and methodology. All of us engage in a multi-level ethical understanding of scripture - even those pious "literalists" among us.

Webb gives eighteen criteria from making judgments about what in scripture is culture and what is transcultural (or universal in application). I decided to reproduce them here. Some are more convincing than others, and he also discounted or ignored historical theology and the regula fidei in his approach (especially on the interpretation of various Pauline texts on women), but taken together they provide some nice guidlines in deciding these issues.

Persuasive Criteria (his designation):
1 - Preliminary Movement - A component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.
2 - Seed Ideas - A component of a text may be cultural if "seed ideas" are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.
3 - Breakouts - A component of a text may be culturally confined if the social norms reflected in that text are completely "broken out of" in other biblical texts.
4 - Purpose/Intent Statements - A component of a text may be culturally bound, if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text's original intent or purpose.
5 - Basis in Fall or Curse - A component of a text may by transcultural if its basis is rooted in the Fall of humanity or the curse.

Moderately Persuasive Criteria
6 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the original creation material.
7 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture - A component of a text may be transcultural, if it is rooted in the original creation material and, more specifically, its creative order.
8 - Basis in New Creation - A component of a text may be transcultural if it is rooted in new-creation material.
9 - Competing Options - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural, if presented in a time and setting when other competing options existed in the broader cultures.
10 - Opposition to Original Culture - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural if it counters or stands in opposition to the original culture.
11 - Closely Related Issues - A component of a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" to that text/issue are also themselves culturally bound.
12 - Penal Code - A prohibited or prescribed action within the text may be culturally bound (at least in its most concrete, nonabstracted form) if the penalty for violation is surprisingly light or not even mentioned. The less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.
13 - Specific Instructions Versus General Principles - A component of a text may be culturally relative if its specific instructions appear to be at odds with the general principles of Scripture.

Inconclusive Criteria
14 - Basis in Theological Analogy - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the character of God or Christ through theological analogy.
15 - Contextual Comparisons - A text or something within a text may be transcultural to the degree that other aspects in a specialized context, such as a list or grouping, are transcultural.
16 - Appeal to the Old Testament - A practice within a New Testament text may or may not be transcultural if appeal is (or could be) made to the Old Testament in support of that practice.

Persuasive Extrascriptural Criteria
17 - Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures - A component of a biblical imperative may be culturally relative if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another.
18 - Scientific and Social Scientific Evidence - A component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence.

Racial liberation and the gay marriage debate

One of the interesting side-plots in the whole gay marriage debate - especially since President Obama publicly announced his support - involves the disposition of the black church towards the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. James Cone announced his feelings loud and clear here. Of course this position comes as no surprise. Many within liberationist (both racial and gender) circles have been associating the causes of racial justice, gender justice, and sexual justice for years. Desmond Tutu, for instance, has said, “We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.” The reasoning is this: The Gospel is a message of liberation. The Kingdom is upside down - humbling the powerful while giving power to the powerless, chastizing the elite while comforting the marginalized. This is the guiding principle of liberation theology. And, despite the many flaws (and there are many) of liberation theology, it must be granted that the kingdom IS truly upside down and counter-cultural. We can (and will) argue and debate about how to best implement or practice this kingdom principle - but the principle itself is biblical and powerful.


Here is the question however: Does scripture regard issues of race and gender in the same way that it regards issues of sexuality? Because homosexuals are relatively powerless. They are certainly marginalized. Should the arguments applied to racial or gender liberation be applied to sexual liberation as well? The answer from scripture is clearly "no." William Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic illustrates this point pretty well. This is why most who associate sexuality with race and gender will choose to make arguments based on the fallibility, ignorance, or outright homophobia of ancient people especially Paul. Paul was just mistaken or perhaps he was closeted himself. If he would have been as enlightened as we certainly are, he would not have said those nasty things about homosexuality (or the dozens of other sins that we energetically try to justify in our own lives). Of course no one wants to be labeled a bigot or closed-minded. And this is unfortunately becoming the popular assumption. If you are against gay marriage, you are against civil rights, you are closed-minded, hateful, and probably dangerous. You might as well be one of those rednecks from the deep south spraying water hoses at black teenagers during the civil rights protests in the 60's. Classic straw man - falsely associating a person's beliefs with those of another, more despicable person for the purpose of dismissing or underminding their arguments. Clearly we are called to love and reconciliation. And clearly, we shouldn't treat homosexuality as some sort of "unforgiveable" sin (1 Cor. 6:9-11)! But if we are interested at all in taking scripture seriously on this topic, we must acknowledge that it does in fact call this "sin." It is just not regarded in the same way as race or gender. And to attempt to bully black churches (or anyone) into this position just because of their race (and their politics) is, frankly, insulting.

A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

From Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals by William Webb

SLAVERY

Original Culture - Slavery with many abuses
Bible - Slavery with better conditions and fewer abuses
Our Culture - Slavery eliminated and working conditions often improved
Ultimate Ethic - Slavery eliminated, improved working conditions, wages maximized for all, and harmony, respect and unified purpose between all levels in an organizational structure

WOMEN

Original Culture - Strong patriarchy with many abuses
Bible - Moderated patriarchy with fewer abuses
Our Culture - Secular egalitarianism with significantly improved status of women and an emphasis on individual rights, autonomy and self-fulfillment
Ultimate Ethic - Ultra-soft patriarchy or complementary egalitarianism and interdependence, mutuality and servant-like attitude in relationships

HOMOSEXUALS

Original Culture - Mixed acceptance and no restrictions of homosexual activity
Bible - Negative assessment and complete restriction of homosexual activity
Our Culture - Almost complete acceptance and no restrictions of homosexual activity
Ultimate Ethic - Negative assessment and complete restriction of homosexual activity and greater understanding and compassion, utilization of a sliding scale of culpability, and variation in the degree of negative assessment based on the type of same-sex activity.