Here's my response: As a side note, I would prefer to call it the new view, because the "Reformed view" carries the connotations of reformed theology. But that aside...
The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't God's design" is really more of an excuse than a real argument. If anything becomes sinful just because it wasn't part of the original design of creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods… well, you get the idea."
Sure, but we as Christians believe that these things are the result of sin (aka the Fall). The Fall brought a curse on creation and distorted God's original design for nature-hence deafness, heart conditions, birth defects are all results of the curse brought about by sin-God withdrawing and giving creation over to decay as a result of sin. Secondly, none of the examples he cites here are willful-actions on a sinful inclination. I will get to that later, since to say that right now without addressing "Argument 4" would be question-begging on my part.
The original creation sets a precedent and shows us what God actually deemed "good". By creating Adam and Eve, and uniting them as one flesh, God communicated to us that that was part of the good creation-whereas any other sexual expression is not.
Response to Argument 2Agreed-I never use the argument that sex is for procreation, because I find that unbiblical. Song of Solomon is all about enjoying sex in the context of marriage because it's a beautiful gift; it doesn't mention procreation (though babies are certainly a gift from God as well).
Response to 3
Well, again, I agree-it's more because the Bible explicitly forbids it. More on that in 4
Response to 4Actually, it comes more from Jude: [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:7 ESV)
The Greek for "unnatural desire" is literally "other flesh". What is meant by other flesh? Well, we know what's being condemned here is "pornea" (sexual immorality-the greek word denotes any sexual activity outside of marriage), and pursuing "other flesh". Well, given that the author is a Jew, that most definitely means "flesh other than the one that we're intended to pursue" (and that's the view of the vast majority of commentators-from agnostic liberals like Bart Ehrman, to moderates like Luke Timothy Johnson who acknowledges that the Bible condemns homosexual expression but dismisses that teaching anyway because he has a homosexual daughter, to conservatives). If it meant anything else, "pornea" would've covered it, and thus the author wouldn't have even needed to mention "pursuing other flesh". *That's* why Sodom and Gomorrah is valid for this. Now, of course, they weren't just condemned for homosexuality; but that was one thing among many.
"The specific example is one his Roman readers would be immediately familiar with: the fertility cults in Rome, where men and women engaged in sexual orgies that included both heterosexual and homosexual sex rites."
No, actually, that's not the only example of homosexual expression. In fact, Paul's roman readers were familiar with committed, homosexual relationships. Aristophanes speech in the Symposium speaks of both men who are having sex with boys, *and* committed homosexual relationships where both partners have affection for each other.
"Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the tally-half of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.
Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,--if at all, they do so only in obedience to custom; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;"
Plato's readers were aware of this kind of behavior-that's why Plato has Aristophanes speaking on an explanation for it. So when Paul condemns homosexuality in broad sweeping language (to use Matthew Vines' argument), he's doing so in light of knowing about homosexual relationships with affection. Now let's take a look at the text.
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [29] They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
So verses 22 and 23 expand on the point made in 21; people knew God, but did not see fit to acknowledge Him, and started to worship things in creation. Verses 22 and 23 are an outworking of the heart of that refuses to submit to God in 21. Thus, what's being condemned here isn't just the fertility cults; it's every form of worship offered to anything else other than the one true God. In Paul's thought, everything we do is supposed to be a form of worship (Romans 12:1, 1 Cor 10:31 and Col 3:17). He also considers everything not done from faith sin (everything we do needs to be done on a God-glorifying trajectory). Verses 24-26 make an important point that the author misses: *because* of the idolatry of mankind, God gave people up to dishonorable passions. Because they worshiped the creation (verses 22-23, parallel to verses 24-26 in thought), God gave them up to the dishonoring of their bodies. So it's not the idol worship is a metaphor; it's that people chose to become idolaters and worshiped the creation (including themselves-i.e images in the likeness of mortal men) rather than the Creator. I in fact know of no "Traditionalist" who would say that Paul's using a metaphor here. Paul's saying that because of their choice to worship the creation, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. How does Paul define that? He defines it in terms of women giving up natural relationships for relationships with each other, and men doing the same. Paul doesn't need to therefore mention homosexuality again in the list of sins that resulted from turning from God because he already condemned it as a result of turning from God. It would just be redundant.
Now as for "proof text 3", he only tells half the story. He's certainly right to say that such activity was frowned upon, as the Aristophanes quote shows. But the problem is that the quote also shows that some people (like Aristophanes himself) justified it. In other words, the activity wasn't universally condemned, and in fact was acknowledged as a reality (affectionate women loving each other for example). And again, the author doesn't tell the whole story with the term used in 1 Cor 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10. The NET translators (a Bible made under the direction of Daniel Wallace, one of the foremost koine Greek scholars in the US) has this to say: "On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG." 1 Corinthians 6:9, interestingly uses distinct terms to condemn both passive homosexual partners and active ones. Luke Timothy Johnson, who considers himself a "Christian" and yet rejects the Biblical teaching, acknowledges that the Bible does in fact teach it. He has this to say:
"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."
Now I would indeed argue that this is being liberal despite the Gospel. I don't know how to see this any other way.
Now I've already explained why Christians don't fulfill certain parts of the Levitical Law. I will copy and paste that explanation here:
"Now, regarding why we don't follow the Old covenant laws. I do think it likely that the hundreds and hundreds of Christian scholars (some of which do not accept the "fundamentalist" doctrines of innerancy and such) have thought through this, and the answers that they give, and that Paul and Jesus give are in fact consistent with the Christian faith. In order to answer this question, we must first understand the purpose of Israel. According to the OT, God's purpose in establishing Israel was to consecrate a priestly nation to Himself, and to distinguish this nation from the surrounding pagan nations. In order to do so, God gave them certain ceremonial laws (ie, circumcision, food laws, dress, etc...). By these covenant markers, Israel was distinguished from the nations that were uncircumcised, or didn't observe Sabbath, etc (so all nations that were not Israel...the pagan nations). In consecrating this nation, God's purpose was to bless all nations through Israel through the Messiah. Until the time of the Messiah, Israel was to be set apart from all the rest of the nations, performing its priestly function through the sacrificial system, which pointed to the time of the Messiah (more on this in the next paragraph). So when we say that the law was fulfilled in Jesus, this is precisely what we mean: God's purpose for the old covenant was fulfilled in the Messiah, through whom God is carrying out His promise to bless the world. Therefore, since the purpose of ethnic Israel and the old covenant was fulfilled, those covenant laws no longer apply, since Israel's purpose was different from the Church's purpose and function. So the reason it's not sin for the Church, for example, to eat shellfish, is because God's purpose for giving that law has already been fulfilled in the Messiah. "
As for Leviticus 18, that *is* in fact valid to appeal to, because those are things God condemned pagan nations for. He didn't just hold Israel accountable for them; He punished the people of the promise land because of those sins they committed. And yes, I would affirm because of that passage that sex with someone during their period is immoral, and thus it shouldn't be done. As Michael Brown says,
"“What about Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18, which speak against a man having sex with his wife during her monthly period? Well, this act was not considered worthy of the death penalty, so it is viewed with less severity than homosexual acts, and it is not mentioned in any lists of sins in the New Testament. Still, the Old Testament is clear that God is not pleased with this because of the sacredness of the blood. (See also Ezekiel 18:6.) Many Christians have come to this same conclusion even without the witness of Scripture. So yes, I believe it is wrong for a married couple to have sexual intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period, but it is clearly not to be regarded as being as fundamentally wrong and offensive in God’s eyes as homosexual practice.”"
I would also add that blood was sacred because it was meant to point to Christ. In other words, the shedding of the blood of human beings only happens because we live in a fallen world, and require atonement. Sex should not be bloody, because sex is supposed to be a good gift pointing to Christ. A period, then, is a reminder of the brokenness of creation; sex isn't supposed to be.
So while Justin is right to say that other prohibitions were to distinguish Israel from the pagan nations, Leviticus 18 entails universal prohibitions.
Now let me address the head coverings argument. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16 ESV)
[2] Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
There are only two readings I think are possible on this text. First of all, I'm inclined to think that the term translated "wife" should actually be translated "woman", as the NET translators do so-since the context is about men and women, not just about husbands and wives. Second, any churches across the nations actually take this quite literally, and their women wear head coverings to affirm the complemenatarian roles of men and women. This very well might be what the text is commanding. I take a slight different view, but affirm that the text commands a visible sign for complementarian roles.
Daniel Wallace explains here: "This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed."
In other words, Paul is appealing to the cultural symbol of head coverings to make a point. Paul says that nature teaches that "a woman's hair is her glory". But if we look at cultures worldwide, that's not always true-some women have short hair in certain cultures. So what did Paul mean by saying that nature teaches "a woman's hair is her glory"? Well, we can infer a few things from the language. Paul doesn't have to argue that a man with long hair has done something disgraceful-he simply assumes his readers know this. So what's his point? Well note the contrast to this idea in verse 6-if a woman cuts her hair short, it's shameful, but if a man does it, it's not. If a man grows out his hair long, it's shameful, but if a woman does it, it is her glory. In other words, there are very clear distinctions between man and woman that need to be maintained. These distinctions can be culturally relative; but nevertheless men and women must strive to be men and women. They cannot confuse roles; and this text prohibits that. So what Paul is deeming shameful is the distortion of gender roles; the confusing of manhood and womanhood.
So what of head coverings? I agree with Wallace in that head coverings were a cultural symbol in the vogue. The justification for head coverings is given in verses 9 and 10. Since man was not made for woman, but woman for man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her head. Why must we take this seriously? Because the angels-who, in Jewish thought, report back to God and petition Him to act upon what they see-are gathering with us in worship.
So what's Paul doing there? He's appealing back to creation-in which a man has authority over his wife (and Paul makes that very point in verse 3). Now I want to emphasize this really quick: having "authority" doesn't equal being a tyrant (interestingly, tyranny is described as part of the curse of Genesis 3, where a man rules over his wife as we are supposed to "rule"-i.e dominate-over sin). The headship of a man over his wife is meant to be a microcosm of the headship of God the Father over God the Son. Both are still equally valuable, but have differing roles (with the Son having a subordinate role to the Father's authority).
Therefore, I affirm the principle being laid out here. Women, when gathering for public worship, are supposed to wear a symbol of authority (i.e a symbol that signifies being under authority) in order to emphasize the creation ordinance of the roles of men and women. The reason people like me (though my brother is inclined to disagree with me) take the symbol to be culturally bound is solely because I don't think the symbol communicates the same thing now as it did back then: namely, the fact that a woman is under the (what ought to be) loving and self-sacrificial authority of the male leadership.
The cultural-relativity aspect cannot be applied to Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6 or 1 Tim 1 for two reasons. For one, the principle in 1 Corinthians 11 is not culturally relative; complementarianism is supposed to be how the genders relate. Two, the other passages are completely about condemning universal sin. There's nothing culturally bound about them; Paul is talking about sins in light of universal human depravity. So when Rachel Held Evans or Matthew Vines or Justin Lee makes that kind of argument, it just doesn't work because the context isn't exactly the same. Those three passages, again, talk about sins in light of human depravity in general-they do not lay out a principle (complementariansim) in light of a cultural practice as 1 Corinthians 11 does.
I want to conclude with two things: a quote from Luke Timothy Johnson, and then a brief comment. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrre's Johnny:
"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself. To avoid this task is to put ourselves in the very position that others insist we already occupy—that of liberal despisers of the tradition and of the church’s sacred writings, people who have no care for the shared symbols that define us as Christian. If we see ourselves as liberal, then we must be liberal in the name of the gospel, and not, as so often has been the case, liberal despite the gospel.
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order."
While I do care for homosexuals, and homosexuals who long for a relationship with God, we must take the Bible seriously. We have to be willing to be honest with what Scripture says, and we have to trust God that He alone is the One who can satisfy our souls. He is, in fact, the fountain of all joy. If we don't trust Him to be our joy, and to change our hearts and kill our sin, in what sense do we dare call ourselves Christians? Is that not to take the name of the Lord in vain?
No comments:
Post a Comment