 Acceptance of A theology would result in further decay By James R. Edwards Volume 34, Number 7 Posted November 30, 2001
Argument from divorce The first argument attempts to liken the acceptance of gay lifestyles to the acceptance of divorce. In brief, it is argued that proscriptions of divorce are no less frequent or categorical in Scripture than those of homosexuality. The church, the argument continues, has chosen to a turn a blind eye to divorce, so why can’t it do the same regarding homosexuality? This argument may at first seem plausible, but it collapses on closer inspection. The argument assumes that the church has disregarded Biblical injunctions regarding divorce, and should do likewise regarding homosexuality. This is an appalling assumption. How can a moral question in the Church of Jesus Christ be founded upon a subterfuge? But has the Church played loose with divorce? I cannot say for certain, but I can certainly say that divorce and homosexuality are not equivalent issues. The church has never asserted that divorce is a good thing, whereas advocates of homosexual lifestyles argue that it is a good thing. The church’s acceptance of divorce is predicated on the simple and tragic fact that in a fallen world, divorce is sometimes the least bad thing. It is, in other words, a concession to sin based on compassion for sinners. But advocates of acceptance of homosexual lifestyles argue no such thing. They do not believe that homosexuality is the least bad thing or a concession to sin. They argue for its acceptance on the basis that it is a good thing, created and willed by God. In the New Testament homosexuality appears in a number of sin lists (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10), whereas divorce appears in not one sin list. The acceptance of divorce and the endorsement of homosexuality are profoundly different matters. New understanding A second argument actually admits that the practice of homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. The Covenant Network goes on to argue, however, that the Biblical authors proscribed the practice of homosexuality because they believed the purpose of sex to be largely or entirely procreative. Since our understanding of sex today includes, in addition to procreation, such virtues as pleasure, intimacy and trust, and since a same-sex relationship can entail the latter, same-sex relationships can be endorsed by Christians. So runs the argument. This argument admittedly contains two merits not present in the former argument. First is the admission that Scripture uniformly condemns the practice of homosexuality. I respect advocates of this view for conceding what Biblical exegesis has irrefutably demonstrated. Second is the recognition of the importance of procreation in human sexuality. Procreation is of course not the sole purpose of human sexuality in Scripture, but it is its primary purpose. Having said this, however, the essence of the second argument is unsustainable. Anyone remotely versed in history and cultural anthropology must find as naïve and humorous the assertion that moderns have invented something new regarding sex. Ancient sources are replete with evidence – and often very explicit evidence – that sexual habits and perversions were as diverse and widespread then as they are now. The sexual exploits recounted in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, to take but one example, could make modern-day sex offenders blush. The escapades of Tiberius, in fact, under whom Jesus was crucified, were so outrageous that some modern editions of Suetonius refuse to translate them into English. They had absolutely nothing to do with procreation. And let no one assume that Jews were sexual prudes. The Song of Solomon dispels that myth. This erotic love poem celebrates sex not as procreative biology, as the above argument mistakenly asserts, but as pure eros – indeed as pleasure, intimacy and trust. In contrast to the assertions of the Covenant Network, the Bible presupposes the multifarious purposes of human sexuality, while clearly upholding heterosexual fidelity and condemning homosexual activity. Movement of ‘the Spirit’ A third argument of the Covenant Network for the endorsement of gay lifestyles resorts to a shallow and deceptive interpretation of Acts 15. At the Council of Jerusalem, it is asserted, the apostles and elders offered a compromise solution to include Gentiles in the fledgling church that resulted in the peace of the church. Acts 15 is hailed as an example of “basic Presbyterianism” and a model for the inclusion of practicing gays in the life of the church. This argument is a house built on sand. Surely, “basic Presbyterianism” is not an expression of disingenuous exegesis. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was anything but a “compromise” solution, an appeal to a middle way. The decision to include Gentiles in full membership was the most radical decision the Christian church ever made – and probably ever will make. It resulted not in peace of the church, humanly speaking, but in rending the church of an entire bloc of believers who saw Christianity as an extension of Judaism. Opposing factions were not mollified; they were compelled by the Spirit’s testimony to Scripture, or they went their separate way, as did believers of Ebionite and Pharisaic persuasions. The decision to include Gentiles into the church in Acts 10 and 15 was not, as proponents of gay lifestyles invariably assert, a free and arbitrary movement of “the Spirit.” On the contrary, it was an acknowledgement on the part of the collective church of the Spirit’s testimony to God’s revealed will in Scripture (see James’ appeal to Scripture in Acts 15:15-17). The decision of the council was not an innovation, but a consensus with the prophets themselves (Acts 15:15)! The question of acceptance of gay lifestyles is no different today; the Spirit is bearing witness through the collective judgment of the church to the revealed testimony of God in Scripture. Scripture is clear in its condemnation of gay lifestyles, to which the church – including the Presbyterian Church (USA) – has consented throughout history. James Edwards is professor of religion at Whitworth College, Spokane, Wash. |
||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
