A Response to Tony Jones regarding “An Honest Question About Gays in the Church”

This post is in response to this question, posed by Tony Jones, in a post entitled, “An Honest Question About Gays in the Church,”

“OK, I’m serious about this. I’m not even being snarky. Really.

If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?

My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality.  Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.”

While I would agree with Scot that is does seem to be “epistemologically ingenious” to ask Christians, in particular, to speak to the issue of whether homosexuality serves as a barrier in being whole-heartedly following Christ without using passages from the biblical text which specifically refer to the practice of homosexuality- I think that one can still intelligibly discuss the topic, without referencing said verses.

At the heart of Tony’s initial question, I think, lies a far more serious question- that of whether homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture. If homosexuality is a decision that one makes based upon their upbringing, experiences that they have had, etc.; then, it could be argued that homosexuality is a moral choice which separates one from God (whether or not one is a practicing homosexual or not). If homosexuality is part of one’s genetic makeup, however, then Tony’s question is all-the-more important. If someone was born with a genetic disposition which encouraged a longing for relationships with those of the same sex, then homosexuality is no longer just a moral issue. Instead, it becomes a question of whether or not ones genetic disposition disqualifies them from a relationship with God.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that homosexuality is a matter of genetics. In other words, for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is not a choice but rather is part of our DNA.

That said, it is my assertion that even if we assume that homosexuality is a matter of genetic disposition we do not: 1) have to argue that such a lifestyle is necessarily acceptable or that a long-term, monogamous relationship somehow makes it acceptable; and, 2) that any relationship- whether Gay, Lesbian or otherwise- necessarily impacts our ability to whole-heartedly follow Christ.  It is to these two respective points that I would now like to turn my attention.

First of all, even if we are to grant that one is genetically pre-disposed toward homosexuality, it is my contention that such an assertion does not necessarily suggest that the lifestyle of a practicing homosexual is necessarily encouraged and approved of by God.  Without making reference to the “six verses in scripture that mention homosexuality,” I would instead like to make this assertion based, first of all, in light of how we, as Christians, understand the gift of sexuality; and, secondly, in light of something I believe to be significant, regarding homosexuality, which is absent from the pages of Scripture, as well as the mouth of Jesus.

Historically speaking, Christians have tended to have three general views regarding sexual practice in general.  The first view concerning sex is that it is something to be abstained from.  There are various reasons for holding such a view.  Some choose to remain sexually chaste because they feel that it is something that God has called them to.  Others believe that chastity allows them to be more useful to God, since they do not have the responsibility of caring for the needs of another.  Still others feel that the chaste life provides an opportunity for them to devote more time to their relationship with God.  Regardless of the reasons, one thing holds true, this Christian view carried to its logical conclusion results in celibacy. [1]

Others hold this view for even stronger reasons- they believe that it is wrong or even sinful to engage in the act of coitus.  Gregory of Nyssa is representative of this group.  Gregory was a Christian, who himself was born as a result of sexual intercourse; yet, he felt that sex and marriage were something to be avoided.  This is ironic, since Gregory himself was married.  Greatly influenced by Plato, however, Gregory of Nyssa came to believe that the soul’s descent and ascent “is soiled by sexual desire when it falls into the material realm, so the first stage in a return to perfection is achieved by the renunciation of marriage.” [2]  Therefore, renunciation of marriage- a life of chastity- was for the sake of a soul’s pursuit to perfection in God.

This view was, and still is, held by some.  Not many church traditions have posited this understanding of the biblical text, in regards to sex.  If you want proof, simply look around at the many church traditions and their stance towards human sexuality.  The very fact that you and I are here is indicative that there are quite a few Christians who have not posited this conception regarding sex.  Furthermore, if I believed that this was the biblical view of sex, the discussion would end here- there would be no need to continue further in our discussion.  However, I do not believe this to be the correct view, and I surmise that there are many who are reading this who would also agree.  Therefore, we shall depart from the Christian view which suggests that sex is altogether wrong and to be avoided at all costs; and we shall move on to discuss the two most common views concerning sex.

The next view of sex asserts that sex was created (by God) and is viable only for procreative purposes.  Augustine of Hippo is a representative historical figure who holds this viewpoint.  He believed that “guilt feelings were normative even in marital expressions of sex.  The common inclination to cover one’s genitals in public and to prefer privacy and darkness for engaging in marital relations is offered as evidence that the sexual impulse is a sin and a shame.” [3]  By “sexual impulse” the author is referring to Augustine’s concept of concupiscence. [4]  However, “without this concupiscence it was quite possible to effect the function of the wedded pair in the procreation of children: just as many a laborious work is accomplished by the compliant operation of our other limbs, without any lascivious heat; for they are simply moved by the direction of the will, not excited by the ardor of concupiscence.” [5]  Therefore, sex if performed for the sake of conception is not sinful or to be avoided.  If sex occurs because of desire (concupiscence), then it is shameful, sinful, and to be avoided.

This view of sex was not developed by sheer imagination or logical insight.  It was largely based upon the text of Genesis 1.27-28a. [6]  However, in examining this text and subsequently formulating a theology of procreative sex, Augustine and others focused upon the idea of increasing and filling the earth to what I perceived to be the exclusion of other biblical texts.

If one were to hold this view of sex, and there are indeed some who do hold such a view, the issue of homosexual practice within or outside of the confines of a committed, monogamous relationship does not really matter.  If sex is only for procreation and if any practice of sex for any reason other than procreation is sin, then the matter of whether or not homosexuality is sin, therefore separating one from God is settled.

However, I do not posit such an understanding of human sexuality.  Therefore, I would like to present to you a view that does not deny the authority or importance of this text, yet, at the same time expands (and, I think, enhances) our understanding of humanity sexuality.  Sex is indeed for procreation, however, if we were to reread the account of creation, as recorded in Genesis 1.27-28, and compare it with the account of creation, as recorded in Genesis 2.20b-24 [7]- I believe that our understanding of sex will begin to transform from understanding sexual expression to be purely procreative to having the ability to develop intimacy.

If we look closely at the two texts, we find something very interesting.  The account found in Genesis 1 clearly has the blessing of God admonishing the first man and woman to “be fruitful and increase in number.”  Whereas, the parallel account that we find in Genesis 2 makes no reference to the procreative element of marriage.  Rather, it explains that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

What are we to with such a juxtaposition?  Which account should we believe?  I believe that the answer is relatively simple.  We don’t have to pick and choose.  As Christians we want to gain a biblical view of human sexuality and human sexual expression.  Therefore we should look at the whole Bible in our attempts to formulate a complete and authoritative view of sex. [8]  For this reason I will now proceed to examine some other instances where the Bible itself discusses the issue of human sexuality.

Chapter five of Proverbs is a warning against adultery.  Nestled towards the end of the chapter, in verses 15 through 20, [9] we find wisdom concerning a healthy relationship.  I do not think that this is by accident.  Contentment at home is one of the best ways to avoid adultery.  In these verses we have a very sensual depiction of a human sexual relationship.  The writer of Proverbs admonishes us to, “Drink water from your own cistern,” and to let our sexual practice be our own, “never to be shared with strangers.”  Furthermore, we are incited to “rejoice in the wife of our youth,” “be satisfied by her breasts always,” and “captivated by her love.”  This language does not seem descriptive of mechanistic sex, simply for the purpose of reproduction.  It is indicative of passion, intimacy, and longing.

Song of Songs presents yet another dilemma to those who say that sex is only for procreative purposes.  The text of this book contains a very vivid (one might even argue explicit) portrayal of human sexuality.  In its pages are painted a frank and colorful description of the passionate love-affair between a lover and his beloved.  In fact, the book is written in the form of love poetry. [10]  Moreover, the book’s contents celebrates “the glories of marriage as a gift of the Creator and a norm for human life.” [11]  The author is not contented with presenting vague imagery, concerning these two individuals.  We find very detailed observations concerning both the bodies of the lover and the beloved.  Yet, although this bold language is present, “the Song provides a wholesome balance between the extremes of sexual excess or perversion and of asceticism, too often the Christian view of sex, which denies the essential goodness and rightness of physical love.” [12]

So, at the very least, the biblical text provides us with a rather nuanced view of sex.  One the one hand, human sexuality has a procreative aspect to it.  In fact, this very utilitarian aspect of human sexuality is mandated by none other than God Himself.  On the other hand, however, there is something incredible passionate and enjoyable about human sexual expression which leads to an intimacy between sexual partners.

From a procreation perspective, within homosexual relationships the biblical mandate cannot be fulfilled.  Yet, as was so aptly suggested in the responses to Tony’s initial post- there are many heterosexual couples who, likewise, are unable to fulfill this biblical mandate.  Thus, it would seem inconsistent for us to dismiss the validity and acceptability of homosexuality on the basis of procreation.

In regards to the issue of intimacy, while I am not homosexual and while I have never engaged in a homosexual relationship, it seems that a homosexual relationship could indeed be characterized by passion and intimacy.  After all, even heterosexual sexual expression, outside of the covenant relationship of marriage, can be characterized by passion and foster intimacy.  That, in fact, is one of the reasons that so many Christians teach against the dangers of promiscuous sexual expressions among teenagers and consenting adults- because one can, in theory, intimately know and be known by only so many people.

So far, then, apart from the particular “male” and “female” couplings in the biblical texts that we have looked at and the procreative aspect of sexual expression, one might be able to suggest that a committed homosexual relationship would fit nicely within the parameters of this third understanding of human sexuality.

Before I draw any conclusions, however, I would first suggest that since we as Christians believe that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith,” [13] that as we seek to understand what a biblical view of human sexual expression is, we should look to Jesus, the one who created sex and is therefore the one who is most able to speak to the issue of human sexuality.

Although Christ’s remarks regarding human sexual expression are limited, there are some important things that should be noted.  First, Jesus’ “only warning about sexuality is actually a warning against lust.” [14]  Thus Christ’s problem is not sex itself, but the corruption of sex.  He has a problem with the unadulterated lust that ruins this act which has been instituted by God.

Second, in Matthew 19.4-6, Jesus explains sexuality by synthesizing the two creation narratives from the book of Genesis, then adding a parenthetical comment.  In this brief, but pointed section, Jesus, in saying, “‘In the beginning’ symbolically signifies the primary will of God’[15] and furthermore that “sexual differentiation- ‘male and female he made them’- is willed by God himself as the fundamental anthropological structure.  Sexuality is then neither an evil nor a misfortune; it is, rather, a gift from the Creator.” [16]

At this juncture, in light of the biblical text and Fuch’s comments regarding said text, I feel that I have no option but to pause and begin to address the topic of homosexual sexual expression head-on.  Even if one were able to rationalize and set aside the aforementioned six biblical passages which are said to condemn homosexuality on the basis of historical and cultural issues, it is undeniably clear that Jesus, in particular, and the biblical text, in general, do not purport homosexual practice to be part of God’s plan for human sexual expression.

As Tony and others have suggested, in some of the responses within the context of the discussion which is taking place on Tony’s blog, Scripture does not present marriage in one clear way.  When we talk of marriage, we often are talking about a cultural and societal construct.  When the New Testament speaks of marriage it does so in a way that is familiar, in many ways, to us as well.  In the Old Testament, however, we are confronted with some conceptions of marriage which as Westerners we cannot begin to fully wrap our heads around.

It is my contention, however, that while the biblical text does not present a definition of marriage that is entirely simple, and while the understanding of marriage that is presented is incredibly nuanced- there are some things that remain consistent between the Old and New Testaments.  Among them is one issue that is rather central to the discussion of homosexual unions, marriages, and relationships as they relate to God’s plan for human sexual expression.  It is the issue that sexual expression is to take place within the context of a committed, long-term relationship between a man and a woman.  Whilst, one could argue, from the Old Testament witness that it does not necessarily have to be a monogamous relationship, one thing does remain clear- the biblical text repeatedly talks about it being a relationship between a man and a woman.  Nowhere is the relationship described as being between members of the same sex.

Additionally, while Jesus, himself, does not explicitly tackle the subject of homosexuality (which, as my friend Charles Meeks wryly noted, is ”amazing in light of the Greco-Roman world, which seems to have had a love-hate relationship with the practice”), it is also very clear that when Jesus does talk about human sexual expression it is always within the context of a relationship between a male and a female.  Nowhere does Jesus speak to or suggest that same sex relationships are a part of God’s plan for human sexual expression; whereas, he does reference the relationship between a male and a female as being normative for God’s plan for human sexual expression.

That said, one of the clearest and most explicit discussions of marriage, in all of Scripture, takes place in 1 Corinthians 7.1-5.  These verses are found in the context of a chapter dealing with marriage.  This chapter follows on the heels of a section dealing with sexual immorality, which Paul asserts is wrong, and to be avoided at all costs.  Paul asserts, based on his own premonitions, that “It is good for a man not to marry,” but due to all the immorality that is present in this world “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”

While, admittedly, homosexuality is not explicitly listed by Paul among those sexual practices which are immoral, it does seem to be rather clear that Paul’s own theology of marriage is that it is a relationship between a man and a woman.  Given that Paul is one of the most prolific writers of the New Testament, and recognizing that a great deal of our theology draws upon Pauline writings for its basis, it seems that the Pauline understanding of the marital relationship cannot easily or hastily be glossed over.

Moreover, in this same passage, Paul asserts that a husband and wife have responsibilities to one another.  There are actually duties in marriage.  They are not to deprive each other of sex “except by mutual consent,” so that they will not be tempted by Satan because of lack of self-control.  Sex, therefore, “is given to man and woman in order for them to perceive therein a dimension of liberty, the gratuitousness and joy of the love of God itself.” [17]

Hebrews 13.4 provides further evidence about the intimate nature of marriage.  This verse is found in the midst of a series of concluding exhortations to the Hebrew Christians of the day.  They are instructed to honor marriage and keep the marriage bed pure.  “The goal of sexuality is to express oneness and intimacy with your mate,” [18]  and no one else.  Therefore, sex should only be experienced as “a loving response toward someone to whom you are committed for life.” [19]

With these things in mind, I would now like to turn my attention to my final point, which is that it is my contention that the relationships which are part of our lives do indeed impact our ability to whole-heartedly follow Jesus.  At this juncture I want to be very clear that  when I use the word “relationships,” I am not merely referring to relationships of a homosexual nature but to relationships of all types in general.

It is my belief, based upon my own experience and my observations of what I have witnessed in the lives of others, that our relationships (whether friendship, intimate, business, or otherwise) either positively or negatively impact our ability to relate to God and our ability to whole-heartedly follow Him.  The ways in which such relationships impact and affect our ability to relate to God and whole-heartedly follow Him are many and varied.  It can be something as simple as that our relationships consume us to the point that they become our focus, to the detriment of our walk with God.   It could be that the habits and convictions of the person whom we are in relationship with reshape and reform our values, to the extent that God and the things of God no longer are our first priority.

That said, it is all relationships and not just the relationship between two individuals of the same sex that can negatively impact our ability to walk with God.  One striking example is the attitude and broken relationship that many Christians have with those who are homosexual.  Some Christians (fundamentalists and conservatives in particular) have a rather hateful stance towards homosexuals- so much so that their hatred impacts their ability to whole-heartedly follow God.  After all, in their hatred, these individuals are unable to rightly relate to others, which in turn inhibits their ability to rightly relate to God.

Tony and others, this is a brief and in no way exhaustive response to this rather difficult and highly charged topic.  I have endeavored to provide an answer to your question which seeks to understand human sexuality within the context of the wider witness of Scripture, while intentionally refraining from referencing the handful of biblical texts directly related to homosexuality.  In doing so, I hope to have provided a broad understand of the gift of human sexuality, its purpose, and why I believe the lifestyle of a practicing homosexual to be incongruous with whole-heartedly following God.  I hope to have been kind and generous, and that this post will be seen as an attempt at further dialogue and discussion rather than as a decisive and comprehensive answer to a complex theological question.  What is more, it is my hope that those who would choose to respond would likewise respond in a kind and generous fashion, and with a willingness to continue with further dialogue and discussion on the subject.

[1] Celibacy, as used here is not meant to refer to non-marriage.  Celibacy here is used in reference to abstinence from sexual intercourse, therefore celibacy can be practiced even in the bonds of marriage.

[2] Phipps, William, The Sexuality of Jesus: Theological and Literary Perspectives (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), p. 85.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Augustine’s concept of concupiscence is essentially a strong desire for sex.

[5] Saint Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence: Book II: Chapter 26, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15072.htm.

[6] “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it.”  (NIV)

[7] “But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’  For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NIV)

[8] It is for this reason that I will, at this juncture, refuse to tackle the issue of homosexuality in relation to the idea of male and female being united together as one flesh.  It would be far too easy and rather narrow in regards to the wider biblical witness to base one’s stance towards the issue of homosexuality on a singular verse.

[9] Once again, despite the strong “male” and “female” aspects of the relationship as expressed in these verses, I will at this time refrain from concluding that that sexual passion and intimacy are reserved solely for the heterosexual, married couple.

[10] Bush, Frederic, David Hubbard, and William LaSor, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament: Second Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), p. 512.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., pp. 517-518.

[13] Cf. Hebrews 12.2.

[14] Fuchs, Eric, Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethics of Sexuality and Marriage (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), p. 41.

[15] Ibid., p. 42.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., p. 61.

[18] Leman, Kevin, Sheet Music: Uncovering the Secrets of Sexual Intimacy in Marriage (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 95.

[19] Ibid.

Tags: beliefnet, Concupiscence, eric fuchs, Homosexuality, Human sexuality, Kevin Leman, Marriage, Saint Augustine, Scot McKnight, Spiritual Formation, Tony Jones, William Phipps
Posted in General, Highly Charged Issues, Theology | Comments