Tikkun olam

Prop 8, The Sexual Deviant, and The Bible: An Alternate Christian Interpretation

03 Jun 2009 3 Comments

by Marvin Lance Wiser in Biblical Ethics, Church - Theologizing, Devotional Thoughts & Bible Studies, Hebrew Bible, Human Rights, Religion and Society, Theology Tags: 1 Corinthians 6, agoge, blessing, Deconstruction, deviancy, gay, Genesis 19, Gomorrah, Hermeneutics, homosexual, homosexuality, Isaiah 56, Leviticus 18, LGBT, Paul, Postmodern interpretation, Postmodernity, Prop 8, Proposition 8, queer, Queer biblical interpretation, Romans 1, Samuel Terrien, sexual deviant, sexuality, Social Constructionism, Sodom, sodomy, taboo, temple prostitution, the Bible, the Bible and homosexuality, UCC, United Church of Christ, Walter Brueggemann

What is deviant? Deviant is anything that we deem, by our own standards of reality, not to fall into the category of “normal.” Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:

describes a person or behaviour that is not usual and is generally considered to be unacceptable.

Some past examples of deviancy in our society are: a woman voting, an African American owning land, an African American sitting at the front of a bus or eating with a white person.  Some examples of deviancy today reached by consensus of our society are dressing completely in the color black and living a homosexual lifestyle.

What is deviancy, what is taboo but a social construction? Driving on the “right” side of the road, dying one’s hair an “acceptable” hair color, using “tactful” taste in dressing oneself.  What falls into the “norms” of attraction for one culture may be outright rejected in another. For example, most women in the States start a rigorous diet six months before their wedding date in a feeble attempt to lose weight.  While in certain tribes in Africa, before marriage women will have their movement restricted and guzzle cow’s milk as a feeble attempt to gain more weight.  Both actions are performed to abide by social norms instituted in their respected cultures; to a uphold an appearance favorable in the eyes of some.

I would like to discuss the manner in which our mostly “Christian” society came to view homosexuality as a form of “deviancy”. I view the deconstruction of this “norm” as an extremely pertinent issue for being an effective minister and if not more so, for being a good neighbor in the befuddled milieu of American society in which we currently find ourselves situated.

I believe Christians derive the bulk of their homophobic and anti-gay sentiments from the Pauline literature. Respected biblical scholar Samuel Terrien briefly treats the issue of homosexuality in the Bible on pages 166-169 of his 1985 book Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood. He proposes that one must treat that which is ascribed to Paul (or anyone else in the Bible for that matter) with utmost scrutiny, for conventional translations that bear “homosexuals” or “sodomists” can no longer- in the English- convey the semantic intention of original language in light of new studies. I believe he gives a good assessment to the primary materials.  I will share some of his points.

He states that it is not possible to ascertain whether Paul held the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 valid. And thus he petitions us to gaze into the Hebrew Bible. The only major definitive prohibition against homosexuality in the HB lies in Leviticus.  He claims that the Levitical prohibitions of homosexual acts were promulgated within the context of idolatrous practices. Essentially they concerned issues not of morality but of cult; not of social ethics but of ritual purity.  This is why we do not continue to abide by the rest of the strictures contained in the Holiness Code, i.e. not wearing clothing that contains two types of material, not allowing sideburns to grow, or refraining from body art, what concerns us today is the social ethic not the standards of cultic purity- a concern of utmost relevancy for us, yet far removed from the particular situation in antiquity.  I find it rather disturbing that there are those that will pick and choose from the Holiness Code to support their “social ethic”- that is their ideology: to stay in the “norm”, to maintain power at the cost of the neighbor and slandering of the God.  Terrein goes on to explain that the very use of the word “abomination,” to’ebah, shows beyond doubt that the prohibition concerned not social ethics but ritual impurity. How this explains it, Terrien does not go into much detail in the cited volume. The intention of the legislators however, as Terrien sees it was to keep religion separate from magic, a form of idolatry. This goes a long way to help us grasp what the authors’ polemic truly was (or might have been) and should help us see that which we often impose upon the text.

Many Christians also read too much into the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative of Genesis 19, assuming that the chief sin and reason for the cities being destroyed was homosexuality (hence the erroneous term “sodomy”).  This is based on the Hebrew verb “to know,” yada, that is used in the narrative which can be translated as “to know sexually” or “to have relations with.”  Terrien states that of the 943 occurrences of the verb “to know” in the entire Bible, only ten of them have a sexual connotation. However, if we let the Bible interpret itself, we read that traditional interpretation (contra our dominant interpretation) was that they were destroyed on account of their extreme inhospitable pride and arrogance (Ezekiel 16:48-49) as well as for their intolerance of foreigners (Wis. 19:13).  This interpretation was upheld by Jesus himself (Mt. 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12). It wasn’t until Jewish literature of the Graeco-Roman era that the story began to take on an interpretation against homosexuality (see Jubilees).  Perhaps this is because homosexuality was seen as synonymous with tyrannical Roman rule- a stereotype, an over-generalized association if you will.  If this were the case it is easy to see how the connection served as a polemic against Roman authority during a time of geo-political turmoil for the Jewish community.  Nonetheless, in biblical times the narrative was never interpreted as a moral teaching against homosexuality.  The pertinent question for us today is “Why do we interpret it that way today?”  What is it that we stand to gain?  The bible has been used for over 2 millennium to create ideologies that stomp out hope and keep power in the hands of a select people group (see the Solomon narratives). Perhaps some introspection of certain faith communities is long overdue.  As communities of faith we have the power to affirm traditions and/or transform traditions- they are dynamic and living not static or set in stone.

Concerning the Pauline literature, Terrien cites the improper translation and over-generalization of two Greek words in the English as “homosexual.”  He diverges from the consensus stating that they do carry a more precise connotation than mere “homosexual”: malakoi and arsenokoitai denote in the English language, “effeminate transvestites (well-known devotees of the Mother Goddess)” and “male prostitutes (functionaries of a mystery cult).” The BDAG Greek-English lexicon defines malakoi as being “soft, yielding to the touch” and as being “passive in a same-sex relationship.”  This conjures to my mind the relationship that Spartan soldiers had with their younger trainees in the Agoge. BDAG also gives arsenokoitai a possible definition as “pederasts”.  Regardless of the technical semantics, defining either term as “homosexual” or both as one term such as “sexual pervert/deviant” has been demonstrated as lexically unacceptable.

With these offered translations, we can more clearly see where the polemic lay: not moral strictures of sexual preference, but of cultic purity- a plea against idolatry, against temple prostitution, against supposed encounters with the divine through sexual intercourse; a plea against incest, rape, orgies, and “sodomy”, just as the prophets of old pleaded against the established use of asherim in the cult. This is alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and again in Romans 1:21-27.  There Paul draws the connection of idolatry with sexual acts, condemning the temple practices.  It has long been thought that much of the corpus of the Bible is a stance against the encounter of the Divine within oneself, sexuality, and nature to purport a more specific knowledge of God encountered in history, transcendent of oneself and nature.  With this understanding a continuum with the biblical tradition can be seen in Paul. For an argument for a “natural” view of homosexuality see Paul J. Zak’s article.

On another hermeneutic note, I believe it beneficial to the discussion to examine Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah is a master poet that knows how to use imagination to rethink the world with all of its presuppositions and “norms”, a deconstructionist of sorts. In chapter 56 the poet challenges our concept of deviancy and implores us to ask, “What is deviant for God?’  Verses 1-7 read:

¹ This is what the LORD says:
“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.

² Blessed is the man who does this,
the man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

³ Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
“The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let not any eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”

⁴ For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-

⁵ to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.

⁶ And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to serve him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to worship him,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant-

⁷ these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”

Of special interest is the word “eunuch”.  Eunuchs were forbidden to worship in the temple.  It was socially unacceptable that a sexually “deviant” person enter holy grounds- way outside the “norm.” However, here Second Isaiah imagines a scenario where all- without discrimination- who are neighborly and respect the tenets of abundance and rest that are found within the Sabbath can enter into the presence of Yahweh- anyone that is a community builder and protector. In my mind this resounds Gen. 1:26, “in our image”- a seal of affirmation is cast for all those that build and protect the life of the Creational community, regardless of ethnicity or sexual “deviancy”. Greater ramifications are shed still when one considers what constituted a “eunuch” in antiquity.  It is commonly attested that the category of eunuch was not exclusive to castrated males only, yet included what we call today “homosexuals”. It is possible that it served as an umbrella term for all “sexual deviants” (see Born Eunuchs: Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World for an overview).  This text (Isa. 56) should go a long way in informing the way we interpret Jesus’ statement in Matthew 9:12 and how we view “the sexual deviant”.  How can one turn away what God has accepted? We shouldn’t allow ourselves to fall into the Jonah trap- refusing to accept God’s nature of acceptance and compassion and instead trying to uphold old hegemonic ideologies that sustain our own societal position and reality of comfort. In our interpretation of Scripture, I feel it imperative to stay faithful to the Mosaic tradition of liberation.  Scripture should be used to free those that are bound not to bind those striving for freedom. And when our world seems to be falling apart, it should be used to construct new realities of justice, abundance, mercy, and inclusion.

Walter Brueggemann in a 2003 interview concerning same-sex marriage was quoted:

The world the way we have known it is passing away from us and I believe that people have taken the sexuality issue as the place to draw a line and take a stand, but it’s not a line or a stand about sexuality. It’s about the emotional sense that the world is a very dangerous place. Sexuality is, I think, one way to talk about that.

All this talk about deconstruction and what not sure has people grasping for something definite and absolute to hold on to. For some, the institution of marriage still  constitutes something they can call absolute.  However in a transforming society often times it is necessary to redefine concepts.  For example, “family” used to be defined as a husband, wife, and children.  Not so today.  Now we must include single moms, single dads, a grandmother-nanny, an aunt or uncle, one’s older brother or sister sometimes will be substituted for a parent.  Now we are seeing the occasional entrance of two moms or two dads into the competition to claim the title “family”.  Our worlds are constantly deconstructed and reconstructed.

Every time a baby is born, the world begins anew. – Henry David Thoreau.

Now I turn the discussion to same-sex marriage.  On May 26th, California decided to uphold the ban against same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8.  A heated debate has been underway by adherents to differing and conflicting worldviews.  All the while more and more churches are now deciding not to withhold blessing to same-sex couples (the Episcopal Church is one of the more recent denominations to wed same-sex couples) . Brueggemann (Newsweek) quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: “There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.” The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, “is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.” (See our above discussion of Isaiah 56).

Brueggeman (in the aforementioned interview) goes on to talk about what constitutes blessing (that which many in the church desire to divest from same-sex marriages):

It’s [blessing] used in a lot of ways, but I believe that the primary meaning is that it is the life force of creation that makes abundance possible. If you look at the recital of blessings, for example, in Deuteronomy 28, it’s about very mundane material matters. May your livestock prosper. May your bread rise. May your corn grow. So I think it has to do with abundance, productivity, the extravagances of the material world. And a curse then, as in Deuteronomy 28, is that the life force of vitality is withdrawn from us and our future just kind of shrivels up. . . So when you talk about a ritual of blessing, it is the church’s sacramental act of asserting that this relationship will be a place in which God’s generativity is invested.

In response to a question concerning what constitutes biblical standards for relationships Brueggemann states:

Well, I think fidelity. It takes a lot of interpretation, but it’s basically to love God and love neighbor. And the first neighbor I suppose we love is the one to whom we make these holy vows. So that has to do with relationships that are honorable and just and faithful and reliable and all that neat stuff. Then you can argue out what all that means. This is relational thinking.

But the sort of thinking that you can establish out of the Book of Leviticus, where so much of this anti-same-sex blessing stance comes from, involves a substantive material sense of contamination that has nothing to do with relationships. To this way of thinking there is a palpable poison that is turned loose in the community that must be resisted. People who think this way cannot take into account the relational dynamics that we’re trying to talk about. That way of talking about physical contamination is deeply rooted in the Bible, though, which is a problem.

Now we’re back to Leviticus.  We have already discussed such a problem in diverging worldviews and societal or communal concerns when we engaged Terrien’s comments.  I think Brueggemann as quoted here hits it right on.  It is the church’s vocation to bless that which falls into relational, community building and protecting categories, often times though it is that which society disparages. I think we can learn a lot from what our Scriptures have to teach us concerning honor and fidelity- homosexual and heterosexual alike.

Such a passage from Scripture comes to my mind that is submerged with fidelity, yet carries with it glosses of homoerotic imagery: the David and Jonathan narratives, i.e. 2 Samuel 1:26:

What pain I feel for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.

We often times look over, neglect, or outright dismiss the homoerotic undertone for the sake of “normalcy”- we define the sacred.

One denomination that has been a leader in race, gender & LGBT issues of justice is the United Church of Christ (UCC). In 1785 it ordained the first “race-deviant” African American pastor, Lemuel Haynes; in 1853 it ordained the first “gender-deviant” female pastor, Antoinette Brown; and breaking the mold again in 1972 it ordained the first “sexual-deviant” openly gay pastor, Rev. William R. Johnson. I pray the church will continue to be an efficacious force in the continuous struggle of liberation for all people groups.

Following in his Church’s tradition, Rev. Art Cribbs of San Marino Congregational United Church of Christ has stated that he wil no longer perform wedding ceremonies in California until the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is “repealed, overturned or corrected.” With Proposition 8, he said, “a boundary has been crossed” between religion and civil law. The state “failed to protect a vulnerable minority from the tyranny of a majority. Liberty and justice for all should really mean all.”

Rev. Susan Russell from All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena also commented in the linked article: “No one, she said, has the right to insert religious beliefs into the state Constitution.”

As much as certain strands of Christianity try to ascertain and attend to the cries of the oppressed (see this news article telling of faculty members of the Pacific School of Religion being arrested for civil disobedience in San Francisco on May 26th), the burden of justice now lies on the side of the State and those that the State governs: its citizens.  As a citizen I argue (in light of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) that the states’ affirmation of what constitutes marriage and what doesn’t is discriminatory and a deprivation of liberty.  I firmly uphold the separation of church and state. With that presupposition, I claim (along with Tom Ryberg) that “Christian marriage is a religious sacrament, while civil marriage a secular means of securing certain economic [and societal] opportunities.” I believe Tom is correct in his assessment that religious groups should be able to agree or disagree of their own accord whether or not to offer the sacrament blessing of marriage to LGBT couples. BUT equal protection under the law should not and cannot be compromised- religious groups have the luxury of being discriminatory, not the State. On May 26th, I saw the State of California putting the fate of a small faction (“deviants”) of its citizens in the hands of people that belonged to the majority faction (“the norm”).  In my understanding of justice, this was a huge step backwards for the American judicial system.  Sexual preference should not be a basis for denial of human rights enjoyed by others. One day soon those of a “deviant sexuality” will too be accepted as full citizens in this land just as they are now beginning to be accepted into its houses of prayer.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28

The arc of history is bent toward justice. - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

~MLW

Resources

• Walter Brueggemann- The Gospel vs. Scripture: Biblical Theology and the Debate about Rites of Blessing

• Claiming the Blessing

• United Church of Christ- LGBTQ Ministries

• Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry – Pacific School of Religion

• Newsweek article- Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

• SOUL FORCE

• For the Bible Tells Me So (Documentary)

***Updates

• An excellent resource that was not available to me at the time of writing this post, but is extremely pertinent to the conversation is Rev. Dr. E. Scott Jones article, The Pizzazz of Creation.

• Also, BU Professor, Jenny Knust’s “My Take: The Bible’s Surprisingly Mixed Messages on Sexuality,” as featured on CNN’s Belief Blog.

• And Michael Bailey and Lady Gaga make sense out of a lot of disorientation.

  Human Rights Campaign’s The Lies and Dangers of Reparative Therapy.

http://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243960228&sr=8-1