Issue
Ok. So there is, in our day, a big issue which causes division and exclusion, especially in the church, it must be said. And no book on Jesus and the little people can overlook this. It’s an elephant in the room (or, in the closet, might be better). It’s the issue of homosexuality, and the area of gender identity.
I call it an issue – we all call it that. But this is not about issues, it’s about individuals. We must not see a problem, but people. New Testament scholar Scot McKnight, in his excellent book on biblical interpretation, The Blue Parakeet, points out that biblical interpretations – and that is what all readings of scripture are – can be challenged when confronted by new ‘data’, which may render a particular position untenable. Often, the new ‘data’ are people. And our encounters with people may make us rethink our views and values. This is not about abandoning long-held, sound doctrine, but about finding a way to embrace a new situation, while remaining faithful to God. That often means stepping back from a particular article of faith, a particular line of text, and looking at the bigger picture, of our faith, the gospel, God and his kingdom…
But this particular area of life seems to be fraught with difficulty. The first obstacle for those trying to work out a theological position based on Jesus in the gospels is that there is no obstacle. There is no anything. Homosexuality and gender identity are not mentioned in the gospels.
In part, this is because homosexuality hadn’t been ‘invented’ yet. By this, I mean that the term was not coined until the nineteenth century, when it was popularised by psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his important 1886 work, Psychopathia Sexualis.
Until this point, it is fair to say that homosexuality was largely seen in terms of deviant (and criminal) behaviour. But serious study and science had now entered the fray, and started to level the playing field. It came to be understood, albeit slowly, that attraction to someone of the same sex may be a biological phenomenon, and not just misbehaviour or bad morals. Of course, I expect that there is no final word on this matter, but some will argue for greater or lesser involvement of social and cultural factors here too, the old nature/nurture debate. In any case, the real breakthrough at this point was that homosexuality was now a thing. There was, and is, still a long way to go in understanding sexuality, especially non-heterosexuality, but I think this was a major turning point.
Anyway, in Jesus’ day, clearly this level of understanding did not exist. And so, it seems that homosexuality was understood in terms of behaviour, not as a way of being human. The notion of two people of the same sex forming a true, faithful, loving partnership, or a marriage, was too much to take, even in our own UK until recently.
So, understandably, then, we have no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. Some will point to other biblical texts which may have some bearing on same-sex relations, it seems. The immediate difficulties here come with context, and theology. First of all, the Leviticus texts on the subject of male-male sex do not actually read like proscriptions of consensual sex between two adults. They read more like proscriptions of male rape (such as conquerors might commit against the vanquished), or the use of male prostitutes (such as might have been common in the worship of gods in the Ancient Near East). We can, of course, take these texts at face value – although, famously, we rarely do that with the rest of Leviticus…
The New Testament may also have a couple of references to same-sex relations, but opinion on their meaning is split.
What we do find in the gospels is what Jesus says about sex, sexuality and marriage.
Lust, says Jesus, is just as bad as the act of adultery. I think much of what Jesus says in that part of the sermon on the mount has to do with the dignity and humanity of others (for instance, anger or insults toward another is the same as murdering them). If one lusts after another, this can dehumanise or objectify the other. And Jesus presents a high view of humanity, made in the image of God. So, Jesus advises it would be better to pluck out an offending eye than to continue lusting and face the consequences. This is (I hope!) symbolic language, to the effect that we should cut this out at the source. In any case, Jesus seems to suggest here that sexual desire should be reserved and expressed in the secure and loving confines of marriage.
Perhaps most telling, and well-worn by many who defend the traditional view of marriage, are Jesus’ words on marriage (or divorce, depending on your outlook) in Matthew 19:3-9. Here, Jesus indeed affirms the view of marriage as between one man and one woman. It should be noted, of course, that this was not the unanimous witness of scripture. Some of the heroes of the faith had polygamous relationships. Anyway, the text in question is occasioned by some Pharisees confronting Jesus on the question of divorce. First of all, the question comes in a context where marriage belongs to the man. The man holds all the power in the society and in the marriage. The woman has no marital rights. Therefore, they ask Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” There appears to have been a culture of divorce, men casting off their wives when they felt like a change. Thus, Jesus replies, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’…” Notice Jesus’ use of “at the beginning” – taking us straight away to the creation story of Genesis 1 – emphasised by his use of Genesis 1:27c. Why quote that snippet? To undermine the dominant assumptions of gender roles. Jesus was (shockingly) pointing out that females were created equal to males - different but equal. Jesus, then, is firstly affirming the status of women as equal to men, fully human, worthy of dignity and respect. He then continues by quoting Genesis 2:24, about the man and the woman becoming one flesh, adding that “what God has joined together, let no one separate”. Interestingly, Jesus says ‘what’ not ‘whom’, further reinforcing the marriage bond. Jesus holds up marriage as a communion that reflects the nature of God, who as Trinity is a perfect mutuality, a complete sharing and intermingling of life. This, indeed, is the ideal of marriage.
However, note that the verses Jesus quotes are pre-Fall. This is from a world where God’s ideal is reality, without the disruption to God’s order that sin brings. Sin, however, necessitated the Mosaic concession to divorce the Pharisees talk about. Hence, Jesus points out that divorce was introduced because of hard hearts, “but at the beginning it was not so”. Again, Jesus roots the argument in God’s created order. Therefore, it seems that God intended life-long loving, committed, faithful marriage between a man and a woman as His ideal. Divorce most probably breaks God’s heart, but not as much as loveless marriage, or abuse, or oppression. Thus, sometimes it is better to divorce than remain married. To extend Jesus’ logic here, could there not also be room to allow for marital union between people of the same sex, if they intend a life-long, loving, committed, faithful relationship? Would this not be preferable to a sham marriage to someone of the opposite sex, or to a life of celibacy to which someone is not called?
Of course, this is extrapolating, conjecture. But what is clear from this text is that it is not a silver bullet against homosexuality, but an affirmation of loving, respectful marriage, as opposed to male oppression and degrading of women.
So, Jesus never taught explicitly – and probably not even implicitly – about homosexuality. But did he meet someone in a same-sex relationship? There is one incident in the gospels which may give some insight here. A Roman centurion once came to Jesus to ask him to heal his sick servant. We know that the servant is male (Matthew 8:7). We can see that the centurion is concerned about this servant, as he seeks Jesus’ help. What is also worth noting is that he does not call the servant a slave, which is what he was. The Greek word used is παῖς (pais), which can mean boy or servant. Luke’s account of this incident records the centurion’s high esteem of the servant (Luke 7:2). It is documented that Roman officers were not permitted to marry, and some would take male lovers. It is possible, in fact, that the Greek word pais could carry this connotation. And Luke is no stranger to the euphemism. His note that the servant was “valued highly” could also be a reference to the centurion’s love for the servant. This might also explain his extremely generous disposition toward the Jews in building their synagogue (Luke 7:5).
This is of course supposition, but there are grounds for such a reading of this passage.
What is clear, though, is that Jesus was prepared to help. Without even so much as a ‘Go now, and leave your life of sin…’ He used that line with others. But no such challenge here. In fact, quite the opposite. He holds this centurion up as a model of faith (not because of his relationship – if there is one – but neither holding it against him).
If this hypothesis is correct, then Jesus was not against loving, same-sex relationships. And he praised and welcomed and encouraged the faith of this man, without judgement, without reserve, without censure.
If Jesus could do it, why can’t we?
No comments:
Post a Comment