Adam Britt’s Equality Ride Journey

Here is Paul Owen’s responce to our presentation on Spritual Violence… all 14 pages of it…. I don’t expect anyone to read all of it, but please skim it.

A Biblical Response to the Concerns of Soulforce

In this paper I would like to address our guests with some thoughts based upon what the Bible has to tell us about God, human nature, sin and redemption. I do not expect you (our guests) to agree with everything that I have to say, but I would like to challenge the idea that Montreat College is being inhumane or unloving in some way by advocating a traditional Christian moral stance on human sexuality.

Introduction: Different Assumptions about Freedom

Allow me to begin by pointing out something rather obvious. Montreat College is a Christian college in the Reformed tradition. We belong to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Soulforce by its own admission is not an exclusively Christian organization. Your mission statement says: “Wherever you are on your journey of faith, whatever your sexual orientation or gender identity, whatever your religion, race, age, ability, color, or creed, you are welcome to join us in learning, teaching, and applying the ‘soul force’ principles of relentless nonviolent resistance as taught by Gandhi and King as we work together to stop spiritual violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people that flows out of the teachings and actions of religious leaders and their communities of faith.” Quite obviously your organization has a very different starting point than does Montreat College. The “principles” we apply as a college to questions of morality are derived from the Bible as the object of ecclesiastical reflection. We do not look to the teachings of social justice advocates and simply transfer their principles to the realm of sexual ethics.

This different starting point has fundamental implications for our differing stances on the question which lies before us. You, working with a social justice model, see freedom of expression for sexuality as a basic human right which is denied to some persons by Christian churches and institutions. Therefore it is your obligation to protest such oppression. But Montreat College, beginning with Christian assumptions based upon the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith, does not see human freedom in terms of autonomous human rights for people to make their own moral choices. For it is a given within the Christian tradition, and a special emphasis of Reformed theology, that genuine human freedom is only found in the surrender of personal moral autonomy. Indeed, within the Christian tradition, moral autonomy is precisely the bondage from which humankind desperately needs deliverance.

St. Paul elaborates on this point in chapter 6 of his epistle to the Romans. There he writes: “God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (6:17-18). Here, obedience to the apostolic doctrine with respect to the practice of righteousness is precisely the opposite of moral slavery. Obedience, in the teaching of St. Paul, is simply the restoration of true freedom. And true freedom cannot be enjoyed without the abandonment of moral autonomy. Enslavement to sin is defined precisely as moral autonomy in this same chapter, when he writes: “When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness” (6:20). Yet it is precisely the individual’s right to determine for herself the ethical boundaries between what is sin and what is righteousness, that your organization seems committed to securing for others. And it is precisely such autonomy which Montreat College, as a Christian institution, is dedicated to helping others to leave behind in order to experience the costly grace of Christian discipleship. Given our fundamentally differing starting points, our college could never support your mission without abandoning its own mission as a Christian institution.

The Bible teaches that in order to be a follower of Christ you must be drawn into the movement of his descent into the world below, his humble life, unjust death, and glorious vindication by God. The incarnate self-giving of Christ for the sake of others, his abandonment of the self on the cross to the costly and consuming will of God, remains a transforming agent in the world through the collective life of the Church on earth. Thus Our Lord says things like: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:39). And: “whoever wants to be first must be your slave” (Matt. 20:27). And St. Paul adds in his epistle to the Philippians: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death” (2:5-8).

The path of discipleship is precisely one of imitation of Christ, in which freedom is found through obedience, the last will find themselves first, and death to self is the path to life eternal. The Christian Church does, and always has welcomed sinners to follow Christ in the path of costly grace. That offer is extended to every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person. But the Church does not, and never can, assure people that they can be Christians while at the same time preserving their right to moral autonomy and freedom from the ethical standards found in Holy Scripture and passed on by the Church.

The Key Biblical Texts

Having established the fact that we are operating with very different definitions of freedom itself, yours’ derived from the impact of social justice movements, and ours’ derived from the Bible, I want to comment on a few of those biblical texts which obligate Christians to identify the practice of erotically expressed love between persons of the same sex as morally wrong. I would also like to make a few remarks about Dr. Mel White’s views on these passages, found in his paper, “What the Bible says—and Doesn’t Say—about Homosexuality.”

The first passage is Genesis 2:21-24. It is within this passage that we read the words: “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24). The becoming “one flesh” in the marital union of the man and the woman is specifically patterned after the creational event. As Jesus affirmed in Matthew 19:1-8, marriage is to be patterned after the design in the beginning, in which one woman is joined to one man, precisely because out of one man God formed one woman. Adam did not need another man to complement himself in the task for which God placed him in the Garden, or God would have made another man. Adam required a partner who would be at the same time “of” him (sharing his human nature), and “other” than him (being differentiated through distinctive feminine properties).

The New Testament clarifies that the rationale for this need is based in part upon humankind’s role as the bearer of the divine image. It is precisely of the nature of God to be one in essence, but differentiated in persons. The Father and the Son share one nature, since the eternally begotten Son comes from the Father, just as the woman both shares the nature of the man and comes from him. And just as the woman is differentiated from the man by properties peculiar to her gender, so in the Trinity the Son is differentiated from the Father by a difference of properties. This mystery is what St. Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 11 when he says that, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (11:3). He says that man, “is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (11:7-9).

Christ bears the same relation to God as the woman does to the man, in that the created order and dependence of the woman upon the headship of the man is an earthly image of the loving submission of the Son to the headship of the Father within the life of the Trinity. The woman was created to reflect the glory of the man just as the Son as the image of the invisible God reflects the glory of the Father. Central to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11, based as it is upon the creation story, is that the very order of the life of the Trinity is to be reflected in the order of marriage, in which the man and the woman in their complementary roles image the loving headship and submission of the Father and the Son. For Christians, this is why Genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make man in our image.”

Thus, the relationship between the genders constitutes an intentional pattern that is designed to reflect the love of the Trinity. You cannot take either gender out of that picture without distorting the divinely intended order inherent within humankind’s image bearing role as male and female. It will not do to point out, as Mel White does, that this passage in Genesis says nothing about single persons or couples who do not have children. This is obviously because in the original man and woman we see a pattern for humankind as a whole. Childless couples and single persons, cannot constitute that pattern, for the simple reason that if they did the human race would only last one generation. But neither childless couples nor single persons disrupt the natural created ordering of the genders. Neither instance takes one of the genders out of the equation and replaces them with another, so they do not constitute analogous examples that can be used to support the practice of homosexual partnering.

Another key text in this whole discussion is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Now the two key words that are in dispute are the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai. Mel White tells us that Greek scholars say that malakoi are effeminate male call boys; and he says that Greek scholars don’t know for sure what arsenokoitai are, but that they might be the male customers of those call boys. But these assertions are in fact based upon the claims of only a few biblical scholars (like John Boswell and Robin Scroggs) who have sought to justify the practice of homosexuality on exegetical grounds. What their arguments amount to is that texts like this might refer to specific forms of homosexual behavior; and if that is the case, then other forms of homosexual behavior could possibly be allowed.

But there is no obvious or contextual reason to so limit the scope of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in such a manner. The word malakos means “soft,” and when used of effeminate men it refers to those who allow themselves to be the passive partner in same-sex coupling. That might include young male call boys, but there is no reason why we should think Paul is limiting himself to that scenario. And as for the word arsenokoites, it is most likely drawn from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 which uses the terms arsen (male) and koite (bed) alongside each other in a statement condemning homosexual unions: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” So it would seem that 1 Corinthians 6:9 identifies the practice of same-sex coitus as fundamentally inconsistent with the path of Christian discipleship.

Let it be clearly understood that nobody thinks that Paul is saying it is impossible for a Christian to commit such sins. And nobody is even saying that a Christian who commits those sins repeatedly is thereby banned from the hope of eternal life. But homosexuality is one example of the sort of behavior which constitutes a fundamental turning away from the life to which Christ’s followers are called through the grace of the gospel. Therefore a willing embrace of such sins (as is characteristic of the unrepentant life of the “wicked” outside the church) cannot co-exist with holiness and the spiritual formation of Christ’s mystical body, which calls us to a daily dying to self and pursuit of Christ-likeness. This is why St. Paul instructs the church in 5:1-11 that proud and unrepentant persons who openly reject the goals of Christian discipleship are to be excluded from the life of the community.

The third and final text I want to mention is Romans 1:24-27: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were enflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Now Mel White tries to argue that the scope of this passage is limited to the context of idolatry and temple prostitution in the ancient world. He says it is a judgment of those who serve the gods of sex and pleasure, and does not condemn the loving and morally responsible partnerships of same-sex couples. But such a reading ignores the fundamental nature of Paul’s discussion of God’s wrath in this passage. It is true, that Paul here describes homosexuality as a judgment of humanity’s turning away from the true God to the worship of idols. But it seems to escape Dr. White that attraction to others of the same gender, and the willingness to have erotic relations with members of the same sex, is itself described as the awful judgment of God upon an idolatrous world. If homosexuality itself is a fitting judgment of God for idolatry, then that still assumes that homosexual practices are to be viewed in a morally negative way, just like the sins described in verses 28-32 (to which idolaters are likewise given over).

Related Issues

In the final section of this paper, I would like to address a couple of related issues which necessarily have to be factored into these discussions.

The first issue I want to mention is the importance of Holy Scripture. In some ways, this issue is even more fundamental than the question of the moral propriety of same-sex partnerships. One reason why traditional Christians feel it is important to maintain their stance on the question of homosexuality is because of the central role that the Bible must play in any authentically Christian theological formulation. The Bible is taken to be a special book within the Church; one which originates in the miracle of divine inspiration, whereby the writings of fallible people become the vehicle of conveying God’s will. The Bible addresses the human situation, and interprets human experience, from a transcendent perspective—albeit through the voices of chosen people. St. Paul tells us: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). And St. Peter adds: “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

Now I am grateful to know that many people within the Christian community who identify themselves as homosexual do in fact take Holy Scripture seriously. Mel White writes: “We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too” (p. 3). That claim is apparent to anyone who has read White’s paper. As one who professes the Christian religion, he feels obligated to show that Holy Scripture does not exclude loving, responsible same-sex partnerships. The very fact that he struggles to reconcile his ethic with the voice of the biblical witness shows an awareness on his part that those who profess to be Christians cannot disregard the testimony of the prophets and apostles. While I disagree quite strongly with the way White handles biblical texts which are problematic for his lifestyle, I do not intend to deny the reality that some people who identify themselves as homosexual do genuinely seek to conform their lives to the will of God as he has revealed it to us.

However, there are many people in the Christian community today (both gay and straight) who do not take the Bible seriously at all. They do not see the Bible as much more than the sometimes inspiring thoughts of people who lived in a world very different from our own. Many of these people do not in fact see it as important that the witness of Holy Scripture and the witness of the Church today be theologically consistent. While I can recognize the workings of God’s grace in any Christian who recognizes the primacy of the Bible in Christian theology and ethics, I cannot recognize such grace in any person (gay or straight) who calls herself a Christian while dismissing Holy Scripture as irrelevant.

This brings us to another issue which needs to be addressed, and that is the matter of pastoral sensitivity, and the need to avoid caricatures which put people into certain boxes on the basis of our theological disagreements with them. I think we have to address people within the Church who identify themselves as homosexual with different approaches in accordance with their relationship to the central claims of the Christian faith. I see three primary categories:

1) For some gay people the problem is simply weakness and human frailty. There are homosexuals within the Church who recognize that the Bible forbids all erotic expressions of love between persons of the same gender. For those who (for whatever reason) experience a strong attraction towards others of the same gender, this will often (though not always) mean that their discipleship and Christian formation will likely take place in the context of a vocation of singleness. The Church has an immense obligation to provide a loving community for such persons, recognizing the struggles with sin that are common to the human condition, and always offering encouragement and restoration when a struggling brother or sister gives in to the temptation to sexual sin, or any other form of moral failure.

2) For others, the problem is confusion. There are those within the Church who may sincerely desire to conform their lives to the revealed will of God, and who take the primacy of the Bible as God’s voice to the Church seriously, and who accept the basic framework of orthodox Christian teaching, but who struggle with giving their personal assent to the historic stance of the Church in the area of homosexuality. This may be because they have come to the conclusion (one which regrettably finds support among some biblical scholars, theologians and pastors in the Church today) that Holy Scripture does not actually forbid loving and responsible same-sex partnerships. Some may simply conclude from their own experiences and the reality of their sexual orientation that this must be within the will of God for their lives. Since all baptized persons are members of the visible Church, and have already been marked with the seal of inclusion into the body of Christ, either as infants or mature converts, we must be very hesitant before rushing to the conclusion that such a person is now to be judged no true Christian at all.

Recognizing that the lines between the visible and the invisible Church are not infallibly revealed to us in this life, I believe such persons should initially be approached in the judgment of charity as sincere though mistaken believers, who simply have yet to come to a personal acceptance of God’s will for their lives in the area of their sexual choices. The pastoral responsibility of the body of Christ is to firmly reason with such persons on the basis of Scripture and Church tradition, and to help them to recognize that the practice of homosexuality is simply inconsistent with the basic commitments of Christian discipleship. If such a person responds to patient and loving pastoral counsel with a continual pattern of recalcitrance and an unwillingness to submit to the ministerial authority of church leadership, the next step is formal discipline, wherein the local congregation and any affiliated churches refuse to allow that person to participate in the Eucharist, and cease to acknowledge her as a fellow Christian.

I cannot stress enough that the excommunication of any baptized person should only be put into effect after a process of loving and patient pastoral care, in the knowledge that all human beings fall short of the glory of God, in the hope that as she makes progress in the spiritual practices of prayer, Bible study, participation in worship and Eucharist, and the daily dying to self which is integral to Christian discipleship, she will come to acknowledge those points in her moral choices which are inconsistent with her identity in Christ, and her obligations as a member of the ecclesial family of God. The Church herself bears a heavy responsibility in this process. The only way practicing homosexuals will ever be brought to the point of accepting the Church’s historic doctrine, to which all Christians are sacramentally committed through baptism, is if the theologians and pastors of the flock of God speak with a clear and consistent voice, and resist every temptation to conform the Church’s moral teaching to the whims and deviant practices of the ethically bankrupt culture which surrounds us.

3) Finally, for yet others, the problem is simply rebellion and unbelief. It would be extremely na�ve not to think that there is a third category of people within the Christian community who identify themselves as homosexuals. This group of people is characterized by a blatant capitulation to the moral indifference which is characteristic of human societies which are given over to the idolatrous quest for self-fulfillment. There are sadly people in the visible Church (both gay and straight) who simply do not take seriously the idea that there is a Holy God in heaven, whose personal Being is independent of human awareness or consciousness, and whose revealed will is definitional of the boundaries between good and evil in all ethical considerations. They may not see human sexuality as a moral issue at all, since they do not think there is any objective standard of right and wrong that can speak to behaviors which cause no harm to other persons. Sexual choices are viewed as entirely private in nature, and neither the consensus of the Church, nor the teachings of the Bible can provide a basis for telling a person what to do with her body.

For many in the mainline churches today, the real issue is not homosexuality at all, though they may advocate that practice. The real issue is the Christian religion itself. There are people today who call themselves Episcopalians, but who would like to replace the Holy Trinity with the pantheistic god of religious mysticism and New Age spirituality. There are those today who call themselves Presbyterians, but who would like to replace the Christian gospel of universal sin and redemption by faith in Christ with a gospel of tolerance, self-acceptance and the affirmation of human freedom. And there are those today who call themselves Baptists, but who would like to replace the Bible as the primary source of the Church’s theology, with the ever-changing norm of human reason and personal experience. There is little point attempting to bring such people into line with Church teaching through a process of pastoral care and loving challenge within the context of Christian community, for they do not take seriously the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, nor the ministerial authority of the Church’s teaching office. In this case, the only remedy is ecclesiastical discipline or separation. As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:13: “Expel the wicked man from among you.” And in 2 Corinthians 6:17: “Therefore come out from them and be separate.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope that I have given some valid reasons why it is a rush to judgment to accuse Montreat College of being un-Christ-like, unloving, or harmfully judgmental by maintaining a traditional moral stance on the subject of homosexuality. Our Christian mission obligates us to call the world to surrender its rebellious claims of moral autonomy and to submit to God’s will as it is announced in Holy Scripture and taught historically within the Christian Church. Our regard for the supreme authority of Holy Scripture also obligates us to maintain this stance, for the gendered ordering of male and female as it is announced in the Genesis account makes it clear that God is fully imaged in the created world only in the complementary union of man and woman. And St. Paul clearly teaches in 1 Corinthians and Romans that all sexual expressions of love between persons of the same gender are contrary to the divine will and inconsistent with the moral disciplines assumed in Christian discipleship. Finally, it is not the case that there is no space for pastoral flexibility and sensitivity in dealing with gay persons as individuals. The responsibility of the Church is to maintain a biblical moral stance while recognizing that we all fall short of the glory of God, and people within the Church who experience sexual attraction towards others of the same gender may do so for a variety of reasons.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 12th, 2007 at 10:05 pm and is filed under Montreat College. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.