Part 4 (Theology): Against the Christian Oppression of Individuals on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Identity
We continue analysis of the traditional Christian views on
homosexuality, having thus far examined the six biblical passages that many
have used as direct textual evidence on the issue. It remains to analyze the
theological argument against moral approval of homosexual love and
relationships.
In listening to the Christian teachers who advocate for the exclusive
normative status of heterosexual relationships and cisgender identity, for many
the primary argument is not an explicitly scriptural one but a theological one.
I will refer to the argument as arche or archetype argument,
given that it stems primarily from Jesus' reference to the Genesis account of
male and female as the archetype of the human family in his response to the
religious teachers' questions about divorce in Matthew, chapter 16.
Taken in and of itself, this argument may seem convincing when
combined with strong forms of discipleship teaching which admonish the believer
that there is no ethical challenge or sacrifice that is too demanding for the follower
of Jesus. (The implication is that even if one has a sexual orientation or
identity outside of the heterosexual model, Christian discipleship requires one to
sacrifice this identity.) In the Genesis
account of the beginning, God created a man, and from the side of the man,
created a woman, and the two, being two sides of a whole and perfectly
complementary, are designed to become one in marriage and thereby ideally
designed for the biological task of procreation and the spiritual / relational
/ moral task of making a family.
In responding to the questions of the religious teachers about
the permissibility of divorce in Mosaic law, Jesus did not affirm the practice
but rather makes reference to the Genesis account of marriage, "in the
beginning" (thus arche, or archetype). Jesus holds up
the unbreakable union of the first marriage as an ideal and explained that
Moses permitted deviations within his law because of human limitations, those
deviations having to do with permissible forms of or reasons for divorce. The archetype argument goes further to point out that the male / female marriage mirrors the model of
Christ (the male) and his bride, the church (the female) which is presented in
several parts of the New Testament as an eschatological picture of the eternal
relationship between Christ and church.
Thus, the argument implies, given the essential role of the
male / female distinction and union in both the Genesis model of the original
family and in the New Testament marriage analogy of Christ and the church, it
follows that the male / female union of marriage must be the normative, prescriptive and exclusive model of human romantic love and ultimately, of
marriage commitment.
First and most fundamentally, it must be said that this is a logical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that the model of a thing, be it a marriage or any other entity or relationship, necessarily prescribes the exclusive acceptable form of that entity or relationship.
Second and more broadly, it is not the case that we
invariably follow Scriptural archetypes as presenting ethically
prescriptive and inviolable principles and doctrines. In support of this claim,
I present, for comparison, the Levitical
Year of Jubilee. I hold that the economic principles of the fifty year
cycle presented in the book of Leviticus and which culminated in the fiftieth
"Year of Jubilee" present an ideal form of economic and property
relations which was never fully implemented in the economic life of the people
to whom it was given. But if any Old Testament teaching is held forth as having
been affirmed by Jesus, the Year of Jubilee would be such a teaching, for Jesus
made reference to the Jubilee in his first appearance, what we would refer to
as his "first sermon," in the temple, at the initiation of his
ministry.
As found in Luke 4: 16-22:
As found in Luke 4: 16-22:
Jesus entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to
read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the
book and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon
Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to
proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set
free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.' And
He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of
all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them,
"Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
By reading from the Prophet Isaiah, the scroll we refer to
as Chapter 61, Jesus proclaimed that his ministry was intended to bring to reality
principles of the Levitical Year of Jubilee. What were the principles of
economic life and property ownership of the Jubilee cycle? It was a period of
seven "sevens," with the year of Jubilee following the forty-nine
years of the seven x seven-year periods. The Jubilee system involved a
complex set of procedures apparently designed to preserve the ownership of land among all of the tribes and families through seasons of fortune and misfortune, to prevent
the accumulation of extreme debt and the complete loss of one's livelihood and
property, and also to provide for the periodic liberation of individuals from
debt, servitude, or even slavery.
If we insist that the archetypal form of the human family is the prescriptive and exclusive form of marriage and family (and by extension, all human romantic relations), then by what
interpretive or ethical principle do we cast aside the archetypal form of
economic relations demonstrated in the Levitical Year of Jubilee in which debts
are cancelled, economic inequities are nullified, and everyone gets a new
start?
What financial principles were at work in the year of
Jubilee? One, land ownership was not permanent but temporary, for the land
belongs to God. Secondly, debts are to be forgiven periodically for those who
suffer hardship. Jubilee prohibits unlimited accumulation of wealth and
property, and restores those who fall on hard times. As such, Jubilee promotes
economic redistribution and nullifies uncontrolled or unlimited accumulation.
The point of my argument here is that the church does not advocate for these principles, either within or outside of the church, aside from a generalized sentiment toward very limited forms of generosity or charity. These principles are not taken to be normative or prescriptive. They are not taken to exemplify the exclusive form of financial practices for church members, or for the community.
...the church does not advocate for the economic principles of the Jubilee year, either within or outside of the church...These principles are not taken to be normative or prescriptive. They are not taken to exemplify the exclusive form of financial practices for church members, or for the community.
I do not anticipate that there is a lot of support for bringing into contemporary economics (or even financial relations between members of the Christian faith community) any extensive application of the fifty-year Levitical cycle, although many of the principles certainly find some form of general New Testament and modern application. But Jesus focused on money in many of his teachings leaving no doubt that the topic warrants more serious attention.
We may reasonably assert that the specific economic model of Jubilee in its strict application is not generalizable outside of the specific time and place in which it was given. Nevertheless, Jesus invoked the Jubilee principle. Should we hold that he did not intend application of economic principles derived from Jubilee, and if so, on what basis? Or should we hold that these principles represent beautiful ideals toward which we should strive in the best possible world? The position that no one seems to hold, despite the elevated status of this biblical model in Jesus teaching, is that the Jubilee principles are strictly prescriptive of economic relations for all time.
It is much easier to take a biblical model as an ethical prescription if it has a negative impact only on individuals who are in a significant minority, who have often been considered outside the norm, who have been denied a place and a voice speak against their excluded status. But it is the way of Jesus and of the entire prophetic tradition to recognize and defend the outsider, and to challenge and confront injustice perpetrated against those not in positions of power.
Of the Jubilee model, one could interpret that Jesus used the model to point the hearer to new spiritual realities that he would inaugurate. Specifically, he said … -preach the gospel to the poor, -proclaim release to the captives, -recovery of sight to the blind, -to set free those who are downtrodden, -to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Jesus proclaims good news, breaking of bonds, increasing spiritual sight, spiritual liberty, spiritual restoration. We have to assume in this largely spiritual application that the gospel of Jesus, in contrast to a religious model of legal righteousness, will break bondage and create freedom wherever it is applied. This primarily spiritual application certainly holds, but it points out all the more that a literal and prescriptive application has not been chosen by the church’s teaching on this model, presented in the Old Testament and affirmed explicitly and very intentionally by Jesus.
It is much easier to take a biblical model as an ethical prescription if it has a negative impact only on individuals who are in a significant minority, who have often been considered outside the norm, who have been denied a place and a voice speak against their excluded status. But it is the way of Jesus and of the entire prophetic tradition to recognize and defend the outsider, and to challenge and confront injustice perpetrated against those not in positions of power.
...It is the way of Jesus and of the entire prophetic tradition to recognize and defend the outsider...
Of the Jubilee model, one could interpret that Jesus used the model to point the hearer to new spiritual realities that he would inaugurate. Specifically, he said … -preach the gospel to the poor, -proclaim release to the captives, -recovery of sight to the blind, -to set free those who are downtrodden, -to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Jesus proclaims good news, breaking of bonds, increasing spiritual sight, spiritual liberty, spiritual restoration. We have to assume in this largely spiritual application that the gospel of Jesus, in contrast to a religious model of legal righteousness, will break bondage and create freedom wherever it is applied. This primarily spiritual application certainly holds, but it points out all the more that a literal and prescriptive application has not been chosen by the church’s teaching on this model, presented in the Old Testament and affirmed explicitly and very intentionally by Jesus.
A spiritual interpretation of the principles of Jubilee holds, but points out all the more that a literal and prescriptive application has not been chosen by the church's teaching on this model, presented throughout the Old Testament and affirmed explicitly and intentionally by Jesus.
So, in Luke 4 we find Jesus’ first public sermon, presumably
to serve as informative of the essence of Jesus’ ministry, referencing a model
of economic kingdom life which apparently has very limited practical import for any essential evangelical
doctrine in the present expression of the church. In the church, we do not
specifically direct anyone to forgive debts as expression of a New Testament
doctrine. We (and here by “we,” I mean the accepted doctrine or orthodoxy of
any major Christian denomination - Note 8) do not question unlimited
accumulation of wealth and property or the existence of dramatic economic
disparities in which a significant proportion of the people, even within church
communities, essentially operate at a poverty level with no significant
ownership of property, and much of this is intergenerational, not systematically based on
merit, skill, or ability. By and large, we take Jesus’ economic teachings as
either spiritual in nature or suggestive of general moral principles such as
honesty, fairness, kindness and generosity. If one takes the Luke 4 passage as
essentially spiritual in meaning, then we derive principles of healing, release
from brokenness, release from bondage, spiritual freedom, and, taking lead from
Jesus first statement, an outcome that the gospel in application to the life of
church, and by extension, society, should be good news for the poor.
In contrast to the rather loose and spiritualized interpretation of Luke 4, the interpretation of Jesus’ comments about circumstances of divorce (the primary teaching of Matthew 16) and affirmation of the Genesis model of marriage as a model or archetype of family and of sexual relations is taken as a normative, prescriptive and exclusive requirement for family, for marriage and even for romantic relationships.
These prescriptive limitations stand in the absence of clear
biblical teaching in support, whereas the Bible is clear and consistent on
principles of sexual morality, apart from the issue of sexual orientation, these
being, namely, a focus on sexual activity as properly expressed within committed monogamy and entailing fidelity, prohibitions against adultery, prostitution or
sexual servitude, against any form of sexual violence, and admonition against
promiscuity in general. Why, I ask, cannot we focus on the clear biblical – Old
and New Testament - teachings on sexual morality which are very straightforward and attested by a plethora of Old and New Testament Scripture? (Please see my previous article on the New Testament prohibitions for sexual
behavior, March 12, 2020.)
Specifically, we should question the application of the biblical archetype of the creation model of family life as constituting a prescriptive and exclusive system of sexual morality over and above the other clear and pervasive biblical teachings on moral sexual practices. Further, note that for much of the evangelical church in recent decades, the application of this doctrine has not been limited to the life of individual congregations and denominations, but the effort has been to extend the reach of prohibitions and restrictions of freedom related to homosexuality into the public and legal sphere to the maximum extent. Homosexuals have been severely oppressed and suffered a great deal of violence.
As such, advocates of general human identity and liberty for homosexuals have had to fight in the realm of civil rights, employment rights, legal rights in society at large...
As such, advocates of general human identity and
liberty for homosexuals have had to fight in the realm of civil rights, employment rights, legal rights in society at large,
while also making their argument for full personhood within their faith
communities. This is a travesty and a tragedy which I fear will forever be a
blight on the twentieth century church.
Notes:
(8) In "arguing" against a prescriptive application of the principles of Jubilee, as in the form of church orthodoxy, by no means do I wish to diminish the importance of the biblical teachings, foremost in the Old Testament prophets but also in the New Testament, against economic oppression and exploitation and in favor of taking care of the suffering and vulnerable members of the community. In fact the latter principles should get a lot more airplay from our pulpits. Many pastors seem to have a reluctance to be outspoken on issues that may be deemed political in nature, thus, in many cases, the message of the contemporary church on economic issues is "dumbed-down" or truncated in relation to the voice of the biblical prophets on these issues.
Notes:
(8) In "arguing" against a prescriptive application of the principles of Jubilee, as in the form of church orthodoxy, by no means do I wish to diminish the importance of the biblical teachings, foremost in the Old Testament prophets but also in the New Testament, against economic oppression and exploitation and in favor of taking care of the suffering and vulnerable members of the community. In fact the latter principles should get a lot more airplay from our pulpits. Many pastors seem to have a reluctance to be outspoken on issues that may be deemed political in nature, thus, in many cases, the message of the contemporary church on economic issues is "dumbed-down" or truncated in relation to the voice of the biblical prophets on these issues.
Image:
Statue of Christ the Redeemer, Rio de Janiero, Barzil. Andy Caulfield / Getty Images
https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-why-christ-the-redeemer-statue-is-so-popular-4123653