Paul’s Condemnation of Porneia: Sexual Immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Monday, 6 August 2012
| Kevin Giles
I
have been thinking and writing about Christianity and homosexuality for
forty years and I still have many questions unanswered. I keep coming
back to this matter only because, as a Christian pastor and theologian I
keep getting asked to give my opinion. The most difficult issue for me
is determining to what exactly I am actually being asked to say “yes” or
“no” or “may be.” In the literature we find people arguing that one is
born homosexual or that it is a free choice; homosexuals can change or
they cannot change; the norm for homosexuals is numerous sexual
relationships or long term relationships; the state should be completely
non-discriminatory about homosexuality or the state should not endorse
homosexuality in any way; the Bible condemns homosexuality or the Bible
does not condemn homosexuality etc. In seeking a place to stand in this
polarised debate one needs to carefully study the scientific work on
this phenomenon,[1] explore with an open mind what exactly the Bible says on homosexuality,[2]
clearly differentiate between the state and the church, and most of all
cultivate a pastoral heart. For thousands of people, some within our
churches, this is not a theoretical question but a profoundly personal
one.
In
this essay I specifically explore what Paul says on homosexuality in 1
Corinthians 6:9-10 in reply to Alan Cadwallader’s exegesis of this text
in Five Uneasy Pieces.[3]
With Dr Cadwallader I agree that the various contexts in which these
words stand must be considered and understood. I agree that Paul’s words
must firstly be interpreted against the backdrop of their original
historical, social and literary context. We are seeking the historical
meaning of the text; what Paul meant by what he says and what his
readers would have understood him to be saying. A number of things help
us do this. These include ascertaining the meaning of the Greek words
Paul uses, what Paul says elsewhere on the same matter in question, what
were the relevant Christian, Jewish and Greco-Roman beliefs at the time
and what was happening in the church Paul addresses. Then second in
understanding anything written, the immediate literary context must be
considered. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 must be interpreted in
the light of the whole of this epistle, particularly chapters 5 and 6
and the addendum following, chapter 7 which constitute a distinct
section. To these two contexts that Dr Cadwallader mentions I add a
third absolutely essential one in considering the issue, the overall
biblical understanding of why God has made us men and women and ordained
sexual intercourse.
Dr
Cadwallader also quite correctly notes the ‘need to recognise the
difference between our time and the time in which the various books of
the Bible were written.”[4]
Critical and historical exegesis at best can only tell us what Paul was
saying and his readers would have understood him to be saying; how his
words apply today is a second and harder question. On the topic of
sexual ethics this is where things get really tough. In what follows I
conclude that Paul, and indeed the whole Bible, makes heterosexual
marriage the only divinely sanctioned context for sexual intercourse.
Can we apply this teaching today? Is this not a very narrow and
judgmental approach to sexuality?
The literary context: 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6
The
beginning of 1 Corinthians 5 marks a major transition that concludes at
the end of chapter 6, with chapter 7 being like an addendum.[5]
In this section Paul addresses what he believes are clear-cut breaches
in the Christian ethic, especially the Christian sexual ethic. The
apostle is absolutely clear that he is speaking of how Christians should
behave. He does not expect this standard from those outside the church
(5:9-12).
He
begins with the case of the man who is living with his father’s wife,
presumably a woman other than his biological mother (5:1-8). What upsets
Paul the most is that the church has either tolerated or condoned this.
It has accepted his behaviour. Having addressed this specific matter he
then states the general principle: Christians should not welcome or
allow in their midst the openly and habitual immoral person, especially
the sexually immoral (porneia), but also the greedy, robbers,
idolaters, revellers and drunkards (vv. 9-11). For Paul, the conduct of
church members should be exemplary, standing in stark contrast to the
conduct of unbelievers. Because of his clear-cut demarcation between
life in the church and life in the world outside, Paul finds it
abhorrent that some believers are going to the public courts to settle
disputes among themselves (6:1-8).
In 6:9 he returns to what he has said in 5:9-12. He asserts, “the wicked (adikoi)
will not inherit the Kingdom of God,” meaning that open, habitual and
unrepentant sinners will not be included among the elect on the last
day. The link with 5:9-12 is made plain in that six of the sins Paul
mentions in 6:9-10 are repeated from this earlier passage, to which he
adds four more, translated by the NRSV as, “adulterers, male
prostitutes, sodomites and thieves.”
In
6:12-20, Paul brings this whole section to a conclusion. What he is
most concerned about is the acceptance of what he considers to be sexual
immorality (porneia) in the life of the Corinthian church, the
matter he first mentions in 5:1. He reviews this matter again in 6:13,
6:18 and 7:2 at the beginning of his addendum on marriage. This repeated
use of the word porneia/sexual immorality/fornication discloses Paul’s primary theme in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6. In Greek literature porneia
simply meant “prostitution,” in the sense of a man paying a woman for
sexual gratification, which for Greeks was not in itself thought to be
immoral or wrong. By contrast, in Hellenistic-Jewish literature porneia
categorised all extramarital sexual activity, including homosexuality,
and it was always judged pejoratively. Cadwallader correctly says that
for Paul porneia speaks of “sexual immorality.”[6] Paul, however, adds something distinctive; he says porneia involves the body (soma). “Whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her” (6:16). And, “The sexually immoral (porneia)
person sins against the body itself” (6:18). Paul is alluding to
Genesis 2: 24 where in marriage the man and the woman become one. For a
Christian man whose body is the temple of the Holy Spirit to be
sexually united with someone other than his wife, is anathema. 1
Corinthians 6:12-20 suggests that some Corinthian Christian men were
going to prostitutes, seeing nothing wrong with them doing so because
sex was only a bodily thing, not related to life in the Spirit, and as
such not an issue. This was the prevailing Greco-Roman cultural belief.
For Paul such a disjunction between body and Spirit and such an
understanding of sexual intercourse was completely unacceptable.
Behind
Paul’s thinking on sex lies the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1
to 3, as his quoting of Genesis 2:24 in 1 Corinthians 6:16 indicates. He
believed that God created man for woman and woman for man and
sanctioned their sexual union in marriage. It thus followed for him that
any other sexual union is forbidden.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do
you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,
sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revellers, robbers – none of
these will inherit the kingdom of God
As
mentioned, six of the vices listed in 5:9-11 are given a second time in
6:9-10 and four new ones are added. One of these, “thieves,” is little
more than a different word for the “robbers” in 5:10, the other three
deal with sexual sins, and thus reflect the major concern of the whole
of this section, chapters 5:1 to 6: 20, namely, sexual immorality (porneia).
These ten vices are all nouns that refer to people who habitually
behave in one of these ways. Paul is not speaking of people who have
committed one of these sins but of people whose lives are characterised
by these vices. He thinks of them not as people who have fallen and are
in need of forgiveness but as those who are in rebellion against God.
Six of these sins are of a non-sexual nature and four are sexual. The
point is obvious. Paul does not think sexual sins are any worse than
other sins, even if he believes that sexual sins are uniquely sins
against the body (1 Cor. 6:18).
Paul first of all in this list condemns those who practice porneia
(6:9b) – the NRSV gives the translation, “fornicators.” The Greek word,
as we noted above, refers to any extramarital sexual activity. For
Jesus, Paul and all the early Christians, any sexual union outside of
marriage is a sin. In contrast, in Greco-Roman society it was acceptable
for married men to have sex with women who were not their wives so long
as the women were not married or with other men. In both cases this was
often a master having sex with a slave, or freed slave, male or female,
but not necessarily so. Any thought that such sexual encounters were in
themselves evil or wrong was not implied. Dr Cadwallader along with
others argues that the sex outside of marriage, heterosexual and
homosexual, that Paul condemns, was always exploitive, the powerful exerting their will and desires on the less powerful. This is unlikely. Paul as a man of the world [7] would have known that free men had affairs of the heart with consenting free women and also with other free men.
It
is true that neither Paul nor any other biblical writer ever explicitly
speaks of what is today called “sexual orientation” but Paul says much
on human desire. In the next chapter of 1 Corinthians he says ‘it is
better for the unmarried to marry than be aflame with passion’ (1 Cor.
7:9). To suggest that Paul accepted that men and women could be driven
by sexual desire for each other and never imagined that men could be
driven by sexual desire for other men, or women for women, in a world
where homosexuality was common, is hard to believe.
Following his general condemnation of porneia – all sex outside of marriage - Paul then mentions “the idolaters” and “the adulterers” (moixoi).
This last word refers specifically to married people who have sexual
intercourse with someone of the opposite sex besides their spouse. He
then speaks of the malakoi and arsenokoitai. The exact
meaning of these two rare words is much debated but it is generally
agreed that he is condemning sex of one kind or another between men. The
first term, malakoi, literally means “soft” and thus it was often used of effeminate men.[8]
Most modern commentators and translators conclude that Paul is using it
of those who are customarily the passive partner in a homosexual union.
Gagnon gives the translation, “effeminate males who play the sexual
role of females.”[9] The second term, arsenokoitai, is a compound of the Greek words “male” and “bed,” which could be literally translated, “male-bedders.” Koitai (bed)
was a common word to speak of sex. These two words are used in the
prohibitions of homosexual practices in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:3.
Dr Cadwallader’s claim that the etymology of this word (by which he
means deriving its meaning on the basis of its parts) tells us nothing
of how Paul understood it is to me unconvincing.[10]
Certainly the etymology of many a word may say nothing about its
current meaning, but the etymology of a word is often a key indicator of
its primary meaning. The late nineteenth century word “homosexual” is a
classic example (homos in Greek means ‘the same’). Given the context of the use of the arsenokoitai in
this instance, namely sexual sins, and its background in the two
Leviticus texts, this meaning is the most likely. Thus the overwhelming
majority of scholars and translators are agreed that the word speaks of
men having sex with other men. What is disputed is, first, whether Paul
is using this term to speak of males who are penetrated by other males
or of males who have intercourse with other males, and second, what
modern English word(s) best translate these two Greek words. Because he
seems to be referring to men who are penetrated by other men by the
first term, malakoi, most commentators and translators think the second term, arsenokoitai, refers more generally to men who have sex with other men. Gagnon translates the word, “males who take other males to bed.”[11]
Most modern translations give a simpler translation, for example,
“sodomites” (NRSV), “homosexuals” (TNIV), and “homosexual offenders”
(NIV).
Cadwallader’s
argument that what Paul is condemning when speaking of sexual sins in 1
Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 is exclusively exploitive sex,[12] and in particular that the word arsenokoitai refers “to someone who acts dishonourably and violently in a sexual intrusion upon the body of another”[13] and the word malakoi refers to those who are penetrated against their will,[14]
is unpersuasive. Paul does not suggest that the man living with his
father’s wife is in error because he has acted against her wishes or
exploited her, or that all the adulterers have forced themselves on
virtuous women, or that the malakoi are all abused against their will, or that all the arsenokoitai are predators. Paul, like other Jews of his day, held that all sex outside of marriage (porneia) was sin and thus homosexual intercourse per se was sin. We may disagree with him but this was his view.
However, even if it were conceded that the words malakoi and arsenokoitai
in 1 Corinthians 6:9 do not categorically condemn all homosexual
relations, what he says here has to be related to what he says
elsewhere. In Romans 1:26-27 and 1Timothy 1:10 we have also quite
explicit rejections of homosexual relations. In taking this position
Paul perfectly reflects the explicit and widely held Jewish rejection of
homosexuality that prevailed in his day.
I Corinthians 6:11
And
this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
in the Spirit of our God.
Paul
now makes the point that some of the Corinthian Christians who were
habitual sinners of these kinds have been radically converted. God had
“washed them,” “sanctified them” and “justified them” “in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” They had become new
people in Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit. Their lives had been
turned around. Each of the three verbs that speak of their new status
are preceded by the strong Greek adversative alla (English “but”)
to highlight the transformation that has occurred. This transformation
changed their status before God and how they behaved in the world. It
must have been the case that there were many in the Corinthian church
who had experienced such profound conversions, otherwise Paul would not
have made such a claim to Christians who were all too ready to criticise
him.
The wider context
Why we must now ask, was Paul so adamantly opposed to porneia,
hetero- or homo-sexual activity outside of marriage? Was it simply
because as a Jew of his day he accepted this common Jewish proscription
of such behaviour? This may well have been significant but why were the
Jews so opposed to porneia? Why we must ask, did the Jews and
Paul hold marriage in such high regard? The answer is because for the
Jews, Jesus and Paul, marriage is a creation given institution and thus
inviolable. The Bible begins with, and makes foundational for all that
follows, that God made us male or female, giving to both the mandate to
be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:27-28) and then adding as the climax
of the second creation narrative that for this reason “a man leaves his
father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh”
(Gen. 2:25). Paul clearly had these creation stories in mind in his
condemnation of the sinful behaviour he saw all around him, including
homosexual relations in Romans 1:18-32[15] and in condemning the visiting of prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6:16, as I have mentioned. For him, porneia, all sex outside of the marriage union, reflected the fall, not God’s good creation.
It
is on this basis that most contemporary Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, Evangelical and Pentecostal theologians cannot endorse
heterosexual relations outside of marriage or homosexual relations in
general.[16] This means that their rejection of homosexual sex is not predicated on five proof texts, as the authors of Five Uneasy Pieces
would lead us to believe. It is predicated on the belief that in
creation God made heterosexual marriage the norm and thus the proper
place for intercourse to take place. It is in the light of this creation
context that I read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, as well as Romans 1:26-27 and
1Timothy 1:8-11. Taken one by one in isolation, these texts along with
three others—Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—can be dismissed as
irrelevant to homosexuality as it is known today, as they are in Five Uneasy Pieces, but
once Genesis chapters 1 to 3 are recognised as providing the theology
that lies behind these culturally located comments, this blanket
dismissal is not possible.
Genesis
1-3 is foundational for any adequate understanding of Scripture. If we
all spent more time reflecting on these opening chapters of the Bible,
many of our confused theological and ethical ideas would be corrected.
Here we learn that God has made man and woman equal in his sight
and to each other in creating them in his image and likeness and to both
giving the mandate to rule and propagate the earth. And, he has differentiated
them by creating one male and the other female, two sexes,
differentiated primarily by their different bodies. This difference
makes them complementary because the man alone or the woman alone
cannot procreate. They need each other to fulfil the divine mandate. In
marriage they become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). Genesis chapters 1 and 2
speak of the ideal, of a world where man and woman are in perfect
relationship with God and each other and in harmony with the earth.
Genesis chapter 3 explains why the world we know and live in is not like
this. Humankind, personified in Adam and Eve, has turned from God and
as a consequence lost the relationship they had with him, lost the
equality men and women had with each other. The man now rules over the
woman (Gen. 3:16) and they have lost the idyllic life they once enjoyed
in Eden.
Only
in the light of this theological construct can the Bible as a whole be
understood. It explains why the world is in such a mess, why there is
suffering, why wars occur, why marriages break down, why children are
born with deformities, why we need a saviour, why we long for new
creation, and much more. In this framework, we are also to understand
why all porneia, sex outside of heterosexual marriage, is other
than the creation ideal. It reflects the realities of a fallen world
where God’s norms are constantly broken. This theological construct
speaks of a good creation, fallen creation, a new creation inaugurated
by Christ and a perfected creation on the last day.
Paul’s lists of vices and virtues
In
what I have said so far, I have not responded to Dr Cadwallader’s
extended discussion on Paul’s list of vices of which he sees 1
Corinthians 5:9-10 and 6:9-10 as two examples. These lists appear in all
but three of Paul’s epistles and are commonly paralleled by lists of
virtues that are to characterise Christian living. In one of the better
known lists, Paul speaks of the vices as “works of the flesh” and the
virtues as “fruits of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16-26). In his attempt to
dismiss the scholarly consensus on the force of Paul’s condemnation of
what he considers porneia in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, Dr Cadwallader speaks of “Paul’s move away from a reliance on vice lists,”[17] affirming instead “the fundamental freedom of the gospel,” a gospel “not bound by law.”[18]
Paul certainly believed that the gospel was the end of the epoch of the
Law (Rom. 10:4) but definitely not the end of morality. Jesus and Paul
in fact asked more of the believers than the law demanded; they taught a
higher ethic. And rather than Paul moving away from vice lists, they
are as much a part of the Pastoral Epistles written late, as they are of
1 Corinthians written early. Sexual sins are often mentioned in the
vice lists because on this issue the Christian ethic stood in stark
contrast to the lax sexual mores of Greco-Roman society. For Paul, porneia
of any kind was inconsistent with life in the Spirit (1 Cor. 5:1, 6:13,
18, 7:2, 2 Cor. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1 Thess. 4:3).
This is basic to his thinking and characterises the early Christian
ethic.
Today,
sexual mores are again very lax. Contemporary Christians have but two
choices: to agree with Dr Cadwallader by concluding that Paul’s sexual
ethic has no “pertinence”[19] in our culture and time, or to conclude that Paul’s high sexual ethic is as pertinent for our generation as it has ever been.
Moving to the 21st century
Exegeting
a text historically and theologically is the easy part. I have outlined
what I believe is the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 in the
light of the historical Corinthian social context, the literary context
in which this text is found in 1 Corinthians and in the context of the
foundational biblical schema of creation and new creation. I conclude
that Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 to 7 is condemning all porneia
– all sex outside of marriage – and specifically homosexual relations,
on the basis that the creation norm is the life-long union of a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others. In coming to this conclusion, I
am following in principle the majority of scholarly commentators.
This
understanding of Paul’s sexual ethic, however, raises acute challenges
when it comes to application today because it stands in direct
opposition to our prevailing cultural values and thus seems to us
moderns very judgemental and narrow. Cadwallader does not have the same
challenge to face. He argues that Paul is only condemning exploitive
sex, heterosexual and homosexual. He thus limits the application of
Paul’s words in today’s world to these things alone. He denies that the
apostle is categorically proscribing all hetero- or homo- sexual
relations outside of (heterosexual) marriage. This interpretation and
application of Paul’s teaching reflects what most westerners believe
today.
Most
contemporary Australians believe that sex outside of marriage, homo or
hetero, is perfectly acceptable as long as it is not exploitive or
violent; homosexuality is genetic, much the same as being right-handed
or left-handed, and most homosexual relations are expressed in loving,
long-term, exclusive, and committed unions. The great ethic of our
generation is, after all, tolerance. These conclusions are reinforced
when we are introduced on TV to impressive people like Justice Michael
Kirby, Senator Bob Brown, Minister Penny Wong and comedian Magda
Szubanski who speak openly and affirmatively of being homosexuals.
In
this cultural setting, we Christians then begin to wonder if we should
ever make judgments about the sexual behaviour of others. We recall
that Jesus told his followers not to be judgemental of others (Matt.
7:1-5) and that the most important rule for Christian living is to be
loving (Matt. 22:37-39, Jn 13:34, c.f. Rom. 13;8, 1 Cor. 13, etc.). And
we recall that Jesus and the apostles said far more about sins such as
hypocrisy, jealousy, unwillingness to forgive, lying, stealing and
slander than they did about sexual sins which they never categorised as
worse sins than others.
The
pressure to abandon the traditional Christian sexual ethic is almost
overwhelming in contemporary Western society. Nevertheless, I think we
should stand firm. We should presume that Paul is wiser than we are and
the traditional view of the church over two thousand years may still be
relevant. In concluding this, we do not stand alone. The Catholic and
Eastern Churches and the vast majority of evangelical and Pentecostal
Christians also make this stand. As we struggle to apply the Christian
sexual ethic, specifically in relation to homosexuality, in our culture
and time, some of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 should be read very
carefully.
First,
we are to note that Paul is addressing the Christian community in
Corinth, not the leaders of the city of Corinth or the rulers in Rome.
He believed that how Christians live in the power of the Spirit should
be altogether different to how those without Christ and the Spirit live.
His was a radical, counter-cultural ethic that he thought was only
possible for those who knew the power of the Spirit. He does not
advocate imposing this ethic on unbelievers. He says explicitly in
1 Corinthians 5:9-12 it is not the Christians’ job to “judge those
outside” the church. This means that in the early twenty first century
in the Western democracies when Christendom (the merging of the state
and the church) has long gone we Christians should not seek to apply the
Christian eschatological ethic to the world. We should not expect, or
even want, the state to legislate against or punish people who break the
Christian moral code. We should leave it to our democratically elected
parliamentarians to make laws for the good of the whole community, laws
that do not unfairly or unjustly discriminate against people on the
basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, or socio-economic status. The
Christian ethic is for Christians and it is always an ideal. We all
fail in many ways. None of us perfectly keeps “the law of Christ.”
Second,
as we listen to Paul we should carefully note that he was convinced on
the basis of his experience that people in the power of the Spirit could
desist from habitual sinning and he specifically mentions homosexual
practices. Some of the Corinthians, he says, had been adulterers,
idolaters, thieves, drunkards, revellers and regularly had sex with
other men. On becoming Christians they had ceased doing these things.
Again, the apostle would not categorically say this to a sometimes
hostile church if it were not true. In relation specifically to
homosexual activity, there is no reason to question what Paul says.
People can be involved homosexually and cease.[20]
I have personally met many people who have told me that once they were
involved homosexually and this is no longer the case. I am not
suggesting that people who clearly perceive themselves to be homosexual
can just change like one would change where we live, or what sport we
play, or that they want to do so. I am simply saying we should not think
that homosexual behaviour is irresistible or immutable and once begun
cannot be stopped.
It is true that about 2% of the population find themselves at some point in their life profoundly homosexual. [21]
They are attracted and desire physical intimacy with those of the same
sex. The argument that this is entirely genetically based in all cases
or even most cases is not supported by scientific evidence. Genetics can
certainly be important but the home environment, early sexual
experiences, labelling, personal choice, one’s social network and
beliefs and possibly other factors may be just as or more important
factors in differing degrees from person to person.[22]
If this is the case then the popular idea that people are born
“hard-wired” either to be heterosexual or homosexual is not true, at
least in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, some homosexuals insist
that their sexual behaviour is freely chosen. [23]
Probably bi-sexuality and the many people who change from either a same
sex partner to an opposite sex partner, or from an opposite sex partner
to a same sex partner, are explained at least in part in this way. Here
we should recall that Dr. Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
(1953) measured human sexual orientation on a scale from 0 for
completely heterosexual people to 6 for completely homosexual people.
Much of the Kinsey reports have been called into question but that
sexual orientation is on a continuum is generally accepted, even if it
is little discussed.
Third,
even if the homosexuality that Paul condemns was mainly exploitive
(free Roman citizens having hetero- and homo- sexual relations with
slaves who were available to them), this does not mean that if he lived
today he would endorse loving, long-term homosexual unions between
equals. Even the most generous reading of his epistles must concede that
he consistently condemns porneia, sex outside of a heterosexual
marriage relationship. He completely rejects the idea that sex is like
having a meal, neither good nor bad, the prevailing view in the
Greco-Roman world.
A broader contemporary sexual ethic
We
have heard Paul but as we struggle to understand homosexual relations
in our contemporary world, it is important that we consider them also in
the light of two widely held contemporary community beliefs. First,
that marriage is a commitment between two people to a life-long union to
the exclusion of all others, even if failure is all too common. And
second, that an actual marriage ceremony is not needed to form such a
committed relationship. Given this second belief, most contemporary
Australians, Christian and non-Christian, want to distinguish clearly
between loving sex in a long-term, committed relationship, within or
apart from marriage, which they would think is beyond reproach and much
other sex, for example, casual sex with virtual strangers, paid for sex,
sex with minors, and sex that breaches a loving, committed relationship
(once called adultery), which they would not unquestionably endorse.
We have found that Paul’s ethic excludes homosexual relations in
general; now we ask, how might the contemporary sexual ethic just
outlined evaluate homosexual relations as they are scientifically
described today?
In
making ethical judgements, what has been discovered scientifically
should not be ignored. We now know that heterosexual and homosexual
behaviour statistically analysed is profoundly different in terms of
fidelity (especially for males) and in the length of relationships. One
of the most significant findings is that long-term, exclusive male
unions are the exception rather than the rule. A 1997 study of 2,583
homosexually active men in Australia found that of those over
forty-nine, 26.6% had more than 10 male partners in the past six months,
44.9% had between 2 and 10, and 28.5% had just one male partner. In the
course of their life only 2.7% of those over 49 and 2.9% of those under
49 said they had had only one partner.[24] In 1994, the largest gay magazine in America, The Advocate,
gave the findings of a questionnaire returned by 2,500 male homosexual
readers. The article reported that 2% said they had sex with only one
man in the last year, 57% had had sex with more than 30 men and 35% had
more than 100.[25]
Homosexuals usually do not deny these findings. In reply, they often
say “restrictive” heterosexual monogamy should not be imposed on
homosexuals.[26] The 1995 Advocate survey
of 2,500 of its lesbian readers resulted in a very different picture.
On average they had ten sex partners in a lifetime. However, when it
comes to long-term unions, things evened out. One study found that only
8% of homosexual men and 7% of homosexual women had had a relationship
that lasted more than 4 years.[27]
Space excludes me from saying more on the extensive scientific data
that we now have on homosexual relations that tends to give a consistent
picture.[28]
Notwithstanding what has just been said, it needs to be added that
there are long-term, loving exclusive unions among male and female
homosexuals, even if they are not common, that a modern relational ethic
would affirm.
What
this means is that even if we go beyond Paul and allow that sex outside
of marriage in a committed and loving relationship is ethically
acceptable, this does not open the way to the universal endorsement of
all sexual relations, hetero or homo, or encourage us to believe that
heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage can be closely equated.
Many heterosexual marriages fail and many heterosexuals are not faithful
to their marriage vows but the majority of hetero sexual marriages do
last a lifetime, only a small percentage of people marry more than
twice, and where infidelity occurs in the vast majority of cases
the-outside-the-marriage partners can be counted on one hand.
Conclusion
I
began this essay without any enthusiasm for the topic and I end it
feeling the same because it is a very divisive issue that leaves some
angry and hurt, whatever is concluded. What is more, arguing that Paul,
and the Bible in general, judges all sex outside of heterosexual
marriage sin makes me very conscious of the huge gulf between secular
Australian attitudes to sex and those given in the Bible. This gulf is
as wide and deep today as it was for Paul who sought to bring the Gospel
to those who took for granted the Greco-Roman sexual values of his day.
We may choose to disagree with Paul but we cannot find him taking a
liberal and open-minded attitude to sex that would be acceptable to most
Australians. My most positive thought is that he does not pick on
homosexuals nor elevate this sin or any sexual sins in general above all
other sins. As far as his sex ethic is concerned, he sets the same high
standard for every believer: celibacy or heterosexual marriage. This
standard he makes clear, is for Christians empowered by the Holy
Spirit. He does not expect it of unbelievers. Thousands of Christians
across the ages, their sexual orientation unknown, have chosen the first
option for the sake of the Gospel. They have lived full and productive
lives as singles serving Christ, usually as part of an intentional
Christian community.[29]
This
Gospel, I need to add finally, is not about sinless perfection. It is
rather “the good news” that Christ offers forgiveness to frail human
beings who all too often fall into sin. It is a Gospel that allows no
one to elevate themselves morally before God because before God we are
alike all sinners in need of grace.
Post-script
Before
I leave this matter, I need to say categorically that the issue of
homosexuality and women’s liberation cannot be equated as the
evangelical right constantly tries to do. Paul could not say to women,
“this is what some of you used to be,” as he does to the Corinthians
whose behaviour he condemns. The two matters are to be contrasted rather
than compared.
- Christian
theologians view homosexual relations as a breach of the Christian
ethic. What they proscribe is certain behaviour. Women’s liberation in
contrast concerns the dignity and equality of half the human race. The
argument is that because women are full human beings they should be
valued and treated in the same way as men. Women as women are not guilty
of any sin simply because they are women. The behaviour of this one sex
is not an issue.
- How
the Bible speaks of homosexual relations and women is very different.
Homosexual relations are rejected primarily because they breach the
creation norm in which we are made by God as either male or female so
that we complement the other in our differences. Because of this
profound theological grounding of sexual identity and sexual
relationships, there is not one statement in scripture that would
endorse sex outside of a heterosexual marriage union. In contrast, when
it comes to the relationship of men and women, the revealed creation
order makes the two sexes equal before God and to each other (Gen.
1:27-28), adding later that it is sin that leads the man to dominate
over the women (3:16). Jesus endorses this noble creational view of the
sexes standing side by side, saying not one word to suggest men have
been set over women and much to the contrary. Paul generally follows his
master, allowing that the Spirit empowers men and women alike for
ministry (1 Cor. 12:7). He thus speaks positively of them leading the
assembled church in prayer and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:4-5); of men and
women missionary apostles (Rom. 16:7) and of men and women as leaders of
home churches which were the norm in early Christianity (Acts 12:12,
16:14-15, 40, Col. 4:15). In Galatians 3:28, he says that “in Christ
there is neither male nor female,” meaning not that sexual
differentiation is obliterated in Christ but that it is transcended. It
is in the light of Paul’s equal-in-ministry theology and his generally
affirming view of the leadership of men and women and of their oneness
in Christ that I and others argue that Paul’s three regulative comments
that single out women should be interpreted (1 Cor. 11:4-16,14:33-34, 1
Tim 2:11-14). These texts speak to particular problems and pastoral
concerns in the churches addressed and therefore should not be taken as
universal prohibitions.
- It
thus follows that to affirm the substantive equality of women is to
prioritise the primary and foundational view of women given in the
Bible. It is not a capitulation to modern secular culture. In contrast,
to affirm homosexual relations is to reject the primary and foundation
understanding of sex given in the Bible. It is to capitulate to modern
secular culture.
[1] On the scientific data, see N. E. Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, revised 2nd edition, 2010 which can be downloaded from www.mygenes.co.nz.This book gives a comprehensive 20-year review of more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality.
[2]
The best study of what the Bible says on homosexuality with a
comprehensive survey of the scientific data is in R. A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Texts and Hermeneutics, Nashville, Abingdon, 2001.
[3] Five Uneasy Pieces: Essays on Scripture and Homosexuality, Adelaide, ATF, 2011, pp. 47-68.
[5] On this passage besides the many scholarly commentaries, a few of which I footnote later, see also B. S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 5-7, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1999.
[6] Five Uneasy Pieces, p.61.
[7] See the discussion and documentation on this in A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000, p. 452.
[9] The Bible and Homosexuality, p. 306.
[10] He says seeking the meaning of this word viaits etymology “is completely invalid.” Five Uneasy Pieces, p. 49.
[11] The Bible and Homosexuality, p. 92.
[15] For the evidence, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexuality, pp. 289-297.
[16]
All these churches predicate their rejection of homosexual relations
primarily on the basis of what Scripture teaches. The Catholic
theologian may add that what Scripture says on this matter reflects
natural law and the Orthodox theologian may say it reflects the
tradition of the church but in both cases scriptural teaching is
foundational to the position taken.
[20] For the evidence, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 418-429.
[21] See J. Harvey, et al, “Sex in Australia: The Australian study of health and relationships,” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
27/2, 2003, pp. 230-233. This article gives the findings on the largest
and most thorough survey in Australia to date. It was conducted by
telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and
59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as
heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7%
identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian
and 1.4% as bisexual. Studies in other Western societies come up with
much the same figures. About 2% of the population self-identify as
homosexuals.
[22] For a brief outline of the science on causation, see the essay by psychiatrist David Clarke, “Science and Sexuality” in Beyond Stereotypes: Christians and Homosexuality, Box Hill, Australian Evangelical Alliance, 2009, pp. 29-35. In more detail, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 380-432.
[23] On choice, see P. Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Argumentation against Homosexuality,
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993. This is a book written by a Dutch
homosexual with doctorates in biology and theology. He argues that no
one is “born” a homosexual; choice is always involved.
[24] P. Van de Ven, et al, “A comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Active Homosexual Men,” Journal of Sex Research,
34, 1997, pp. 349-60. For similar figures from England, see C. H.
Mercer et al, “Behaviourally bisexual men as a bridge population for HIV
and sexually transmitted infections? Evidence from a national
probability survey,” International Journal of STD & AIDS, 20, 2008, pp. 87-94. On Lesbian relationships and the length of male and female homosexual partnerships, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 454-459.
[25] Janet Lever, “The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The men: Sexual Relations,” The Advocate, Aug, 23, 1994, pp. 16-24.
[26]
Over the years I have taken part in a number of open forums with
homosexuals and heard such comments many times. For published quotations
see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, p. 458 n 189.
[27] Gagnon, p. 459 and n 191.
[29]
A beautiful account of what such Christian communal living can involve
for a group of men is described in Xavier Beauvois’ film, “Of Gods and
Men.”