Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Relationships and Religion
Same-Sex Relationships and the Bible: A Conversation

Same-Sex Relationships and the Bible: A Conversation

Last updated on: July 3, 2024 at 9:38 am by James F. McGrath

0 Comments

Same-Sex Relationships and the Bible: A Conversation 2024-07-03T09:38:10-04:00 James F. McGrath

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I had some interaction with someone on Facebook about the subject of same-sex relationships in the context of Christianity and the Bible. I thought that it might be of interest to a wider audience. and thus am sharing it here. Since I haven’t asked my conversation partner for permission to name them, I have left them anonymous. Our interaction started with the following comment that I left on a post of theirs about recent developments in the Church of England with respect to same-sex relationships.

James McGrath

If the Holy Spirit can let uncircumcised Gentiles into Abraham’s household, then the Holy Spirit can let people in same-sex relationships into the people of God. If you wish to insist otherwise you are free to do so, but kindly don’t pretend that is the Christian stance and all others are not. James was a Christian, but so too was Paul.

Conservative Anglican

I don’t think there is any doubt that gay people are part of the people of God; that is not the debate (as my gay Christian friends would testify). The question is the pattern of sexual relationships, which is a separate question since we are not ontologically bound to our actions. Clearly no-one in scripture thinks that the inclusion of the gentiles leads to the redefinition of marriage away from the creation norm. It is odd (or ironic) that you cite Paul, since he is the one who *both* champions the inclusion of gentiles *and* makes explicit what is implicit in the teaching of Jesus, that marriage is between man and woman. He holds these two realities together in that powerful phrase in 1 Cor 6.9: ‘such were some of you, *but*…’ And the underlying theological narrative is that circumcision (along with food laws) was a distinctive for the Israel of God as a means to the goal of Israel being a light to the nations. The inclusion of gentiles as gentiles was the fulfilment of this. Neither were part of God’s creation intention—unlike male-female marriage. (But I think you know all this…?) As E P Sanders summarises:

Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accepted many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in this case accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though now have been recovered by ancient historians…Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists.

And as Luke Timothy Johnson reminds us: “The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.”

James McGrath

Yes, being uncircumcised was the subject of a severe clash between Greek and Jewish views, and Paul’s opponents had little patience with the efforts to make scripture say something other than it says. Thus your stance would be a deeply problematic one even apart from the fact that neither the heterosexual marriage of today nor same-sex marriage were what biblical authors were talking about.

Conservative Anglican

I don’t think I understand your comment. Both James and Paul don’t assert something contrary to scripture; they precisely appeal to scripture, in creation of humanity as male and female, and the eschatological goal of all nations being drawn to Zion. There is no comparable scriptural argument for same-sex sexual relationships, which is why both continued to teach against them. I don’t understand your comment about marriage not being the same; despite the different social contexts, the continuity is the understanding of marriage as a lifelong, exclusive commitment between one man and one woman which normally leads to procreation and parenting.

James McGrath

Until Paul made it there was no comparable argument for ignoring that plain teaching of Genesis that everyone who becomes part of Abraham’s household must be circumcised. That Paul used scripture to justify doing so did not impress his opponents.

There had indeed been a cultural shift towards marriage as between one man and one woman by New Testament times, but claiming that as biblical marriage, ignoring what it says about concubinage, and everything else you’re doing in pretending that the Biblical stance on marriage is consistent, simple, and matches yours will not impress anyone who is actually aware of the diverse biblical material on the subject.

Conservative Anglican

You are mistaken that Paul was the first to claim this. John the Baptist implies it in Matt 3.9, and Jesus talks of ‘many coming from the east and the west to sit at Abraham’s table.’ I don’t care whether Paul’s opponents were impressed. The question is what does scripture say. You need to read my comments more carefully; I don’t claim that all the social and cultural elements of marriage are the same. Of course there is diversity, because a. much biblical narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive and b. the social context is different. What I am pointing out is that the theological core of marriage, set out by Gen 1 and 2, remain constant. The creation accounts functioned as reforming texts as Jesus’ own citations shows.

James McGrath

There is definitely a degree of continuity between John the Baptist and Paul, and so if you want to view the man who is the focus of my new book as the real radical innovator I have no objection.

You seem unable to see how much your use of scripture mirrors that of Paul’s opponents, just on a different topic. Perhaps someday you will but no need to continue until that day arrives.

Conservative Anglican

James McGrath the line ‘one day you will come to realise your error and that I was right all along’ is both patronising and a power play. It suggests that you have run out of responses on the actual issue. It is bizarre for you to claim that your own position contradicting Paul’s explicit teaching is following Paul’s logic. If it is, how come he didn’t come to your conclusion…??

James McGrath

Why didn’t others come to the conclusion that uncircumcised Gentiles can become part of Abraham’s household? Why didn’t countless generations realize that, despite the clear acceptance of slavery throughout scripture all it takes is the Golden Rule to make a case for its abolition? This is precisely my point that you consider patronizing and a power play. The SBC folks currently discussing the abhorrently unbiblical idea (in their eyes) that there can be women pastors do not see themselves as adopting the same approach to the Bible that led their forebears to conclusions that their descendants now shake their heads in shame at. I am not claiming that all this shows I am right and you are wrong. What it does show is that it is false to claim as you do that same-sex relationships is the first topic on which anyone has argued that, despite there being clear individual passages against something, there can also be a case based in scriptural principles for that thing.

Conservative Anglican

It shows no such thing. The biblical texts on women’s ministry and authority are mixed–some affirming, some apparently denying. There is complex work to do. The biblical texts on same-sex relations are unambiguous and consistent—hence Luke Timothy Johnson’s comment. The issues are not comparable.

James McGrath

The Biblical texts on allowing uncircumcised Gentiles into Abraham’s household were consistent until the church decided to make the writings of a man who argued otherwise into scripture. There are no texts on same-sex relations that are not framed within the ancient Mediterranean patriarchal view of marriage as an institution for producing legitimate heirs. That’s why according to biblical law a woman who sleeps with anyone but her husband is an adulteress but a man who sleeps with another woman (assuming she is not someone else’s wife) is merely taking a concubine. He could also take additional wives. “Biblical marriage” certainly begins to be redefined in certain ways by the early Christians, and some of us think that the implications of that redefinition, making it about a mutual relationship of love and commitment rather than merely a means to produce heirs and manage household, has implications for our time beyond those you’re willing to accept.

Conservative Anglican

Sorry, none of that is true. The actual Council of Acts 15 preceded Paul’s writings becoming scripture! (I hope you know that!) The creation accounts are not framed in patriarchy—if anything, quite the opposite! You are creating a straw man ‘biblical marriage’ which is odd; no-one does their theological reading of scripture by taking all the verses and bundling them together in the way you are. You are disagreeing with your own wooden reading, not with mine. ‘Merely’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting there—and again, not reflecting the biblical texts. For some reason you have deleted the cry of recognition in Gen 2.23—I think because you need to to fit your argument.

James McGrath

I hope you know that there is some uncertainty about what the historical event was that lies behind Acts 15. Be that as it may, do you accept that the clear teaching of scripture in Genesis 17:10-14 could be overturned so long as the majority at a church council agreed to do so?

Genesis 2 is actually central to my view. Unlike you, I don’t think that it is good for those human beings who are attracted to people of the same sex to be alone. I think the principle in Genesis 2 is clear that we are created to find someone that we experience to be our “missing other half.”

Conclusion

That was not the end of that conversation, but I don’t think it helpful to reproduce the whole thing. My conservative Anglican conversation partner pointed to the impressive number of impressive scholars who agree on what the scriptures say on this topic. I replied:

You seem to be missing the point. I don’t disagree that there are texts that oppose what same-sex intercourse represented in that time and place. If we think about the Greek context, it wasn’t something generally pursued as a lifelong commitment, it was older men using younger men for their own sexual satisfaction. Many of the abolitionists agreed that the Torah and epistles accepted slavery. They argued on the basis of other biblical texts and principles that it was nonetheless right and good to abolish what others before them had accepted and legislated. As Wayne Meeks pointed out in his famous piece on the topic (‘The “Haustafeln” and American Slavery: A Hermeneutical Challenge’), the exegesis on the side of the defenders of slavery was typically better.

Since that essay by Wayne Meeks is not available online I will conclude by quoting and linking to another Anglican scholar, Richard Burridge, who writes, “the abolition controversy two hundred years ago parallels our current crisis between those who want to be biblical upholding the tradition and those who are ‘inclusive’. Yet we are now clear that those who claimed to be biblical were wrong – and the then dangerous liberals are now seen as inspired by the Bible to bring freedom.” See as well Claudia Setzer’s study of feminist interpretation of the Bible as it intersects with the approach to biblical interpretation used by defenders of slavery, which is still seen not only in connection with the opposition of same-sex relationships, but also the opposition of women as leaders in a Christian context.

Evangelical

Relationships and Religion

Previous Post

June 24, 2024

ChatGPT Writes Sermons, Translates Aramaic

Next Post

July 9, 2024 Ageism, Character, and the 2024 Presidential Election

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"V. good.For me, the gold standard for this sort of thing is still Wikihistory by ..."

Scurra

The Time-Traveler’s Apprentice (A Short Story)

"The one who says "no one comes to the Father but through me" is the ..."

James F. McGrath

Attack on Religious Freedom in Indiana

"Until I read, "As a Christian, it is possible but not at all necessary to ..."

Sam Vimes

Attack on Religious Freedom in Indiana

"Hey James, regarding your penultimate paragraph, I struggle with the same issue. I do think ..."

Jeff Cate

The Fourth Synoptic Gospel

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Corinthians 2 Kings 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy academia Acts of the Apostles afterlife Akhaten Alcatraz American Academy of Religion Amos Anglican Arabic Aramaic archaeology art artificial intelligence astronomy atheism atonement Babylon 5 Baptists Battlestar Galactica Bible Biblical Studies Carnival biblioblogging Black Mirror Blade Runner Book of Job book review Buddhism Call for Papers China Christianity Christmas Christology Chronicles Coptic creation Daniel Deuteronomy Doctor Who Dune Easter Ecclesiastes economics education Eldad Keynan Enoch Seminar Ephesians eschatology Esther Evangelicals evolution Exodus Expanse Ezekiel Ezra fantasy Fringe fundamentalism Galatians games Ge'ez genealogy Genesis Gnosticism Gospel of Jesus' Wife Gospel of John Gospel of Judas Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Greek Harry Potter Hebrew Hebrews Hinduism historical Jesus history Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Holidays horror Hosea humor incarnation India inerrancy information literacy inspirational Intelligent Design Ireland Isaiah Islam Israel Italy James Jeremiah John the Baptist Jonah Joshua Judaism Jude Judges Judith Lamentations languages Latin Leviticus libraries literature Lord of the Rings LOST Mandaeans Mandaic memes Methodism Micah monotheism morality Mormons movies music mythicism NASSCAL Nehemiah new perspective New Testament news Numbers Orthodox paganism panentheism pantheism Patheos Paul and his letters Pentecostals Philippians Philippians 2:6-11 philosophy physics Planet of the Apes podcast politics Progressive Christianity Protestantism Proverbs Psalms pseudoscience racism religion Revelation Roman Catholicism Romania Romans Ruth scams science science fiction Secret Gospel of Mark Society of Biblical Literature Song of Songs Star Trek Star Wars Stargate Swahili Syriac Taoism technology Terminator The Handmaid's Tale The Hobbit The Matrix theodicy theology theory Timeless Titus tomb Torchwood travel TRON Uncategorized United Kingdom Westworld X-Files young-earth creationism Zechariah

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 February 2007 January 2001

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz