2006 Interim (Essay #5) (Religion-C)
October 13, 2006

"SCRIPTURE AND SEXUAL MORES"

This completes my trilogy of protest against political voices that claim to tell us exactly what God is thinking today.

In supporting "Defense of Marriage" legal actions, many say that the Bible established marriage and directs its practice. Not really. I find no place where Biblical instructions are to marry, or to marry before having children. Marriage was a custom in other civilizations, both in Europe and the Americas, preceding Israel by thousands of years.

The Hebrews tell the story of creation in a beautiful way. A man and woman leave their homes and "become one" in order to produce children. For most couples, the creation story becomes their story and means establishing a new home. However, many couples in biblical times did not leave one parent's home. Solomon ‘became one’ with 700 wives, plus concubines. We find no scriptural objection to this non-marriage practice.

Also in ancient Hebrew tradition, marriage was more a property contract and the wife was owned by the husband. The man could dissolve the agreement, but the woman could not. The man could make other such contracts. The woman would be guilty of adultery if she allowed another man intimate contact, and that man would be guilty of adultery, which was the violation of a man's property. But the husband did not commit adultery if he roamed far and wide in sexual exploits -- as long as his new partner was not some one else's property.

The scripture certainly assumes marriage as a cultural custom. Every healthy adult was to produce children. We assume Jesus did not marry, but he attended a wedding, even making some very good wine for it, and he used a wedding setting for a parable. In speaking of family, Jesus was more likely to speak of wedges and tensions which divide families. Jesus was very direct in confronting the above property aspect by condemning divorce and, frankly, leaving no room for "Just breaking up." (Matt 5:31,32) If someone really wants scripture for the defense of marriage, why not take that one?

The proponents/opponents of "gay marriage" -- civil union between the same sex -- are examples of serious offenders in the abuse of scripture. A few would say that if two men love each other, and have a commitment to each other, scripture would say they should be married. Not any more than hetero.

Far more agitators would say that scripture prohibits such a couple from a committed relationship. No related scripture even mentions love or commitment. That judgment is in the mind of the reader, as s/he looks for scripture to back an opinion.

We can define marriage as a contract for a man and woman, as I prefer. This does not prevent us from finding a good term for a contract between two men or two women, which the proposed act prohibits. There is much to commend a contract, especially when children are involved. They need a stable home. We could talk about this in an open way if we could get past "religious" assertions that God opposes these homes.

Also clearly for us, marriage has two components, a civil contract and a religious ceremony. Couples may choose one or both. A few countries do not allow both ceremonies at the same time. These are not equal and scripture does not guide the ceremony of the state -- which is the point of interest in the ‘defense of marriage’ act. Prohibition of legal standing puts a couple in jeopardy in several situations and is therefore a harm to a stable community. Scripture guides us in family life, but does not direct the law.

However, marriage is not the real point of these actions. We already prohibit same sex marriage in Nebraska. The point of the actions of Nebraska and Congress is to remove rights from gay persons. According to our Attorney General, the Nebraska defense of marriage amendment prohibits a gay person from advocating for his/her rights with me, a state legislator. We may not talk about rights.

How can this be? There is not another person in or out of Nebraska who is prevented from talking with a senator -- not a felon, nor anarchist, nor terrorist, nor member of a weird religion or party. God commands this?

The action is a slam of gays. In our society, we often protest other people's rights. You can do that; just do not blame your attitude on God. We have a right to express revulsion about homosexual orientation, or a right to debate theories that our sexual orientation is chosen and therefore is an act subject to law. Just do not blame God for opinions, or pretend scripture is relevant. Biblical writers never heard of a concept of sexual orientation, which was developed hundreds of years after they wrote. Scripture has no reference to homosexual orientation or to a loving intimate relation between two men or two women. Plainly, gay couples are not known or assumed by any scripture reference.

We find ten scripture references (15 verses) to same sex activities. All assume the activity is between heterosexual persons. For example, the men are assumed to be married. In the Hebrew culture, all potent men were expected to marry and have children.

Two passages have direct statements. Paul speaks his outrage to and about men who are married, plus have a mistress, plus seek mutual masturbation with other men. He calls it "lust." Yes! Paul is devastating in his comments. Anyone who reads Romans 1-2:3 with no pre-formed opinion would recognize the point being made. Paul decries those "whose evil ways prevent the truth about God from being known." (1:18) One way is by worshipping their bodies (created by God) instead of the Creator. This is sin, because it obscures a clear vision of God with a focus on one's body. Other ways to obscure God: with greed, vice, jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, malice, gossip, insolence, pride, boasting, disobeying parents, not keeping promises, or having no kindness or pity. How about organized movements to object to these sins?

Lust fogs the mind, is sin. It is the lack of control, the using of another person for self-gratification, turning away from productive use of life energy, shielding one's intellect from the power of God. Some of it is same sex but most of it is opposite sex. He makes one reference to women in an act that is ‘not by nature,’ but the subject is still lust. Would that we could skip our proof texting and join wholeheartedly in publicizing his thoughts about that which obscures God: sin. We abuse scripture when we detract from the central message and thereby we give aid to those ignoring that message.

Leviticus brings a very different setting. The prophets vehemently fought for the belief in and practice of One God. Any compromise brought impurity, which was an abomination. Leviticus is a book of rules to guide priests in temple rituals. Lifting verses from that context changes the meaning, as the original intent is part of the message. For example, the literal translation of the first same-sex passage is "(No male shall) lie the lyings of a woman." Don Hanway points out "This is not a moral violation but a violation of purity according to the Hebrew thinking of that time: one's maleness is compromised (diluted, polluted) when one assumes the woman's role in the sexual act. It is akin to mixing two kinds of seed in a field or two kinds of fiber in cloth -- behaviors which are also ruled out." This is not about sex, but about pretending to be a woman. It is the same sin as raising hybrid see corn.

In addition, on this text, there was the problem of doing acts of devotion to a foreign god. Married men, with families and a farm, were to trust that Jehovah would produce crops. However, some farmers heard that a Caananite goddess had a reputation for affecting fertility and may help crops and herds produce more. So what could be harmed by covering all the bases? Devotion to One God, that's what.

The offending men crossed the border to the temple of the goddess where they were directed in mutual masturbation, collected the sperm in a small dish and placed it on the altar. They then did "the dance of the burning corn" around it and went home to watch their crops and herds grow. Were these gay men? Were they in love? Were they establishing a union? Were they being disloyal to their wives? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Was it an abomination? Yes, without any doubt. It was flirting with a foreign god, diluting allegiance to Jehovah, and harmful to the Hebrew community. (The prophets also felt masturbation was a wasting of sacred seed needed to build a nation. In their minds, woman had no seed or egg.)

Same sex affection is not a theme of scripture anywhere. A Lutheran bishop has said simply that God does not care about humanly devised categories that label and demean those who somehow do not fit our norm. "God made all of us and did not make us alike."

It is an extreme disappointment to me that Christian denominations with Biblical authority as a central premise have not stepped forward to verify the above understanding of scriptures, which is taught by Biblical scholars of a variety of backgrounds. The Catholics have spent centuries interpreting the scriptures, so they can be forgiven for not approaching a modern subject with a clear mind. Baptists and Methodists have much to say about scripture but they, like many others, would rather quote the scripture than study it. I tease, of course. So I go on to pick on the Episcopalians, who have had a very clear approach to scripture in the last two hundred years. Study it, weigh it and only then announce what is found there. Many Episcopal leaders have held to that standard but far too many are plainly led by cultural attitudes regarding gay couples as they study scripture on this subject.

Again, a few persons express negative attitudes toward gay persons. However repulsive, it is personal opinion. Do not call it biblical. Though I do not like hearing the diversity of attitudes, I strongly affirm the right to these expressions. That is helpful in a democracy as we make up our minds about what is best public policy.

In summary, please note I have not commented on same sex relations, whatever that is. Two men hugging on a football field is a same sex relation. When we throw in words we are not willing to define, like "intimate," how can we have intelligent discussion? I also have never said a word of support for heterosexual "private" practices. O my. Would someone expect me to bless Madonna? Or every birth? A few marriages are legalized rape.

Many marriages, I feel, are blessed by our creator. Would that we could affirm loving relationships as strongly as do our beloved scriptures.

Cheers,

Lowen

Note: Available by email is the Lincoln Journal review of Fr. Don Hanway's book: "A Theology of Gay and Lesbian Inclusion," The Hayworth Press, Inc., 2006

An excellent Baptist Christian commentary on all of these subjects is Jimmy Carter's book: "Our Enduring Values" (Simon & Schuster, 2005).