A Theological Conversation on Sexual Identity

Recently I sat down with a pastor acquaintance of mine to chat about an upcoming sermon on sexual identity. This pastor wanted to pick my brain as they prepared to preach, and we recorded our conversation. The pastor’s voice is in bold type, and my voice is in italics type. Enjoy!


In our church we’ve been doing a series through the book of Proverbs over about seven weeks, using proverbs as wise sayings.  Like it’s the end of the year with your family around the house and just talking about some wisdom and giving wisdom into certain issues.  We’ve touched on finances and sex and pornography, so it’s been those kinds of issues.  What I’m doing this week is talking about sexuality.  I’m doing sexual identity from the perspective that sexuality was created by God.  That we have a sexual identity which is not defined by what we have or what we desire or anything like that.  Rather, who we are in God is who we are, outside of those things. So what do our desires mean to our humanity?  The things we have, for instance, the gift mix that we have, the things that we’re born with, what do those things mean about our humanity?  And so, what are the things that are true about identity, regardless of how we feel, what we desire, or what we have.  Then, I would like to speak to the community about how then do we exist as a community with the reality that people are born with, you know, our biology.  How do we exist with the tension that is in Scripture?  Then, informing us to view the world this way and to view ourselves this way, but we’ve got these experiences that people have that seem to contradict what the Scriptures say.  How do we help people integrate into the community and accept them as being an extension of the image of God, even though they feel a particular way––they might be inclined to recognize themselves or identify in a particular way?  So in all of that, I think that the anchoring theme for me is identity.

And then I would like to give some good scriptural analysis for people.  Because I think a lot of people inherit beliefs or philosophies, but we don’t really understand how we actually look at the Scriptures around this issue. So I would appreciate input around the Old Testament.  There are people who just go, “It’s in the Old Testament.”  I’ve got friends within this community always complaining that their biggest barrier is that they feel like Christians pick and choose what they’re going to be passionate about.  That we’re going to stand on this issue, but there are so many other things, too!  There’s so many laws in the Old Testament that even if you try, you can’t appropriate them in the New Testament just by virtue of the fact that cultures change and so forth.  But when they’re speaking to Christians, they feel like Christians have this staunch approach to this one issue, but they don’t actually know why the other laws are not applicable, or even the ones that can be applicable feels like, “But why aren’t you doing this one?” because you could be.  

And finally, how do we catch God’s heart? Because another thing that I’ve experienced on the other side of these sermons is there’s the clarity of Scripture but God’s heart is not always translated.  It’s like “Here’s the line,” but what does that mean for people who feel on the other side of that line? I mean, I don’t think you can stay away from this topic being a campus missionary for as long as we have been.  But I think this is fairly new looking at it from an identity perspective and creating a framework to help people gain clarity around how they go about thinking about it.  For me as a preacher, I’m coming in on a Sunday, people are seeing these issues differently, and I want theological clarity for people.  Then I also want people who are in that community not to see themselves as people who need to do something to be seen as whole, to be seen as an extension of the image of God, so I think if I would summarize my goals that’s what I’m trying to do.

Wow, that sounds really good. I’m so glad!  So, if I can summarize what I hear you saying, you would like to focus your sermon especially on the idea of sexual identity or gender identity, and what is some sensical biblical thinking about that.  And then, how to communicate that not just in an academic headspace, but in a way that God’s passion and love really come through.  That’s what I hear you saying you want to do.  That’s fantastic.

So I definitely think that Genesis 1 is really important.  I don’t know what kind of theological background you’re coming from, or your specific church.  But I feel like, when it comes to biblical thinking about gender, that portion of Scripture is really important.  I’ll say that I myself grew up in a fundamentalist and patriarchal kind of upbringing.  And largely through my own study of the Scripture I have come to think that those perspectives are just wrong.  I think the picture of gender identity with God is that neither men nor women have a trump card in terms of the nature of God.  Both genders together exhibit the image of God.  Now I’m getting into more theology now as opposed to just exegesis, but I would say that the reason why we use male pronouns for God is because that’s what Jesus used.  It’s not because God is somehow intrinsically male or female.  Or, if you want to say it this way, it’s like God is both male and female at the same time.

Can I just ask you a question on that? I’ve heard some theology lectures where God is no longer referred to as he or she, but they say “God-self.”  So how do you bring clarity around that? I hear what you’re saying that Jesus refers to God as “he” but that God is neither he nor she.  What is the correct framework for that?

Yes, so again, this is a distinction that’s important for me as a theologian, and as a biblical exegete.  Theology and exegesis are not strictly the same thing.  Those are distinct disciplines, and theology goes further than exegesis does. At some point, your exegesis has to be founded on some presuppositions, and those presuppositions are your theology. It’s important for me to make that distinction, that this stuff we’re talking about right now has to do with one’s faith commitments about God.  Right, so you can’t exegete your way to your faith commitments about God necessarily.  At some point, all of us as Christians have to take what Scripture says, and then we choose what we believe about God. And this idea of gender identity is clearly in that realm of theology.  Christians do come to different conclusions about these things, and it’s not necessarily a matter of right or wrong.  Although, there is such a thing as good theology and bad theology. 

So, now that I’ve kind of clarified that disclaimer, I’ll keep talking.  So let me come back to another kind of faith commitment I have that I think is very important for theology.  I am a firm believer that the non-physical aspect of our being, or non-physical aspect of reality, is reflected in physical aspects of reality.  And I think that’s so important in all kinds of ways.  We as people, how God has created us, we are not disembodied.  We are not disembodied spirits that just happen to live inside a body.  At some point when we die, we will be a disembodied spirit outside a body.  But right now, we’re a whole being.  We have our spirit and our body, and you can’t really pull those apart.  There are all kinds of different ways that Christians have gone about trying to explain the differences between masculinity and femininity, and in the end I think most of those constructs are unsatisfying in terms of how the genders actually relate to one another. 

In a marriage relationship, at least, I think the male partner is the penetrating partner and the female partner is the penetrated partner.  And I think it’s the same in our relationship with God. This is my own thinking now.  I think that the reason why God uses masculine pronouns for himself in his revelation to us is to show that in our relationship with God, he is the one who penetrates us, we are not the ones who penetrate him. So that’s how I reconcile that in my own theology.  That’s my own personal thinking.  But I think we have to read the revelation of God in Scripture in light of this fundamental truth that is set forth at the very beginning, that the image of God is both genders together.  Neither one has a privileged position over the other.  Now I understand that we could get into some stuff in the New Testament about preaching and stuff like that, but we don’t need to do that right now.

The other thing that I would say is that this differentiation between “penetrating” and “penetrated” really only applies within a sexual relationship.  Apart from that, men and women really do stand on their own in God’s economy.  I don’t think the idea is scriptural that a woman is under her father’s authority until she gets married and then her authority transfers to her husband.  I think that is just bogus. All of us as Christians, we’re all under Jesus.  Jesus says, “All authority is mine.” We’re all under Jesus.  So those are my thoughts on Genesis and why I think Genesis 1 is so important.  But you said that your series is really in Proverbs?

Yeah, so the wisdom is drawn from Proverbs, but it’s obviously very difficult just to preach out of Proverbs.  Generally, I think the whole proverbs thing means just the wisdom literature around it.  And that’s what has allowed for conversation, the tone of the preaching has allowed it because we’re talking wisdom literature.  We’ve been able to take the posture that Proverbs has, sort of thinking around the Scripture to help how people think through things.  Because that’s what proverbs do: as you look at it, it’s not obvious, and so it goes.  So it’s been a nice way to see and hear preaching differently.

Do you have a specific passage that you’re focused on in Proverbs?

Not at the moment. Generally, what I do is to zoom out before I zoom in.  I’m currently in the zoomed out phase.  The reason why I thought it would be good to speak to you is because we just came out of the Proverbs series.  So…okay, what’s the appropriate way to use the book of Proverbs to tie in, or at least link, the concepts from Genesis 1 and Romans 1 to put it all together.

Right.  So let me ask you, what are you hoping to appropriate from Romans 1 specifically?

So the reason why I like Romans 1 is because it speaks about choosing to dishonor God.  And there are ways in which God removes himself when there’s that dishonor, where we’ve chosen something other than God.  What I’d like to do with Romans 1 is speak about how the ordering of our affections is important, right?  And when our affections are not ordered, our submission is not ordered, it has consequences.  It’s like society likes to order affections to our own lives, but there’s a reason for God’s order.  And that if we don’t subscribe to that order, this is what happens.  So I like Romans 1 for that.

Right.  Okay, so I’m just going to share thoughts that come to mind.  What is troubling, at least in a modern context with the current kinds of social debates about gender identity and sexual expression and stuff––one of the reasons why this is hard for Christians is because if you read the Bible, it is impossible to escape, and particularly in the New Testament. that our relationship with God affects what we do with our genitals.  The Bible is very clear about that.  Which makes perfect sense, right?  If it’s true that we are made in the image of God, and God has made us male and female.  And if our world has been marred by sin, it makes sense that sometimes those boundaries don’t work exactly the way that one might feel like they should.  I mean, things like gender dysphoria make sense in a biblical worldview.  God has created us male and female, and yet here we exist in a world that has been marred by sin.  It makes sense that those things would not always work perfectly.  But actually, thinking about the problem isn’t necessarily the issue, right? It’s how do we solve these problems? That’s what’s hard. But in the end, you cannot escape this fact that how we relate to God does, in fact, impact what we do with the male or female parts of our body.  Paul is very clear about this.

For my own self, I think the path of wisdom is to say that it is not my place to change others. I have people very close to me who are Christians and are homosexual.  How I have dealt with that, personally, is to say that it is not my place to change them.  It’s my place to love them.  I don’t condone homosexual behavior, I don’t think it’s in God’s will.  But at the same time, I think that there are more important things in our Christian expression.  I mean, I’m not just going to say to someone else, “I’m not going to talk to you” or “I’m not going to be your friend” just because you’ve come to a belief that homosexual expression is okay in your relationship with God.  If I got into an honest conversation, what I would say is that I don’t think homosexual expression matches what the Bible reveals. But at the same time, I would say that sexual ethics is an issue of theology.  It’s not really an issue of exegesis.  So it’s an issue of faith.  Yes, and another reason why it’s hard is because we have this big verse in Galatians where Paul says that, in Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, or even male and female!  So we’re like, “Oh, what is Paul really saying about gender identity there?”  I don’t think he means it in a physical way.  I don’t think he means that just because I’m a Christian, that doesn’t make me not a man anymore.  I think what he means is something like, it’s often tempting for me as a man to just view myself as being a man and then, when I interact with women, to say, “Well, you don’t understand because you’re a woman.”  Basically, I think Paul’s point is that that kind of thinking for Christians is not allowed.  We’re not simply men and women anymore, we are all under Christ.  Even further, there is something going on in our person when we come to Jesus and the Holy Spirit begins his work in us.  My very manhood is, in fact, being changed.  I’m becoming a new man.

I’m reminded of Jesus’ story to the Sadducees. They ask him a question about the woman who marries seven different brothers and then eventually dies, whose wife will she be in heaven?  They’re trying to trap him because they believe there really is no such thing as a resurrection.  And he says no, you’ve got it all wrong.  In the eternal state, when we are with God, we won’t be married.  This kind of inter-dynamism of the two genders in the gift of marriage is God’s gift for us while we are living. But in the eternal state, there’s something else for us, like we really will be individual people in our relationship with God.

While all these things are true, I think the weakness of this is coming to some kind of strictly individualistic view of my relationship with God, which Paul is also very clear that that is not what’s happening.  The new self, the new man that God is making in me, as a Christian is not an individual identity, but is a communal identity. It’s all of us, as the body of Christ together.  I think all of these things are woven into this idea of gender identity.

Bringing my thoughts back to Romans now, I think you are right. It’s a principle of the world that what we sow is what we will reap.  What we do with our genitals is going to impact us either for better for worse, and I don’t know if anyone other than God is really in a position to know specifically what we deserve and what we don’t.  But I think it is biblical wisdom to say.  As a man, if I were to choose to sleep around, I would lose my marriage.  I think we are on safe ground to preach that from a pulpit.  I think the Bible is very clear that God has given us free will to make our own moral choices, but that we will reap the consequences of those choices for good or for ill.

Yes, so I have two questions on opposite ends. First, what is good news for the homosexual?  How do we preach good news to somebody who is in that position?  And then the second one is, as a community of faith, how do you walk with somebody faithfully, speaking directly to the person who finds themselves wrestling?  So, what is the good news for person individually, and then the other end as a community of faith, as the body?  How do we love faithfully?  I find it easier in my personal relationships than in relating to people as a pastor. Because in your personal relationships, you know what you think.  But when you have that pastoral role, or when people are in church and you’re thinking of yourself as a disciple maker, I think that community makes it a bit complicated.  I don’t find it to be complicated at all in my personal relationships. But I do find it to be complicated in the body.

That makes perfect sense, because in some ways that community is looking to you for answers and for guidance.

Yeah.

I’ll just let you know that I’m not a pastor now, and I’ve never served a church as a pastor.  So I’m only speaking from my experience as a Christian friend, a Bible teacher, a small group leader, a person who has preached occasionally but not specific pastoral experience.  I need to be forthcoming about that.  Let me ask you, is this a major issue in your church community?

It isn’t a place for conversation around it.  But what people can’t deny is that the pervasive culture is growing, like the pride experience, that whole thing is growing. And people don’t know how to engage, so they are just sort of hiding.  So I think I would be mostly speaking to our community of faith and rebuking them for their own identity idolatry.  So that’s another thing that’s strong in my heart, that we have our own identity altars that we worship.  And yet we say that this [homosexual] community has been wrong for doing the very thing that we do.  So that’s something that I will mention.  I think the the whole concept of identity is a strong one.  And to highlight that this is an identity issue and we all wrestle with that in different ways.  So I’m hoping that if people would see the ways in which they have their own identity idolatry, they’ll be able to walk more faithfully with others and see all of us as people who need Christ.  And it’s manifesting in different ways, but in a way, I can relate because I’m struggling to lay down my own altar, so I’m not expecting others to do something that I’m not doing myself, so I’m hoping to bring it from that perspective.

Okay, so these are a few thoughts I have.  It’s similar to the way that children are a gift from God.  Nothing more, nothing less, right?  None of us are promised children, which seems so counterintuitive.  It seems like having babies is just what we do. But actually, the Bible says that children are a gift from God, which means that if God chooses not to give us children, we are not really in a position to be angry with God about that.  Even though that, what I’ve just said, that’s really hard.  For someone who is not able to have a baby, that’s a really hard thing.  I’m not naïve to that.  There’s a sense of grief and, like, “That’s just not how it should be.”   We should have children.  You know what I mean?

Yes.

In a similar vein, sexual expression is also not a right God has given to us.  And this is true even in marriage.  I’m very convinced that God has given us our bodies and God has given us a gift of sexual expression, but that does not give us a license to break the boundaries of another person.  If my wife were to say to me, “I’m not having sex with you anymore,” I have to deal with that.

Yes, exactly.

I cannot stand on this, like, sexual right.  I really can’t.  Because her body is still her body.  This comes back to the faith commitment I have that the non-physical part of us is reflected in the physical part of us.  As people, we have boundaries, and it’s not okay to break them.  So I think that’s the first thing, and that’s really hard.  Or another thing, like, let’s say something happened to either me or my wife physically and we couldn’t have sex anymore, I still have to be married to her.  I’m not released from my vow.

Right, you are not released!

So I think that’s the first thing, and I think that’s a huge hurdle.

I love the heterosexual examples of the unfairness, because that’s the whole thing: “It’s not fair that I can’t express!”  So I appreciate the examples from the other way, that is the same unfairness.  Even in that unfairness it doesn’t change the standard of God and his expectation.

Right.  It is very tempting, even for me as a married man, to start being entitled.  But we can’t.  If we are to think of ourselves as creatures of God’s creation, made in his image, there’s no place for entitlement.  We have to acknowledge that, and we have to abide by that limitation.  But I think there’s another issue that’s more difficult.  For me, in my life, I have very, very, very seldom had any kind of homosexual urge.  It’s just not really a thing for me.  So I feel like this issue I’m about to talk about is something that really needs to be talked about by someone who does have same sex attraction.  I mean, I’ve basically been attracted to women all my life, and it’s not like I made this choice at some point to be attracted to women, I just am.  And there is solace for me, to be honest, knowing that this is actually a good thing.  This is a good part of me that actually God wants.  God wants us to get married and to have babies and to show communal love in a family, the way God himself exists in a community of love.  This is a wonderful thing! But if I were to flip it around and say, “I actually shouldn’t be attracted to women. What God wants me to do is to be attracted to men, not women,” that would be really hard. 

Yeah.

I mean, I’d be like, “But…”

“…I just don’t want to.”

Yeah. And in the end, for me as a person who struggles with lust in a heterosexual way, I think it’d be very difficult for someone who was different to hear that kind of message from me.  That doesn’t necessarily mean I shouldn’t say that message, but I think it does mean that I should be very, very careful.

And extremely compassionate.  Yeah.

And we see this kind of thing in how Paul in the New Testament talks about Christian living.  He advises men to hang out with each other and women to hang out with each other and to help each other.  He doesn’t say this explicitly, but I think his reason for that is that often across genders, we just don’t understand each other.  We think really differently, and it’s hard.  There are aspects of my wife’s spiritual life that I can say, “I hear that,” and I mentally assent to it, but I don’t really fully understand her experience.  And that makes it hard, particularly in our spiritual life, if she is going through things that I don’t really understand.  And I think it’s the path of wisdom for me to be with her, to listen, to pray with her, but to try to speak into that is just not helpful.  And it works the other way, too.  There are some times in my own spiritual life where I need a man’s perspective.

The other thing that is not lost on me is that there are some other aspects of our identity that exhibit similar dynamics, when you could always say to another person, “Well, you just don’t understand.”  We have this same dynamic with black vs white skin, or any kind of difference where there’s some kind of obvious physical distinction between me and another person that I can point to, that’s really clear.  It’s really tempting to use that to either take advantage of that difference somehow or to simply ignore the difference and dismiss the other person’s experience.  But neither of those are the path of wisdom.  Not gender, not race, not even an adult-child difference.  God has not given us the gift of our humanity in order for us to take advantage of each other or to ignore the fact that our differences exist.

I like speaking tension, so I am not always trying to resolve tensions.  Because I think in our attempt to resolve tensions we quickly want a black and white answer and a lot of it is resolved in community.  And I think that’s okay.  Yeah, so I can highlight the places of tension and say it’s on us to to read the word faithfully.  And to figure out how to resolve those tensions, I think every generation has that responsibility.  So I don’t see myself as responsible for making it all okay for everybody.

Yes, I think that’s good and healthy.

This is all good.  I think it’s clarity in thinking.  I gravitate more to the apologetic side of things, but I thought this would probably need a little bit more biblical frameworks than apologetics.

The other thing that you talked about is wanting to communicate the substance of God’s heart.  I think this is something that we can always say.  Regardless of who you’re attracted to, I think we can rightly say that the desire in all of us for intimate relationship with another human person, regardless of gender, that desire is actually good and wholesome and comes from God.  God wants us to connect with each other, and not just on a superficial level.  God wants us to be so close to another person that we would have sex with them. (I hope you understand that I’m using the term God’s “will” in a general sense there.)  I think that is comforting.  

So I got married when I was 29. Of my group of friends, I was one of the later ones to get married.  And there was a time of my life when I really prayed about whether God wanted me to be a monk and have that life. And for about six months I prayed about that.  And I kind of came to the end of that, and I was like, “No, being married and having a family is something I really want.”  And there were times in my life when, dealing with loneliness and sexual frustration, it was a comfort for me to say to myself, “You know, this thing is actually good, even though this is causing me a lot of frustration right now.”  It’s not pleasant to have sexual urges that you cannot fulfill, but I think it is comforting to know that the desire at the bottom of that is good.  If we are created in the image of God, and if the physical reflects the non-physical, then to have sex is not simply an animal act, but it really is about the desire to connect to another person, and that desire is good and right.  If God himself is three persons in one, then being united with another person is living out God’s community. I really do think that that’s tremendously important.  And that God wants that kind of relationship with us, too.  It’s not just with each other.  There is a sense in which God loves each of us enough that if God could have sex with us, he would.

Right, yes!  And when you speak about physical things that sometimes point to spiritual things, or the other way around.  For me, when I think of the the whole concept of “knowing” that is all throughout the Old Testament and that sometimes God uses that term for his deep intimacy with us.  So for me, I see that parallel of covenant and relationship with the Lord as well.   Okay, and then lastly Proverbs.

Right.  Proverbs is an interesting book because there’s a very strong sexual subtext in Proverbs but it’s almost all from a man’s perspective. The first nine chapters of Proverbs is where sexuality is explored the most.  It’s a series of conversations from a father to a son about who to marry.  And basically what this dad says is: When it comes right down to it, don’t go for the woman who wants to sleep with you, especially if she’s married already.  Don’t do it!  Instead, look for the woman who worships Yahweh has a good head on her shoulders.  That’s what you want.  Which is really interesting!  There’s all kinds of things that can be explored in that.  So if I were teaching on sexual identity centered around Proverbs, that’s probably where I would start.  With this notion that the advice a father gives to a son is don’t go for the woman who wants to sleep with you, but go for the woman who worships Yahweh and who thinks well and has good sense.  Oh, and I should say, the message from the father to the son is he also needs to worship Yahweh.  That’s a given.  But I think that kind of tension really does highlight what is healthy versus unhealthy masculinity and healthy versus unhealthy femininity.

In the end, what God wants for me as a man is to find my masculinity in him, not in a woman.  And that’s the temptation, right? That’s the lure of the woman who wants to sleep with me.  Aside from the physical pleasure and that it feels good, spiritually the lure is that I’m looking for validation of my manhood in that person or in that experience as opposed to finding the validation of my manhood in the fact that God has created me to be a man.  Does that make sense?  And I think that there are lots of things that you can explore in that.  I’ve never been a woman, of course, so I can’t speak from a woman’s perspective.  But I should think that it would only make sense that it would work a similar way for what drives a woman to be seductive or try to seduce a man.  I would imagine it’s a similar thing of trying to find validation of one’s own femininity in this other person or this experience as opposed to the fact that God has created her to be a woman.

I love that.  For me, I think that is the link I was looking for.  I was feeling like it was three different threads.

Yeah.  Oh, another thing.  I’ve heard women talk about reading Proverbs 31 and feeling very…

Exhausted.

…like “I can never live up to this,” you know?  But I don’t think that’s how an ancient woman would have read it.  I think an ancient woman would have read that chapter and said to herself, “Oh, I’m not just a bedroom performer, or a kitchen performer.  God wants me to be just as much a productive member of society as a man!”  Right?  That’s the picture of the woman in Proverbs 31.  She is equally as involved in the social community as the man is.

I love it.

And I think that’s the heart of God.  I don’t subscribe to this notion that Proverbs 31 is about Lady Wisdom.  I don’t think it’s painting a picture of wisdom, I just don’t agree with that. I think the book of Proverbs opens with this advice from a father to a son about the kind of woman he should look for to marry.  Then I think Proverbs 31 is kind of like the answer: You don’t want to marry the type of woman who is out to sleep with you but who is out to make their community a better place.  And I think that’s a really encouraging and wholesome message.

It is.  Yeah, it is.  I think also what’s nice is that the text has all the information.  Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I think it would have taken me much longer to try and bring it all together.

Yeah, sometimes it helps just to talk things out!  Before we say goodbye, can I pray for you and for your sermon?

That sounds great. Thank you.  Thank you so much.

On exegesis, theology, and homosexuality

Q: I am a Christian and came across this documentary recently.  Like most everyone these days, I’m interested in the issue of same-sex relationships, especially since this is a “lightning rod” issue within global Christanity right now.  I know the traditional view of the Church, and I have read and continue to research the matter.  I would like to deepen my understanding of this matter and apply it to how I live my life as a Christian.  May I ask how you see this issue, and how did you come to that understanding?

Thank you for asking!  I’m honored that you would ask for my opinion about this, I do not take it lightly.  I hope that my response will demonstrate equal honor to you.  First of all, before going any further, let me affirm you that I think you are wise to “deepen your understanding of the matter and apply it to how I live my life as a Christian.”  Regardless of whether you are personally convinced one way or another about the issue, to approach conversations from a strident and rigidly dogmatic approach will probably not fulfill St Paul’s admonition to “if it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all people” (Rom 12:18).  And especially for people like myself who move in theological circles, we probably need to do much more listening than talking in any conversations we are involved in.  Actually, that’s probably not bad advice for Christians as a whole.

I have watched the documentary, and I thought it was very well done!  Although, certainly the video was advocating a particular position on the issue at hand.  Homosexual expression within the Christian tradition is a very difficult issue, for all of the reasons that are given in the documentary.  Most all of the exegetical points raised are valid, in my opinion.  However, I would say that none of the arguments presented necessarily mean that the conclusion is correct.

To answer your question directly, I myself hold a traditional Christian view of sexual expression.  Having said that, let me also say that I know people who are practicing Christians and practicing homosexuals.  Personally, I am friends with astute theologians on both sides of this issue.  I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this topic, as have many Christians all around the world.  I would add that this issue (as a theological issue, at any rate) is fairly confined to Protestant expressions of Christianity.  In Catholic and Orthodox expressions of Christianity, there is very little discussion here (as far as I know, at least).  According to my present understanding, both of those fellowships would denounce homosexual expression as not in accordance with God’s will, and would do so unapologetically.  [For a brief description of the Catholic position, see Laudato Si, III.155 (pg. 115).  You can visit this webpage to read a brief description of the Orthodox position.]  My point here is that worldwide, I’m not sure there is quite so much movement to bless same-sex romantic relationships as often seems portrayed in Western culture(s).  Yes, there are Christians who have changed their minds about this issue, but there are many Christians who have not.

Q: Are there any scholarly works that you feel help the modern church understand what Scripture says about this?

I personally have not come across much theological scholarly material on this topic, although I’m always looking for more, and I’ll gladly accept any and all referrals!  I suppose that theological publishers are hesitant to publish books that deal with this issue, but that’s merely a guess on my part.  This is a legitimate issue of theological debate right now, especially within the global Anglican communion.  And there are some books that have been published about the issue of homosexual expression within Christianity, both for and against. Two popular books that were published a number of years ago are Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting and Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian.  Both of those books were written by Christians who identify as gay and come to different conclusions about homosexual expression within the Christian faith.  But I would not regard either of these books as serious theological or exegetical works, nor do I think they were intended to be.  Fundamentally, I think those are books about Christian spirituality and Christian living.  Two other books that are more thorough are Karen Keene’s Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships as well as Sarah Coakley’s God, Sexuality, and the Self. However, I would venture to say that neither side has dug deep enough yet into the presuppositions of their own arguments.  I think the global Church has a lot more work to do on this issue before it can be considered theologically “settled” to the satisfaction of modern Christianity.

Q: Hmmm…what do you mean by that?

Thanks for asking!  Well, to explain myself there, I’ll need to back up a bit.  So please bear with me on what might seem like a long-winded detour, but I’ll bring it back around.  As the documentary points out very well, I think we should avoid drawing simplistic conclusions about a difficult issue and minimizing others with expressions like, “The Bible says that…”. I feel like Christians (especially in the evangelical world, where the Bible is held very highly) often don’t like to admit it, but the actual truth of the matter is that no one ever reads Scripture from an unbiased perspective.  I suggest that EVERYONE is ALWAYS interpreting when we read the Bible.  The Scriptures were written in languages that no one has spoken for centuries!  We all come to the Scriptures as non-mother-tongue exegetes, so all of us are “second-language speakers,” at best.  This necessarily means that there is a vast interpretive gulf between us and the original author/audience.  We absolutely must acknowledge that if we are to handle the Scriptures responsibly and with any kind of intellectual honesty and integrity.  So rather than saying things like, “The Bible says,” I think we are much wiser to say things like, “My understanding of the Scripture is…” or “I believe that the biblical author here means…”. Statements like these are much more honest about what is actually happening when we read and teach the Scriptures.  And certain interpretations are more sound than others, to be sure.  We should layer our theology accordingly.

But here’s the thing.  The task of exegesis itself is not neutral.  That is, we actually do bring our theology to bear on our exegesis, and we have no other choice in the matter (whether we admit it or not).  For example, the Gospels record that Jesus held up a piece of bread and said, “This is my body” (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19).  How do you interpret what Jesus meant by that?  Try as anyone might, I do not think there is any truly neutral way to exegete that statement.  I submit that, in the end, a person must choose what they believe Jesus meant.  Which means that it is not really an exegetical matter at all.  It’s a theological matter.  We believe what we choose to believe.  And the same is true about exegesis as a whole.  We interpret the Scripture according to whatever method(s) that we believe is the best, and that method affects our conclusions.  We should not pretend to be more than we are as exegetes.  Yes, our exegesis is, in fact, informed by our presuppositions about God and about truth.  We are wise to own up to that from the very beginning, and then get on with doing the very best exegesis that we can.

Now, I’m not going to delve deeply into the Scriptural passages at play here.  You (along with other Christians) can study the Scriptures for yourself and conclude what you believe in fellowship with the Holy Spirit and in accordance with Holy Scripture.  But I will say this.  If you read 1 Corinthians 6, which is perhaps the Pauline passage that deals most explicitly with sexual ethics, you should notice that St Paul does not treat sexuality as a moral code.  That is, St Paul does not appeal to some moral law that condemns certain sexual practices but allows others.  Rather, his entire moral argument proceeds something along this line: “You have been made one with Christ, so why are you sleeping with a prostitute?” (1 Cor 6:15).  In other words, his sexual ethic is derived logically from our new identity in Christ and not strictly prescriptively from textual evidence.  I think we are wise to pay attention to this.  St Paul could have quoted OT passages to say that sleeping with prostitutes is wrong.  But he did no such thing.  Rather, he said (paraphrasing): “Hey, you’re one with Christ now!  Why are you making yourself one with a prostitute?”  Almost as if the expected reply is: “Of course! That’s just silly!”  The fact that St Paul NEITHER appeals to prescriptive Scripture (as does the “heterosexual” camp, usually) NOR appeals to science or culture or knowledge (or any of the other things that the “homosexual” camp does) should be instructive to us, I think.  That’s what I’m referring to when I say that I think the global Church has a lot more work to do on this issue before it can be considered theologically “settled.”  I have yet to see theological or exegetical studies that (I think) sufficiently take into account the way that St Paul treats sexual ethics in Holy Scripture and then work it out in what I would consider a satisfactory way in modern Christianity.

Q:  I’m not sure I fully understand yet.  When you say, “We believe what we choose to believe, and the same is true about exegesis as a whole,” are you referring to situations where people choose material, techniques and sources to back up what they want to believe?  Wouldn’t that deem this a futile exercise, especially when it comes to matters that are gray?

Right, I think you have understood me correctly.  I’m suggesting that a person can start with a certain set of presuppositions about God and about truth and then exegete their way to concluding that homosexual expression is OK for Christians.  Another person can start with some other presuppositions about God and about truth and then exegete their way to concluding that homosexual expression is NOT OK for Christians.  If this is true (and I would say that is what is happening right now in the global Church), then the corollary that can reasonably be drawn is that perhaps this issue is not really about exegesis (i.e. what Scripture means) at all, but is rather about theology (i.e. what is true about God and about truth).  If you listen carefully to the arguments presented in the documentary both for and against homosexual expression, I think you will find that they are not arguments about what Scripture means, but arguments about the nature of God and the nature of truth.

I further suggest that St Paul himself does not try to exegete his way to sexual ethics.  In contrast, we should note that he DOES exegete his way to salvation theology in the book of Romans.  So St Paul uses exegetical arguments sometimes, and sometimes not.  And if he does not try to exegete his way to his sexual ethics, perhaps we shouldn’t try to do it, either.  Essentially, he builds his sexual ethics by saying, “You’ve become one with Christ, so now what?”  Perhaps we should do the same.  Rather than approaching the issue from textual exegesis or from adherence to moral codes, perhaps we should approach the issue from the perspective of our new identity in Christ.  I suggest that we should be asking, “Now that your body belongs to Jesus, what does He want you to do with your body?”  The scary thing about this approach is that Christians might come to different conclusions, but that is happening already anyway.  Regardless, I think Romans 8:5 (and surrounding context) is helpful here.  I think it is clear that God wants Christians to live according to God’s Holy Spirit and not live according to their own flesh.  And I think that advice is applicable to all Christians at all times in all places.

Q:  OK, I think I’m beginning to understand, but I’m still not sure I’m following you completely.  You mention that Paul does exegesis in the book of Romans, and one of the most difficult passages on this topic is Romans 1:26-27.  By what you are saying, do you think Paul is exegeting sexual ethics?

No, I do not believe that St Paul is exegeting his sexual ethics in Romans 1.  I would say that he is theologizing his sexual ethics.  That is, he is assuming certain practices are “natural” and “unnatural” based on his presuppositions about God and about truth.  St Paul is not exegeting an OT passage and saying on the basis of that passage, “Look!  This OT passage means that homosexuality is unnatural and heterosexuality is natural.”  I don’t think St Paul really starts exegeting OT passages until chapter 3, and he continues well into chapter 11.  Again, I’m drawing a distinction between exegesis (i.e. what Scripture means) and theology (i.e. what is true about God and about truth).  This is what I mean that I think sexual ethics in the church is not so much an exegetical issue as it is a theological issue.  Or to say it another way, I’m not sure sexual ethics within the Church is rightly determined by what Scripture means so much as by what is true about God and about truth.  Does that help?

Q: Yes, I see now, thank you for that.  One final question.  I know that there are some places in the world where civil laws are being considered to ban the practice of “conversion therapy” (that is, therapy with the goal of changing someone’s sexual orientation).  Do you have any thoughts on that?

That is a very difficult question theologically, for many reasons.  My general position is that I think it is usually a bad idea for the Church to get involved in political causes.  In my opinion, it is almost always a distraction from our mission to preach the Gospel and to proclaim Christ and Him crucified.  Also, I think it is wise for Christians to abide by civil laws when we can do so in good conscience.  I am not a pastor, so I don’t have any specific pastoral experience with this issue.  My personal experience is that I have seen examples of conversion therapy that appeared to fail and conversion therapy that appeared to succeed.  Again, I think as ministers of the Gospel (as all Christians are) we can always encourage each other along the line that St Paul uses in his sexual ethic: “Now that your body belongs to Christ, what does God will for you to do with your body?”  And in answering that question, I think we can always appeal to what St Paul writes in Romans 8, to live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.  As a Christian and a scholar, I think that is the best perspective I can offer.

Q: Thank you for your thorough, considered, and very helpful responses.  

It’s only a pleasure!  Again, I’m honored that you would ask me.  There’s no two ways about it, these are difficult issues with no easy answers.  I pray that you and other Christians will be guided by the Holy Spirit of God as you minister the Gospel of Jesus to those around you.

A creation theology…of sex?

Q:  My understanding of the Catholic theology of sex is that the only sex that is without sin is intercourse between a husband and wife that is “open to life” –– meaning that the only permissible means of birth control is having sexual intercourse only during a wife’s infertile periods.  What bothers me most about this teaching is that it may be true.  If so, this means that the use of condoms and/or a vasectomy as a means of birth control would be willful disobedience to the will of God.  I have a hard time determining whether or not this theological teaching is an articulation of God’s truth or a form of man’s legalism.  What does the Bible say?

Before launching into this issue, I want to thank this reader for asking such an honest and vulnerable question, and for giving me permission to post it here.  It is an honor to be asked this kind of ethical question of another person, something that I do not take for granted.  I want to honor the reader in return by offering the best answer I can.  Since this blog is dedicated to reading the OT and not to the particulars of Catholic theology, in this post I will not seek to argue either for or against the teaching of the Catholic church regarding sexual ethics.  But the reader here is quite correct that neither condoms nor a vasectomy are acceptable means of birth control as sexual ethics are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see ¶2370, p.629).  

[Note: I myself am Anglican, not Catholic, although generally I have a high regard for the ethical teachings of the Catholic church.]

Rather, my aim in this post is to investigate the perspective of the OT text in regard to sexual ethics, particularly in the creation narratives (i.e. Genesis 1-4).  In short, I’m seeking to answer the question, What is a creation theology of sex?  I will then apply the results of that theological investigation in order to provide some kind of answer to the question at hand.  But I need to offer a caveat that, in my opinion, there are many aspects of life and spirituality concerning which the Bible does not prescribe rigid laws.  God has created us as creatures of conscience, which is a gift of God to us to help us navigate life.  In my opinion, the issue of whether the specific Catholic teaching being referenced here is “an articulation of God’s truth or a form of man’s legalism” finally can only be answered by the married couple themselves in their relationship with God.

A creation theology of sex must start with Gen 1:26-28.

Then God said, “Let Us make humanity in Our image, after Our resemblance; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the heavens, and over the beasts and over all the earth, and over all the crawling creatures that crawl on the earth.”

     So God created the human race in His image;
     in the image of God He created it;
     male and female He created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the heavens, and over all the living creatures that crawl on the earth.”

In sum, there are three theological arguments to be made from this short paragraph of text concerning the human condition in regard to sexuality.  First, all humanity is created in the image of God, both male and female persons.  In other words, both masculinity and femininity together express the image and likeness of God. Neither masculinity alone nor femininity alone can suffice, and neither gender identity is more or less “divine” than the other.  Rather, it is the case that masculinity requires femininity, and femininity requires masculinity, both simultaneously, in order to fully express the image of God.  Second, the entire human race, both male and female, is blessed by God.  There is a sanctity to being human that extends beyond simply the fact of having been created.  As humans, we stand in a special relationship to God; even as sinners, we are not cursed.  The ground has been cursed, but we as people remain blessed simply on the basis of being human.  Thirdly, all humanity has an inherent obligation to our Creator to procreate for the purpose of filling and managing the planet Earth.  This is a collective responsibility to God that we bear as a human race, hence the human phenomenon of sexuality (in all its enormous complexity).

For each of us as human beings, our maleness or femaleness––although marred by sin–– is God’s creative design for our personhood.  We are engendered sexual beings because we are human beings, and to be an engendered sexual being is profoundly good and right and wholesome, in and of itself, with no qualifications, because we are blessed by God.  In other words, a person’s sexual identity intrinsically carries no shame whatsoever.  Period.  Full stop.  But we mustn’t end there, because the third axiom adds a dimension of purpose to our sexual identity as engendered persons.  Collectively as humans, God has created us as sexual beings to carry out a specific function in the world, that is, to procreate and manage the planet that God has entrusted to us to steward.  And if sexual identity is created for a specific function, then it is only natural that there could be limitations placed on sexual expression in order to ensure that its function is fulfilled. For example, let’s say I make a hammer for the purpose of driving a nail, but try to drive a screw instead. I could cause unnecessary damage because I have acted outside the inherent limitations of the thing that I have made.  These limitations derive from the intended purpose for which I, the maker, designed the hammer.

But there is still more to say about this notion of God’s expressed purpose/function for human sexuality.  This brings us to Genesis 2:24.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and clings to his wife; and they become one flesh.

Here the narrative is terse and does not explain what is meant by the term “one flesh,” but it is clear from Paul’s writings in the New Testament that he understands the term as a reference to sexual union (see 1 Cor 6:12-20).  So in addition to the procreating function of sexual expression that is explicit commanded in Genesis 1, there is also a uniting function for sexual expression that is implicitly stated in Genesis 2.  God has created sexuality as the means by which a man and woman both unite to each other and procreate with one another.  So far, so good, says the Catholic catechism.

But Catholic doctrine then takes this a step further, affirming that God has created these two functions for human sexuality as both universal and inseparable; and this makes all the difference for the question being asked.  Part Three of the Catholic catechism, entitled “Life in Christ,” includes a section on the “fecundity of marriage”:

¶2366.  Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful.  A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment.  So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”  “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”  [Catechism of the Catholic Church, p.628].

The definitive element here is the phrase “each and every marriage act”––meaning sexual intercourse––which is NOT a quote from Holy Scripture but rather from the Catholic doctrinal document called Humanae vitae (Eng. “human life”).  Thus, the primary question being asked by the reader is whether the Catholic catechism is correct when it affirms that God has indeed created these two functions of sexuality as both existentially inseparable and universally applicable.  If so, then the Catholic doctrine is unassailable and must be followed in order to adhere to God’s natural law for human sexuality.  But if not, then there is room for varied application of these two functional principles.  So how can one evaluate whether the Catholic claims are indeed correct?

First, one should note that the Bible itself does not stipulate either the inseparability or universality of these two functions for human sexuality.  This decision is left to the reader, which may itself imply a kind of answer to the question; that is, perhaps this question is rightly considered a matter of personal conscience (similar to Paul’s advice in Romans 14 concerning the Christian observance of the Sabbath), which would of itself negate the absolute “universal applicability” of these functions. 

Secondly, the fact that the Catholic catechism specifically affirms that children are a “gift” from God also implies that perhaps the unitive and procreative functions of human sexuality are not quite as inseparable as the catechism states.  This seems reflected in the Genesis narrative itself, since the procreative function of sexuality is stated as an explicit command (Gen 1:28) whereas the the unitive function is stated as an implicit fact (Gen 2:24).  This would seem to indicate that the unitive function is a genuine constitutive reality of human sexuality––that is, that sexual expression serves to unite persons whether we like it or not.  But this is plainly untrue concerning the procreative function of human sexuality, because not all sex leads to procreation, as many people can painfully attest.

Thirdly, there are several instances in the Scriptures where the biblical writers as well as Jesus Himself affirm and emphasize the unitive function of sexuality as well as God’s desire that such a union should not be broken (see Gen 20:1-18; Prov 5:15-23; Mal 2:10-16; Matt 5:27-32, 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; 1 Cor 7:1-16).  However, I do not find the same kind of emphasis in Scripture concerning the procreative function.  The biblical writers seem quite concerned that married people should be faithful to one another and remain united to one another.  The biblical writers do not seem concerned nearly so much that married people should be producing children.  I think the biblical exegete can make a compelling case that God has created an imbalance in this functions for human sexuality, with greater importance on the unitive function but not to the negation of the procreative function.

In the end, I cannot specifically answer the question of the reader, whether the Catholic sexual ethic is divine truth or human legalism.  However, I think I can confidently say that the Catholic sexual ethic exceeds a biblical creation theology, i.e. it goes beyond what is expressed in the creation narratives.  But whether the Catholic ethic exceeds the bounds of natural theology (a.k.a. natural law) is quite another matter, one to which I must appeal to conscience.