Part 2: Dialogue with Preston Sprinkle On Same-Sex Relationships

I am pleased that Preston Sprinkle continued our dialogue by responding to my last post. As with his initial review, I enjoyed reading his second post on my book Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. What I appreciate about these conversations is that they help us to wrestle deeply with theology and biblical hermeneutics. In this post, I respond to Preston's additional comments. It's lengthy, but important, and worth the read.

What Is Up with the Prohibition Passages?

A small handful of verses in the Bible prohibit same-sex relations. Most books on the topic rehearse these verses ad nauseam. I don't spend a lot of time on these in my book because the heart of the debate is really complementarity. Preston agrees with this: "The prohibition passages are secondary to the debate. (Karen and I agree on this point.) The primary question has to do with the definition, structure, and purposes of marriage; i.e. is sex difference an essential part of what marriage is?"

We also agree that same-sex relations in antiquity were predominately exploitative: "Karen suggests that traditionalists and progressives largely agree that most same-sex male relationships were exploitative. And this is true."

But Preston is still unclear on what I believe about the meaning of the prohibition passages. He writes: "The actual language of the prohibition passages contains language of mutuality and consent, and they use general categories of male and female, reminiscent of creation, suggesting that the prohibitions apply to all kinds of same-sex sexual relations, including those between consensual adults. (I’m not sure if Karen agrees with this; some statements seems to say she does, while others suggest she does not.)" 

I have touched on this in my book and in my previous response to Preston, but let me be more specific. The first question we need to ask is: how do we determine what the biblical authors meant in their references to same-sex relations? Good biblical interpreters know to examine each verse within its immediate literary context and the particular biblical book. Canonical connections or themes in the Bible as a whole that speak into the matter are also important. And we need to look at historical-cultural context to ensure we are not importing our 21st century assumptions onto the text, but rather looking for the biblical authors' intended meaning.

There is no disagreement that the authors denounced same-sex relations, the question is why. Preston argues that the authors have a creation design in mind and thus the prohibition is universal and timeless. One of the challenges we have is that few prohibition verses exist and they don't reveal much information.

• Genesis 19:1-38/Judges 19/Jude 1:6-7 (male-male attempted rape)

• Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (male-male sex)

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (arsenokoitēs/male-male, exploitative?)

• 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (arsenokoitēs/male-male, exploitative?)

• Romans 1:25-27 (women? Text does not say with whom the women exchanged relations)

• ?? Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (ambiguous reference, but uses the term “dogs”; male prostitution?)

As we can see from the list above, the verses most pertinent to the debate are in Leviticus and Romans. The other references likely refer to exploitation. For example, Genesis and Judges describe attempted rape. Deuteronomy 23, if it refers to same-sex relations at all, refers to male prostitution. The verses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are part of vice lists, which give us no information at all. It's reasonable to believe the vice lists reflect the type of male-male sex predominate in the culture. In the 1 Timothy reference, "enslavers" or "kidnappers" are cited alongside males who have sex with males, which some scholars believe refers to sex trafficking by slave traders.

The term arsenokoitēs ("male-bedders") in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy probably has linguistic connections to the Greek translation of the Levitical prohibitions. The question is what did the Levitical author mean by male same-sex relations? And is Paul using the same meaning as the Levitical author from hundreds of years earlier? Philo often interprets same-sex references in the Hebrew Bible as pederastic, reflecting how he interpreted the Scriptures in light of his Greco-Roman context. It's reasonable to consider Paul did the same.

Notably, one of the most prolific and staunch traditionalist scholars, Robert Gagnon, believes the "primary form" of homoeroticism in ancient Israel was temple prostitution. Of course, he also further argues that complementarity was in the mind of the author. But it's significant that he believes most of what was occurring was, essentially, exploitative. The Leviticus passage doesn't actually tell us why male same-sex relations are prohibited (prostitution is scholarly speculation). Mutuality is suggested in that both parties are condemned (20:13), but a consensual encounter with a prostitute could meet that criteria.

Does Leviticus describe loving, peer same-sex relationships? Is the prohibition based on complementarity? Possibly, but that remains speculative. The Levitical law doesn't prohibit female-female relations, suggesting something besides complementarity might be the concern--probably patriarchal gender norms ("do not lie with a man as with a woman"). Notably, women are singled out for bestiality laws, making the lack of female same-sex laws even more curious.

As for Romans, the description is clearly of Gentiles who willingly and knowingly rebelled against God. These are not godly people. Paul is not describing a scared 11 year old Christian boy going through puberty who realizes he attracted to the other boys in the Sunday School class. Contrary to Preston and many other traditionalists, Paul engages with Wisdom of Solomon as his backdrop for Romans 1, not Genesis. Scholars have long recognized the parallels between Wisdom and Romans. Paul is not describing original sin in Romans 1, but rather that God shows no favoritism. Both Gentiles and Jews are subject to divine justice (Rom 2:11). Paul's language of rebellion and excessive lust suggests he has in mind the sexual promiscuity common in the pagan culture around him.

Paul does say same-sex relations are "unnatural." This terminology was used by Greco-Roman and Jewish authors concerning non-procreative sex and patriarchal gender norms. Did Paul have in mind anatomical complementarity (i.e. created design) by itself apart from these other connotations? We cannot say for sure because Paul doesn't tell us. It remains speculative.  Preston argues: "[T]here’s nothing in the actual text of Romans 1 suggesting that patriarchy or lack of procreation were the driving moral concerns behind Paul’s words." But arguments from silence are not very compelling. More likely, Paul doesn't spell it out because he assumes his audience knows what he talking about. We have to use the best evidence we have at our disposal, which I have attempted to articulate briefly above.

Certainly, the biblical authors believed marriage should be male-female and procreation requires anatomical complementarity, but the cultural context matters for understanding how the authors perceived same-sex relations. The prohibition passages don't provide enough information to conclusively prove that complementarity by itself was the driving force of the biblical authors' objections. Paul was a well-educated Jewish scholar. It's hard to believe his views were completely unrelated to how other Jews thought about same-sex relations. Or that his perspective was untouched by exposure to the predominant exploitative practices of the day.

Preston makes a couple comments that I think capture the hermeneutical challenge: "Even if lack of procreative potential was one reason why Paul saw same-sex relations as immoral, there are likely several other reasons as well." Notice the word "likely." Preston can't assert more than that because the text doesn't say more. He also says, "[T]here’s no indication in the actual text of Scripture that the writers had a specific kind of same-sex sexual relationship in view." Exactly. The kind of relations they have in view remains, at the end of the day, speculative, including any assertions Preston makes about complementarity. This prevents traditionalists or progressives from making dogmatic statements on the prohibition passages.

What Is the Purpose of Sexual Differentiation?

Genesis 1 connects sexual differentiation with procreation. God made male and female and blessed them to "Be fruitful and multiply" (vv. 27-28). Reproduction is a dominant theme in Genesis 1, not just for the human beings but also the plants and animals (vv. 11-12, 21-22, 24-25).

Preston says, "I find this logic to be strange. If the reader is convinced by it, then to each his own."

But it's not a novel proposal. The idea that the human being was fundamentally androgynous or asexual at creation with sex difference introduced for the purpose of procreation was not an uncommon idea in antiquity. I am not suggesting we have to accept that view in all it's aspects, but it should be considered when understanding the biblical authors' context and how church fathers interpreted the creation accounts. To be clear, my point is not that I subscribe to these particular ancient theories, but that my association of procreation with sexual differentiation is not a new proposal.

Preston says "This kind of logic raises a false dichotomy between sex difference and covenant faithfulness. Marriage can be both (1) a covenant union and (2) between two sexually different persons."

I agree that marriage usually encompasses both of these aspects. I don't object to that. Rather I am making an argument about what is fundamental about marriage. Covenant is predominate. Sexual differentiation, in my view, is secondary. This has implications, particularly in light of scientific knowledge about the existence of people with different biological sexual development. It is hard to deny, for example, that intersex people don't fit cleanly into the binary that Preston so woodenly grips. It's reasonable to consider how sexual minorities might participate in and benefit from covenant--one of the chief values in the Bible.

Where Preston sees same-sex relationships as a devaluation of sex difference, I see same-sex relationships as a valuation of covenant. Ultimately, I see his fixation on sex difference, which does not take into consideration the scientific existence of atypical sexual development in a minority of the population, to be a form of legalistic proof-texting. Genesis 1-2 is meant to be descriptive of the norm, not an iron hand.

Formulating Ethics from Creation

While one could view Genesis 1-2 as descriptive rather than prescriptive, we can also discuss the possibility of same-sex relationships by examining how we extrapolate ethics from Scripture.

I already mentioned in my last response to Preston that even if he considers sex difference as defining marriage based on creation, that does not end the conversation. Per Jesus, marriage is defined by permanency based on creation (Mark 10), yet Paul allows for divorce in certain circumstances related to human need.

Preston makes a very important admission in his last post: "Karen rightly points out that just because sex difference in marriage might be rooted in creation doesn’t mean that it’s unchangeable. I agree. Sabbath and divorce are also rooted in creation."

That means, hypothetically, sex difference in marriage is changeable. Preston actually agrees with one of my fundamental points. This distills our disagreement not to sex difference in marriage, but whether sex difference can be a candidate for the deliberative process.

Sex Difference and the Deliberative Process

Preston wants to preclude sex difference from the deliberative process, even though he hypothetically opens the door to that possibility. He doesn't consider sex difference a candidate because "there’s no evidence in Scripture anywhere that sex difference isn’t part of what marriage is for some people, or that adult consensual same-sex sexual relationships might be God-honoring for some people."

But Scripture doesn't say a lot of things. Many conservative evangelicals acknowledge the importance of biblical casuistry because the Bible doesn't give us a solution to every question (such as divorce and domestic violence). So the lack of mention is not, by any means, disqualifying.

What factors might be taken into consideration for the deliberative process?

1. New information not previously available for consideration. We see this in Paul's exception for divorce. He addressed a situation that Jesus didn't encounter. It concerned matters particular to Paul's context. What new information might we have now to take into consideration in the sexuality debate? We have more scientific knowledge about sexual development than any other time in history, resulting in refutation of misconceptions about gay people. Throughout history, Christian thinkers assumed same-sex desire was the result of a rebellious heart, much like people used to think mental illness was the result of demon possession. Notably, they used Romans 1 to further this misconception. They typically believed repentance would resolve same-sex desire. There is good reason to believe, based on Romans 1, that Paul also held this assumption.

2. Conflicting ethical mandates in Scripture, requiring deliberation. The prohibition against same-sex relations is in tension with Paul's instruction's for those who can't be celibate: "If they cannot control themselves, they should marry." Christian tradition has long taught that life-long celibacy is not possible for every person.

3. The impact of a law on a person's well-being. As I have already described in previous posts, the biblical authors and Jesus never blindly apply law, there is always discernment with regard to human need. This could involve undue suffering. It could also be something like the inability for someone to actually live in life-long celibacy.

Significantly, Preston says he believes life-long celibacy is possible for anyone and everyone. But he never answers my second question. If he holds this view, where is his evidence for it and how does he account for much of Christian tradition, which doesn't hold that view. At the very least, he cannot accuse me of making an unreasonable proposal. My belief that life-long celibacy is not possible for every person who attempts it is supported by Scripture, Christian tradition, social scientific studies, and the admission of prominent conservative evangelicals themselves. I suspect, Preston is holding to this belief not based on evidence, but because he doesn't like the implications of the truth.

Preston says I am not taking into account the power of the Holy Spirit. But Paul doesn't teach people to just rely on the Holy Spirit. He tells them "If they cannot control themselves, they should marry." And he tells spouses not deprive each other as a help against sexual immorality. Why didn't he just tell them to pray more? Because the Holy Spirit doesn't substitute for taking concrete action. That is a poor understanding of sanctification.

Science and the Inspiration of Scripture

Preston writes, "If we required the biblical writers to possess all our scientific knowledge about human nature, they wouldn’t have the authority to say much of anything anymore (especially in light of all the recent advancements in neurobiology as it pertains to addiction, etc.) For Karen’s argument to work, she has to assume that the God who had at least a hand in authoring Scripture did not speak very clearly (or accurately?) . . "

Science and inspiration is a much bigger topic than can be addressed in this post. I grew up in a tradition that was skeptical of science as largely a plot by atheists to overturn the authority of the Bible. But such fears of science are unfounded.

The Bible is the result of the mysterious collaboration of God and human beings that gives us the essentials necessary to know the way of salvation. It's not a manual that dictates an answer to every life scenario. We might ask why, if God was so clear at Mt. Sinai, the Deuteronomist revised and overturned some of those same laws. Or why Jesus didn't address every particular situation concerning divorce so that Paul wouldn't have to deliberate about it in the case of abandonment. Or the PCA wouldn't have to deliberate on it in the case of domestic violence.

Preston wants to downplay modern scientific discovery by suggesting the biblical authors already had essentially the same information about sexual development that we do today. Yet, the ancient innate theories of same-sex desire, even if accepted by Paul, which is questionable (Philo did not), are not the same as our understanding about sexual development now. The Bible is not a science book. Science does reveal things that people in the past, including the biblical authors did not know.

I will end with a quote from R. C. Sproul related to science as food for thought:

"I believe firmly that all of truth is God’s truth, and I believe that God has not only given revelation in sacred Scripture, but also, the sacred Scripture itself tells us that God reveals Himself in nature—which we call natural revelation. And, I once asked a seminary class of mine that was a conservative group, I said, “How many of you believe that God’s revelation in Scripture is infallible?” And they all raised their hand. And I said, “And how many of you believe that God’s revelation in nature is infallible, and nobody raised their hand. It’s the same God who’s giving the revelation."

_________

PS: In his last response, Preston speaks extensively about sexual orientation, desires, and how we should understand them. I actually spend an entire chapter in my book discussing this: "Was It Adam's Fault? Why the Origin of Same-Sex Attraction Matters." Preston does not engage with this chapter at all in either of his posts.