My wife and I watch a show on PBS called Downton Abbey. It’s a drama wherein the main characters live through a major event in history - WWI. Mary, the damsel in distress, is caught between two worlds. There is the old world - represented by her grandmother - where aristocratic women marry for heritage, power and position. Then there is the emerging world - represented by the younger sister and her undetermined relationship with the chauffeur - where social lines once dark and bold are now permeable and faded. The possibility of marrying for love regardless of social class presents itself into the old world while in the lower class marriage for duty emerges suddenly (Daisy the kitchen maid fulfilling the dying wish of William). Mary is caught in the change, trying to understand the balance between personal emotion and social responsibility in her world where everything is changing, including marriage.
Yes, the story is fictional, but it provides an entertaining example about one of the central qualities to the institution of marriage – it changes. Marriage is not a concrete form of relationship that has served only one purpose or comes in one package throughout the history of humanity. Marriage is subject to change and is moldable to have meaning and purpose for a variety of contexts. In one world people marry for power and position. In another, people marry for love. In another, people marry to have children. Thus, we should ever be mindful of the shifting plate on which marriage rests (Note: This does not scratch the surface of the diversity of marriage relationships that have existed in the world. For example, matriarchal societies. Also, the tribes of Israel emerge not from one man and one woman(Gen. 35:22-26), and polygamy in the early LDS Church).
Is there a constant? Is there a variable in marriage that is the same no matter what the context? Does this constant define the purpose of marriage?
Is Procreation the Constant?
Does the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth serve as the divine instruction to access the very ethos of marriage? Well, it is for many couples, but not all couples can procreate. I want to be sensitive to those that may have lived through this experience. I can only imagine the struggle of being denied children by uncontrollable factors. So if a couple cannot have children, does the marriage dissolve? Does the couple separate, accepting that the central tenet of marriage (procreation) is unachievable? Of course not (I hope not). The relationship is not determined by the ability to procreate. The love is based on something deeper than the ability to have children. In fact, the situation brings many couples closer. A stronger connection forms wherein love is clearly not determined by the ability to procreate. If the only reason you are with someone is because they can produce babies or because they have active sperm, that’s a pretty shallow relationship. That’s like telling your wife she’s nothing more than a baby maker, or telling your husband he’s a sperm bank. Human relationships are more personal than that. It doesn’t seem like procreation is the constant variable in marriage. If it were, then God is setting up many couples to never access it, and I don’t think God would set people up for failure (1 Nephi 3:7).
I’m not arguing that procreation is no longer important as a reason for marriage, or that God is ambivalent to this function in the marriage relationship. There is a valid expectation for a couple to have children. But I simply want to stress that procreation is not possible for all people, and thus serves as a possibility in many marriage relationships, but is not the constant. God gives marriage as something special for all of humanity, and in this special relationship there is meaning, companionship, and love. Children may or may not be part of the marriage. Either way, the marriage is to go on, uniting two people in a bond deeper than procreative ability.
What is the constant variable in marriage if it’s not procreation? What is at the core of marriage that makes it an important part of life and existence? I turn to a sampling of scriptures that I hope will be helpful in answering these questions.
Genesis 2:18-25
While it’s true that Adam chose Eve, it’s also true that Adam chose Eve, meaning that he had options. In verse 18 God declares that it’s not good for man to be alone, and therefore God makes a helper. Verse 19 begins with “So ...” demonstrating that the proceeding versus are connected with this intent of God to create a helper for Adam. So does God create Eve? Eventually. First, he makes a bunch of animals, allowing Adam to name them, look at them, even judge them as possible helpers, “but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.” (Note: ‘helper’ does not mean someone to make babies. Adam is looking for companionship. One can have companionship without making babies). At this point God pulls a rib from Adam and makes Eve. Adam chooses Eve as his helper: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” And this helps explain why men and women come together in the bonds of what we call matrimony (vss. 24-25). The point I would like to make is that Adam got to participate in this process of choosing his helper. God supplies Adam freedom to choose and options to choose from. I would like to stress also that the idea of helper does not automatically mean, ‘baby maker.’ The underlining concern is for Adam to have companionship - to not be alone in this world.
Hosea
Hosea is commanded by God to marry a prostitute (How’d you like the prophet gettin’ that revelation?). Well it functions as an analogy to describe the relationship of Israel and God. No, God’s not the prostitute. Israel has been ‘sleeping’ with idols, being unfaithful to its ‘husband’, God. But this is the part that strikes me. God remains faithful to Israel: “On that day, says the Lord, you [Israel] will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’...; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (2:16-20). So in this relationship, God is not focused on Isreal’s ability to reproduce. What upsets God is Israel’s unfaithfulness. God will take the unfaithful Israel and make her his wife in righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy, and faithfulness (Ezekiel 16 conveys a similar message).
Hebrews 13:4-7
In this passage I find a similar theme of faithfulness in marriage and as a quality of God.
“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’ So we say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can human beings do to me?’ Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”
What I gather from this sampling of scriptures (not exhaustive, I know) are three things: 1) Marriage is not about choosing a sexual partner alone. It is about companionship; finding a helper in this difficult world; 2) God creates, endowing his creation with freedom to choose; 3) God is concerned with the faithfulness of his people and utilizes marriage as an appropriate metaphor to illustrate this neglected quality. God wants faithfulness both in our relationships with each other and with God.
Homosexuals and the Law of Chastity
According to the law of chastity (as I understand it), heterosexual people are not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage. Sexual activities are restricted to the monogamous relationship formed in and after the marriage ceremony. Homosexuals are held to the same standard. They too can only marry a person of the opposite sex and engage in sexual activities with that one person after the marriage ceremony. If a heterosexual or homosexual person cannot marry, they are to remain celibate for life. So if a homosexual finds the love of their life in someone of the same sex, too bad. Either remain celibate for life or marry as the heterosexual does.
Let’s reverse the roles. What if the law of chastity only allowed for sexual activity after marriage of exclusively homosexual couples? Heterosexual people are either to remain celibate or marry someone of the same gender in order to enter into a valid marriage covenant. If this scenario were true, I would break the law. I am a proud woman-lover and to deny that fact would be to deny my very biology, the very thing God made me to be. In this hypothetical I would be the one waving the rainbow flag, demanding for equality and the right to marry the woman I love. Straight pride!
When I reverse the roles and put myself in the shoes of homosexuals, I completely see the double standard that exists today: Heterosexual couples can marry for love, but homosexuals can’t. Why would God not want me, or anyone for that matter, to choose a companion in the freedom divinely bestowed on humanity since the Garden of Eden? If marriage was exclusively centered on procreation, then I could maybe see the ban placed on homosexual marriage. But then we would need to remain consistent and either not allow marriage between people that cannot procreate or dissolve the marriage when a couple discovers they cannot have children of their own. I'm not willing to do either. The love between two heterosexual people is real, even if they cannot have children. I would never destroy that. Likewise, I would never want to come between the love of two homosexual people just because they cannot have children of their own. Their love is just as real as the love I have for my wife.
Conclusion
We are living in an interesting time of change. It is much like Downton Abbey, where dark bold lines are now permeable. At one point in our culture, interracial marriage was impossible, and now, thank God, most of us can see past skin color. So what else will cross the line? It seems gender is no longer a limiting factor that restricts the formation of deep meaningful and long lasting relationships. No longer does the color of skin stop the budding of love between two people, and we now wonder if marriage is possible for homosexuals.
Marriage is a covenantal relationship between two people and God; a relationship based on love, respect, mercy, forgiveness, and faithfulness. It is a relationship where God is steadfast and faithful in binding the couple together, walking with them in their lives as partners. Each person in the marriage personifies the love and faithfulness of God as best as humanly possible in service and honor to the other. We make God’s love and faithfulness palpable. Faithfulness, the quality of marriage that many heterosexual couples struggle to uphold, is the constant of marriage. Faithfulness defines the marriage relationship. Without it, the marriage crumbles. With it, the love is made real and manifest. Marriage through the ages has changed in so many ways, but there is the constant expectation in its many forms of faithfulness.
Forgive one another.
Respect one another.
Love one another.
Grow together.
Be faithful.
Will Mary embrace her love for Matthew?
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Personally find it disingenuous to quote Paul in a pro-homosexual marriage post, disregarding his quite harsh treatment of the subject in Romans. The only question I would ask you is, if marriage is a covenant between man and God, where can you find in any scripture any evidence that God would enter in to such a covenant?
ReplyDeleteBut, politically, I agree with your sentiment. I believe in the freedom of association. Therefore, I do think people should be able to make private contracts with each other and set whatever terms that they wish. I do not think the government should even be in the business of granting "license" to us to enter into private contractual relationships. So, marriage should be the business of individuals and (if they choose) churches, social clubs, or whatever group wishes to be involved.
Wonderful critique, Adam. I agree, I most definitely should have included Romans in this post. Not an attempt to be disingenuous, but a black-eye oversight. Allow me to make an addendum.
DeleteRomans 1:18-2:1
Let me first say, homosexuality is a modern category foreign to Paul's world. Paul's world is not dealing with the issue of men and women fully aware of their biologically based attraction to the same sex, coupled with a deep love and passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, Paul is inundated in a world of idolatry, and it is the topic of his day – idolatry – to which he addresses this passage.
Idolatrous worship, speaking generally, did not include a moral code of conduct in the world. This is not to say that the Graeco-Roman populous at large did not live by a moral code, simply that this moral code was not always associated with devotion to the god(s). Maintaining a relationship with the gods was not manifested through kindness and charity to others, but was initiated through worship ceremonies and motivated by gaining the favor of the gods for personal benefit and security. For example, I engage in this worship ceremony for god X so that my crops will yield their fruit in abundance. Personal gain or security was in many cases the motivation (still a common motivation, sadly).
Orgies were a common feature among pagan fertility worship. Who your partner was during those orgies was not important. It was not uncommon for young boys to become the partner for older men, for example. This world of worshipping idols allowed for a wide range of sexual activities, in many cases disregarding the gender or age of the other and disregarding any emotional attachment or devotion to the individual. The objective is not to express love, but to engage in a physically thrilling form of worship for approval or appeasement of a supposed deity.
I am not supposing that no one in Paul’s time had a same-sex attraction. I simply want to place us in a world much different than our own and point out an important feature of idol worship. With that in mind, here is my perspective of the passage.
(Next Comment)
Vss. 18-25: For Paul, knowing God is as simple as looking around you. God has revealed himself to all people through the things he has made. But people still turn away from God and instead, worship idols resembling the created not the Creator. Idolatry is alive and well (vss18-23).
DeleteVss. 26-27: For this reason (people turning away from God) God allows people to worship other fictitious gods. Notice, Paul doesn’t have a word to describe this activity of worship. He doesn’t use ‘homosexuality’. He is not addressing a group of people that identify themselves as homosexuals, but is instead describing a group of people that worship other humans (reference to Caesar?), or animals – these are people in the depths of idolatrous worship. Paul can only describe the activity because so many people engage in it without regard to sexual preference (remember, what’s important is gaining the gods favor, not who you achieve that with). He can only give a description of it, a clear description of idol fertility-god worship. This form of worship is unnatural, meaning an inappropriate way of worshipping God.
Vss. 28-32: And since, in their form of worship, they choose not to acknowledge the true God, God leaves them to their debased minds, “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die – yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them” (vss 29-32).
The decree is that there is no other god but God, and God has made himself known in the world (1:20). But despite this decree idolatry is applauded, along with a lifestyle void of kindness and love. The topic is idolatry, not homosexuality.
2:1-: Here is the thrust of this whole passage. Paul is concerned with the judgmental and hypocritical attitude of his Christ-following audience: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things ...”(2:1) (It would be nice for many Christians (LDS included) to realize that their gossip is ranked among the sins of theft, murder, deceit and the rest of the list above). Paul does indeed condemn idolatry, but it is not with the intent to praise his audience for their righteousness, but to force them to self-reflection. In convicting others, we are convicted.
I end with 2:1 knowing that Paul goes on. This is more for sake of time on my part.
A note on the concept of ‘natural’ vs. ‘unnatural’ in vss. 26-27. I believe that Paul does find the behavior he describes to be unnatural, meaning that God did not intend for humanity to engage in this form of worship. This is according to the knowledge of human biology available to Paul and largely filtered through the OT, especially the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9). The ‘natural’ thing to do is to worship God as God has asked to be worshipped – in a pure form of monotheism and in praise of Jesus Christ. Any other form of worship is unnatural, meaning, unwanted by God.
Of course, if Paul is referring to the ‘natural’ in terms of human physiology, then once again I think Paul is faced with a different scenario than our contemporary one. It would be natural for heterosexual people to be attracted to the opposite sex and unnatural for homosexual people. Thus, the natural thing to do would be to allow homosexuals to be homosexual and heterosexuals to be heterosexual. To force or insist that someone have a sexual attraction they naturally do not have is something I hope never to experience, nor would I inflict it on someone else.
(Next Comment)
Conclusion.
DeleteI once again see in Romans a call for faithfulness. This is a call for men and women to be faithful to the true and living God both in worship and in their actions with others. Idol worship - the worship that God will allow despite the obvious evidence in the world of the true Creator – is unnatural. Men and women are not to engage in the worship of other humans or animals, but are to worship God through the mercy bestowed on us by Jesus Christ. Most important, the Christian community is to look inwardly before judging the sins of others. We are to be self-reflective first, asking ourselves what idols or deplorable behavior may still keep us from worshipping God.
Homosexual Christians today are not engaged in the worship of idols. They have a real biological attraction for someone of the same gender AND a deep love for the God that loved them first. They are not ashamed of either, nor do I believe they should be. Thus, I do not believe this passage provides ample support to an argument that excludes homosexuals from entering into a marriage covenant. It is not referencing our modern day issue of homosexuality or our cultural issue of gay-rights to marriage.
I can worship with the homosexual, knowing that they love God and their partner as faithfully as I love God and my partner.
May God forgive us all for our lack of self-reflection and for our times in which we engage in idolatrous behavior.
Since you can't get enough of me :)
DeleteYou asked me if there is an example of God making a marriage covenant with a man. I'm a little confused by this question. Do you mean to ask, is there an example in scripture of God making a marriage covenant with a homosexual couple? Or do you mean to ask me if I can find an example of God making a marriage covenant with any person? I thought I would seek clarification first. Thanks.
I fail to follow you in the paragraph beginning with:
Delete"Of course, if Paul is referring to the ‘natural’ in terms of human physiology, then once again I think Paul is faced with a different scenario than our contemporary one."
I understand you up to this point meaning that if Paul is referring to gender, then he would say that same sexes having sex is "unnatural" because only male and female reproduce or the OT says male and female marry. And the "different scenario" today is the idea that there are people who are subjectively attracted to the same gender.
I read everything after this sentence as being from the point of view of Paul. So that was confusing! But I think you were going with our modern pov. Am I right?
But if that's true, then it looks like you are going to concede Paul saying that, gender-wise, same-sex relations is "unnatural". But you never say that.
Instead you skip straight to our modern "consciousness" of same-sex attraction. And, given that pov, we would say its actually unnatural (not that its same-sex but) to force same-attracted people to have sex with the opposite gender.
I understand if you just forgot a sentence in a sleep-deprived fatigue. But, if you didn't, I'm still at a loss.
mmmmm...sleep deprived.. that's exactly what happened ;)
DeleteI did make a big leap from Paul to our time. So if Paul thought that the sexual act between a man and another man was unnatural, not just because of the pagan worship setting, but because of human physiology then we do have a case where Paul is talking specifically about homosexual sex-acts that are excluded because they are unnatural. That is a big possibility, although I think all of the behaviors he lists he is describing as idolatry (unfaithfulness to the true God).
For us today I think it would be unnatural to expect a homosexual man to perform sexual activities with a female and vice versa. So, I think, despite the lack of description, you understood correctly. I hope this clarifies. This time, I am sleep deprived :)
Hello all, I have posted on many of the other threads but here's some thoughts on this one.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my opinion on the politics is with Adam. As far as government is concerned, there should be no limits on personal contracts. Marriage should never have been the domain of government. It was and always should be in the domain of religion only. This opens the doors quite wide (and makes the possible divorce proceedings very interesting (between more than two persons or 10), but that's how it should be politically. Religiously is a different matter.
So, second, I notice that in your examples, Travis, that all the historical "forms" of marriage you cite are different only in purpose not actual form. That is, they are all between a man and a woman. So while you are right that purposes have changed, I would be hesitant to sneak "form" in there.
Third, you make a good argument for the overall purpose of marriage - deep interpersonal committed relationship. Much like the use of "Father" and "Son" to evoke the relationship between the "persons" of God, so "husband" and "wife" are the greatest metaphor or, for us, subjective experience, of God's passion and commitment for humans, more specifically believers - the Bride of Christ.
Fourth, but...
Let me reiterate that I believe people living homosexual relationships should have the legal right to legally recognized union, and that all "marriages" should, in the eyes of the government, be just that, "civil unions". From there one's own religion can determine one's marriage status. However, I find Jesus's words on marriage instructive.
Mark 10:6: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Here we have Jesus defining marriage and describing a purpose or aspect of definition not mentioned in your post or the previous comment. Male and female; cleave to his wife; two become one flesh; What God has joined together. Now the context is the question of divorce. But Jesus effectively answers the question with simply verse 9. The rest is unrequired but useful for our discussion.
In these verses we have a definition based on a male and female, not simply any two people. There is the description of cleaving, which I've never heard of as anything other than copulation, more romantically - making love. And the added detail that the two become one flesh. For now, I'll ignore the implication of this last part for the idea of marriage being symbolic of God's relationship to believers and God's relationship to Himself - Father-Son-Holy Spirit. As for cleaving, I feel like there is something to be said for what Jesus means by cleaving that would restrict it again to male and female. Obviously, couples in homosexual relationships experience a type of coupling, but I wonder if Jesus' words here (besides naming male and female) exclude these alternative types of coupling when using the words cleave and one flesh. Something to think about.
For all these reasons I am hesitant to say that God is simply "ok" let alone supportive of couples who participate in certain forms of homosexual behavior. I don't know about the translation, but if I remember correctly all of the translations render passages usually applied to homosexual relationships as simply "sodomy". Unless I am incorrect there is nothing in the Bible about men or women loving eachother in committed relationships, only the act of sodomy is denounced. Obviously, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But it is conceivable that men and women could have lifelong committed and loving relationships without this specifically denied action. Let me know if any of you have a resource showing otherwise on the meaning of the original language(s).
ReplyDeleteAs this all relates to LDS, I do have a few last points.
While your description of marriage is admirable and correct, Travis, I find that LDS culture and historical teaching does not seem to uphold it. Specifically, there are many recorded sermons that indicate that the primary purpose of marriage in LDS theology is procreation. And LDS culture seems to reinforce this teaching by its pressure for youth to marry young and quickly. The "quickly" describes what I have observed as a seeming cultural tendency toward short durations between meeting and marrying.
LDS theology has, in many respects, family at its center. The "glory of God", besides being described as intelligence, is more often described as "eternal increase" or progeny. The Godhead is not simply one God or a few working as One, but Husbands whose main activity is producing spirit children with their wives. The "tabernacling" of spirit children is a primary function of LDS married couples. I could go on.
As far as cultural tendencies are concerned, I hear very, very often of "eligible RM's" or returned missionaries. That RM's are often married soon after their return, whether to someone they were already in a relationship with pre-mission or someone they met post-mission. Young single women begin to be seen as old-maidish after 26, if not sooner. Certainly, these women feel pressure long before this age. (Obviously LDS culture is not completely monolithic and variances do exist.) I hear of youths married after just a few months of courtship. Then I hear of couples learning about eachother after being married and lamenting their choice. If I remember correctly, I believe I have even heard General Conference talks that seemed to address this type of less-than-optimal relationship as being still the Will of God and for the "growth" of the individuals.
As you have posted in the past, women's primary role is defined by children - the bearing and raising of them. Men's role in LDS is similarly primarily defined in relation to providing for the (wife and) children. In all these ways, I find that the LDS church seems to put a higher premium on chastity (a reason given for early and quick marriages) and family production than it does on finding the right mate, let alone the love of your life through which God blesses you with His love.
I could probably go on, but I'll cut it off here.
Thank you, Spartacus. I appreciate the critique on form and function. I am wondering if form also has a history of alteration as evidenced by biblical forms of polygamy. At its core there is still a man to woman/women relationship, but certainly the boundaries have changed significantly. So do you see polygamy as a change in form and/or function?
DeleteI am unsure of your question concerning 'sodomy'. Very interesting and I will also investigate its use in the NT.
Mark 10:1-12 Wonderful. I had never looked at this passage as a point of inference for our contemporary issue of gay-rights to marriage in the church. Clearly Jesus (Mark?) is informed by Torah. I think I am once again faced with a difference in context as in Romans 1. There is nothing to indicate that I know of that would suggest Jesus was dealing with anything like our contemporary situation. Still, I would like some time to think on this one. Very thought provoking passage.
Oh, and don't forget:
ReplyDelete"in Holy.. MOLEY!... Matrimony.!" - Spaceballs
Trav, I don't want to be too critical, but your original post and follow-up have me confused. In your discussion of Adam and Eve and Genesis 2, you say that Adam was given the choice of "helper" and "companion" (which you later designate as spouse) and that he was free to choose among the animals already created, among which he did not find one adequate. Is this right? Adam was free to choose an animal for his companion? Santorum is justly criticized for comparing homosexuality to zoophilia to justify his opposition to same-sex marriage; are you really making the same comparison to justify your support for it? Then in a follow-up you say, "homosexuality is a modern category foreign to Paul's world..." This statement is absolutely astonishing in its presumption. Homosexuality is innate and is relatively constant across nationality and class. We have no reason to believe that that consistency doesn't extend throughout history as well. The homosexuality of Paul's time was not confined to indiscriminate pagan orgies, as you suggest.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, however, you say that a divine proscription against homosexual relations would be unjust. I can sympathize with the point of view. Orientation is beyond our control; you don’t choose to be gay (unless you are Cynthia Nixon). So it would seem unfair for God to sanction intimacy for some, but not for others. But God denies intimacy not just by edict or commandment, but by nature as well. Many hetero people will not find partners to whom they are attracted because their genes make them either incapable of such relations or unable to attract someone to whom they are attracted. Is it any less just for God to proscribe intimacy for the elephant man because he is ugly than it is for Him to deny the same to Richard Simmons because he prefers boys? And just as neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is a choice, pedophiles don't choose their attraction (the similarities among heterosexuality, homosexuality and pedophilia end at the question of whether they are innate; there is no moral comparison). Yet we rightly and righteously demand celibacy from this latter group.
When it comes to the question of government and marriage, I cast my lot in with those who favor equal treatment regardless of orientation, preferably with state and federal governments getting out of the marriage business altogether. But whether God approves or not of particular acts in the bedroom by consenting adults is a matter of faith (or perhaps it's more a matter of religion), and your reasoning, sympathetic though it may be, is hardly airtight.
Travis, I think the others have said basically my same ideas. But even if I accept that Paul was only talking about homosexuality in the context of idolatry and the modern day issue is unique, then what source would we look to for God's answer? We sit here quoting scripture that we get from God's mouthpieces (prophets and apostles) in antiquity, but where would we look for that today? Only the Catholic, Greek/Russian/Eastern orthodox and Latter-Day Saints even make a claim to any authority from God to declare (not just
DeleteInterpret) doctrine. When you see a gap in scripture, how do you fill it?
Ben,
DeleteLet me first say that no, I am not saying that Adam possibly choosing an animal as his helper is in some way suggesting zoophilia. I tried to include a parenthetical statement to help clarify that ‘helper’ does not automatically mean someone or something with whom to make babies. I thought that would be enough, but let me go a bit further to state that ‘helper’ does not automatically mean someone with whom to have sexual activities. So yes, Adam was free to choose an animal as his companion (a dog is a man's best friend, type of companion). This in no way insinuates sexual or erotic activities. It simply means that Adam was involved in the process of choosing his helper and he chose the woman, Eve, from other options.
I do not make the presumption that people with a genuine same sex attraction did not exist in Paul's time. Again, I made a statement to this point: "I am not supposing that no one in Paul’s time had a same-sex attraction. I simply want to place us in a world much different than our own and point out an important feature of idol worship." So I do not suppose that the first century world was void of people who had a genuine attraction to the same sex.
DeletePlease note that I wrote 'homosexual CATEGORY'. In the context of Romans 1 Paul is clearly addressing idolatry, but Paul does not have a CATEGORY of people in his time that he would call homosexual. People didn't identify themselves by their sexual orientation, but rather their religious affiliation and worship was the categorically defining stage along with political status or honor. So, in the context of Romans 1, wherein Paul is discussing people's choice to worship idols he also goes into great detail about what some of that religious practice looked like. You are right, orgies and same-sex sexual activities were not confined to religious ceremonies alone. However, the sexual promiscuity of the Graeco-Roman world was acceptable partly because of its acceptance in general pagan worship, thus Paul associates it all under God's giving people up to their choice of other gods. The text is discussing specifically the topic of idolatry as it affects all of life. For that reason we see Paul's continuation into the rest of the idol worshipper's approach to life in general - unrighteousness, evil, covetousness,...etc. The CATEGORY of homosexual does not exist for Paul. He is functioning, at least writing in Romans 1, about a world which uses religious categories; Jewish Christian vs. pagan/idol worshipper.
I agree, God has made many people that genetically or for whatever reason do not attract a desired mate. If for whatever reason someone is denied that form of companionship (not the only form of finding community, I might add) I do not turn to God and demand an explanation. That is not where I see the problem. In fact, I think this may well be God directing a person to exist in the world in a different capacity, a capacity that doesn’t have to be lonely but full of service to God and humanity (1 Cor. 7). If you are homosexual or heterosexual and unable to find a partner with whom to make a lifelong commitment, an across-the-board standard of celibacy is appropriate and equal. But two consenting adults that devote themselves to each other is nothing I see God would turn away. How miserable it would be if you were unable to build a life with your spouse simply because of your religious institution’s perspective on your sexual orientation. It’s hard for me to think that you would stand for that if it were you who could not be with your wife and supported by general society and most important, God. Yes, God makes people with a whole host of sexual orientations, some we as a society allow for expression (heterosexual and, at least politically, homosexual) and others we don’t (pedophilia et. al). But in all cases general society makes boundaries, some more rightfully strict than others because of a sense of morality. If we allow for homosexuals to freely join together because we morally believe that freedom of choice is more important than imposing our faith standard of marriage on the general populous, aren’t we setting ourselves up for a similar stance that lets in the air? The homosexual couple will feel the same subjective confirmation of God’s approval that we did when we got married to our respective partners. If we really support gay-rights to marriage in the political realm it seems that we can anticipate this moving to the religious realm very quickly. I think we can anticipate this movement especially with the homosexual LDS community. They will most certainly pray for God’s direction in choosing a partner. Are we really prepared to reject their union in our religious community when they have sought God’s guidance for their decision? God says to join with person X, I obey, and my faith community still rejects me? I make this last point with all the respect in the world, glad to know that religious institutions have the freedom to make these boundaries for themselves. I just think we are setting ourselves up for the same gay-rights to marriage issue for the future, just moving from a political to a religious stage. My stance isn’t perfect, but I don’t see this compartmentalization of political and religious spheres coming out very airtight either.
DeleteThanks for the responses. Your clarification of the Genesis story helps a bit. But now that I see your interpretation as not totally off the wall, I still find it quite a stretch. You know I don’t take the story of Genesis literally and my understanding of Adam and Eve is flexible, to say the least. But, and I think you agree on this point, the union between Adam and Eve is one of marriage. You say that marriage is about companionship first and sex is optional. Okay, but there is a nature of exclusivity to the arrangement, isn’t there? Today marriage is about two things legally, sexual exclusivity and privileges which facilitate tax and contract law, but that is a human construct and not of eternal import. Nevertheless, even if marriage is about companionship primarily, there is an exclusivity to it which elevates that relationship over simple friendship. And so you contend that Adam was given the choice of exclusive “companionship” with one of any animals? And he chose none because he preferred the companionship of a different kind from a creature (woman) who hadn’t been created yet? I’m sorry, Travis, I don’t see it. The story of Adam and Eve is mostly allegorical. And it doesn’t lend itself to your position. If I were arguing your point, I would just say that Adam and Eve are archetypes for the typical male-female relationship, but that their story isn’t meant to be an exhaustive study on human romance.
DeleteAnd I still disagree with your assertion that the “category” of homosexual did not exist in Paul’s world. A reading of the comedies of Aristophanes (the Tyler Perry of ancient Greece) dispels the idea. Male characters in his comedies were portrayed as effeminate and exclusively interested in relationships with other men. Sure, Greco-Roman culture was more licentious than today’s society permits, but the category existed and knowledge of that category was widespread. I’m not arguing with your interpretation of the scripture in question here. Just with the statement.
Finally I think that you miss my point as it applies to the elephant man. Some people argue that a just God would not forbid intimacy to homosexuals. Leaving aside the question of God’s “justice,” we can agree that he does proscribe intimacy for some, such as our friend Quasimodo and those in similar situations. And if he does place those limits on Quasimodo’s behaviour, would he really be inconsistent if he placed similar limits on Ellen DeGeneres? If you feel that God wouldn’t proscribe intimacy between a loving homosexual pair, that has more to do with your subjective, personal understanding of God’s nature than it has to do with the Bible and an objective examination at God’s “justice.” I’m not saying that you are wrong. I’m just saying that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Ben,
DeleteFirst, I appreciate all of the responses and discussion on this post from you and everyone else. I hope it has been enjoyable and thought provoking as it has for me.
I don't take the Adam/Eve story literally, but if it is a story that informs me about God then I allow it to capture my imagination to see what it teaches me. I see God working with humanity (Adam) to bring about companionship. Why couldn't Adam tell God that out of all the creatures a suitable helper had not been found? But in the end I think you made the point clear. At the same time, people are still reading the story literally and letting it inform them in ways that justify (in their eyes) hurting others. Even literally I think there are opportunities for us to see something different.
I see your argument concerning the category of homosexuality. I think I was coming at it from Paul's/Romans 1 wherein he doesn't have a word to describe the behavior but places the behavior as a description amongst many other pagan-associated behaviors. I think you will agree that while effeminate men are the stereotype of gay there are certainly many male individuals in the gay community that are anything but effeminate and vice versa for lesbians.
I believe I understand your point about the Elephant Man/Quasimodo, but they are great examples of what I am trying to argue, in my opinion. The story of Quasimodo is one of social injustice (the almost human - quasimodo - of society having to hide in his sanctuary instead of being treated like a human. Closet anyone?) and the reality that beauty is deeper than one's skin (the vases of Esmeralda symbolizing Quasimodo and the other dude). Is it just that Quasimodo wasn't loved despite his good heart and noble actions? No! That's the point. We are to learn from this story so that we don't do the same thing. When we find someone that looks different we are not to shun them and make their life a tragedy. This isn't about God's justice, this is about ours.
The point I am making with the Bible is one I read when God uses marriage as a metaphor to describe his relationship with his people. I see a consistent message and emphasis placed on faithfulness and that includes Romans 1. I don't see why my thesis of faithfulness being the ethos of marriage as unfounded or far fetched. I am not concerned with God's justice as I know that is in safe hands. I am concerned with our justice and how we treat others and yes, my subjective reading informs me differently than your subjective reading or the prophet's subjective reading or, well the list goes on. If my argument is indeed trying to fit a square peg into a round hole then I rather be making this argument than one that would exclude healthy people that love each other from being together, which is what the Bible is commonly used for and to which I am reacting. But I don't think my argument is far fetched. I think I'm right. If I'm wrong I can't imagine God getting all in my face about trying to be too kind and charitable with the children he made different from me. I think there are some amazing parables about treating as equal and as our friend those that are despised by the religious elite (Luke 15-16). They go well with Quasimodo. I get your point about the injustice of ugly people not getting their wanted mate. But I am not talking about God's justice or other things we can't control. I am talking about something we can control. Something God has given us a chance in our time to understand more fully and empathize with more love. It's not about God excluding homosexuals from love and companionship, this is about us.
Okay, I now have an argument that lets in the air and is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. I get two in one post so I hope you are using these cliches sparingly. I am making a list of these classic endings for future use, so I expect more. I already ran out of mine. :)
Adam,
ReplyDeleteListening to any authority figure - prophet, apostle, fox news, buddha - is not inherently bad. Everyone has voices to which they listen and receive direction for behavior and doctrine.
So where do I get my direction/doctrine? I get it from my interaction with God and people. I search, ponder and pray. I believe in personal inspiration/revelation, not in the form of a divine visitation or clear voice, but I do believe God is involved in our decision making. I experience God in worship, the sacrament, prayer, scripture study, and in the lives around me. It's one big dialogue with the divine.
I also believe God has given us functioning brains that we can use to think for ourselves. I don't feel like waiting for a prophet to direct me to accept gay-marriage, not only politically but religiously. Too often the prophet is used as an excuse for people to not think and explore for themselves. I am NOT saying this about all LDS people, or am I trying to insult the intelligence of the LDS people. I simply observe some LDS people leaning on the prophet as a crutch, waiting on pins and needles for his direction without thinking it out for themselves. Again, please don't think I am insulting LDS people's intelligence. I am simply making an observation of some that chose not to think about these issues, waiting for what the prophet will say instead. I think God wants us to wrestle with the issues together, not with the intent to make walls but with the intent to express God's love.
Do I disregard the prophet or apostles? Much of what is said during general conference is wonderful news. I appreciate the direction provided, but I also don't feel like taking a narrow view of 'prophet'. Monson is not the only guy worth listening to or who is declaring a prophetic message in our world. Is he the only true prophet? I don't know that right now. All I know is that I love a good sermon providing insight to the scriptures. I can listen to a sermon or sit through a worship service and experience God better than I can at many sacrament meetings. I'm not sure if 'prophet' should be defined so narrowly.
To summarize, I find direction from the interaction with God through searching, pondering and praying. I find direction in my attempt to work it out for myself and in dialogue with others. I am wondering if God really wants us to commit our lives to upholding a doctrine no matter what the cost. God is not found in doctrine, He is found in people.
I don't necessarily think that acceptance of political compromise necessarily leads to a change in religious values. After prohibition ended, we didn't revise the Word of Wisdom. I really can't see any Possible way of reconciling Christianity, Judaism, or Islam with gay marriage. But just because my church won't accept a certain practice doesn't mean that I can't live peaceably in a free society with others who make different choices.
DeleteAs far as doctrine goes, I see the value in reading the ideas and philosophies of many, but in the end, I have to make decisions when ideas conflict. I love Cicero, but Paul trumps him. And currently Pres Monson trumps Pope Benedict and the Dalai Lama. My only intent in bringing this up was for you to consider that even your argument completely held up, all you accomplished is to say that Paul wasn't talking exactly about our modern situation. You didn't present any other authority to advocate any religious doctrine to include gay marriage, other than perhaps your own opinion. Not saying that's all bad, but by quoting Paul you are quoting the authority of an apostle. To date I know of no authority in any religion or in any sacred text to advocate your position.
Adam,
DeleteAdvocate my position? You must be referring to the position on gay rights to marriage? Are you saying that marriage is based on procreation?
I assume you mean my position on gay marriage and my response is simple. No ancient sacred texts have dealt with our current issue. That's why they haven't said anything about it. And what other authority do you need than the Holy Spirit? He seems suitable for me. We write the next chapter in how we treat each other.
I agree with your example of the WoW. I simply see that this trend is similar (I stress similar) to that of African American's receiving the priesthood. The church seems to lag about 30 years behind society, so I suspect that in 30 years we might see change in our treatment of the homosexual community. That is not certain, I know, but it seems possible.
I'll take a moment to address your original argument as to the purpose of marriage... We live in a fallen world where disease, genetic mutation, pollutants, natural disasters, etc can affect us in various ways. We have already mentioned Quasimodo. And there are studies that show positive correlations (not necessarily causes) between childhood experience and homosexual desire, violent tendencies, substance abuse l, etc. All of us are affected by these things in varying degrees. Yet, as Spartacus illustrated with Mark 9, Christ upholds the ideal. He knew that some couldn't marry and couldn't bear children. Yet the ideal is the commandment. As to whether marriage is only for children or for the couple it's hard to tell. It seems to be for the benefit of all those parties. The principle to me is clear, and the lord doesn't back away commanding the ideal even though it would be impossible for some.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of homosexuality is a very different one blacks and the priesthood. Firstly, being black was never a sin. As well, previous prophets had said that there would come a time when all men would hold the priesthood. Why was it necessary until 1978? No one knows. Why did Jesus institute a racist "Jew only" policy only to reverse that policy in a revelation to Peter? Perhaps the Jews (and modern Anglo-Saxons) needed some time to work past their own prejudices. But either way, in those cases they were denied a certain church status but they weren't considered sinful. Throughout both policies ancient and modern, both groups were assumed to receive salvation through their faithfulness. I really don't want to start another thread here, but I wanted to say enough to distinguish it from the case of homosexuality...
Homosexuality has been a sin since the beginning of recorded religious history. For a church to accept a homosexual union as holy, would be to upend the entire history of the Abrahamic tradition. Especially as Latter-Day Saints, with our entire theology based on marriage and parenthood as the vehicle of theosis, we simply could not accept homosexuality. It is not a policy, it is a fundamental truth that cannot be changed. Surely you must see the difference? Even if you don't see this truth as I do, you can see how the two issues are so very different?
Church rules policies can and do change from time to time, but doctrine and principles do not.
P.S. This entire argument doesn't address the group of individuals that have very deep promiscuous tendencies. These show similar patterns of homosexual tendencies, being correlated with certain social experiences, etc. Do they not deserve divine sanction because they "can't" committ to any given arrangement, even polyamorous, etc? As humans, we can reason that any human action can be loving, but does that mean it is divinely approved? At some point must we not realize that our ways simply are not His ways and simply obey?
The ideal is the commandment? I've never heard that before. Ideals, for me are things unattainable or at least rarely obtained. I thought God would provide a way for us to fulfill his commandments, making them obtainable. God doesn't back away from commanding the ideal even though it is impossible for some? Adam, I feel like your contradicting a seminary lesson: 1 Nephi 3:7.
ReplyDeleteOk, Matthew 5:48. How does he provide a way for us to fulfill that one?
ReplyDeleteI think I have finally found the specific argument you keep asking for... what is marriage? I found it in this talk by a very respected Princeton Professor. Here's a key quote, but the whole talk is the argument.
Robert P. George: "So, then, how should we
understand what marriage is? Marriage,
considered not as a mere legal convention
or cultural artifact, is a one‐flesh
communion of persons that is
consummated and actualized by acts that
are procreative in type, whether or not
they are procreative in effect. It is an
intrinsic human good, and, precisely as
such, it provides a more than merely
instrumental reason for choice and action."
http://www.byub.org/talks/transcripts/byuforum/2008/10/byuforum20081028-2345.pdf