Further Conversation on the Interpretation of Scripture - Pt.1

Last month Rev. Dr. Donald Haynes wrote an article suggesting that Scripture does not categorically classify homosexuality as sinful. Rev. Thomas Lambrecht of Good News wrote a two part rebuttal. I encourage you to read both as they are good primers on some of the basic arguments for and against full inclusion for LGBTQ individuals, particularly in the United Methodist Church. I don't think either necessarily advances the case for or against beyond more basic understandings. Dr. Haynes suggestions are standard and Rev. Lambrecht's replies are predictable. In hope to stimulate further conversation, I'd like to reply specifically to Rev. Lambrecht's critique point by point. Lambrecht says Haynes is guilty of:

1. Misclassifying certain verses and/or lumping unlike verses together into a category that can be disregarded.

Lambrecht reminds us that Haynes classifies the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality as cultural instead of universal (comparing them to laws against eating pork instead of laws like loving others as we love ourselves.) He correctly points out that our United Methodist tradition, and indeed most of Western Christianity, categorizes those ancient laws as ritual, civil, and moral. Ritual and civil laws are intended for a time but moral laws are intended to be universal. He then says, "It is plain that laws related to sexuality are not ceremonial or governmental in nature, but moral." 

It is important to note that the distinction that we (and John Wesley before us) make regarding which laws fall into which categories is not entirely clear. One would be wise to proceed with caution at the "It is obvious that..." argument. What is "obvious" to one group or person may not be so obvious to another. For example, Levirate marriage is proscribed in Deuteronomy 25. Today we understand it as a civil law that ensured continuity of the family line and mechanisms for inheritance. But at the time, Levirate marriage would have been seen as a moral imperative. A brother must accept responsibility for his deceased brother's family! Similarly, at the time Leviticus was written one could argue that common sense said that it is a man's moral duty to marry a woman and reproduce so that we can fill the country with people for defense and prosperity. Today the land is pretty well filled with people and common sense (or at least a majority of people in the U.S.) would say that what happens in a person's bedroom stays in the bedroom.

Could the Levitical texts against homosexuality be moral laws that apply still today? Yes, they could. But there is nothing in Leviticus or elsewhere that demands that the answer is yes. 

2. Misinterpreting and misapplying the biblical and cultural context to nullify the teaching in question.

Here Lambrecht is specifically concerned with how Haynes treats Romans 1. Haynes argues that Romans 1 is likely referring to temple prostitution and Lambrecht disagrees. I disagree with Haynes, too. Lambrecht correctly points out that the entire list of sins in Romans 1 is "a result of idolatry, rather than an expression of idolatry." Homosexuality is listed alongside "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, [gossips], slanderers, etc." I know a number of "practicing homosexuals." They are not perfect people. But they are also not people to whom I would attribute these characteristics. Matthew Vines and others argue that the entire list of sins depends on our understanding of the word translated as "lust" in v. 24 and 26. Because there was no concept of sexual orientation, a person who desired same-sex relations had excessive (lustful) desire. Thus Paul's teaching is not about homosexuality as a sin; it is about idolatry as a sin - desiring anything (or lusting for anything) above God.

I'll end this post here as Lambrecht did with his and continue with additional points later. But first, one more important note on Romans. Too often we end our reading with Romans 1 instead of continuing as Paul does with Romans 2:1. "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." If we look carefully, we can all find ourselves in the list of sins that Paul lays out in Romans 1. At the very least may we speak and judge carefully, knowing that we are all doing our best and falling short at the same time.