Arsenokoites

http://spiritualfriendship.org/2014/05/27/why-did-paul-object-to-the-arsenokoitai/

A good friend recently pointed me to the above post, as another perspective on Paul's discussion of homosexuality which differs from the one I personally subscribe to. The perspective I find compelling is best represented in the writings of the Jewish scholar Richard Elliot Friedman (The Bible Now) and Reverend Justin Cannon (Homosexuality Christianity and the Bible). A brief summary of a take on these views can be found on the following Jewish blog: http://mgindin.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/all-a-horrible-mistake-the-bibles-supposed-condemnation-of-homosexuality/

I would like to post a brief critique of Belgau's piece linked above. I think he raises good questions about how to interpret Paul's writings on homosexuality correctly and his piece is intelligent and worth thinking through. That said I think he is asking the wrong question, namely, "why did Paul prohibit homosexuality?" 

First of all it must be said that Paul did not "prohibit homosexuality". He severely criticized certain sexual practices whose identity is debated but clearly refer to some types of homosexual practices. Even if we agree that the object of his criticism is any and all homosexual romance (which I don't) he is not the source of the prohibition, the Torah is. 

I think it is clear that Paul criticized certain sexual practices, at least one of which (arsenokoites) is the same practice prohibited to Israel in Mosaic law. I think it is most reasonable to assume that Paul did not condemn arsenokoites on the basis of his own sensibilities but on the basis of the Jewish sentiments which take as their historical basis the Torah prohibition and it's original logic. Therefore I think Belgau is on the wrong trail when he tries to argue on the basis of a reconstruction of Pauls personal sentiments. The important question is: "What did the Torah condemn with the word arsenokoites and why?" 

The Septuagint translates the Levitical prohibition as "arsenokoites". It is translating the phrase "to lay with a man as laying with a woman". I believe that the Torah prohibition refers specifically to sexual intercourse between men. "Laying" is a euphemism for sex. "Like a woman" narrows the focus to penetrating another man like he was a woman. Those who argue that the Torah is antagonistic towards homosexuality per se must explain why Lesbian sex is not prohibited despite the careful and bi-gendered nature of Torah prohibitions regarding sex. There is something about sexual intercourse between Israelite men that the Torah finds specifically repulsive. 

What is it? Friedman extensively documents the fact that in Israel's ancient near eastern context anal penetration humiliated, feminized, and degraded the penetrated. A fundamental aspect of Mosaic law was its creation of a free and equal society before God which was in direct and pointed contradiction to the hierarchical slave states of Egypt and other surrounding cultures (to understand this in full please read the excellent Created Equal by Joshua Berman and The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture by Yoram Hazony). Practices in which Israelite men degraded and humiliated eachother would need to be mandated against. 

The concern with homosexual intercourse is not unique to the Torah- several other Middle Eastern law codes and literatures addressed it as an issue. As is consistent with other examples of the Torah giving its opinion on typical legal issues dealt with in other codes, so the Torah here gives it's unique opinion on male homosexual intercourse. 

As a final note, there is a suggestion that the Torah's aversion to male homosexuality as a form of degradation and injustice lives on in Paul's phrasing. Justin Cannon argues persuasively that "pornoi, arsenokotai, andrapadistoi" in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is best translated as something like "male prostitutes, those who use them (arsenokotai) and the sex traffickers who enslave them". 

I don't think that the arguments I've outlined or referenced above are certain. I do find them the most compelling interpretations, but recognize they still may be wrong. I think that the ambiguity here demands humility and I hope that these arguments will at the least convince those who think the bible plainly condemns homosexuality that humility is justly required of them as well. 

Deep and True Words

If as Christians we thought that Church and Synagogue no longer affected one another, everything would be lost. And where this separation has been made complete, it is the Christian community which has suffered. The whole reality of the revelation of God is then secretly denied and as an inevitable result philosophy and ideology take the upper hand..."

- Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline p. 75

The Efficiency of God

When Jesus first came surprisingly and seductively into my consciousness I was attracted to him as an embodiment of the Torah and a fulfillment both of God's promises to Israel and God's purpose in Israel- the repair of the world. I came to understand Jesus as God's brilliant and shocking recreation of Israel as one person who would knit the world together in a Church that transcended all human differences and boundaries.


As I studied the gospels I came to understand Jesus as a demonstration of God's radical, self-sacrifical love for us. This vision did and does captivate me. With more study I came to understand Jesus' bringing of the Kingdom of God and his post-resurrection reign as living King. Next was understanding Jesus' mission as the deification of human nature- God becoming man so that we could become God.


I then came to understand Jesus as the defeater of death and evil- the one who fell under the wheel but in falling began to turn the wheel in the opposite direction. I then began to understand Jesus as the inaugurator of the New Covenant- a covenant where faith is rewarded with the giving of transformation through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit- a covenant sealed in God's own self-sacrifice on the Cross.


I then came to understand Jesus crucifiction and resurrection as a way to draw us into himself- to be crucified in the flesh and reborn in the spirit, to die to the old man and rise to eternal life.
I came to see the early Church's vision of Jesus as the conqueror of Hell- the bringer of God's presence into every place, establishing the universal dominion of grace.


Next was the vision of Jesus as drawing humans into the inner life of the Trinity- teaching us how to and empowering us to be able to be drawn into his sonship to God, his obedience, self-emptying and love towards the Father. This Jesus came to liberate us from sin and brokenness and restore our relationship to God, others and the world, reborn as the new Adam.


Relatively late I came to really grapple with the doctrine of substitionary atonement and came to be convinced that the New Testament does teach that Jesus did become sin and die on the cross, suffering torture, humiliation, abandonment and death in our place in order to free us and cleanse us of sin and condemnation. I came to understand Luther's teaching that forgiveness- reconciliation- was the basis for repentance, and not vice versa.


As I made my way through various authors- you may see the tracks above of David Stern, Gerhard Lohfink, NT Wright, Jurgen Moltmann, George Macdonald, Kallistos Ware, Michael J Gorman, Hilarion Alfayev, John Wesley, R Michael Allen, and Martin Luther- I was profoundly grateful for so many wise and studied guides. I was also made aware of the current of argumentation (usually not in the authors above themselves) over which of the presentations of Jesus' mission above was the "best" or even "the correct" one.


What I have come to believe is that they are all true, and this multivalence is true to the way that God works in the world.


Consider a tree. What does a tree do? What is its purpose? is its purpose to be beautiful? To give shade? To provide oxygen? To provide food for insects? To hold the soil together? To moderate temperature and moisture in small but essential ecosystems? To provide medicine in its bark and leaves (as do many trees)?


Or does God accomplish all this and more with one organism? Contemplating almost any natural phenomena will impress upon us this same realisation: God never wastes an opportunity. God does not make one creation to provide shade and one to make oxygen; another to hold soil together and one other special one to provide food for insects. Humans might design this way, but not God.


The attempt to define Jesus' mission in terms of only one objective reflects human design, not divine design. As much as we might like to sum up Jesus' mission in a neat maxim or point our finger to one simple outline for what his life, death and resurrection meant, the Jesus of the Gospel resists all of our efforts.


The reason Jesus resists our effort to simplify and streamline Him is that God does not work in the world that way- not in nature, and not in Jesus. God was in Jesus reconciling all things to Himself- and with a neat brushstroke of the divine creativity God left a rainbow of teaching, embodiment, empowerment, forgiveness, uplift, judgement, healing, sanctification, and glorification behind- and that's just the short list.

Posted with Blogsy

WorldVision's Mistake

I am disappointed to read of World Visions reversal of their courageous and Christian decision to hire people in same sex marriages. Their statement that the rejection of homosexuality is a core Trinitarian value makes little sense to me. How is rejection of homosexuality core to the Trinitarian faith? Surely it is a perfect example of a belief that even if accepted as important is not core. Core would be, for example, the divine and human nature of Jesus or justification by faith acting in love.

What World Vision seems to be meaning about their core Trinitarian faith is their commitment to the authority of scripture. According to their interpretation of the Bible the Hebrew Testament forbids homosexuality and the New Testament declares it sinful. I hold heartily to the authority of scripture, but what does that mean? Surely not that we can interpret scripture without regard to the context in which it was written, without regard to linguistic and anthropological studies. It is not feasible to to approach a 2,000 plus year old text written in an ancient language in this way. The truth is, as outlined here (http://mgindin.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/all-a-horrible-mistake-the-bibles-supposed-condemnation-of-homosexuality/) there are good reasons to believe that the Bible does not address homosexual love or marriage as these exist in our culture at all.

In the absence of such clear guidelines we are left with a responsibility to decide how to respond to homosexuality in the light of the Word, that is, the example of Christ in the scriptures. In light of this barometer, how should we act? Should we exclude married homosexuals from our fellowship? Should we refuse to do business with them, hold back from hiring them?

How did Jesus act? As is well known he was famous for including in his fellowship "tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners". the Pharisees were those who said that to eat with such was to sanction their sin. What did Jesus call them? "Hypocrites" "unfruitful trees" and worse. It seems that in the light of Christ we should be inspired to radical fellowship and inclusivity. Was Jesus castigated for eating with "former prostitutes"? Did Zaccheus give up his work as extortioner for the Roman occupier before Jesus decided to eat at his house alone above all the houses of Jericho?

Jesus calls us to be sanctified, not sanctimonious. Even if we believe that scripture condemns homosexual love (which I do not believe the evidence unequivocably supports) our authority is not a rulebook and our method is not the politics of purity and exclusion. Our authority is Christ and our method is reconciliation and reliance on grace. World Vision almost took a courageous step in the footsteps of the Master and then drew back. I hope that they were motivated by fear of wrongdoing and not fear of losing the praise of people and the funding of congregations.

Posted with Blogsy

Yochanan in Ephesus

In the last years of the life of Yochanan HaTzadik (Saint John) lived in Ephesus (in modern Turkey). The long lived holy man was often carried to meetings of the kehillah (group, ekklesia, church) of Yeshua's disciples. He used to repeat to them all the time, "My little children, love each other." When the disciples asked him why he was always repeating the same thing, he replied, "it is the commandment of Adonenu (our Lord), and if you keep it, it alone suffices."

(told by Jerome, quoted in the Navarre commentary to St John, p. 20).

Posted with Blogsy

Humility

Humility is essential to orthodoxy.

- Kyle Strobel, Formed for The Glory of God

Posted with Blogsy

The Middle Way

For the Buddha the "Middle Way" consisted of a spiritual practice that neither afflicted the body nor indulged its desires. The Buddha's concern was to free people from desire, the root of suffering, without handicapping the practitioner through asceticism.

For Aristotle the "Golden Mean" consisted in the correct, or virtuous, expression, of emotions: neither too much anger nor too little, neither too much pride nor too little, etc. Aristotle's concern was with excellence, or one could say, with moral beauty.

Sha'ul of Tarsus, St.Paul, also struggles to express a middle way in his letters. His middle way is between anti-nomianism and legalism. His concern is with people being reborn and conformed to the image of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Who is Jesus? Jesus is the one totally surrendered to God, fully expressing the true image of humanity, and unconditionally loving toward others.

On the one hand he is concerned with releasing people from legalism- from judging oneself according to performance, ritual, and law- what came to be called halakhah. On the other hand he is concerned that the Church be virtuous and spiritually true and vital. But the engine that he wants is the response to Grace. The engine that he wants is trust, love, and open-ness to the sanctifying Spirit, which are the mechanisms of the New Covenant.

One could say that the Buddha is concerned with freedom from suffering, Aristotle is concerned with excellence, and Paul is concern is with relationships. His fundamental concern is with the relationship between the practitioner and God, between the practitioner and others, between the practitioner and him or herself. In each case the quality he is looking for is reconciliation, which is the transition to love.

 

Posted with Blogsy