catapult magazine

apparently the editorial staff at the [i:00d6f85f83]lariat[/i:00d6f85f83], baylor university’s school newspaper, caused quite a ruckus with a recent editorial promoting gay marriage. the president of the college responded with his own editorial and roberto riverais offered his opinion at the wilberforce forum web site.

i haven’t had a chance to read the original editorial or president sloan’s response, but mr. riverais’ opinion was annoying.

what do you think?

So I’m curious about your responses to David Plotz’s (slate editor) argument about homosexuality and Leviticus. What makes homosexual sex categorically worse than heterosexual sex during menstruation?

I read the majority of David Plotz’s blog on Leviticus, and he certainly has a candid style that’s easy to read. I don’t think the two are different, from the perspective of Leviticus. At least the result is the same: both make you unclean. Nonetheless, if you can’t cherry-pick an OT verse here and there, you also can’t ignore entire bunches of verses either. He doesn’t offer a compelling reason ignoring these laws altogether, except to say that we really don’t want to apply all of them, which, he thinks, consistency necessitates. He has raised a problem without solving it.

it’s been good to approach this discussion of homosexuality from the story perspective Grant mentioned. What role does Scripture’s prohibition of homosexuality play in the grand drama of redemption? Or stated postively, why is it so important that marriage be only between a man a woman in light of God’s relationship to his people?

In light of Ephesians 5, it seems like the role of the married couple is to play out the gospel in their relationship. God intends marriage to be a play within a play, a vital mini-play within the grand drama of redemption. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh," and then he immediately adds, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." Marriage is a profound gospel mystery. First the roles are assigned: Husband is to play Christ and his wife is to play the Church. Then stage directions are given: The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave up his life for her, and the wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord. Now watch the drama!

Alright, we all know what kind of drama usually passes in the marriage relationship! But isn’t the gospel hope that the mini-drama will be swept along into the grand drama, that God will save and heal broken marriages? God the central Actor in all history acts to help believers act out their roles in a way that reflects Christ and the Church. A gospel-mystery marriage is wonderful to behold.

How often in Scripture doesn’t God use marriage to dramatize his love for his people? Think of Hosea. What a wonderful role Hosea got assigned in the drama of history! Go marry a prostitute. "Why?!?" Because Israel is an adulterous people; they go whoring after other gods. My beloved Israel betrays me, but I will woo her back and turn her heart toward me. Think of Revelation 19:7, "Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready." There are tons of others.

But if God intended marriage to be a gospel play within the grand drama of redemption, doesn’t God’s will that marriage be only between a man and a woman make sense? There can’t be two Christs, and two Churches would fail. But one Christ and one Church, that’s the gospel way!

I’d say that the use of the husband/wife metaphor to describe God’s relationship to the church should be understood in the cultural context of the times the Bible was written. The ideal marriage relationship 2000 years ago consisted of a privileged man and who held a great deal of power over his wife. He had the right, for example, to easily divorce her if he wished to do so, whereas she could not. Similarly inherritance laws systematically kept women dependent on men. This is not to say that happy marriages did not exist at the time, but we must take into account that our assumptions and laws are different today.

I think it’s irresponsible to use such a metaphor as gospel truth in itself. To understand what the metaphor means, why not look at what the author was trying to explain: God has power over his church but he loves his church. The church’s responsibility is to love and obey the way a wife 2000 years ago was expected to love and obey her husband. Understood in 21th century terms, this metaphor hardly makes sense, so I see no reason to use it as an argument against homosexual relationships. That’s the gospel way!

Nonetheless, if you can’t cherry-pick an OT verse here and there, you also can’t ignore entire bunches of verses either. He doesn’t offer a compelling reason ignoring these laws altogether, except to say that we really don’t want to apply all of them, which, he thinks, consistency necessitates. He has raised a problem without solving it.

So….. all Old Testament laws should all be applied as they are written? If so, pick up that rock and stone me right now.

It’s just an idea based on what Paul says, so it’s certainly not gospel truth. But I don’t think Paul could be clearer when he says marriage refers to Christ and the Church. I assume you’re challenging the implications I’ve drawn for marriage and homsexuality.

There are a couple problems with your objection. First, Paul is not being descriptive but prescriptive. He’s being normative. He is not saying, "Look…you see how marriage is practiced in our culture? That’s the way God relates to us." He’s not using indicatives but imperatives. He’s saying, "Whatever practice you may have or see around you, this is the way it ought to be. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and wives, submit to your husbands." He’s talking about what marriage SHOULD be, and also what it originally was. That’s why he quotes Genesis 2. Marriage should be what it was originally intended to be.

The other problem is that Paul is addressing husbands and wives and talking about how they are to relate to one another. His purpose at this poinit is not to teach something about God but to teach something about marriage.

No, all the OT laws should not be applied, and no, I don’t want to stone you. Who would I argue with? : )

I’m just not comfortable saying the Bible clearly teaches something and then arguing that we should ignore it along with similarly difficult teachings. What I’d rather do is go beyond the problem and discuss toward possible solutions.

The traditional answer to the problem has been to say there are three types of OT laws: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Moral laws are still binding, ceremonial laws have been abrogated, and judicial laws have expired with the Israelite theocracy, except insofar as "the general equity thereof may require."

A lot of the OT laws were given for a specific people for a certain time; they weren’t meant to be applied beyond that people and time. But some of them did reveal God’s will for his people’s lives. The prohibition of homosexuality is one of those moral laws that still applies and is binding upon God’s people. We cannot ignore God’s will. The statute for stoning homosexuals, however, was a judicial law that applied only within the Israelite theocracy, and I for one do NOT think general equity requires its continued application today.

The reason I think the OT’s clear prohibition of homosexuality still applies is because of the argument I already made, that the NT also applies it. I don’t see how you could read Romans 1 (as well as the passages I mentioned) and not have a clear sense of God’s will with respect to homosexuality. To me the reading that sees God continuing to prohibit homosexuality fits best with what Scripture says.

What I was trying to do earlier was go beyond a mere discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and talk about how God’s view on homosexuality fits within the narrative God is telling in Scritpure. This is God’s world; it is his stage. As Christians our obligation is to direct our stories in conformity with God’s stage directions and in relation to God’s own grand story. God seems to have intended marriage to be a mini-gospel drama fitting the grand drama of redemption.

You’re right about the Ephesians passage. I got the metaphor turned around. Paul was using God’s relationship to the church to describe the contemporary marriage ideal. This does not mean, however, that the marriage ideals described in the Bible should be our marriage ideals. Take the following passage from Colossians 3, for example:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. 22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

This is a list of commands that describe ideal social relations at the time, and I hope none of us today would ask slaves today to obey the last commandment (although both the OT and the NT accept slavery as normal). Similarly, the Bible accepts and promotes patriarchial social relations in both Old and New Testaments, but many in our society have learned that women are not necessarily weaker and that a marriage is not necessarily good if it is based on unequal power relations. The New Testament model for sexual relations and marriage was appropriate for the Roman World 2000 years ago, but to apply these commandments literally today seems foolish.

The following passage from I Peter 3 is a great example of Old Testament stories being used to support New Testament ideals.

1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

If there are any married women reading this, are you ready to start calling your husband your "master"? Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support this practice. If homosexual relations are wrong then a strong wife is a disobedient usurper who makes a mockery of God’s sexual ideal. Also, if homosexuality is wrong, slavery is ok.

The traditional answer to the problem has been to say there are three types of OT laws: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Moral laws are still binding, ceremonial laws have been abrogated, and judicial laws have expired with the Israelite theocracy, except insofar as "the general equity thereof may require."

I move that we label the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality as "judicial laws" that have expired. The New Testament mentions can be grouped with other cultural suggestions we don’t take all that seriously today: women’s headcoverings and silence in church, prohibitions against make-up and jewelery, prohibitions against eating blood and the meat of strangled animals (Acts 15).

Thanks for continuing this conversation, Dan. I just got back from a five alarm (spicy!) Texas barbeque (company sponsored), my belly’s full, and I’m in a great mood. So I wanted to let you know this discussion has been valuble to me. I have been reminded of the challenges and concerns of homosexuals and the care with which the issue of homosexuality needs to be addressed. For many this discussion is not abstract but has real life implications.

I’m at work now so I’ll have to respond later. You’re too quick to the draw…