The debate, I think, will be over whether sexual orientation is more like skin color or more like Parkinson’s disease. We are coming to understand more and more each year that sexual orientation–all of it, yours, mine, whether it be towards a member of the opposite or same sex–has some genetic foundation. The question then is what to do about it. For years, religious groups that argued against same sex practice said it was fundamentally a choice; now many of them are recognizing that in fact orientation (and the drives that stem from it) are more deeply rooted than that.

This simple fact, of course, must impact biblical interpretation, and should in theory change the way we argue over the matter. (I’ll point you, once again, to Kim Frabricius’ exposition entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church)

But for those of us who argue for more inclusive positions for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can’t assume that because we had that matter right we’ll win the day. Some are going to argue that we ought to use various therapies to remove homosexuality from the human condition. In fact, some are even beginning to make that argument today. Here is Roman Catholic priest Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s U.S. publisher:

“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.” (from an AP Article linked at chicagotribune.com, free registration required)

Fessio is commenting on a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who raised these sorts of questions on his blog (entitled Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?).

Mohler is clear that he himself is dead set against abortion or gene therapy to reverse orientation (of course, he thinks liberals wouldn’t be so against it), but would consider perinatal hormone treatment if it would do the trick. Here are his ten points to end his essay:

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

One fundamental appreciation and two fundamental objections. He’s right about remarking that all human beings are made in the imago dei and must be treated as such. That’s helpful. And he’s right that our ethical landscape is about to be challenged with the new gene detection and treatment options on the horizon. We need more work done in this area.

But the rest of the argument isn’t consistent with that. Are we going to treat all of our orientation more like skin color or like a disease? Is our sexuality deeply something about who we are? The problem with this argument is that it isn’t consistent: if orientation has biological roots, the moral options for appropriate exercise of practices related to that orientation must be fairly offered. You can’t say that there is a morally appropriate route for fulfilling your God-given sexuality if you are straight, but not if you aren’t. The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized. But Mohler falls into the argument that we mustn’t do that. And he does so because he falls back on an assumption of biblical condemnation of homosexual practice that is actually debatable. (Again, see above Kim Fabricius). Far better would be an extension of the biblical sexual mores towards homosexual partners, blessing unions and promoting monogamy among faithful couples and their growth into productive, mutually caring families. This would be to universalize the biblical teaching on human sexuality in a way that recognizes that the biblical authors didn’t write about same-sex relationships as we know them, but condemn what we all (should) condemn: gang-rape, pederasty, etc…

Second, this idea of treating away an innate human condition like sexuality is repulsive. This was experimented with in human history before with disastrous effects. I recognize that Mohler is against gene therapy and abortion for this matter, but how long until the next guy pushes this line further toward the abyss?

For what its worth, if I have a gay or lesbian child, I’m going to love him or her and encourage him or her to have a full, meaningful, grace-filled life, including one hopes a lifetime of happiness with a loving partner.

Much to my dismay, my reservoir of blog posts-to-read has overflowed. To be honest, I have a pile in my office of really good posts-to-read from before the turning of the new year. I’m not sure I’ll get to them; they may be either pitched or filed away. We’ll see.

But today I read a very good entry I wanted to commend and pass along: this truly wonderful exposition by Kim Frabricius entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church from back in January. Here are her first three propositions:

1. Let it be said at once that the question of same-sex relationships and the church is a question of truth before it is a question of morality or discipline. Is the church’s interpretation of scripture true? Is the church’s traditional teaching true? If they are not, then they have to go, otherwise the faith of the church becomes bad faith. As Milton said, “Custom without truth is but agedness of error.” One other thing in anticipation: Jesus said that the truth will make us free (John 8:32); Flannery O’Connor added that “the truth will make you odd.” But before we say anything more, we must know what we are saying it about. In most discussions on the issue of human sexuality we talk at each rather than with each other; in fact, we talk past each other.

2. I take it that homosexuality – and certainly the homosexuality I am talking about – is a given, not a chosen (a “life-style choice”); a disposition recognised, not adopted; a condition as “normal” as left-handedness – or heterosexuality (whether by nature or nurture is a moot but morally irrelevant point). I also assume an understanding of human sexuality that is not over-genitalised, where friendship, intimacy, and joy are as important as libido, and where sexual acts themselves are symbolic as well as somatic. Needless to say, the “Yuk” factor deployed in some polemics has no place in rational discussion, while the language of “disease” and “cure” is ignorant and repugnant. Fundamentally, homosexuality is about who you are, not what you do, let alone what you get up to in bed. This is a descriptive point. There is also a normative point: I am talking about relationships that are responsible, loving, and faithful, not promiscuous, exploitative, or episodic.

3. What about the Bible? This is the Protestant question. “The Bible says,” however, is a hopelessly inadequate and irresponsible answer. Nevertheless, we must certainly examine specific texts – and then (I submit) accept that they are universally condemnatory of homosexual practice. Arguments from silence – “Look at the relationship between David and Jonathan,” or, “Observe that Jesus did not condemn the centurion’s relationship with his servant” – are a sign of exegetical desperation. No, the Bible’s blanket Nein must simply be acknowledged. But Nein to what? For here is a fundamental hermeneutical axiom: “If Biblical texts on any social or moral topic are to be understood as God’s word for us today, two conditions at least must be satisfied. There must be a resemblance between the ancient and modern social situation or institution or practice or attitude sufficient for us to be able to say
that in some sense the text is talking about the same thing that we recognise today. And we must be able to demonstrate an underlying principle at work in the text which is consonant with biblical faith taken as a whole, and not contradicted by any subsequent experience or understanding” (Walter Houston).

I’d demur a bit about this last point, because the next several go on to show how, for most of the scant references cited, the Biblical material isn’t in fact saying a Nein to “homosexual practice” for various reasons. Kim’s point is that there are Neins being said, but to different things, really.

Nevertheless, this is a great read. Check it out. [...Ed Note: If you've got time, check out the comments too...]

Also, tangentially, I just worked through the Strategy Report adopted by the New Wineskins Association of Churches. I’ve got some comments that I might put into an upcoming post. I am trying to distance myself from the initial reaction to having my position repeatedly called unfaithful to the bible and then reading the authors of the report decry the arrogance of their interlocutors.  How does one react to that? How does one attempt to maintain a charitable and grace-offering relationship with fellow clergy and elders who willingly distort the theological convictions and views of others? Anyway, I’d encourage everyone to read that strategy report, remembering that it is also a rhetorical document.

I have a place in my heart for pastors and churches who are torn by their conscience to remain in our connectional body. There is likely a way to process their schism as faithfully as possible on both sides. (And yes, it is a schism). My greatest concern is with pastoral pensions and medical care…

On the other hand, I’m deeply wounded and ashamed by the tact many of them are taking in their argumentation; they ought be more honest with the true differences on both sides and what that means for the church. And I think that the language used here is simply inaccurate:

• such as with the case of the word ‘coersion’ that comes up with regard to our property trust clause in our Consitution which both defines our connectional system (we’re not congregationalist, nor truly hierarchical) and which defies the history of churches that voluntarily assented to the current constitution and its trust clause when we merged as a denomination in 1983;
• so too the purported arguments about the PUP as “changing” what is in fact a reaffirmation of historical Presbyterian practice (local examination with higher-governing oversight, acknowledging that the scruple issue muddies the waters);
• so too the language that the Trinity Report is “unscriptural” when it is in fact rooted in biblical hermeneutics and full of biblical citation, an exercise (not universally successful) of lifting up the biblical resources for thinking about the trinity while upholding the classical trinitarian formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

And there are others; those are just the ones heavy on my mind.

Why mention all this here? Well, this group, among others, argues that there is “clear teaching of scripture” on the homosexuality issue, among other things. This has been the recent trope, since most of them adopt Robert Gagnon‘s argument that this is in fact clear cut. But Fabricus is more on point.

That’s enough for the day. May all who read this have a grace-filled Lenten season…

Here is Real Live Preacher‘s latest (and penultimate?) installment in his video series “how to read the bible.” Ignore the airplane noise, and enjoy:

I think the numbers got mixed up, or Real Live Preacher posted them out of order on his webpage, but I think these are right. Somehow I got confused. The fireplace is a nice touch for number seven (and its longer, too!), and he talks demonology in number 6. For those following the series, here are the next three:

and

and

Enjoy.

Real Live Preacher‘s fourth installment of How to Read the Bible. “Don’t read the bible cold…”he says. Watch for yourself:

I was glad to see the rhetoric about an ostensible “war” on Christmas virtually gone this holiday cycle. Replacing it, however, seems to be an ostensible “war” on those who believe in the divinity of the Torah. Dennis Prager (my emphasis):

If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah? (“Divinity” does not necessarily mean “literalism.”)

I do not ask this about “the Bible” as a whole because the one book that is regarded as having divine authority by believing Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Mormons, among others, is not the entire Bible, but the Torah. Religious Jews do not believe in the New Testament and generally confine divine revelation even within the Old Testament to the Torah and to verses where God is cited by the prophets, for example. But “Bible-believing” Christians and Jews do believe in the divinity of the Torah.

And they line up together on virtually every major social/moral issue.
…
Very often the dividing line in America is portrayed as between those who believe in God and those who don’t. But the vast majority of Americans believe in God, and belief in God alone rarely affects people’s values. Many liberals believe in God; many conservatives do. What matters is not whether people believe in God but what text, if any, they believe to be divine. Those who believe that He has spoken through a given text will generally think differently from those who believe that no text is divine. Such people will usually get their
values from other texts, or more likely from their conscience and heart.

That a belief or lack of belief in the divinity of a book dating back over 2,500 years is at the center of the Culture War in America and between religious America and secular Europe is almost unbelievable. But it not only explains these divisions; it also explains the hatred that much of the Left has for Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Mormon Bible-believers.

…
This divide explains why the wrath of the Left has fallen on those of us who lament the exclusion of the Bible at a ceremonial swearing-in of an American congressman. The Left wants to see that book dethroned. And that, in a nutshell, is what the present civil war is about.

What’s this all about? Muslim congressman-elect Keith Ellison’s plans to re-take his oath of office with a hand on the Quran. (Yes, all congress members are sworn in through a general oath, not related to any hand on any holy book; many congress members choose to have additional ceremonies with their hands on the bible, or the TaNak, or the Book of Mormon, or the like… Check out that very good NPR report…) Prager and some others (like congressman Virgil Goode) are apoplectic about this…a good example of Christian Fusspots.

And what exactly is the divinity of the Torah, specifically, or scripture generally, in Christian thought? Scripture may be considered “god-breathed,” or divinely-inspired, by most Christians. But divine? No. Thinking God speaks through a text (a medium) is not the same thing as regarding that medium, that revelation, as itself divine. Thinking that a text points uniquely, authoritatively, to the experience of human beings with a loving, covenantal God throughout human history is not the same thing as to deify the account of that experience. We worship Christ the Word made Flesh as one person of the trinity, of the one triune God. We don’t worship the text. It is not divine. And its authority isn’t, repeat, isn’t something that just conservatives subscribe to.

I don’t know what’s worse: calling the bible itself divine or saying that only my way of reading  it is the only way to believe in its “authority.” Both smack of idolatry and hubris to me.

This is not even to get into the crap Prager deals about liberals and conservatives in that piece (and note earlier posts on this board about conservative Judaism ordaining gays and lesbians, for example; so much for that theory that “bible-believing” folk line up on every major social issue…)….

This is not to get into Prager’s isolation of the Torah within the Christian canon, or the elision of major interpretive, theological, and yes axiological differences we have with other “people of the book”.

And this is not even trying to parse out exactly what Prager means when he says his complaint about “divinity” does not “necessarily” mean something with regards to “literalism.”

Regardless of all this, this choosing which holy-book congress members are permitted to chose when taking their unofficial oaths business is loony. But then again, loony seems to sell, which is the sad thing to me.

(h/t Joshua Micah Marshall)

… guest blogger Steve Benen also has comments over at The Washington Monthly.

Real Live Preacher has the first two three episodes of his “Reading the Bible” series posted. I’m not sure how interesting it will be for people who read this blog, but perhaps for some it might be edifying. There are more coming…

Here’s the first:

Here’s the second:

…and as a treat, he posted the third tonight:

Kellen has a delightfully thoughtful post over at fear & trembling about the recent Gospel of Judas phenomenon. There he offers some explanation over the recent news, or fuss, about this early text:

So why all the fuss over the document?

One: I have my suspicions about a movie that’s coming out this summer.  Timing is everything.

Two: What did your mother always tell you?  Read the fine print.

Buried deep within the National Geographic’s FAQ section on their website for this “new” Gospel is the answer to a question about how the text came into the hands of those who now possess it. Again, with the way the NYT headlined it (“‘Gospel of Judas’ Surfaces After 1,700 Years”), you’d think that some dude in Egypt stumped his toe on it just last week.  So when was it discovered?

“The Gospel of Judas was first discovered more than 30 years ago in Egypt.”

That’s right folks.  At least thirty years ago.  Not yesterday.  Not five years ago.  Thirty years ago.  The NYT doesn’t report this, of course, until the SECOND page of the article: “Discovered in the 1970′s in a cavern near El Minya, Egypt, the document circulated for years among antiquities dealers in Egypt, then Europe and finally in the United States.”

…

Just seems like an all-too-well timed publicity stunt to me.

Then today, the most recent installment of Sightings came into my inbox, with the commentary of Margaret M. Mitchell, an erstwhile NT professor of mine at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Mitchell links the recent “fuss” to a need to market some new religious news at Easter. They do this around Christmas too, FWIW. Look for it in your Newsweek, US News, and TIME editions around the first week of December.

As with Marty’s comments last time, these seem worthwhile to post in full. Look below the fold for the rest. Enjoy…

What Is Truth in Recent Claims about Christian Origins?

– Margaret M. Mitchell

Before noon last Friday, April 7, we were presented with a trinity of mass media stories about ancient Christianity: a “lost gospel” of Judas appeared on the front page of the New York Times; a British court decided Dan Brown did not plagiarize from Baigent and Leigh’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail; and James Tabor appeared on “Good Morning America” to reveal that he may have new information about the family tomb of Jesus.  Yes, it is the run up to Easter, 2006.

When I gave my lecture on “The Historical Jesus: What Do We Know and Why Do We Care?” to my Intro to New Testament class in early March, I warned the students that, with the ironic regularity of the liturgical calendar, the major newsweeklies would somehow find a way to put “Who Was Jesus? — New Revelations” on the cover.  And I said that as far as I knew, there was nothing new since last year, or the year before.

Despite the fury of these recent disclosures, I still think I was right.

The “Gospel of Judas” is a third- or fourth-century Coptic version of a second-century Greek text that apparently presumes and draws upon the Synoptic Gospels and probably John — along with considerable religious imagination — to reframe Judas as an intermediary of secret truths.  The work is most interesting for the study of Gnostic communities in Egypt in the second through fourth centuries, and for that it constitutes a real find for scholarship.  Indeed, it is always a banner day when I get to cross one more book off the list of “Lost Books of Early Christian Literature” in my copy of Edgar J. Goodspeed’s A History of Early Christian Literature.  This newly published codex does seem to be the genuine article to which Irenaeus was referring in his adversus haereses 1.31 (ca. 180).  (See the marvelous website providing images, Coptic transcription, and English translation.)But it does not give us new historical information about the actual events ca. 30 CE, when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Roman order. The “Gospel of Judas” (which is not “The Gospel According to Judas”), like another Gnostic gospel, the “Dialogue of the Savior,” shows Judas in a neutral or even positive light as a conversation partner of Jesus.  The focus in the new text on Judas can be seen as part of a continuation of early Christian rewritings of the Judas story, which we can sight even within the canonical gospels themselves, for instance, when Matthew adds scriptural embellishment to Mark’s story of Judas’ receipt of payment for handing over Jesus.

But the fresh material in the new Gnostic gospel is not narrated actions, but primarily cosmological speculations in dialogue form. The sensational emphasis on Judas shifting from “betrayer” to “friend” in the recent disclosures appears disproportionate, based as it is on one ambiguous line, the context of which cannot be fully reconstructed, because the papyrus is damaged. Gnostic texts like this revel in the “secret” “special” teachings of the Savior, made known only to an elite few who in turn repeat them to only an elite few.  They are based on a theology that is a kind of intentional divine conspiracy theory (indeed — pssst — even the creator God of the Old Testament is not really God!).

Dan Brown’s book is a novel.  Now we know.  (Haven’t we always known?)  Like the author of the Gospel of Judas, he drew upon earlier sources (the book by Baigent and Leigh, which Brown even acknowledges with his clever anagram of their names in his protagonist, Leigh Teabing), but also rewrote them with an artistry that has captured many.  Why?  Probably because he knew even better than they did how to hitch a mix of historical facts and fictions to a conspiracy theory engine, and he found in the Vatican his perfect embodiment of human malevolence.

James Tabor, in excerpts from his forthcoming book, The Jesus Dynasty, in breathless prose brings the reader along into two first-century Jerusalemite family tombs, including such “you had to be there” tales as late-night discoveries of “shroud” material in a looted tomb, and mini-cams lowered into excavations of a tomb complex now encased below a modern apartment building.  He pronounces the “James Ossuary” authentic (disputing the tests done by the Israeli Antiquities Authority) and passionately calls for DNA testing of bone fragments to see if the family line of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and James can be recovered (which the IAA refused to do).

But after this “Indiana Jones meets Michael Crichton” prelude, we find the following admission: “The gripping story of the Jesus dynasty that follows in no way depends on the authenticity of the James Ossuary inscription, nor whether either of these two tombs was indeed the Jesus family tomb .Š  There is something about a tomb of this type, with the ossuaries, preserved bones, and the inscribed names so familiar to us after two thousand years, that brings chills up the spine as we try to imagine and connect with the past.  And what is most exciting is that we never know what new evidence might emerge at any point to allow us to put more pieces of our story together” (my emphasis).Here Prof. Tabor has given honest expression to precisely the hermeneutical underpinnings of the Easter media frenzy: “connection with the past” should be tactile, spine-tingling, and will inevitably — while offering some previously lost artifact (preferably lost through some combination of malevolent “orthodoxy” and criminality) — leave the audience on the edge of its seat, awaiting the next piece of “new evidence.”  There’s always next year.

“What is truth?” Pontius Pilate poses to Jesus in John 18:38.  The popular presentation of these three events is based upon a paradoxical combination of historical positivism and Gnosticism.  The former is the assumption that the real “truth” about Jesus is to be locked down by some newly discovered “data” about Jesus, whether dialogues with Judas, pillow-talk with Mary Magdalene, or his DNA.  The latter is founded on the belief that cosmic truths (not historical ones!) are what matter, and they can only be found through mediated revelation to an elite few (who read the right books), for they are deliberately occluded from all the rest.  Ironically, what both hold in common is a deep suspicion of the reliability of the sources of religious knowledge upon which the Easter season itself rests — scripture, tradition, and liturgy.

A clandestine codex, a court case, and a cemetery raid.  Easter, 2006.

Margaret M. Mitchell is Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and coeditor (with Frances Young) of The Cambridge
History of Christianity, vol. 1: Origins to Constantine.