By Randall Maddox
Contributing Writer
In her article in the Feb. 21 Graphic, Dr. Marilyn Misch argues against acceptance of homosexuality. I am compelled to respond, for it seems to me that these arguments derive from faulty premises and loaded terms, and they misrepresent or ignore altogether the tough questions we must consider concerning the matter.
The entire foundation of Dr Misch’s article lies in the following syllogism: All sexual relations outside of marriage are sin. Homosexual relations are (by definition) outside marriage. Therefore, all homosexual relations are sin.
“Marriage” is a touchy term, for we can use it in two completely different contexts — as a civil contract recognized by the state, or as a form of covenant addressed in scripture. If Dr. Misch were using “marriage” in the former sense, we could negate all her arguments by merely extending “marriage” to include homosexual unions, which some other countries have done on the simple basis of equality. However, I suspect she wants to limit the term to its biblical use, for we are talking about sin, not legalities.
I do not dispute that “marriage” in scripture is used only to refer to a union of people of opposite gender, so I take no exception to the second component of our syllogism. Even so, “marriage” is not used in scripture in the limited way we might think. David and Solomon were each married to many women at the same time. It seems that the biblical use of “marriage” is limited to a union of at most one man to at least one woman. However, we cannot infer merely from the use of the term that biblical writers would refuse to address favorably similar relationships between people of the same gender. The mere scope of a term’s use is not meant to cast a negative judgment on ideas that lie outside it. And we must tread lightly and thoughtfully before inferring a negative answer to a question about which scripture is silent.
So we go to the first premise of the syllogism: All sexual relations outside of marriage are sin. In scripture this seems to be false. Yes, there are many directives about how married people are to behave themselves sexually and about how unmarried people are not to trivialize the commitment that characterizes marriage by having sex with each other. But both David and Solomon had, in addition to their wives, many concubines, i.e. women to whom they were not married but whom they kept for the purpose of sex. I don’t doubt that David and Solomon were somehow bound to their concubines. But they were not wives. And neither the contemporaries of these men nor the biblical writers who penned the accounts of their lives implied that God viewed these relationships with disfavor.
The only indictment for inappropriate sexual behavior involving either of these men is David’s sin with Bathsheba. In this story, the prophet Nathan reminds David of how God had given him many wives, but that he had taken someone else’s wife for his selfish pleasure. The basis for Nathan’s condemnation of David’s sexual relationship with Bathsheba is not that he was not married to her, but that she was married to someone else. Further, the implication is that David’s sin was actually against Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, linked, of course, to the fact that David had him killed.
I am not making a case for polygamy or the keeping of concubines. I want simply to point out that the first component of our syllogism is false. Furthermore, what seem to matter most about marriage are the principles underlying it — that it is a covenant, and involves promises. Sexual acts are sinful when they violate or trivialize that covenant.
Whether all sexual relationship outside the marriage of one man to one woman is sinful is not clear in light of David’s and Solomon’s wives and concubines, but such a social structure is far removed from ours. And the idea that a committed relationship founded on the principles of exclusive covenant, but between two people of the same gender, is far removed from any social structure we see in scripture, and therefore not addressed there. To claim God would condemn such relationships by appealing to marriage commands is to make scripture say something it is not trying to say. We must not draw pejorative conclusions about committed homosexual relationships from scriptures that address the marriage covenant, for by definition, they do not apply in that way.
As I understand it, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as we use the term today. It neither accepts nor rejects it, and, yes, I am very aware of the biblical passages that appear to address the issue. To decide what we should do with it, I believe we must look to broader biblical principles that might seem unrelated on the surface.
This should not be disconcerting, for we have already done this on a number of issues. Slavery is an issue about which we have drawn conclusions that contradict the accepted practice of all societies in scripture and effectively dismiss some of God’s specific commands. To condemn slavery requires that we call on scriptures that do not address it, and discount those that do address it by appealing to overriding biblical principles.
There are many other such questions, past, present and future. Interracial marriage, whether women must wear veils in church and whether they are allowed to speak, whether men may have long hair, divorce and remarriage, when life begins, genetic engineering and cloning, environmental issues, the pros and cons of a capitalistic economy, globalization, poverty, genocide, and how we should relate to extraterrestrial life if we ever encounter it — all these are examples of issues that are either not addressed in scripture, or are very muddy. We would shudder if someone suggested we follow the clear scriptural teachings and examples on such things as women’s issues or genocide. We must not approach any of them simplistically.
Thus I claim our syllogism is irrelevant when we use it to cover homosexual relationships. As a result, the entire foundation of Dr. Misch’s arguments against homosexuality is swept away, along with all the conclusions that derive from it. By maintaining Dr. Misch’s syllogism, her statement that “it seems odd for people to argue that homosexual conduct, which by definition must be outside of marriage, is permissible,” is a true statement by definition. Such arguments are inappropriate because she outlines her premises to make them so.
With Misch’s syllogism and a definition of marriage that is assumed to be prescriptive, everything to do with human sexuality and romantic love is partitioned into two categories. On the one hand, there is monogamous sex between one man and one woman who are participants in a marriage covenant. On the other hand, there is anything else, which is therefore, by definition, impurity. Thus Dr. Misch can say, “… the truth to be addressed by the church is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality, but rather sexual purity.” Homosexuality is now a non-issue; the discussion simplifies to purity, with all but one behavior lumped into this huge category and no reason to think with discernment about any particular one. Purity is clearly defined in black and white, so let’s preach it.
Other statements of Dr. Misch’s, such as “We cannot pretend that the Bible is indifferent about sexual impurity,” with which I heartily agree, are now used to indict those who are inclusive of homosexuals, implying that to do so is to be indifferent to God’s commands. This is as naïve as saying that those who would allow women to speak in church are indifferent to God’s commands.
Dr. Misch says, “As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to take a stand against all forms of sexual immorality, and to help people to overcome sexual temptations.” I agree heartily. The apostle Paul would too, and his advice for those struggling with sexual temptation would be that they marry (I Cor. 7). But according to Dr. Misch, “the alternative to homosexual conduct is not heterosexual conduct; it is celibacy.” Thus the homosexual by definition cannot take Paul’s advice. The view that a committed homosexual relationship is nothing more than a surrender to temptation is derived from the syllogism alone. I reject such a claim, preferring Paul’s advice.
Dr. Misch takes the position that “celibacy is both possible and powerful.” This is certainly true, but I doubt that it is universally true. It is possible to make a million dollars per year, but not possible for everyone. Stating the possibility does not empower all people to do it. Some have that gift, and some do not.
Paul speaks with sympathy of people’s desire to marry and even describes their sexual energies as a gift from God. He tells them not to use their gift outside the covenant of marriage, but within it. He was talking to people who had no concept of a “homosexual nature,” saying, “Don’t use your gift that way; use it this way.” This aspect of human nature is no different for gay people, and Paul had no thought of them in his writing. The safest conclusion I know is that he would give the same advice to gay people.
People’s gifts vary. Some have the gift of sexuality, and some the gift of celibacy. We must not assume that all people are capable of both. If we take the view that any form of homosexual relationship is wrong according to scripture, then we must also posit that the condition of homosexuality is universally accompanied by the gift of celibacy. I see no evidence for this, indeed, only evidence to the contrary.
A glaring fallacy in Dr. Misch’s logic lies in her statement, “I do not dispute that some people are born gay and are tempted to engage in homosexual conduct any more than I dispute that some people are born straight and are tempted to engage in heterosexual conduct outside of marriage. One’s orientation is irrelevant.” The first of these two sentences lies in stark contradiction to the second. Indeed, one’s orientation is relevant to her point, for it says that the straight person’s temptation is either to cheapen relationship by behaving sexually without commitment, or to violate that commitment by being unfaithful. To the gay person, the temptation is everything related to expression of one’s sexual and romantic nature, even within the context of a covenant. For a straight person, the sin is improper use of a gift; for a gay person the sin is any use of the gift at all.
Though I have much more to say about the questions here, I close with a few personal notes. First, I may be wrong in much of what I have written. The reality of homosexuality is very difficult to sort out in the context of faith, even if one is forced to face it in a loved one, or in oneself. Many faith traditions are addressing the question, are at different points on the journey, and are drawing different conclusions as they go. I am not claiming here to present definitive answers to the biblical questions. I am merely proposing that Dr. Misch did not present them either.
Second, it is against my nature to write as I have written here, especially when I realize how incompletely I have addressed a complex issue. The reason I must write is that I feel for the many readers of Dr. Misch’s article who are struggling with the reality of homosexuality in the context of faith, only to find their situation, indeed their entire selves, reduced by her article to a simplistic and faulty syllogism, implying that their entire sexual and romantic natures are nothing more than an inclination to sin. Such undiscerning judgment has done much damage to struggling Christians.
This judgment has reduced many people to despair and led to their ultimate suicide. And it was not because they lacked a support structure to resist temptation; it was because the romantic attraction and, yes, the love they felt for another was called sinful, and absurdly compared to such things as the addiction of alcoholism, the predatory abusiveness of pedophilia, or the birth of a retarded child. In their hearts these struggling people wondered if their love was really like these tragedies.
Furthermore, I know of many deeply religious people who threw away their faith, either because the dichotomy produced by simplistic exegesis was the source of irreconcilable internal contradiction, or because they tired of the naïve and undiscerning arguments presented by those who clearly could not understand their situation but claimed to represent God.
Finally, I do not want us to be polarized by the issue of homosexuality. Simplistic arguments in black and white can only polarize a community. Life and faith are much more colorful and complex than Dr. Misch’s article suggests, and there will always be questions to which we do not have completely satisfying answers. As a mathematician, I find such inconclusiveness disconcerting. But I believe we must be willing to live with some inconclusiveness, even on matters as volatile as homosexuality, and even when it produces dissonance within our own hearts and disagreements between us.
We all have much to learn, and much we have never experienced. I accept that some questions do not have clear answers, and I have learned to live with the dissonance, not because I am content with it or because it allows me to live how I please, but because I am on a journey of faith. God is leading me somewhere, and I am doing my best to follow.
March 14, 2002
