Williams–Asher Debate on Homosexuality

The Williams—Asher Debate On Homosexuality

A radio debate between Robert Williams and Jeff Asher January 20, 1990

This debate is excerpted from Out of the Closet, published by Faith And Facts Press

Adobe Acrobat Version prepared by David Padfield http://www.padfield.com The Williams—Asher advocating the compatibility of the homosexual lifestyle with Christianity. Debate On Homosexuality Since 1968 the question of whether or not homosexuality is a compatible and [On December 16, 1989, Robert Williams acceptable behavior has gradually moved was ordained by John Shelby Spong, to the top of the list of major religious Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, New issues to be debated in the coming de- Jersey, into the priesthood of the Episco- cade. The mainline denominations are all pal Church. This action immediately troubled not only by homosexual mem- ignited heated controversy across the berships but by the ordination of practic- country. Feeling there would be general ing homosexuals into the various minis- interest in a discussion of homosexuality tries. This fact is demonstrated by the from a biblical perspective, I sought and ordination today in San Francisco of arranged this with Mr. Williams. The three gay Lutheran clergymen. discussion took place January 20, 1990, via telephone on BibleTalk the weekly On December 16, 1989, Robert Williams call-in radio program of the Dumas Drive became the first practicing homosexual Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas. ordained into the priesthood of the Epis- What follows is a transcript of the pro- copal Church since that denomination gram taken from tape.] barred homosexuals from ordination in 1979 by resolution A-53. He is regarded Jeff Asher: A very pleasant good morn- as one of the most outspoken advocates ing and welcome to BibleTalk. I am Jeff of the position that a homosexual Asher, your host this morning and the lifestyle is compatible with Christianity evangelist for the Dumas Drive Church and acceptable unto God. of Christ. Today we have a very special guest with us. For the last twenty years Mr. Williams is currently involved in a there has been in the United States an homosexual relationship with James emergence of homosexuality as a preva- Skelly, a divorced father of two teen-aged lent behavior pattern. In certain quarters daughters. Robert Williams is our guest homosexuality is not only tolerated but today on BibleTalk. He and I will discuss approved. This change in attitude has this issue from its biblical perspectives, occurred because some of our most examining, hopefully, all of the pertinent prominent citizens—actors, politicians, Bible passages and arguments made to athletes, and even clergymen—have support the position that Mr. Williams openly declared their homosexual and numerous other homosexuals and lifestyle and publicly defended it. non-homosexuals make regarding this practice. Mr. Williams understands that I Many homosexuals are militantly atheis- am not sympathetic to his position and tic as is proven by the existence of the will be making observations and argu- Gay Atheist Association. Yet a large ments intended to convince him and group of homosexuals profess to be others of the falsity of their position. In Christians. Since 1968 the Universal order that we can focus on the issue and Fellowship of Metropolitan Community get the homosexual position clearly and Churches has ministered almost exclu- accurately stated, we are going to give sively in the homosexual community, Mr. Williams an opportunity to make

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 1 some opening remarks. Mr. Williams, the press has somewhat misunderstood good morning and welcome to BibleTalk. the significance of the ordination, I think. I’m certainly not the first openly Robert Williams: Good morning, thank gay Episcopal priest. There are in fact you, nice to be on your show. Let me other Episcopal priests who have even start by responding to a couple of things written books about being gay priests. you said in your introduction. Just sort So, there are a large number of openly of correcting them from my viewpoint. gay Episcopal priests. What was different and significant about my ordination was, The major one is, you described an first of all, that my being gay was a fact, emergence of homosexuality in the last a published fact, before the ordination 20 years. I don’t believe that’s true. I occurred. In other words, I didn’t come believe that the gay and lesbian people out publicly after I was ordained, but have been a part of the culture of every rather before it happened. Thus, my society and every time, including the ordination itself was a more public and biblical society, and the only thing that’s political event than any of the ordina- different in the past twenty years is that tions of gay people that have happened we have been in the position politically to since 1979. But there have been dozens be more open and more visible. I don’t of gay and lesbian priests ordained in believe that there are any more or less the Episcopal church since that 1979 lesbian and gay people today than there resolution. I’m only one among many. were 100 years ago or 2,000 years ago. I think that we have always been approxi- Another thing that is perhaps different is mately the same percentage of the gen- the ministry to which I feel called is a eral population, which is somewhere ministry specifically to and among the between 10 and 20 percent. lesbian and gay community, and that sort of put it in a different category and Secondly, just to correct the perception got some attention. But there are plenty about a large number of gay people being of lesbian and gay priests who are just militantly atheistic. In fact, the Gay working in regular parish ministries and Atheist League of America is a very small in every diocese in the country. group, a very small minority, and my experience has been that the majority of Do you want to go ahead into the ap- lesbian and gay people, although they proach to the Bible or do you have a may have turned their backs on the question? established church because it has not been friendly to them, the vast majority Asher: Well, Robert, if you’d like to go on of lesbian and gay people are deeply and give us your biblical perspective, spiritual people who are searching for a then that will give me an opportunity to place in which they can practice their ask some questions and to direct our deep-seated religious longings. And, in course this morning. I’d appreciate it. fact, those who have chosen to go in a militantly atheistic way are a tiny minor- Williams: OK, the first thing I want to ity of the lesbian and gay community. say is that I grew up in West Texas, Abilene, Texas, and I’m quite familiar And this, just about my own ordination, with the Church of Christ. Abilene,

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 2 Texas, as you probably know, is where natural phenomenon that occurs among there is a very large Church of Christ approximately 20% of the population, university, Abilene Christian. So I’m then as Episcopalians we have to take pretty familiar with your church, and the that very seriously. And say, “OK, here’s first thing I want to say about dealing some factual data. What do we do with with the Bible and this sort of program is it?” We factor it in as one third of that that it is almost impossible for us to do equation and we weigh it over against anything along the lines of a debate, the Bible. because, as you know, one of the first principles of debate is that you have to What we most certainly are not is bibli- be arguing from the same premise, and I cal fundamentalists. We approach the don’t think we are. My approach to Bible reverently and carefully. But care- Scripture, as an Episcopalian, is funda- fully includes approaching it with a very mentally different from the approach to careful scholarship and putting it scripture that the Church of Christ through the rigorous process of biblical takes. So, from the beginning we are sort exegesis, which includes putting it in its of starting out on completely different historical and cultural context, doing footing. I just don’t deal with the Bible in linguistic studies, doing textual studies. the same way that members of the We just don’t take as given that, just Church of Christ would deal with the because something is in the Bible, it Bible. necessarily has anything to do with our lives today. Episcopalians, Anglicans, since the beginning of the Anglican Church at the In fact there are some biblical scholars, time of the Reformation have always held some of them Episcopalian, some of up what we call the three legged stool. them not, but biblical scholars whose There are three factors that have to be work I follow very closely, particularly taken under consideration in making among feminist scholars who are dealing any kind of decision in the church. All with the whole question of canon. How three of these are equally important. And do we in fact decide which books or those are Scripture, tradition, and rea- which parts of books ought to be in the son. It’s like a stool with three legs, and Bible? Just because a decision was made when you remove any one of those three several centuries ago by the Catholic legs, it will fall. So Scripture is part of Church doesn’t mean that they made the the equation, but it is only one third of right decision. As you know, Martin the equation, and reason is equally a Luther thought that the book of James third of the equation. Reason includes should not be included in the canon of listening to the data from the sciences, Scripture. There are scholars today who both the natural sciences and the social are questioning in a similar way, “Should sciences. And in the Anglican tradition, this book even have been included, or that is as important as the Scripture should this passage be included?” How itself. And in fact the two inform each do we decide, what is our criterion for other and have to be held in tension. deciding, what in fact is the Scripture, the canon of Scripture, that the Chris- So, if in fact a biologist or a psychologist tian Church should be using? And com- tells us that homosexuality is in fact a ing down on the side of saying if it brings

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 3 life to people, if it brings people into an The fact that you make the statement encounter with the living Christ, then its that we are not arguing from the same Scripture. If it brings death to people, it biblical perspective I believe is a good is used in a way to label people, to harm place to start. We are not coming from people, if its used as a club with which the same perspective because, as Robert to beat people over the head, which most indicated, we do not have the same atti- of the passages about homosexuality are, tude toward the Scriptures. He does not then we can’t in good conscience call it regard the word of God as the plenary, the word of God. We can’t read it in a verbally inspired revelation of the mind worship service and afterward say, “This of God. Therefore he says he is not fun- is the word of the Lord.” If it’s a harmful damentalist. So we have a vast difference and negative passage, it’s not the word of of perspectives with regard to that. But the Lord of love. the fact of the matter is the Bible is inspired, and the Bible is the word of Asher: Robert, let’s stop right there. This God. And, we would challenge, that if is a good place for me to begin to re- there are errors, if there are mistakes, spond in some way. First of all, I think that this be proven. To just simply dis- that our audience needs to be made parage the Bible is not proof. A great aware of the fact that Robert and I are many people have used it as a standard certainly not adversaries in the sense of morality and a code of faith for centu- that we are enemies of one another. I ries. And the contention we make is that have a great deal of respect for him as a the Bible is the inspired word of God. person, and, though I sincerely believe he is wrong, I would hope that today I Now with regard to the three legged could convince him of that. stool. We are not opposed to reason. Certainly reason is a means by which we Now, your opening statements, or your are to come to the Scriptures, or to inter- reply to the introductory material clari- pret the Bible. You cannot handle the fied some points, and really I have no Bible contrary to reason. You cannot desire to delve into that any further array Scripture against Scripture. You other than to suggest that we do recog- cannot make the Bible say one thing one nize that they are substantially correct time and make it say something else at and that we are agreed that we have a another time. So reason is certainly a climate in which homosexuality has part of any hermeneutic that we bring to become, if not more prevalent in the the Scriptures. But to suggest that tradi- sense of numbers, at least more preva- tion (which has no authority higher than lent in the sense of being exposed or man) is to be a part of this equation is being held in regard by some in my life- faulty. We are talking about a divine time. I know I’m not very old. I’m not book, and to suggest that these tradi- much younger than you and the fact tions are on equal standing with the remains that l can remember the time Scripture certainly does not harmonize when a subject like this wouldn’t even be with what the Bible would reveal. discussed in a pulpit, let alone on a religious radio program. So some preva- Now, to the point with regard to “reason” lence does exist now that hasn’t existed that Robert made. He uses a different in the past. concept of “reason” than I do. When I

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 4 talk about “reason” I mean taking the lying, do we label people because the passages, studying them, drawing the Bible condemns lying? A man is a liar. Is proper conclusions, harmonizing, taking that a label? Is that negative? Should we all the facts together. Some of these just disregard that passage of Scripture things he mentioned. But simply be- because someone is called a liar? Or, as cause some psychologist or psychiatrist far as the Bible is concerned, someone is tells us that there are significant num- called a thief. A thief might think that’s bers of people in the population that are rather negative terminology. How could I homosexual does not negate what the get up and preach from Ephesians chap- Bible says about homosexuality. ter four that a man is to work, to give of his means, and to stop stealing without There are a significant number of people calling a man a thief in the process? We in the population who are alcoholics. believe that we ought to preach the truth That does not negate what the Bible says in love. So we have no animosity toward about drunkenness. There are a signifi- people who are guilty of sin. Homosexual cant number of people in our society who sin is not any different than heterosexual are given to incest, pederasty, and other sin or any other kind of sin. They are all things that are immoral. But that doesn’t sin before God. And if the Bible con- negate what the Bible says of those sins. demns it, then it is a practice which needs to be repented of. And it is a prac- This idea that a passage of Scripture is tice that a man must quit in order to be to be rejected if it brings harm to people, saved in eternity. or if it is a negative passage, or if it is a passage of Scripture which is used as a Robert, at this point I am interested (in club to label someone, therefore, it ought that you have suggested this idea of to be rejected, could be used by any “negative passages”) in considering some group that had some moral perversion of these, and you give me either an ex- that they wish to substantiate. The alco- planation or just tell me whether or not holic would say, “Well, the Bible con- they belong in the Bible. Would you be demns drunkenness; therefore, all the willing to do that? passages in the Bible that relate to drunkenness are not Scripture.” The Williams: Certainly. same thing could be said of the person who is involved in incest. “The Bible Asher: All right, let’s just begin in the condemns incest; therefore, all the pas- beginning, and that is in the book of sages that talk about incest, that’s nega- Genesis. The case of Sodom, which is tive to me. Lest someone label me as one Genesis chapter nineteen and verse four, guilty of incest, let’s take those out of the where Moses tells us that the men of Bible.” Sodom, from the understanding that I have, came out to commit the sin of Now we do not approve of nor are we homosexuality against these men who guilty of using Scripture to label people had come there, who we know by the in the sense that we want to pigeonhole Scriptures to have been angels. This is them and make them into a minority and the basis of the term “sodomy,” which segregate them. If the Bible calls some- appears in some passages of Scripture in thing a sin, then that is what it is. If it is the Bible and has come into the English

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 5 language in our law statutes. But there Williams: Well, in fact the use of that in the nineteenth chapter and verse four, word in the Scripture in most places has it says: “The men of the city, before they absolutely no sexual context. It means laid down, the men of the city, even the simply “know.” One possible interpreta- men of Sodom encompassed the house tion is that the men of Sodom had an around both old and young, all the almost Ku Klux Klan type distrust of people of every quarter, and they called foreigners, and here are foreigners in unto Lot and said unto him, ‘Where are their midst who are being housed and the men which came into thee this protected by Lot. And they come to him night? Bring them out unto us that we to say we do not want these people here, may know them.’ And Lot went out at at least until we know who they are. the door unto them and shut the door Send them out to us. Also, the indication after them and said, ‘I pray thee brethren of whether it includes a sexual compo- do not so wickedly, behold now I have nent or not is not there. Clearly the two daughters which have not known intention of the men is violent, to do man. Let me now I pray you bring them violence to these men, to those angels out unto you and do ye to them what is whom they think are men. good in your eyes. Only unto these men do nothing, for therefore came they un- I have no problem in saying that the der the shadow of my roof.’” Scriptures certainly condemn violence against anyone, whether or not a sexual We know here they then threatened Lot, component is included as part of that and the angels smote the men of the city violence. And in fact that would be the blind and then pronounced that they sin of Sodom. It is the sin of “sodomy” to were going to destroy the city of Sodom. do violence against people who were How do you deal with that passage? strangers in their midst. And elsewhere in Scripture, including in the New Testa- Williams: Well, my first question is, why ment, when Jesus refers back to Sodom, do you see this as a passage that has or in other places in the Old Testament anything to do with homosexuality? Will when Sodom is referred to, this is the sin you read to me the part that indicates, to of Sodom. you, that it has anything to do with homosexuality? Not one of those instances mentions anything sexual about Sodom. It says Asher: I would suggest that verse five is the sin of Sodom is the sin of essentially the verse that does that. “And they called what we might call “inhospitality,” the unto Lot and they said unto him, where sin of not responding kindly to the are the men which came unto thee this stranger in the midst, which in the night? bring them out unto us that we desert society is a matter of life and may know them.” death. If you did not put up strangers, they could die in the desert over night, Williams: And so you are taking that so part of the code of the Hebrew people word “know” as being something about was to take care of the stranger and sex? sojourner.

Asher: Yes. Rather than taking care of them, the

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 6 men of Sodom were wanting to do vio- what they wanted to do was wicked? lence to them. Well, certainly that is Then in verse eight the statement is condemned, but it is only since about made, “Behold now I have two daughters the eighteenth century that Christians which have not known man. Let me I have read anything sexual into the So- pray bring them out unto you.” This is dom story. Up until that point they saw the use that would govern our under- it simply as being about doing violence to standing that this has a sexual connota- strangers. tion. And he uses the same word to refer to his daughters: don’t know these men, Asher: Let me reply to this in some way. don’t have sexual relations with these I would encourage all of our listeners to men; but rather; (and Lot had really get their Bibles and turn to Genesis slipped here, and I’m not justifying what nineteen, and I will show you the truth Lot did) but he simply uses the word to of this passage by what we can show suggest that he offers these men an from the context. In verse five they do opportunity to have sexual relations with demand, “Bring them out that we may his daughters instead. So it is obvious know them.” that the context is talking about sexual relations. Furthermore, you made the Now, Mr. Williams is correct in suggest- statement that there were no sexual ing that in the majority of the passages overtones in the sin of Sodom. But Jude the word “Yadah” does simply indicate seven says, “Even as Sodom and “become acquainted with.” But there are Gomorrah and the cities about them in 12 passages in the Old Testament that like manner, giving themselves over to have this sexual connotation. Four of fornication and going after strange flesh those uses are associated with this sin of are set forth for an example, suffering homosexuality. In Genesis 19 you have the vengeance of eternal fire.” the word “know” and its derivative “known” used twice. Likewise the book of All right, here Jude says the sin that Judges chapter 19 where you have the Sodom was guilty of was fornication, men of Gibeah. You have the same thing sexual immorality. They went after again. Now, in verse five they ask the strange flesh. We can develop this more, question or make the demand, “Bring I hope, in the course of the discussion. them out that we may know them.” Lot But, “strange flesh” will include the sin went out at the door unto them and shut of homosexuality. The only flesh that the door after them. We would first ob- God authorized that any man know was serve that if it just simply means bring the flesh of his wife and that from Gen- them out that we may get acquainted esis two, where Adam said, “Now this is with them, Lot in refusing to bring them bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” out, is the one who is guilty of inhospi- So “strange flesh” would be flesh other tality. That doesn’t make any sense. than my flesh, and the only flesh that is Secondly, we would point out that in my flesh or a man’s flesh is the flesh of verse seven he says, “I pray ye brethren, his wife. And so here we have a definite do not so wickedly.” If all they wanted to New Testament passage that condemns do was to get acquainted with these men the sin of Sodom as having a sexual in order to overcome their distrust of nature. Now when we go back to the foreigners, why would Lot suggest that context of Genesis 19 we see that it is

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 7 obviously a homosexual act. was the only flesh that man has a right to, whether it is heterosexual fornication Williams: The notion of “strange flesh” in or homosexual fornication doesn’t make the Jude passage, I think, is really any difference. We are not going to el- stretching it to say that it refers to homo- evate homosexual fornication above sexuality. In fact, I think, for the writer heterosexual fornication and say, “All of Jude, it refers to the notion of human you heterosexual fornicators can go beings having sex with angels, which is home; God approves of that.” The Bible what, if there is a sexual connotation in does not teach that. It is one man and the Genesis passage, seems to be indi- one woman for one lifetime and that in cated. The idea of the whole term, the union of marriage. “strange flesh,” there is a reference to the fact that the adults, human beings with Williams: When did Adam and Eve angelic beings, and that to have any sort marry? of sexual activities there is off limits. Again there is no reason to assume that Asher: Right there in Genesis two, that the passage refers to homosexuality. It is is when they married, when God brought only to take a prejudice that the inter- them together. preter already has in her or his mind and read it back into a passage that, in Williams: I just wondered. There is noth- fact, doesn’t deal with that at all. ing in the entire book of Genesis that indicates that there is a marriage there. Asher: But we made it very clear that in Genesis 19:5 the question is asked, Asher: Well, Robert, I’m not going to ask “Where are the men which came in to you to define marriage, because we know thee this night?” They had no knowledge that your relationship hasn’t been sanc- that these were angels. They came seek- tioned by the Episcopal Church as yet, ing men. The same thing is true in even though there seems to be plans for Judges nineteen. The same word “know” that. But Ephesians chapter five, when is used in Judges 19 with regard to the talking about the relationship between a sin of Gibeah. And there are no angels husband and his wife being parallel to involved. What they desired was to have that of Christ and the church, obviously sexual relations with a man. indicates the marriage relationship.

To strengthen the point on “strange Williams: I understand that. flesh,” I call everyone’s attention to Gen- esis chapter two, because in Genesis two Asher: And this very passage, Genesis Adam clearly says, in verse 23: “This is two, is quoted in connection with that. now bone of my bones, and flesh of my This idea of the one flesh union has flesh. She shall be called woman because always, and your own church recognized she was taken out of man. Therefore, that, that the one flesh union described shall a man leave his father and his in Genesis two is the marriage relation- mother and shall cleave unto his wife ship. I’m not talking about a certificate and they shall be one flesh.” The Bible given by a judge or a justice of the peace. clearly teaches from the beginning that I’m talking about a God ordained, God this was a one flesh union, and that this recognized marriage.

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 8 Williams: Well, in fact, that is what a lot us together. It’s being sanctioned by a of unmarried heterosexual couples would particular body (church) is beside the say they have, because they have not point. We are kind of off the subject, but had a ceremony or certificate but they I think it’s sort of fascinating because I consider themselves to be married. I was would say that this Genesis passage just reacting to your speaking of Adam gives precedent for that. and Eve and their being married. Asher: The point of the Genesis passage, Asher: Well, it is definitely a marriage. and you haven’t addressed this point, There is no disputing that point. Jesus the only flesh union sanctioned in the in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Bible is the union between a man and a Matthew quotes the very words of Moses woman. You made the statement earlier there and applies that to the marriage that the passages in the New Testament relationship. Let’s be turning there to where Jesus spoke with regard to Sodom read that. “The Pharisees also came unto and Gomorrah didn’t say anything about him tempting him and saying unto him. their being guilty of homosexuality. In Is it lawful for a man to put away his each of those passages though, he used wife for every cause?” That’s the context Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of of marriage. a nation that was guilty of sin and was condemned of God. Those were the appli- “And he answered and said unto them, cations that he made. Let’s look at what have you not read that he which made Jesus said. them at the beginning made them male and female and said for this cause shall Williams: I said that I accept that, but a man leave father and mother and shall the sin was about violence against cleave to his wife and they twain shall be strangers. It was not, as you were saying one flesh, what therefore God hath a few minutes ago, the intention was not joined together let not man put asunder.” simply wanting to get to know these There is no denying that. And from the strangers. The intention was to essen- beginning we have the God ordained tially lynch these strangers, which, in pattern: one man, one woman, for one fact, may have included a sexual ele- lifetime, and this being the only flesh ment. They may have intended to rape union that God recognizes. them also. But obviously we could say that the burden of Scripture condemns Williams: Who performed their marriage rape, heterosexual or homosexual. And do you think? obviously the burden of Scripture condemns violence against anyone. In that Asher: Well, you have a sacramental point we are in agreement. We’re saying concept. There is nothing in the Bible Sodom is condemned throughout the that teaches a preacher has to unite two entire canon of Scripture, Old and New people. I’m satisfied with the fact that Testament. I’m just saying it’s not about God brought her to him and gave her to homosexuality, it’s about violence. him. Asher: Well, you can’t have it both ways, Williams: In the case of my marriage I’m Robert. It can’t mean get acquainted satisfied with the fact that God brought with, then have a sexual overtone. So

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 9 you’ve got to admit that the Genesis contributes to the treating of women as passage has the sexual overtone. property. It contributes to the high inci- dence of domestic violence in our society, Williams: I don’t have to admit that. I’m which is almost always done to women saying I’m not even talking about sex. by adult male relatives. This sort of I’m talking about violence. That obvi- passage, holding this up as the word of ously these men of Sodom intended to do God, helps create that situation. So harm to the strangers who were Lot’s that’s an example of a passage I would house guests. say by that test does not belong in the canon of Scripture. Asher: Well, does it condemn fornication then? Does the passage condemn forni- Asher: All right, let me make this final cation? note and then we’ll go back to Matthew nineteen. Certainly everyone in the audi- Williams: I don’t think the passage has ence can see that there is nothing in any connection to fornication. Genesis nineteen that would suggest that God approved of what Sodom did or Asher: All right, so you’re just going to what Lot did. The fact that it is in the say there are no sexual overtones at all word of God and is an example of gross in the passage. It may or may not be immorality is by implication a disap- talking about rape. proval of what Lot did. To suggest that it needs to be removed because it speaks of Williams: I’m saying that’s one possible something that is unspeakable is ridicu- interpretation of it. The bottom line, back lous. It is simply a passage of Scripture to my introductory remark, is I just don’t that shows that that is not how anyone really care as much as you do about should treat a woman. And that passage what this passage says. is no basis at all for condoning that kind of behavior. Asher: All right, let’s go back to what Jesus did say then. That seems to be Williams: There is no indication in the something that you do care about. passage that Lot’s suggestion is condemned by God or by anyone. It was sort Williams: Let me make one more com- of a matter of course. And there is no ment about the Genesis passage because reaction to it at all. you had asked about the types of things I would say do not belong in the canon of Asher: It is an historical narrative, Rob- Scripture. I’m not sure I would say that ert, and it just simply states what hap- about the Sodom story in general, but pened. So you can’t take the passage the part, the unspeakable act of domes- and say that it approves of anything. tic violence that is implied by Lot’s want- Now, I want to get back to Matthew ing to throw out his two virgin daughters nineteen, because you had made the to a mob of men, that’s clearly not a statement earlier that Jesus did not passage that I can read in a church condemn the sin of Sodom and service and say this is the word of the Gomorrah as being homosexuality. Then Lord. That’s a passage that’s wrong. Just we made some remarks about marriage. plain wrong. It is evil and twisted and Does Matthew nineteen not clearly teach

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 10 what God authorizes with regard to Scripture or contemporary writings of sexual relationships between a man and the same time. It almost always means anyone? Jesus said in Matthew nineteen, “boy,” the same word that a parent might going all the way back to the beginning, call their son. It’s always a word of affec- “For this cause shall a man leave father tion and endearment. It never just and mother and cleave to his wife and means “servant.” So, if in fact this was a they twain shall be one flesh.” Now, that servant in this centurion’s household, he is going to exclude incest, polyandry, was a servant with a highly unusual polygamy, and bestiality. And that’s relationship, a relationship of affection to going to exclude homosexuality. Jesus the centurion. At any rate, he’s fallen ill, said a man shall cleave unto his wife. On and the centurion had heard of Jesus. what basis do you find any scriptural This man has had a relationship with the approval of a man/man sexual relation- Jews in the area, and in fact he was ship, in light of that passage? probably sort of over them as magistrate. So he sent some of the elders whom he Williams: Well, would you like me to knew to send word to Jesus and say, suggest a passage in which I think I do “Please come and heal my ‘pais.’” And see that? they came to him and said, “This man deserves this, because he is a good man Asher: Yes, if you would. and has done good things for us.” And Jesus goes with them, and He’s on his Williams: Luke chapter seven, beginning way to the house. The centurion seems around verse two. This is the story of to be troubled, which is instructive here. Jesus’ healing the centurion’s “pais.” In He runs out and says: “Lord you don’t this particular place the word “pais,” have to come under my roof. I’m not which is transliterated from the Greek worthy of you, to have you under my “pais,” is translated in English as “slave”. roof, and I know that it is not even nec- Elsewhere, when the same story is told essary. You can just say the word and in other gospels, it is obviously the same the ‘pais’ will be healed.” story but the word “slave” is not used. It is rather the word “boy.” So there seems Now, if in fact this man is a Roman sol- to be some confusion about what the dier living in a homosexual relationship, identity of this young man is. Is he a and yet, he is very informed about the servant in the centurion’s household, or religion of the Jews, then he would have is he a son of the centurion? I would suspected that Jesus might have con- suggest that the confusion is because he demned this relationship. So he seems to is in fact neither, but is romantically be a little troubled here and says, “You linked; he is the lover, we might say, of don’t have to come into the house.” It is the centurion. Which in fact would not kind of odd that he would say that, so at be at all uncommon in the Roman cul- any point, Jesus turns to the crowd, to ture, in particular in the Roman army, his disciples, who are Jews behind him, for a somewhat older man, particularly and says, “Not even in Israel have I in the army, to take a somewhat younger found such great faith; you know, this man as a lover. This was a fairly common man’s faith is better than yours.” Then, thing. The word “pais” by the way, is in fact, the boy is healed. almost never translated “slave,” either in

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 11 Now, it seems to me that Jesus is en- Secondly, the point of this passage is countering here a homosexual relation- that this centurion is used as an ex- ship, a relationship between an army ample of faith. He is held up in contrast officer and his male lover. There is some to the faith of the Israelites or the Jews. indication in the passage that the man is His faith is great because he believes a little nervous about how Jesus would Christ can do what he came and asked react. So, he does not want Him to come Him to do. There is not a thing in the into his house. Yet, what he gets from context anywhere other than the one Jesus is no condemnation, but in fact word, “servant,” which you picked out, praise, by His saying, “You know this and have assigned a meaning of “boy,” man has more faith than you, my follow- based upon Roman behavior. You don’t ers,” to whom he is speaking. So I see know if this man was a homosexual. You this as a passage in which Jesus en- don’t know if this man had a slave or counters a committed homosexual rela- servant that he used in a homosexual tionship, not batting an eye and not fashion and engaged in that kind of offering any condemnation. practice. You have nothing at all from the context to argue that. And so that is Asher: I think you have made your point completely unfounded. The point of the on that. Now let me reply. First of all, whole illustration is that it is a compari- while you were talking I did a little son of the faith of Israel with that of the checking here in my concordances and centurion, and Jesus calls it great faith. lexicons. The word “slave” in this pas- Now that’s all there is to that. Your argu- sage is not translated anywhere else in ment on “pais” is incorrect and is not in the Scripture by the word “boy.” Now the Scripture. that’s just not so. It’s not in the New Testament. Williams: When you use the word “context,” you are meaning a very different Williams: I’m not talking about just thing than when I use the word “con- Scripture. I’m talking about in contem- text.” When you use the word “context,” porary writing. you seem to be limiting it to the printed word on the pages themselves, and that Asher: You made the statement in the is your concept. When I say the word beginning that we take things in their “context,” I’m talking about the entire context; we look at the words, we do the setting. I mean let’s look at the story, hermeneutical and linguistic studies. when it happened, look at what we know Lexicography by itself does not prove about the Roman culture, from history, anything. I can go to the lexicons and from anthropology. Asher: Fine, Robert, find many different meanings for differ- but you began your remarks by saying ent words and then come back and im- you didn’t think there were any more pose that on something. I’m telling you, homosexuals now than there were then and I’m sticking with it, that the word as a part of society. Then I’ll give you the that you’ve cited in Luke 7:2 is not big number, 20%. Are you going to take translated anywhere in the Scripture by here an example where 8 out of 10 cen- the word “boy.” Now there is nothing, turions that might have come to Jesus then, to suggest by that lexical argument were not homosexuals and then argue that has any merit here in this context. that he was? You have nothing from the

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 12 passage. love of boys was a good thing, and yet, the very thing that you use as your proof Williams: But what I am saying is that in the New Testament is the very thing what we know about the Roman military that he condemns. You are inconsistent. is that, in fact, the percentages would have been probably higher there, be- Williams: No, I’m not inconsistent. I’m cause homosexuality was not only not just saying I can point to other Roman condemned but encouraged in the Ro- writers, particularly Aristotle, who go man army. into long passages of tracing such relationships. I also think its interesting that Asher: Let me read something to you you’re quoting Plutarch from a second- here. This comes from the book Counsel- ary source, instead of reading Plutarch. ing Homosexuals, by Bill Flatt, Dowell You’re reading what somebody says Flatt, and Jack Lewis, and Bill Flatt is Plutarch said, taking his word for it, quoting Plutarch. And, he says, Plutarch which is very shoddy scholarship. in the “Dialogue On Love” illustrates, and he quotes: “There is only one genu- Asher: Well, I think that I can have ine love, the love of boys. You will see it pretty good confidence in Jack Lewis, in the schools of philosophy or perhaps Dowell Flatt, and Bill Flatt, who are in the gymnasiums and the palaestrae. recognized scholars. Jack Lewis is recog- Making love to a slave boy, however, is nized as one of the leading Hebrew not gentlemanly or urbane; such is mere scholars in the United States. copulation, like the love of women.” To many Greeks, Flatt says, the ideal sexual Williams: I don’t know who any of those experience for a man was to love a lad in people are. the flower of his youth. Here you have said he was a servant or slave, and this Asher: You said you were from Abilene, is a quotation of Plutarch, which says and you’re supposed to be familiar with that wasn’t even regarded among the my brethren. You ought to know these Romans as being gentlemanly. things if you make that kind of statement. Jack Lewis is a leading Hebrew Williams: Well, it wasn’t regarded by scholar in the United States; he served Plutarch. on the translating committee for the New International Version. Asher: Well, you’re trying to make an argument on Roman culture and I’m Williams: I’m not questioning the … showing you that Roman culture … Asher: You questioned the source. I’m Williams: Yeah, but you’re talking about giving you the facts, and we’re not going one particular Roman writer. to let you impugn the integrity of the source. Asher: Well, I’m talking about one particular Roman writer that extols what Williams: No, I’m questioning the you would call the homosexual condi- method. If you are going to quote tion. I’m talking about one particular Plutarch, you read from Plutarch; you Roman writer who would say that the don’t read from a contemporary writer

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 13 who quotes from Plutarch. unto his wife. How are you going to harmonize that statement with your practice Asher: The best you can do is Luke of homosexuality? chapter seven, and you have made a statement yourself ambiguously referring Williams: First of all, I would say that to Greek and Roman sources which you according to the traditional interpreta- haven’t produced. If we’re going to talk tion that Jesus himself did not obey that. about “shoddy scholarship,” you haven’t You know there is no evidence that produced any of those, and you haven’t Jesus married. made your case on the word. This is the only argument you have made from Asher: Well, Jesus did not say all men Scripture, Luke 7 verse 2, where you had to marry. That is not the point of have one word which is never, I’ve al- Matthew nineteen. There are only two ready shown, never translated “boy,” as options in Matthew nineteen, either you suggested, in the standard versions. marriage or celibacy. Now that is what And you have made your whole argu- you have. ment based on an assumption about a Roman centurion for which there is Williams: I have chosen the option of nothing in the Scriptures whatsoever to marriage. make any contention. Now, is there another passage of Scripture that you Asher: But the marriage that Jesus would like to suggest here? authorized in Matthew nineteen is one man and one woman. “A man shall leave Williams: So, what you are charging that father and mother and cleave unto his I am doing with the Luke passage is wife.” And that cannot mean anything what I am charging you are doing with but a woman. the Genesis passage. And in both cases we are taking our own experience and Williams: You are making a big assump- finding the Scripture to support that tion, that, because he quoted from Gen- experience. And I would be willing to esis, he is therefore saying this is the grant that is what I am doing, and that is only model in which you can have a what you are doing with the Genesis marriage. In fact, I am saying that here passage. You are taking a passage that he is looking at a same sex marriage, has nothing do with homosexuality and saying this is a good thing. finding it. And your charging that I am taking a passage that has nothing to do Asher: But you have not produced Scrip- with … ture for anything else.

Asher: We have just a few minutes left Williams: I do not use scripture like you Robert, and we have got to get back to do. Matthew nineteen, because you have not dealt with that passage, which is how we Asher: So your whole point, I want to came to this any way. And I want you to make this clear because I do not want to explain how you are going to harmonize misrepresent you, is that you believe you the statement of Jesus that a man shall can engage in your homosexual activity leave father and mother and cleave only simply because you want to, whether or

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 14 not Jesus said you could, or Paul said church’s book rather than the church you could, or anybody said you could. being the people of the Bible. The Bible is the property of the church to interpret Williams: No, I believe that what Jesus and to deal with, and the primary place said is terribly important, but it is not of encounter with Christ for me is within what is printed in that book. That book a community of other Christians, specifi- is not the Word of God. The living Christ cally within the eucharist. is the Word of God, and it is my encounter with the risen Christ in worship, in Asher: So you’re telling me that you do prayer, in meditation, in community with not encounter Christ, or have any au- other Christians that is my source of thority for your man to man relationship authority. Not words printed on a page. in the Scripture, but you find your authority for that in the church. Asher: You cannot encounter Christ apart from the Scripture. That is the only Williams: I think that is fairly accurate. I place we know about Christ. If it were do not think there is any authority for not for the Scriptures we would have no anything in a person reading Scripture knowledge of Christ whatsoever. alone.

Williams: I disagree absolutely. I would Asher: So, the church, then, is your say you would not encounter Christ source of authority. Whatever your apart from the worship community. And church recognizes is authority. that, in fact, the worship community is prior to the Scripture. The whole ques- Williams: Whatever my worship commu- tion of canon is that the worshipping nity recognizes. community chose which books were to be canon. So that suggests that the Asher: Well, I guess so, because your community is prior to the book. church certainly does not recognize your relationship. Asher: Let me suggest to you that the living Christ, as you refer to Him, is Williams: My worship community recog- encountered in the living Word. Hebrews nizes my relationship. four verse twelve: “For the word of the Lord… Asher: Yes, your “Oasis” in Hoboken, New Jersey. Williams: I don’t agree with that … Williams: No, I’m talking about my par- Asher: … is quick and powerful,” or ish in Hoboken, New Jersey. living and active, “and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the Asher: Well, we’re at the top of the hour dividing asunder of soul and spirit and and out of time. Ladies and gentlemen joints and marrows and is a discerner of we thank you for listening this morning. the thoughts and intents of the heart.” ❧ Williams: I am just saying I do not agree with that. I see it as the Bible is the

The Williams—Asher Debate on Homosexuality 15