WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together? ROBERT A. J. GAGNON Why is the debate in the church about homosexual practice so difficult to talk about, to do scholarship about, and, for some, to decide about? Why have we reached a seeming impasse? Although the answer to how the church might resolve these difficulties is, practically speaking, hard to discern, the why question is relatively easy to figure out. It boils down to this: Christians come at the issue from different angles. What it does not boil down to is this: the biblical witness and its hermeneutical (i.e. interpretive) application are ambiguous. The bulk of this article will be devoted to explaining this latter point; namely, why there really are no substantive exegetical and hermeneutical arguments for claiming that Scripture does not give us a decisive witness against homosexual practice per se. To make this point, we will examine the attempt to circumvent the biblical witness in the 2005 book by David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage.1 Before we do that, however, we will explore how proponents and opponents of homosexual unions have different hermeneutical “graduated scales,” or ranked interests, for their views. I. Inverted Hermeneutical Scales2 Christians find it difficult to resolve their disagreements about homosexual practice because they have different starting points and so come at the issue from different angles. Essentially, the anti-“homosex,”3 pro-complementarity, or pro-structuralist side of the homosexuality debate in the church is best served when it formulates the following arguments, in this order of significance: 1 Published by HarperSanFrancisco (HarperCollins). 2 I am unaware of any other scholar who has constructed the “graduated scale hermeneutic” that I put forward here. Of course, deep-structural differences between anti-homosex and pro-homosex camps have been noted before, but just not in this way. 3 It is not easy getting the right nomenclature down to define the different camps in the homosexuality issue. I often use the term homosex as convenient shorthand for homosexual practice (i.e. as a noun) or, more particularly, for that which pertains to homosexual practice (i.e. as an adjective). The term also rightly focuses the debate on behavior rather than on acceptance or rejection of persons. It is so much easier to refer to a pro-homosex position/person and an anti-homosex position/person than to have to spell out every time “a position that accepts committed homosexual unions” and “a position that is averse to homosexual 19 1. Scripture: Scripture shows consistent, strong, absolute, and countercultural opposition to homosexual practice. It is, in short, a core value in scriptural sexual ethics. The scriptural witness against homosexual practice is inclusive of caring homosexual unions and forms of homosexual practice involving some degree of congenital causation. The closest analogues to the Bible’s opposition to homosexual practice are the Bible’s opposition to adult incest and the New Testament’s opposition to polygamy; in other words, forms of behavior that society today still proscribes. A similar argument may be made from church tradition (church fathers on). 2. Philosophic reason (a nature argument): Transparent observation of the complementary features of man and woman in the material order of nature make evident that homosexual unions are structurally incongruous (cf. the nature argument in Rom 1:24-27). A same-sex union does not pair sexual counterparts or “other halves.” Biologically related impulses are less reliable indicators of what is natural than the compatible structures of maleness and femaleness. This too is the view of Scripture. 3. Scientific reason: Homosexual behavior is characterized by higher rates of problems as regards sexually transmitted disease, depression and suicidality, high numbers of sex partners over the course of life, and short- term sexual unions. These problems, which occur at markedly different rates for homosexual males and homosexual females, are attributable, at least in significant part, to biological differences between men and women and the absence of a moderating, other-sex influence in homosexual practice per se.” Some ‘pro-homosex’ advocates express offense at the term but this seems to be due, in part, to the way in which it defines the debate as a debate about being for or against practices rather than for or against persons. The terms pro-homosexual and antihomosexual unfairly claim the high ground for proponents of homosexual practice by suggesting that they alone are about the business of loving homosexual persons. In fact, I would argue that those who oppose homosexual practice with a view to reclaiming lives for the kingdom of God are the ones that truly love persons who experience same-sex attractions. Whereas homosexual can be construed as a reference to homosexual behavior or homosexual persons, ‘homosex’ can only be interpreted with reference to homosexual acts. It is also important to note that the term homosex did not originate with me but rather with proponents of homosexual practice (for web links see the insert “Why use the word ‘homosex’?” on my homepage at http://www.robgagnon.net/ ). I don’t like the nomenclature traditional and progressive because (1) the terms do not specify what people are allegedly traditional or progressive about, (2) I don’t hold the position that I do merely because it is traditional (scriptural would be more accurate) and (3) I don’t wish to concede the point that affirming homosexual practice is in any sense an act of progress. I also don’t use the terms non-affirming and affirming because (1) like traditional and progressive they do not specify the object of one’s disposition, (2) non-affirming as a term with largely negative connotations does not adequately describe a position that aims at affirming the true sexual self created by God and re-created in Jesus Christ, and (3) I have no wish to concede the point that proponents of committed homosexual unions are affirming in the truest sense, any more than I would wish to label the Corinthian position toward the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 as affirming. 20 relations.4 Moreover, science has failed to show that homosexuality is an inevitable consequence of birth or in all respects culturally immutable. 4. Experience: Personal encounters with, or at least awareness of, individuals whom God appears to have ‘healed’ of same-sex attractions give hope for transformation. At the same time, however, it is unscriptural to define transformation as requiring the eradication of all unwanted impulses. Jesus’ call to discipleship as a death to self is a call to self-denial in the midst of contrary impulses. The pro-‘homosex,’ pro-affect,5 or anti-structuralist side, for its part, formulates the following arguments, in this order of significance: 1. Experience: Personal encounters with, or at least awareness of, well- adjusted homosexual persons, who appear unable to change their sexual orientation and are in a caring homosexual relationship, provide persuasive evidence for the acceptability of homosexual relations. 2. Scientific reason: Science has shown that a homosexual orientation is often significantly influenced by congenital factors and very resistant to change. At least some of the problems associated with homosexual practice are attributable to the lack of societal supports for committed homosexual unions. Moreover, harm is not inherent. 3. Philosophic reason: The quality of affective bonds in a homosexual union trumps any formal/structural requirements.6 Moreover, the biologically related character of homosexual orientation makes homosexual expression “natural.” 4. Scripture: While a small number of passages in Scripture appear to oppose homosexual practice, these passages do not oppose caring homosexual relationships between homosexually oriented persons. Moreover, Scripture’s focus on the command to love and its special concern for the oppressed leave room for support of loving homosexual unions. Changes in the Bible’s views on slavery, women’s roles, and divorce/remarriage give hermeneutical license for developing a new perspective on homosexual practice. 4 No consensual sexual relationship, including incestuous and polyamorous unions, inherently leads to scientifically measurable harm in all circumstances to all participants. It is enough to establish disproportionately high rates. 5 “Affect” with the stress on the first syllable. By “pro-affect” I mean an emphasis on the subjective, emotional character of a bond as opposed to an emphasis on objective, structural aspects of embodied existence such as the obvious holistic complementarity of the two sexes. 6 I am indebted to Prof. Clayton Croy for the nomenclature of “formal” expectations of marriage (gender, relatedness, number, age, species), as opposed to “qualitative” expectations (love, faithfulness, mutual support). My own usual terms are “structural” and “affective” respectively. 21 Some will rightly see in the four-part structures above a sort of modified Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The differences are twofold: (1) I have lumped tradition in with Scripture as a secondary element; and (2) I have split the category of reason into “philosophic reason” and “scientific reason.” These modifications more accurately reflect the distinct types of arguments used in the debates about homosexual