Response to “The Bible and Our Ethics” (www.prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein)Part of a 7 week course called "Sense and Sensuality" by Rev. Gary Blobaum
Dr. Ralph W. Klein, professor emeritus of Old Testament at LSTC, asks: What role should/does the Bible play when Christians make ethical decisions? Before we consider Dr. Klein’s answer to this question, let’s imagine two Christians who are struggling with an ethical question and decide to turn to the Bible. But why? Why do these Christians look to the Bible? If we asked, they might answer: “We want to know what God says about this.” Now consider Dr. Klein’s answer: Christians look to the Bible to see how our forebears in the faith made decisions under God’s guidance in ethical matters. That would be true only if the two Christians were seminary professors. Most Christians do not give a fig for how their forebears went about making decisions; they want to know God’s Word on the question itself. Most Christians are more interested in what God decides than in “how their forebears in the faith made decisions” three thousand years ago. Another puzzle in Dr. Klein’s first sentence is the word “guidance.” Is that the best term to describe the way God addresses us in ethical matters? Dr. Klein and other revisionists are fond of the word “guidance.” In his brief paper he uses “guidance,” “guide,” or “guidelines” six times. The ELCA human sexuality study documents have a fondness for the word as well. For example, the opening paragraph of the Background Essay on Biblical Texts says: “Lutheran Christians, like others, look to the Scriptures for guidance in matters facing the church and the larger world” (p.3). But Karl Donfried, a Lutheran scholar at Smith College, explains the reason for this fondness: “When the [revisionist] refers to the verbs ‘inform and guide’ they are not meant in any authoritative sense…” (Who Owns the Bible? 2006, p.159). |
|
The authoritative word, and also the more Biblical word, would be “command.” After all, God did not give Moses the Ten Guidelines. So let’s insert “command” into Dr. Klein’s sentence: Christians look to the Bible to see how their forebears in the faith made decisions, under God’s command, in ethical matters. But now the sentence contradicts itself. How could our forebears have been making the decisions if God was giving commands? We have run up against this question before in our sessions. Who decides what is ethical: humans or God?
Dr. Klein’s first sentence could be construed to imply that the most we can hope to find in the Bible is human decisions which, though made under God’s guidance, remain strictly human nonetheless. I do not think he meant that. I hope not. I think Dr. Klein knows and believes the Bible is God’s Word even though it is also the word of humans.
But there is no question that, in his view, authorities other than the Bible itself can determine how we interpret the Bible. He believes “that our experience, the growth of human knowledge and our particular contexts must be taken into consideration as we attempt to apply the Bible to our time.” We considered “the growth of human knowledge” in session three when we saw that “growth” in human knowledge sometimes means reversal of previously held positions, as when scientists realized homosexuality is more “fluid” than they had assumed. We considered “our particular contexts” in session six when we saw the ELCA arbitrarily restrict its context to “North America” as a way of ignoring the outcry from global partners against its path to same-sex blessings. But what about Dr. Klein’s idea that “our experience” should be considered as we attempt to apply the Bible to our time? Martin Luther had vast experience. He wrote:
Experience is limited to what reason and the mind can grasp, that is, what we hear, see, feel or recognize through the outward senses. For this reason, experience is against faith and faith against experience.
So a battle begins in which experience struggles against the Spirit and faith, while the Spirit and faith struggle against experience.
Dr. Klein asks, But cannot tradition, church assemblies, human knowledge, and especially our experience err?
Dr. Klein answers: Indeed…and we need to be self-conscious of our own…blind spots.
Dr. Klein’s point is that, if we are conscious of our “blind spots,” our experience can be a trustworthy authority. And in fact the ELCA task force put great stock in the experience of some homosexuals. For example, the 2003 study document said: “some in this church who are homosexual experience their sexuality as a given, not a choice. Their experience needs to be taken seriously” (p.27). But was the task force conscious of its own “blind spots” with regard to human experience? Perhaps not. Not only did the task force not allow celibate, Lutheran, homosexual pastors to voice their experience, but the task force insinuated that the experience of such pastors should not be taken seriously because they only “feel that they have overcome…homosexuality” (p.28). By what criteria do Biblical interpreters credit the experience of some people and discredit the experience of others?
Dr. Klein asks: I’ve heard you refer to the Ten Commandments as staking out a “playpen.” What do you mean by that?
Dr. Klein answers: At certain crucial points the commandments indicate the clear limits to the freedom enjoyed by the children of God.
The commandments do not limit human freedom. They describe it. They picture for us the perfectly free human life. For example, the completely free human life is not limited by worship of the only true God; worship of the true God is a picture of freedom from humiliating bondage to a myriad of false gods such as money and the quest for security. The completely free human life is not limited by the honoring of mother and father; the honoring of mother and father is a picture of freedom from a lifetime of repeating one’s “family of origin issues” in every significant relationship. Dr. Klein’s view that the commandments “indicate the clear limits to the freedom enjoyed by the children of God” puts a negative slant on the commandments. By contrast, “Luther expounds the commandments as blessed revelations of our good, delightful to follow” (Robert Jenson, A Large Catechism, 1999, p.6).
Dr. Klein asks: …Are there not more positive helps the Bible offers when it comes to sex?
Dr. Klein answers: Indeed. The Bible often shows a profound understanding of sex. In marriage the man and woman become ‘one flesh.’ Has one ever described the majesty and mystery of marriage and sex better?
The task force seems to think sociologists describe it better. They prefer to think of marriage as a “social structure” rather than a “one flesh” union.
Dr. Klein asks: The ELCA has decided to address the issue of homosexuality. What guidance does the Bible give on this question?
Dr. Klein answers: …First of all, the biblical passages that speak about this question are few in number. Jesus never mentions the subject, on way or the other.
More Bible passages speak about homosexuality than about Holy Communion. Should we quit believing what the Bible says about Holy Communion? The fact that Jesus does not mention homosexuality probably indicates he agrees with the First Century Jewish view. He was very open, for example, about his counter-cultural view of women.
Dr. Klein asks: Does not the Bible condemn Sodom precisely because of homosexuality? That’s why certain homosexual actions are called Sodomy.
In response to this question, Dr. Klein begins to discuss the Biblical view of homosexuality. Dr. Klein turns our attention to Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. But is that the best way let the Bible teach us about homosexuality? Karl Donfried suggests a different approach:
The beginning point, therefore, must be to hear the complete witness of Scripture, especially the broad setting of sexuality within the purpose of God’s creation. Thus, to use Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; or Romans 1:26-28 as a starting point for a discussion of homosexuality invites distortion, because it is Scripture as a whole that norms Leviticus 18, 20, and Romans 1 and not the other way around. Not only must one examine the texts dealing with sexuality within the specific and the larger theological contexts in which they are placed, but careful attention must be given to (1) the question of God’s plan in the creation of man and woman; (2) what, biblically, is meant by sin; and (3) the consequences of the life of discipleship “in Christ.” (Who Owns the Bible, p.141)
But if we follow Dr. Klein’s approach, we encounter further problems as well. The traditional interpretation of the story of Sodom is that its “grave” sin was homosexuality. Dr. Klein challenges that interpretation. He cites Ezekiel 16:49 where the sins of Sodom are identified as pride, gluttony, complacency, and injustice. What Dr. Klein fails to mention is that in the following verse (Ezekiel 16:50), the Lord says that Sodom “did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” Homosexuality is often referred to as an “abomination” in the Bible. According to Karl Donfried, “an examination of the entire canonical witness, including not only Ezekiel 16:47-52 but also Jeremiah 23:14; Isaiah 1:9: 13:19; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:4-8; and Matthew 11:23-24 makes it… [clear that] the themes of ‘total destruction’ and ‘sexual offense’ are the ones in the foreground” of the story (Who Owns the Bible? p.150).
Dr. Klein asks: …doesn’t [Leviticus] discuss homosexuality and aren’t its ethical words normative even for us?
Dr. Klein’s approach to interpreting the reference to homosexuality in Leviticus 18 is to point out that the “paragraph” in which homosexuality is discussed also discusses two other issues: sex during menstruation and sex with animals. Since sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period is no longer prohibited, Dr. Klein asks whether the prohibition against homosexuality might also be considered time-bound.
But as Dr. Klein knows, the Hebrew text does not have paragraphs. Indeed, verses 6-23 form a literary unit, and that unit consists of twenty-six prohibitions, most of them dealing with incest. The prohibition against sexual intercourse during menstruation is the only one of the twenty-six no longer prohibited. Homosexuality is the only one in the list which is further described as “an abomination,” indicating its seriousness. Dr. Klein neglects to mention that Leviticus also addresses homosexuality in 20:13 where it is again referred to as “an abomination.” The facts that twenty-five of the twenty-six prohibitions are still in force, and that homosexual sex is cited as a particularly serious offense, should give the Church great pause before approving and blessing its practice.
Further in his discussion of Leviticus, Dr. Klein says: “the paragraph also rules out sexual relations between a human being and an animal. Here the believing community and the wider society are in absolute agreement.” It is not clear what significance Dr. Klein attaches to the agreement between “the believing community and wider society.” Is he suggesting that such agreement is the ideal and that the believing community should seek to be in agreement with the wider society also on the acceptability of homosexual intimacy? If so, we might recall the relationship between Israel and the wider society:
Contrary to the contemporary trend of Jewish and Christian communities to accommodate to the prevailing cultural approbation of homosexuality, the entire context of the Holiness Code stresses the distinctive holiness of the people of God. God’s people are to imitate the holiness and purity of their God and not the abominable and defiling practices of other peoples ( [Leviticus] 18:1-5, 24-30;19:2). “You shall be holy to me; for I Yahweh am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine” (20:26). The commands of God, and not the consensus of the surrounding culture, must shape the behavior of God’s people. (Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001, pp. 116, 117)
Concerning sex with animals, Dr. Klein also says: “We recognize such sex as ultimately selfish and exploitative.” “Selfish and exploitative”? But surely those are not the fundamental reasons bestiality is prohibited. Once again, the revisionist viewpoint is limited by its preference for modern and secular analyses. Something very different than selfishness and exploitation lies at the root of the prohibition against bestiality. Bestiality is prohibited because it mixes two species, one made in God’s image and one not. It is an affront to human dignity.
Dr. Klein asks: But doesn’t Paul forbid both male and female homosexual actions in Romans 1?
Dr. Klein offers three answers: (1) the problem with this behavior might not have to do with the gender of the partner but with an excessively passionate expression of sexuality itself; (2) Paul’s contention that homosexuality is “unnatural” could be time-bound; and (3) Paul’s idea that people “exchanged” one form of intimacy for another is contradicted by modern science which has demonstrated that homosexuality is not a choice.
(1) Dr. Klein says, “Paul speaks of people’s ‘passions.’” But is it really people’s passions that Paul is talking about? Romans 1:26 says, “…God gave them up to degrading passions.” Paul’s topic was not “passions” per se, but this particular passion, one which the Bible views as degrading. Not the quantity of the passion but its object is the issue, not the excessiveness of the desire but the fact that the desire is misdirected.
(2) Dr. Klein references I Corinthians 11:14 to suggest that Paul’s statement that homosexual sex is “unnatural” could be time-bound. True, we no longer think it is unnatural for men to wear long hair even though Paul claims it is in I Corinthians 11:14. And yet that verse also shows what Paul means when he argues from “nature.” When Paul argues from nature, he is talking about what can be seen. Long hair can be seen. Visually, long hair appeared to Paul to be unnatural for a man. Thus Paul is saying in Romans 1 that all you have to do is look to perceive that same-sex intimacy is not natural. Anatomically, same-sex partners do not complement each other. Human bodies are the visible evidence that we were created for male-female sexuality. Other sexual relationships are against nature itself.
(3) When Paul says, “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural” (Romans 1:26 b), does Paul’s use of the word “exchanged” indicate he believed that people choose to be homosexual? Not necessarily, and not ultimately. We should read the statement immediately preceding it: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions” (Romans 1: 26 a). In other words, the ultimate origin of homosexuality is that God handed human beings over to the brokenness of creation (of which homosexuality is one manifestation), a brokenness in which all humans participate, and in which we wait “with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God” (Romans 8:19).
Go to Dying Patient
Dr. Klein’s first sentence could be construed to imply that the most we can hope to find in the Bible is human decisions which, though made under God’s guidance, remain strictly human nonetheless. I do not think he meant that. I hope not. I think Dr. Klein knows and believes the Bible is God’s Word even though it is also the word of humans.
But there is no question that, in his view, authorities other than the Bible itself can determine how we interpret the Bible. He believes “that our experience, the growth of human knowledge and our particular contexts must be taken into consideration as we attempt to apply the Bible to our time.” We considered “the growth of human knowledge” in session three when we saw that “growth” in human knowledge sometimes means reversal of previously held positions, as when scientists realized homosexuality is more “fluid” than they had assumed. We considered “our particular contexts” in session six when we saw the ELCA arbitrarily restrict its context to “North America” as a way of ignoring the outcry from global partners against its path to same-sex blessings. But what about Dr. Klein’s idea that “our experience” should be considered as we attempt to apply the Bible to our time? Martin Luther had vast experience. He wrote:
Experience is limited to what reason and the mind can grasp, that is, what we hear, see, feel or recognize through the outward senses. For this reason, experience is against faith and faith against experience.
So a battle begins in which experience struggles against the Spirit and faith, while the Spirit and faith struggle against experience.
Dr. Klein asks, But cannot tradition, church assemblies, human knowledge, and especially our experience err?
Dr. Klein answers: Indeed…and we need to be self-conscious of our own…blind spots.
Dr. Klein’s point is that, if we are conscious of our “blind spots,” our experience can be a trustworthy authority. And in fact the ELCA task force put great stock in the experience of some homosexuals. For example, the 2003 study document said: “some in this church who are homosexual experience their sexuality as a given, not a choice. Their experience needs to be taken seriously” (p.27). But was the task force conscious of its own “blind spots” with regard to human experience? Perhaps not. Not only did the task force not allow celibate, Lutheran, homosexual pastors to voice their experience, but the task force insinuated that the experience of such pastors should not be taken seriously because they only “feel that they have overcome…homosexuality” (p.28). By what criteria do Biblical interpreters credit the experience of some people and discredit the experience of others?
Dr. Klein asks: I’ve heard you refer to the Ten Commandments as staking out a “playpen.” What do you mean by that?
Dr. Klein answers: At certain crucial points the commandments indicate the clear limits to the freedom enjoyed by the children of God.
The commandments do not limit human freedom. They describe it. They picture for us the perfectly free human life. For example, the completely free human life is not limited by worship of the only true God; worship of the true God is a picture of freedom from humiliating bondage to a myriad of false gods such as money and the quest for security. The completely free human life is not limited by the honoring of mother and father; the honoring of mother and father is a picture of freedom from a lifetime of repeating one’s “family of origin issues” in every significant relationship. Dr. Klein’s view that the commandments “indicate the clear limits to the freedom enjoyed by the children of God” puts a negative slant on the commandments. By contrast, “Luther expounds the commandments as blessed revelations of our good, delightful to follow” (Robert Jenson, A Large Catechism, 1999, p.6).
Dr. Klein asks: …Are there not more positive helps the Bible offers when it comes to sex?
Dr. Klein answers: Indeed. The Bible often shows a profound understanding of sex. In marriage the man and woman become ‘one flesh.’ Has one ever described the majesty and mystery of marriage and sex better?
The task force seems to think sociologists describe it better. They prefer to think of marriage as a “social structure” rather than a “one flesh” union.
Dr. Klein asks: The ELCA has decided to address the issue of homosexuality. What guidance does the Bible give on this question?
Dr. Klein answers: …First of all, the biblical passages that speak about this question are few in number. Jesus never mentions the subject, on way or the other.
More Bible passages speak about homosexuality than about Holy Communion. Should we quit believing what the Bible says about Holy Communion? The fact that Jesus does not mention homosexuality probably indicates he agrees with the First Century Jewish view. He was very open, for example, about his counter-cultural view of women.
Dr. Klein asks: Does not the Bible condemn Sodom precisely because of homosexuality? That’s why certain homosexual actions are called Sodomy.
In response to this question, Dr. Klein begins to discuss the Biblical view of homosexuality. Dr. Klein turns our attention to Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. But is that the best way let the Bible teach us about homosexuality? Karl Donfried suggests a different approach:
The beginning point, therefore, must be to hear the complete witness of Scripture, especially the broad setting of sexuality within the purpose of God’s creation. Thus, to use Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; or Romans 1:26-28 as a starting point for a discussion of homosexuality invites distortion, because it is Scripture as a whole that norms Leviticus 18, 20, and Romans 1 and not the other way around. Not only must one examine the texts dealing with sexuality within the specific and the larger theological contexts in which they are placed, but careful attention must be given to (1) the question of God’s plan in the creation of man and woman; (2) what, biblically, is meant by sin; and (3) the consequences of the life of discipleship “in Christ.” (Who Owns the Bible, p.141)
But if we follow Dr. Klein’s approach, we encounter further problems as well. The traditional interpretation of the story of Sodom is that its “grave” sin was homosexuality. Dr. Klein challenges that interpretation. He cites Ezekiel 16:49 where the sins of Sodom are identified as pride, gluttony, complacency, and injustice. What Dr. Klein fails to mention is that in the following verse (Ezekiel 16:50), the Lord says that Sodom “did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” Homosexuality is often referred to as an “abomination” in the Bible. According to Karl Donfried, “an examination of the entire canonical witness, including not only Ezekiel 16:47-52 but also Jeremiah 23:14; Isaiah 1:9: 13:19; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:4-8; and Matthew 11:23-24 makes it… [clear that] the themes of ‘total destruction’ and ‘sexual offense’ are the ones in the foreground” of the story (Who Owns the Bible? p.150).
Dr. Klein asks: …doesn’t [Leviticus] discuss homosexuality and aren’t its ethical words normative even for us?
Dr. Klein’s approach to interpreting the reference to homosexuality in Leviticus 18 is to point out that the “paragraph” in which homosexuality is discussed also discusses two other issues: sex during menstruation and sex with animals. Since sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period is no longer prohibited, Dr. Klein asks whether the prohibition against homosexuality might also be considered time-bound.
But as Dr. Klein knows, the Hebrew text does not have paragraphs. Indeed, verses 6-23 form a literary unit, and that unit consists of twenty-six prohibitions, most of them dealing with incest. The prohibition against sexual intercourse during menstruation is the only one of the twenty-six no longer prohibited. Homosexuality is the only one in the list which is further described as “an abomination,” indicating its seriousness. Dr. Klein neglects to mention that Leviticus also addresses homosexuality in 20:13 where it is again referred to as “an abomination.” The facts that twenty-five of the twenty-six prohibitions are still in force, and that homosexual sex is cited as a particularly serious offense, should give the Church great pause before approving and blessing its practice.
Further in his discussion of Leviticus, Dr. Klein says: “the paragraph also rules out sexual relations between a human being and an animal. Here the believing community and the wider society are in absolute agreement.” It is not clear what significance Dr. Klein attaches to the agreement between “the believing community and wider society.” Is he suggesting that such agreement is the ideal and that the believing community should seek to be in agreement with the wider society also on the acceptability of homosexual intimacy? If so, we might recall the relationship between Israel and the wider society:
Contrary to the contemporary trend of Jewish and Christian communities to accommodate to the prevailing cultural approbation of homosexuality, the entire context of the Holiness Code stresses the distinctive holiness of the people of God. God’s people are to imitate the holiness and purity of their God and not the abominable and defiling practices of other peoples ( [Leviticus] 18:1-5, 24-30;19:2). “You shall be holy to me; for I Yahweh am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine” (20:26). The commands of God, and not the consensus of the surrounding culture, must shape the behavior of God’s people. (Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001, pp. 116, 117)
Concerning sex with animals, Dr. Klein also says: “We recognize such sex as ultimately selfish and exploitative.” “Selfish and exploitative”? But surely those are not the fundamental reasons bestiality is prohibited. Once again, the revisionist viewpoint is limited by its preference for modern and secular analyses. Something very different than selfishness and exploitation lies at the root of the prohibition against bestiality. Bestiality is prohibited because it mixes two species, one made in God’s image and one not. It is an affront to human dignity.
Dr. Klein asks: But doesn’t Paul forbid both male and female homosexual actions in Romans 1?
Dr. Klein offers three answers: (1) the problem with this behavior might not have to do with the gender of the partner but with an excessively passionate expression of sexuality itself; (2) Paul’s contention that homosexuality is “unnatural” could be time-bound; and (3) Paul’s idea that people “exchanged” one form of intimacy for another is contradicted by modern science which has demonstrated that homosexuality is not a choice.
(1) Dr. Klein says, “Paul speaks of people’s ‘passions.’” But is it really people’s passions that Paul is talking about? Romans 1:26 says, “…God gave them up to degrading passions.” Paul’s topic was not “passions” per se, but this particular passion, one which the Bible views as degrading. Not the quantity of the passion but its object is the issue, not the excessiveness of the desire but the fact that the desire is misdirected.
(2) Dr. Klein references I Corinthians 11:14 to suggest that Paul’s statement that homosexual sex is “unnatural” could be time-bound. True, we no longer think it is unnatural for men to wear long hair even though Paul claims it is in I Corinthians 11:14. And yet that verse also shows what Paul means when he argues from “nature.” When Paul argues from nature, he is talking about what can be seen. Long hair can be seen. Visually, long hair appeared to Paul to be unnatural for a man. Thus Paul is saying in Romans 1 that all you have to do is look to perceive that same-sex intimacy is not natural. Anatomically, same-sex partners do not complement each other. Human bodies are the visible evidence that we were created for male-female sexuality. Other sexual relationships are against nature itself.
(3) When Paul says, “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural” (Romans 1:26 b), does Paul’s use of the word “exchanged” indicate he believed that people choose to be homosexual? Not necessarily, and not ultimately. We should read the statement immediately preceding it: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions” (Romans 1: 26 a). In other words, the ultimate origin of homosexuality is that God handed human beings over to the brokenness of creation (of which homosexuality is one manifestation), a brokenness in which all humans participate, and in which we wait “with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God” (Romans 8:19).
Go to Dying Patient