LGBTI in Perspective: Biblical Hermeneutics and Affirmative Narratives

1. By Alexander F Venter alexanderventer.com LGBTI & GOD’S WORD

2. INTRO: LGBTI & Biblical Hermeneutics • Thank you Sean & team… for The Identity Question • Confession of a pastor… Compassion & Wisdom needed • Multi-disciplinary approach (LGBTI, gender dysphoria) • Defining terms (sexual-, gender-, …range of ‘identities’) • Differentiate between (LGBTI) ‘orientation’ & ‘practice’ • Final authority? Science, Self, Identity-Politics, Bible? • Biblical authority (high or low view) & hermeneutics • Personal note: Vineyard LGBTI Position Paper (2013)

3. Non-welcoming & non-affirming (traditional) Welcoming & affirming (LGBTI hermeneutics) Welcoming & non-affirming (biblical hermeneutics) Affirming narrative: based on a mix of modernist and post-modernist paradigms & interpretive methods Non-affirming narrative: based on the critical-realist paradigm and orthodox-evangelical hermeneutics Three Approaches & Two Positions

4. Modern science proves some people are born with same-sex orientation, thus they have no choice but to accept it Thus orientation is immutable (unchangeable), therefore to “heal” it is more harmful and damaging – especially if “healing” is faith-based If born that way, God made them that way, thus their orientation is part of God’s good creation God is love and doesn’t make ‘mistakes’ – and love means unconditional acceptance, and thus endorsement (of beliefs and behaviors?) The Affirming Narrative

5. Orientation determines identity – like race – making it a fundamental part of one’s humanity. (a dualism of body/sex and psychology/gender) Therefore such fundamental identity requires the application of fundamental human rights: like marriage, family, ordination, etc. Therefore the issue is one of social justice, human dignity, rights, equality. Scripture must be interpreted accordingly, either via a revisionist hermeneutic, or a “higher gnosis” modernist hermeneutic The Affirming Narrative

6. No scientific evidence of a “gay gene.” The causes are complex: the brain is “plastic” and “nature vs nurture” debate is far from settled – which includes the will/choice Evidence of psycho- and faith-based therapy does not support notion of immutability: healing occurs on a wide spectrum; e.g. Paul’s “such were some of you” (1Cor 6) – redemptive ‘Gospel power’ for such orientation. JESUS & PAUL exemplify how the biblical creation texts should be used: leading to heterosexual marriage. If a genetic factor is/were to be discovered, it should be viewed like other disabilities in small percentages of humanity that are the result of a fallen world. The Non-Affirming Narrative

7. Sexual orientation is not what determines one’s identity, but being “in Christ.” The modernist deterministic idea of sexual orientation is socially constructed, a typical case of modernist hubris (pride) and naiveté. As Christians, we do not submit to modernism (reason above biblical revelation), or culture, or to theologies that elevate certain biblical themes or views of God over others; e.g. love over the rule & righteousness of God. We examine the relevant texts, seeing how JESUS and PAUL use the particular words and how they interpret the Old Testament (OT) The Non-Affirming Narrative

8. RECOMMENDED RESOURCES: Mark Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, 2015Via & Gagnon, Homosexuality & the Bible: Two views, 2003 Affirming Position:Jack Rogers, Jesus, The Bible & Homosexuality, 2009John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality, 1980Robin Scroggs, The New Testament & Homosexuality, 1983 Non-Affirming Position:Robert Gagnon, The Bible & Homosexual Practice, 2001Stanley Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, 1998William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals, 2001Jeffery Satinover, Homosexuality & Politics of Truth, 1996

9. Narrative: Gen 19:4-5, Sodom story; Judges 19:20-23, visitor in Gibeah. (Gen 9:20-27, Ham & Noah’s nakedness) Holiness Code: Lev 18:22 & 20:13, “lie with a man as with a woman” (also covers adultery, incest, and bestiality) Paul: Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11. The latter two use arsenokoitai(male-male coitus) Jude 6-7, sinful homosexual acts in Sodom & God’s judgement, depending on if “strange flesh” means sex with angels or with men. Also 2 Peter 2:7 Does Jesus talk about gay-sex? Jesus on sexuality and marriage (Mark 10:2-9 cf. 7:20-23, and cf. Matt 19:3-9) The Primary Texts in Question

10. Irrelevance: explaining texts as irrelevant to LGBTI Textual isolation: not interpreting texts in light of other texts & the whole canon of scripture (no ‘intertextuality’) Contextual distance: read into biblical texts the modern context and categories of ‘knowledge’ (anachronistic) Ethical consistency/inconsistency: e.g. divorce/remarriage Textual inversion and ‘love ethic’: e.g. Romans 14 on “disputable matters” applied to LGBTI and love Affirming Hermeneutics

11. Narrative: Gen 19:4-5, Judges 19:20-23, “Bring them out that we may know (yadah, have sex with) them."To know who they are; sin of inhospitality; about rape & injustice. They’re irrelevant to homosexual love-practice. (Jude 5-7: Sodom an example of sex with angels, not homosexuality, thus irrelevant to LGBTI practice) Holiness Code: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13; It’s about idolatry and purity laws: 1) the same-sex acts associated with idolatry of Ancient Near East (i.e. not loving gay sex as today), and 2) the context is about ‘ritual uncleanness’ not moral sin... Thus the texts are irrelevant to homosexual love-practice Primary Texts: Affirming Position

12. Paul: Rom 1:24-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11. The latter two use arsenokoitai(male-male coitus). 1. Orientation: Paul did not know about orientation, and thus ‘consenting same-sex adult relationships’ as today.2. Coersion: He condemned heterosexuals who engaged in same sex acts against their ‘nature’: sex with slaves, and (temple) prostitutes, and young men or boys (‘pederasty’).3. Misogyny: Not to upset the hierarchical dominance of men over women, he then opposed male-male sex. Jesus: does not mention homosexuality, so it’s not an issue in his mind. He would have loved & accepted them without judgement – as he did to all kinds of people he met. The Primary Texts: Affirming Position

13. Narrative: Gen 19:4-5, Sodom; Judges 19:20-23, Gibeah.Stories show sexual rape is sinful (both homo- & hetereo-). Serve as examples of God’s punishment (Jude 6-7, 2Pet 2:7). But, not the best sources for addressing same-sex practice. Holiness Code: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13OT Greek translation (Septuagint LXX) meta arsenoskoitein(“with man/male lie with”)… is used by Paul in 1Cor 6:9 & 1Tim 1:11, arsenokoitai… i.e. Paul refers to Holiness Code.Holiness Code sexual stipulations expound 7th Command, “do not commit adultery” (LXX porneia); i.e. ALL FORMS of sexual sin (porneia) areprohibited. WHY?Because Lev 18 & 20, and Ex 20:14, is based on Gen 1 & 2, the creation of male & female as God’s image (sexual-pair). Porneiaviolates God’s creation design of marriage (M & F) Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

14. PAUL: 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-111 Cor 6 context: chapters 5 to 7 on sex & sexual sin (incest)“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither the sexually immoral (pornoi), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft men (malakoi), nor men who have sex with men (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards… none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be.BUT you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Malokoi is the soft/effeminate male, the receptive partnerArsenokoitaifrom Lev 18:22 & 20:13 (active partner?) Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

15. PAUL: Rom 1:18-32 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

16. PAUL: Rom 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchangedthe truthabout God fora lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. Due to this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women (theleiea, females, Gen 1:27) exchangednatural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way themen(arsen, males, Gen 1:27) also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another [not coersive sex, but willing partners].Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

18. PAUL: Rom 1:28-32 “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity… (then Paul lists further sins)…Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death (re Holiness Code), they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (The last phrase: the dangers of the hate-speech bill before parliament and persecution BY identity politics & PC) Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

19. JESUS: Mark 10:2-9 cf. 7:20-23, and cf. Matt 19:3-9 Jesus based sexual ethics in God’s creation design of a man (male) & a woman (female) in a covenanted sexual union. “Because your hearts were hard, Moses wrote you this law (allowing divorce),” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ (Gen 1:27).‘For this reason a man will leave his father & mother, and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24). So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” [Jesus says“except for sexual immorality”, porneia, in Matt 19:9, referring to the 7th Commandment and Lev 18 & 20… which covers ALL sexual sin outside of M & F marriage] Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

20. JESUS: Mark 7:20-23 cf. Matt 5:27-28He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality (porneia), theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness (aselgia), envy, slander, arrogance and folly. These evils defile a person.” By porneiaJesus’ intertextual echo of Lev 18 & 20, & 7th Command; i.e. all the sexual sins outside of M & F marriage covenant (adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc). Aselgia meant “licentiousness” – sexual license of ‘stench’ behaviour, which included Lev 18 & 20 sins. 2 Pet 2:7 uses it clearly linked to the sin of Sodom. Outside the NT it’s used as (or in) a trio with arsenokoitia and paiderastai. Primary Texts: Non-Affirming Position

21. Battle of authority in ‘the identity question’ (politics) … is the authority & hermeneutics of biblical ethics Consistency of biblical sexual ethics: Creation design to 7th command, to Lev 18 & 20, to Ezekiel, to Jesus & Paul Does not minimize the real painful issue at hand; to be met with compassion, wisdom… & Transforming Gospel Jesus & Paul’s view of radical love & grace is to accept and forgive, saving people by rejecting the (sexual) sin entrapping them, and requiring radical obedience. Imposing acceptance of homo-practice (& ideology) on churches & Christian schools = devastating consequences Some Concluding Comments

22. “Love the Lord your God… and your neighbour as yourself” (Deut 6:5 cf. Lev 19:18) Love your neighbour is NOT modern ‘tolerance’ as in accepting beliefs & behaviour that is anti-God’s will See the context of Lev 19:18… verse 17 & 19:“Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in their guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the Lord… Keep my decrees.” Jesus’ radical love for sinners & radical ethical demands (God’s) True Love as THE Ethic

23. “Love is to rebuke your neighbour and correct and discipline your son when they sin – if not, it’s not love but mere feebleness, laziness, weakness. Let love be fervent to correct and amend. Love not in the person his/her error, but love the person, for the person God made, the error the person him/herself made. Love the person not the error the person makes.” St Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) (God’s) True Love as THE Ethic