I've written before about the major "clobber" passages in the Bible which are consistently used in modern times to say that homosexuality is a sin. And I still believe that that is an important conversation to have, an important debate to delve into. But something is missing from that debate.
Nowhere in that conversation is there a discussion of sexual politics and the cultural use of sexual relations at the time in which the different passages were written. Because here's the thing: the concepts and ideas of sex and marriage which are so prevalent today were nowhere to be seen in Biblical times. Marriage during the pre-Christian eras, during the Greco-Roman empire in which Christ lived and the whole New Testament was written was not about love or commitment, or a life-long bond between partners.
In the Greco-Roman world, sex was political. It was about power and control. It was a display of the dichotomy between dominance and submission. Under Roman law, a Roman citizen had sexual rights to every person who was not their equal. This meant that a Roman citizen, by nature an adult male with political rights and power, could legally have sex, forcefully or otherwise, with any person who was not a Roman citizen. So he had sexual rights to every woman (no matter her ethnic or social class), every slave (male or female), every child (yes, child!), and every other person who did not hold the political station of a Roman citizen.
There was no such thing as consent.
So when Paul, in his epistles of Corinthians and Timothy, was talking about sex, he was wrestling with how to assimilate the newly converted Gentiles with their practices of sexual dominance, power, and politics into the Jewish-turned-Christian way of life. But he didn't address those issues which we, today, would see as the biggest moral or ethical problem with Greco-Roman sexual practices: the absence of the concept of consent!
Paul addressed alot of different things, many of them quite vaguely. And there can be arguments and debates about what he really meant or how it should apply to our lives. But we cannot ignore the fact that the society in which he lived, the mindset which he had about sex and marriage has very little in common with our modern conceptions of sex and marriage.
How can we have a conversation about sexual ethics or the correct "definition" or marriage based nearly entirely upon such outdated notions as those prescribed in the Bible?
I'm not saying that we should ignore everything in the Bible related to sex, love, and marriage. Absolutely not. But we have got to read it with a grain of salt, understanding the world in which it was originally written, and even the world in which the Bible was canonized and interpreted throughout the centuries.
In fact, it wasn't until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that homosexuality became a broadly condemned practice across Christendom. And this was an age of broad social intolerance which saw a dramatic rise in the condemnation of Jews, "heretics," and many other social minorities. Before that time, there are examples throughout the early church, the Renaissance, and the Middle Age from the literate classes (oftentimes nobility and especially monks) including explicit gay poetry with little to any condemnation of the practice . Much of it was widely accepted as some of the most beautiful and high class literature of its time.
It was during these periods following the fall of the Roman empire that the concepts of sex and marriage transformed from an expression of political dominance and power into an expression of human love and pleasure. It wasn't perfect, just as our sexual ethics today aren't perfect across the board. But the ideas of love and marriage during these times were changing rapidly towards a more modern understanding wherein sex and marriage were viewed as expressions of love and consent.
In light of our modern view of marriage and erotic expression as an outpouring of intimate love, we must view much of the Bible differently. And not just in relation to the aforementioned "clobber" passages that can be used to address homosexuality. Today, we can see the loving, intimate relationships of Jonathon and David, as well as Naomi and Ruth as intimate same-sex relations (regardless of whether or not they were sexually intimate). Because today we view marriages as much more than a means of exerting political power and ensuring reproductive legitimacy. Instead, we view marriage as an expression of commitment, love, intimacy. In fact, the vow which Naomi gives to Ruth ("But Ruth said, 'Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.'") is often used as a proclamation of commitment at many heterosexual Christian weddings.
No one can question that both couples were, on some level, intimate. I'm not trying to make an argument absolutely that either of them were sexually involved. Because that's not the point. Just as the point of marriages today is not exclusively about sexual intimacy. Today, in the Western world, most people get married because of love, commitment, and respect. And even among those who don't marry for those reason, most all of them would at least acknowledge these principles as the components of an ideal marriage. Can anyone argue that Naomi and Ruth weren't loving, committed, or respectful of each other? The same with Jonathon and David?
Some may argue that this is a spurious argument, and it may well be. But whether or not you see these two relationships as intimate on an equivalent level with modern marriages, discussing them still brings up this crucial point: we don't have any Biblical examples, gay or straight, of a marriage (that is explicitly labelled as such) that is equivalent to a modern ideal for marriage. We can see glimpses of such a concept though the two same-sex relationships described above, as well as in the erotic poetry of Song of Songs. But there is no directly equivalent example of a Biblical marriage which mirrors a modern marriage. Because the culture in which the different books of the Bible were written had no such concept of marriage. There was no consent. Love was by no means required, or even encouraged, throughout most Biblical examples.
I think the one major thing that we can take away from Paul's teachings on marriage is the concept that, ideally, marriages should be based upon love and respect, not upon an exertion of political power, dominance, and control. Paul was pushing his readers in the direction of a modern-day concept of marriage. But he wasn't there yet. The whole society had to change. And when it started to, these Pauline passages weren't used to impose a ban and homosexuality, or even on gay marriage. They were used to encourage the movement towards marriage as an expression of love, commitment, and respect.
I guess my point through all of this is simply to say, once again, that we have got to recognize the prisms through which we view Biblical concepts. Moreover, we have to figure out and acknowledge the culture and norms of the time when the Bible was written, the era in which it was canonized, as well as the ways in which it has been interpreted throughout the centuries.
Sources:
John Boswell. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
