Australia: Response to Brad Chilcott - Homosexual, Women and Slaves and the Bible
BRAD CHILCOTT'S ARGUMENT - BIBLE SUPPORTS HOMOSEXUAL CHURCH LEADERS
"Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul wrote that in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or non-Jew. I wonder what social divides he would’ve included were he writing that letter to the church today. Many churches are struggling with gender inequality, women are unable to preach or take senior leadership positions. Others have changed their interpretation of Scripture in this area and fully include women.
BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO BRAD CHILCOTT ON WOMEN, SLAVES AND HOMOSEXUALS
References to homosexuality are found within the “vice lists” of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. While the nature of these lists makes it difficult to specify the kind of homosexuality in view (whether broad or specific), one term used in the lists, arsenokoitēs, is of particular importance.
The word literally means “a male who goes to bed [has sexual intercourse] with males” and in all likelihood was derived intentionally by the apostle from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If so, then these vice lists may well reflect broad concerns about gender boundaries like those noted in my discussion of Leviticus 18.
Along with its occurrence within the vice lists, homosexuality makes the death-penalty list in Leviticus 20:13. The author’s concern in the companion text of Leviticus 18 is maintaining sexual boundaries between humans and animals (bestiality), between men and close female family members/relatives (incest) and between people of the same sex (homosexuality).
Now in Leviticus 20 each of these actions—bestiality, homosexuality and (the worst cases of) incest—receives the death penalty. Due to the contextual connection between Leviticus 18 and 20, likely the same broad scope of homosexuality argued for in Leviticus 18 (above) is in view in the penalty text of Leviticus 20.
What is especially important for hermeneutics about the vice/virtue lists and the death-penalty lists is their contribution to cultural/transcultural discussions.
Both the vice/virtue lists and the penal codes of Scripture reveal what might be called “near to the heart” or “to die for” values within the covenant community. For the most part the issues within these lists are highly transcultural in nature.
A major difference between the egalitarian issue and the homosexuality issue should now become apparent.
Women serving in leadership roles is simply narrated (Judg 4–5; 2 Kings 22:11–20), and in one case it is forbidden (1 Tim 2:12), but it certainly never receives this sort of death-penalty or vice-list censure. In fact, there is considerable variance within the many texts dealing with women’s roles.
When compared to the biblical texts on women’s submission, the homosexuality prohibitions are clearly in an entirely different category—a category of extreme weightiness. Biblical injunctions with light or no censure are far more apt to involve significant cultural components; texts with heavy censure (death-penalty and vice lists) are more likely to convey transcultural matters
Within the biblical canon as a whole there is considerable variance among the texts that address women’s roles in a patriarchal setting, while canonical variance is entirely lacking in the homosexuality texts.
Consider first the women texts. Sometimes the husband has the prerogative of making unilateral decisions that overturn his wife’s decisions (patriarchy; Num 30:1–16), yet sometimes the husband is instructed to make decisions in the context of mutual deference and mutual consent (egalitarianism; 1 Cor 7:3–5). Sometimes women are not permitted to inherit property (patriarchy),14 yet sometimes they are given property rights along with men (egalitarianism; Num 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Job 42:15).
Sometimes women are not permitted leadership roles (patriarchy; 1 Tim 2:11–12), yet sometimes they have significant leadership opportunities within the covenant community (egalitarianism; Judg 4:4–5:31; 2 Kings 22:14–20; Acts 18:1–4, 18–19, 24–26; Rom 16:7). For egalitarians, this canonical variance conveys a sense of God’s latitude in blessing women with various leadership gifts and opportunities.
While patriarchalists may not find this evidence as compelling as egalitarians do, one thing should be reasonably clear: there is a major difference in this regard between the women texts and the homosexuality texts of Scripture. Unlike the women texts, a canonical survey of the homosexuality texts fails to reveal one shred of variance.
Different Purpose Statements
The biblical texts affirming the subordination of slaves and the subordination of women—the “obey” and “submit to” texts—frequently include an explicit purpose statement about behaving thus in order to win a non-Christian husband or slave owner. These subordination texts are purpose-driven by a passion to make one’s behavior attractive to society.
On the other hand, the purpose statements related to the homosexuality prohibitions reveal a concern to make one’s behavior distinct from the broader social setting (Lev 18:3; 1 Cor 6:9–10; see also Lev 18:24–30; 20:22–24).
With the texts pertaining to slaves and women, one may retain the purpose meaning by rethinking the actual behavior in the modern context; with the homosexuality texts, one may retain the purpose meaning only by staying with the same behavior.
The difference is significant—the two types of purpose statements in Scripture head in diametrically opposite directions. The countercultural component within the homosexuality prohibitions raises the likelihood that they express transcultural concerns.
Different Pragmatic Clues
Interpreters must often move up the ladder of abstraction, away from the particulars of a text, in order to cross the application bridge between the biblical world and ours.
One of the reasons for moving to an abstracted principle is that at times the pragmatic rationale underlying a biblical text disappears within the modern setting. For instance, the biblical command “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [barrier/railing] for your roof” (Deut 22:8) makes little sense in much of the modern world, since the reason for the rule generally does not exist in our setting.
Most of our houses have peaked rather than flat roofs, and we generally do not entertain guests on these peaked roofs. It would be somewhat absurd for a Christian to look up and down their street for railings on rooftops in order to identify biblically based homes on the block. So one has to move up the ladder of abstraction and say that what is transcultural and binding from this text is the principle of constructing homes to ensure the safety of guests.
In the ancient world, the New Testament commands for women to “submit to” their husbands (Eph 2:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1; see also Tit 2:5) are built on a set of underlying cultural assumptions.
The ancient world would have had a hierarchy between men and women whether the Bible said anything about it or not. Patriarchy was automatically established in the ancient world since women, compared to men, received far less formal education, had no access to the kinds of information sources now available in our homes, had less economic independence, had less social exposure, had less available time outside the home, had less physical strength (significant in an agrarian setting), and wives had less maturity than their husbands (males were often ten to fifteen years older than their twelve-to-fourteen-year-old brides).
Since these circumstances generally no longer exist in our Western world, any application of the “submit to” commands must push up the ladder of abstraction, beyond patriarchal social customs and toward a mutual-deference relationship between women and men.
Modern Christians should move away from the heavy “submit to” instructions of these biblical texts. Changes in the pragmatic support for a biblical command must affect our applications today.
Now we come to the question of pragmatics and the biblical commands that prohibit homosexuality. Should we or should we not move up the ladder of abstraction to reconfigure our modern application of these commands?
As we examine the homosexuality prohibition, we discover underlying reasons such as sexual-intercourse design, reproductive design and nurturing design. These three patterns of human design have as much relevance in our setting as they did in the ancient setting.
A fourth reason underlying the homosexual prohibitions is the benefit of raising children by a father and a mother, who can provide different yet complementary role models for their sons and daughters. Children raised by two parents of the same sex can certainly experience parental love; however, they lack a natural kinship setting in which each can derive modeling from and relationship with a parent of their own gender.
To this consideration, one might add the benefits of having a relationship with an opposite-sex parent, as well as the benefits that different-gender spouses bring to a home through their providing gender-complementary (not monolithic) perspectives and ways of doing things. This latter benefit would extend also to a home consisting of a heterosexual couple without children.
These four pragmatic components underlying the Bible’s homosexual prohibitions still apply as one moves from the ancient world to our modern world.
An understanding of pragmatics between the two worlds pushes our contemporary application of women texts up the ladder, while the pragmatics of the homosexuality texts argues that the interpreter stay down the ladder with the concrete-specific commands prohibiting homosexuality.
There are good reasons not to move up the ladder of abstraction here.
Scholarship Arguing a Heterosexuality-Only Thesis
Finally, the idea that egalitarianism logically leads to accepting homosexuality ought to be viewed as fallacious in light of major publications in recent decades. The best research and strongest argumentation for a heterosexuality-only position within a Christian sexual ethic are found in books written by egalitarians. After reading these major egalitarian-authored works on homosexuality, one should be convinced that an egalitarian position truly does not lead to accepting homosexuality.
Conclusion
Doesn’t acceptance of egalitarianism logically lead to acceptance of homosexuality?
This essay has argued that the answer is “No, not at all”. When the hermeneutics that lead to egalitarian conclusions are consistently applied to the homosexuality texts, the result is a strong argument against accepting homosexuality within a Christian sexual ethic.
Scripture’s sexual-intercourse prohibitions are primarily concerned with maintaining sexual boundaries—boundaries between humans and animals (bestiality), between men and close female family members/relatives (incest), and between people of the same gender (homosexuality).
Whether we speak of the ancient world or of our contemporary world, the concerns remain the same. Only in embracing and celebrating these sexual boundaries does the covenant community pay homage to God’s design within creation. These creative-design considerations truly transcend time and culture.
Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (pp. 408–409). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
"Two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul wrote that in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or non-Jew. I wonder what social divides he would’ve included were he writing that letter to the church today. Many churches are struggling with gender inequality, women are unable to preach or take senior leadership positions. Others have changed their interpretation of Scripture in this area and fully include women.
Some denominations don’t let divorced people share in leadership and some rituals of the church, like communion.
We have a different practice on all these issues because we believe that regardless of gender, sexuality or background there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus and all are loved, welcomed and included equally.
All people are welcome to be full, contributing members of the Body of Christ as expressed in this church.
I hope for the day when we can stop talking about who is included and excluded and unite around a vision of a world set free from violence, greed, exploitation and inequality, where all people have equal access to peace, freedom, belonging and the opportunity to thrive.
Activate is a church that welcomes and affirms people who identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer.
In other words, we welcome and affirm all people into the fullness of life, leadership and ministry in this church."
BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO BRAD CHILCOTT ON WOMEN, SLAVES AND HOMOSEXUALS
References to homosexuality are found within the “vice lists” of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. While the nature of these lists makes it difficult to specify the kind of homosexuality in view (whether broad or specific), one term used in the lists, arsenokoitēs, is of particular importance.
The word literally means “a male who goes to bed [has sexual intercourse] with males” and in all likelihood was derived intentionally by the apostle from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If so, then these vice lists may well reflect broad concerns about gender boundaries like those noted in my discussion of Leviticus 18.
Along with its occurrence within the vice lists, homosexuality makes the death-penalty list in Leviticus 20:13. The author’s concern in the companion text of Leviticus 18 is maintaining sexual boundaries between humans and animals (bestiality), between men and close female family members/relatives (incest) and between people of the same sex (homosexuality).
Now in Leviticus 20 each of these actions—bestiality, homosexuality and (the worst cases of) incest—receives the death penalty. Due to the contextual connection between Leviticus 18 and 20, likely the same broad scope of homosexuality argued for in Leviticus 18 (above) is in view in the penalty text of Leviticus 20.
What is especially important for hermeneutics about the vice/virtue lists and the death-penalty lists is their contribution to cultural/transcultural discussions.
Both the vice/virtue lists and the penal codes of Scripture reveal what might be called “near to the heart” or “to die for” values within the covenant community. For the most part the issues within these lists are highly transcultural in nature.
A major difference between the egalitarian issue and the homosexuality issue should now become apparent.
Women serving in leadership roles is simply narrated (Judg 4–5; 2 Kings 22:11–20), and in one case it is forbidden (1 Tim 2:12), but it certainly never receives this sort of death-penalty or vice-list censure. In fact, there is considerable variance within the many texts dealing with women’s roles.
When compared to the biblical texts on women’s submission, the homosexuality prohibitions are clearly in an entirely different category—a category of extreme weightiness. Biblical injunctions with light or no censure are far more apt to involve significant cultural components; texts with heavy censure (death-penalty and vice lists) are more likely to convey transcultural matters
Within the biblical canon as a whole there is considerable variance among the texts that address women’s roles in a patriarchal setting, while canonical variance is entirely lacking in the homosexuality texts.
Consider first the women texts. Sometimes the husband has the prerogative of making unilateral decisions that overturn his wife’s decisions (patriarchy; Num 30:1–16), yet sometimes the husband is instructed to make decisions in the context of mutual deference and mutual consent (egalitarianism; 1 Cor 7:3–5). Sometimes women are not permitted to inherit property (patriarchy),14 yet sometimes they are given property rights along with men (egalitarianism; Num 27:1–11; 36:1–13; Job 42:15).
Sometimes women are not permitted leadership roles (patriarchy; 1 Tim 2:11–12), yet sometimes they have significant leadership opportunities within the covenant community (egalitarianism; Judg 4:4–5:31; 2 Kings 22:14–20; Acts 18:1–4, 18–19, 24–26; Rom 16:7). For egalitarians, this canonical variance conveys a sense of God’s latitude in blessing women with various leadership gifts and opportunities.
While patriarchalists may not find this evidence as compelling as egalitarians do, one thing should be reasonably clear: there is a major difference in this regard between the women texts and the homosexuality texts of Scripture. Unlike the women texts, a canonical survey of the homosexuality texts fails to reveal one shred of variance.
Different Purpose Statements
The biblical texts affirming the subordination of slaves and the subordination of women—the “obey” and “submit to” texts—frequently include an explicit purpose statement about behaving thus in order to win a non-Christian husband or slave owner. These subordination texts are purpose-driven by a passion to make one’s behavior attractive to society.
On the other hand, the purpose statements related to the homosexuality prohibitions reveal a concern to make one’s behavior distinct from the broader social setting (Lev 18:3; 1 Cor 6:9–10; see also Lev 18:24–30; 20:22–24).
With the texts pertaining to slaves and women, one may retain the purpose meaning by rethinking the actual behavior in the modern context; with the homosexuality texts, one may retain the purpose meaning only by staying with the same behavior.
The difference is significant—the two types of purpose statements in Scripture head in diametrically opposite directions. The countercultural component within the homosexuality prohibitions raises the likelihood that they express transcultural concerns.
Different Pragmatic Clues
Interpreters must often move up the ladder of abstraction, away from the particulars of a text, in order to cross the application bridge between the biblical world and ours.
One of the reasons for moving to an abstracted principle is that at times the pragmatic rationale underlying a biblical text disappears within the modern setting. For instance, the biblical command “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [barrier/railing] for your roof” (Deut 22:8) makes little sense in much of the modern world, since the reason for the rule generally does not exist in our setting.
Most of our houses have peaked rather than flat roofs, and we generally do not entertain guests on these peaked roofs. It would be somewhat absurd for a Christian to look up and down their street for railings on rooftops in order to identify biblically based homes on the block. So one has to move up the ladder of abstraction and say that what is transcultural and binding from this text is the principle of constructing homes to ensure the safety of guests.
In the ancient world, the New Testament commands for women to “submit to” their husbands (Eph 2:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1; see also Tit 2:5) are built on a set of underlying cultural assumptions.
The ancient world would have had a hierarchy between men and women whether the Bible said anything about it or not. Patriarchy was automatically established in the ancient world since women, compared to men, received far less formal education, had no access to the kinds of information sources now available in our homes, had less economic independence, had less social exposure, had less available time outside the home, had less physical strength (significant in an agrarian setting), and wives had less maturity than their husbands (males were often ten to fifteen years older than their twelve-to-fourteen-year-old brides).
Since these circumstances generally no longer exist in our Western world, any application of the “submit to” commands must push up the ladder of abstraction, beyond patriarchal social customs and toward a mutual-deference relationship between women and men.
Modern Christians should move away from the heavy “submit to” instructions of these biblical texts. Changes in the pragmatic support for a biblical command must affect our applications today.
Now we come to the question of pragmatics and the biblical commands that prohibit homosexuality. Should we or should we not move up the ladder of abstraction to reconfigure our modern application of these commands?
As we examine the homosexuality prohibition, we discover underlying reasons such as sexual-intercourse design, reproductive design and nurturing design. These three patterns of human design have as much relevance in our setting as they did in the ancient setting.
A fourth reason underlying the homosexual prohibitions is the benefit of raising children by a father and a mother, who can provide different yet complementary role models for their sons and daughters. Children raised by two parents of the same sex can certainly experience parental love; however, they lack a natural kinship setting in which each can derive modeling from and relationship with a parent of their own gender.
To this consideration, one might add the benefits of having a relationship with an opposite-sex parent, as well as the benefits that different-gender spouses bring to a home through their providing gender-complementary (not monolithic) perspectives and ways of doing things. This latter benefit would extend also to a home consisting of a heterosexual couple without children.
These four pragmatic components underlying the Bible’s homosexual prohibitions still apply as one moves from the ancient world to our modern world.
An understanding of pragmatics between the two worlds pushes our contemporary application of women texts up the ladder, while the pragmatics of the homosexuality texts argues that the interpreter stay down the ladder with the concrete-specific commands prohibiting homosexuality.
There are good reasons not to move up the ladder of abstraction here.
Scholarship Arguing a Heterosexuality-Only Thesis
Finally, the idea that egalitarianism logically leads to accepting homosexuality ought to be viewed as fallacious in light of major publications in recent decades. The best research and strongest argumentation for a heterosexuality-only position within a Christian sexual ethic are found in books written by egalitarians. After reading these major egalitarian-authored works on homosexuality, one should be convinced that an egalitarian position truly does not lead to accepting homosexuality.
Conclusion
Doesn’t acceptance of egalitarianism logically lead to acceptance of homosexuality?
This essay has argued that the answer is “No, not at all”. When the hermeneutics that lead to egalitarian conclusions are consistently applied to the homosexuality texts, the result is a strong argument against accepting homosexuality within a Christian sexual ethic.
Scripture’s sexual-intercourse prohibitions are primarily concerned with maintaining sexual boundaries—boundaries between humans and animals (bestiality), between men and close female family members/relatives (incest), and between people of the same gender (homosexuality).
Whether we speak of the ancient world or of our contemporary world, the concerns remain the same. Only in embracing and celebrating these sexual boundaries does the covenant community pay homage to God’s design within creation. These creative-design considerations truly transcend time and culture.
Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (pp. 408–409). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
