Resources for Communities  |  Human Sexuality

Notes Toward a Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality
 By Sarah Dylan Breuer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
 

[These are notes from a talk given during an adult formation class on January 15, 2006 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, whom the author would like to thank for their invitation and hospitality.]

There's a style of doing biblical theology that I call "concordance theology," and it's got substantial drawbacks. For example, let's say we want to find out what the bible has to say about women in leadership. What words will you look up in your concordance? "Women" or "women" would be a usual starting point.

And here come some problems with this approach:

You don't find passages in which specific women are commended for exercising leadership. For example, Junia is a woman St. Paul commends in Romans 16 not only as an apostle, but "outstanding among the apostles." But if we were only looking at passages using the word "woman" or "women," we'd never know that.

... "concordance theology" doesn't help us to find the center of Paul's thought or of biblical tradition; it places the most weight on passages in which what we're investigating is a problem.
This approach makes a fundamental and very misleading assumption: that passages about "people" are, unless otherwise specified, primarily or solely about men. How could Paul's statement that "to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7) not apply to women? Why should we assume that all of those said to be called by God as prophets, apostles, teachers, and so on in 1 Cor. 12:28 are men, when the text nowhere suggests that? But since the passage doesn't use the words "women" and "woman," many have uncritically assumed that it has nothing to say about women in leadership.

Furthermore, "concordance theology" doesn't help us to find the center of Paul's thought or of biblical tradition; it places the most weight on passages in which what we're investigating is a problem. Imagine what would happen if we took a "concordance theology" approach to the question of whether MEN belong in leadership, taking every instance of St. Paul criticizing a man's leadership as a statement about men in general, and the absence of specific instruction regarding MALE apostles as indicating that there were none!

So, how do we arrive at a theology of sexuality grounded firmly in the Bible?

I'd like to propose three points as the central ones: one from St. Paul, another from Genesis, and the third is from Jesus.

St. Paul has two favorite metaphors he uses for the relationship Christians have with one another: that we are one Body of Christ, and that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. When St. Paul does talk specifically about married couples, he still refers to them as brother and sister to each other. What does he mean by that?

... for St. Paul, our identity does not come from marriage or any blood ties; it is our identity in Christ that governs all relationships.
He does NOT mean that they shouldn't have sex, as 1 Corinthians 7 indicates. Paul specifically counsels married couples not to refrain from sex with each other except by mutual consent and only short periods of time devoted to prayer. Notice, by the way, that Paul says nothing at all about having children in his discussions about marriage, divorce, and sexuality.

When Paul says that married couples are brother and sister to each other, he DOES mean that their relationship should be egalitarian, that they should be partners working together to benefit the whole family -- not the nuclear family, but the Christian family and the human family. Paul is saying that Christians, whether married to each other or not, may associate with one another as freely as sister and brother did, and that they must understand that the fortunes of any one member affects the common inheritance and honor of all. It may come as a surprise to those of us accustomed to metaphors of marriage as being about closeness beyond that of other relationships, but in the cultures in which Paul moved -- especially ones most deeply influenced by Greek culture and philosophy -- marriages were arranged rather than chosen, and were not generally seen as a partnership between equals, or even necessarily a particularly emotionally intimate one. But as Christians, we DO choose to receive the Holy Spirit, who makes us one Body of Christ with interdependent members, one family in which only God may claim the title of "father" and our only Lord is Jesus, who gives life and dignity freely to all.

In other words, for St. Paul, our identity does not come from marriage or any blood ties; it is our identity in Christ that governs all relationships. When St. Paul talks about marriage or marital sexuality, he doesn't say anything at all about having children; he concentrates on the quality of the relationship, and I think that's in part because of his reading of the book of Genesis and relative weighting of traditions found there.

Genesis has two creation stories. Genesis 1 shows humankind as the pinnacle of creation. Humanity -- male and female -- are created after the animals in God's image, but like the animals, they are told to "be fruitful and multiply," and it's a commandment, not a suggestion. The theological point that I think is chief, though, from Genesis 1 is about the goodness of Creation and of humankind as made in God's image.

... the purpose of sexuality and marriage is not procreation, but union -- the "YES!" of finding someone who fulfills you sexually and with whom you can form a true partnership.
Genesis 2 has a story with different theological emphases. Adam is created after the heavens and the earth, but before any other living creature, and for the first time in Genesis, there is something that is "not good" about Creation. It is "not good" that the human should be alone. So God creates every kind of animal and brings it before adam, a word meaning simply "the human," who names it, but determines in each case that this animal is not a suitable partner. The rabbis commenting in this passage are quite explicit even that Adam has sex with each of them to see whether this is someone he could love as a partner, and they are also clear that the question of whether a creature is suitable for Adam as a partner is decided by Adam and what pleases him, not by God. When none of the animals float Adam's proverbial boat, God takes a rib from adam, the human, and makes Eve, and Adam says, "YES!" And that "YES!" as a human being finds a companion who sexually excites him AND is a real partner is, according to Genesis 2, what marriage is all about ("For this reason, a man leaves father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh" -- Gen. 2:24). (I first heard this point made by Rabbi Steven Greenberg.)

That's important to remember when we look at a passage that I think sheds light on what Jesus thought was central in human sexuality, and therefore what he thought should be central when making decisions about what is permissible and helpful with respect to marriage.

Mark 10:2-16 and its parallels in Matthew and Luke are what I have in mind. Most common cause of divorce in the first century is failure to produce an heir, so by prohibiting remarriage after divorce, Jesus is in effect saying that marriages are NOT given for procreation. The particular passage he cites is NOT Genesis 1 (which is what most rabbis would cite on this question), but Genesis 2; the purpose of sexuality and marriage is not procreation, but union -- the "YES!" of finding someone who fulfills you sexually and with whom you can form a true partnership.

Jesus was ahead of his time in his reading of the relative importance of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, but most Jewish groups have followed him in the long run. That's why Elliot Dorff, the head of the University of Judaism, the chief Conservative rabbinical college on the west coast, agrees that sexuality is more about union than procreation, and he favors allowing gay and lesbian candidates for the rabbi on the same basis as heterosexual ones. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have fully supported gay and lesbian ministry and unions for many years. Ironically, Christian denominations have been slower to accept Jesus' interpretation of Hebrew scripture than many Jews have been on this point.

But what about the "clobber texts" often used to condemn gay people?

An ethic of sexuality and family that requires only certain legal and biological checkmarks is far too loose for my sense of what it means to be a disciple. Our families need to meet the higher standards for Christian communities that we find in places like Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 11-13.
Romans 1 is the biggest and most solid club -- conservative Christians often cite it to suggest that Paul privileged Genesis 1 over Genesis 2, and that there's an "order of creation" that suggests both that there's something about heterosexual unions that is more in God's image than same-sex ones and that marriage is primarily about procreation. They're conflating Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 -- Genesis 1 has the "image of God" language, but does not suggest that the "image of God" is about heterosexual unions any more than it is for animals (who get the same "be fruitful and multiply" command that humans get); but Genesis 2 is the story about the purpose of marriage, and it's about union rather than procreation (or God would not have proposed that Adam take a look at the animals to see whether one of them would make a good partner). Yes, Romans 1 does say "they abandoned the natural use for that which is against (or "beyond") nature (para phusin in the Greek), but Paul uses the same phrase to describe God's activity in grafting the Gentiles onto the olive tree of Israel in Romans 11:24.

Furthermore, they're ignoring that evidence I've cited from 1 Corinthians 7 and Mark 10 suggests that Jesus and Paul both saw Genesis 2 as being the central passage about sexuality and Genesis 1 more about how women as well as men are made in God's image (and they both overrode the commandment to multiply).

But I think we're still not at the heart of a theology of sexuality, because we've spent too much time on "concordance theology," which is always incomplete. If we read carefully what Jesus and Paul said about nuclear families and the family of God, which is the Body of Christ, we're going to see that their biggest concern about "family values" was that Christians would be more concerned with their (nuclear and extended biological) families than they would be with their other brothers and sisters in Christ and in the human family. The biggest drawback to same-sex unions, I can say from experience, is that it's very hard to be as completely available to serve those who are profoundly alone in our culture as I could be if I didn't have a partner to think about. I'm called to be JUST as concerned about the education and health of children in Africa or inner-city Baltimore as I am for my own children if I have them, and that too is very difficult to do. But this is hardly a concern unique to families that include a same-sex couple. "Concordance theology" on the subject of parenthood -- and especially fatherhood -- in the New Testament would suggest that Christians should not engage in it at all, but should receive children as Jesus did -- not because he was their father, but because they were God's children -- and remain as Paul and Jesus both were: free to travel and embrace poverty because they did not have families.

I like to think of my approach as pastoral, though, so I wouldn't want to put that forward as an inflexible standard for all Christians. Instead, I'd say that decisions about human sexuality and family life are to be decided as all things are in Christian community. We should put the concordance aside and look long and hard at passages like Galatians 5 with its discussion of what gives rise to the "fruit of the Spirit," "against which there is no law." An ethic of sexuality and family that requires only certain legal and biological checkmarks is far too loose for my sense of what it means to be a disciple. Our families need to meet the higher standards for Christian communities that we find in places like Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 11-13, equipping and empowering all members for ministry in the world, living out Jesus' love in Jesus' self-giving way, not seizing privilege but surrendering it for the sake of those the world neglects or despises. Amen!


Sarah Dylan Breuer is editor of The Witness. In her spare time, she maintains Dylan's lectionary blog and Grace Notes, her personal blog, at SarahLaughed.net.