A Letter to My Congregation” – Ken Wilson; and, “Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships” – James Brownson
Summary of Basic Thesis/Argument:
In both of these books, the authors seek to deliver their opinions regarding how the Church should think about and make decisions on the topic of same-sex relationships. They offer their opinions in light of their interpretations of both the bible and their experience. Each of the authors takes a very different approach to this subject, yet both in their own way contribute well to the broader discussion within the Church on this heated topic.
In A Letter to My Congregation, Wilson seeks to move beyond the “binary” perspective of “traditionalists” and “progressives” when considering how the Church should engage with people who identify as LGBTQ. He boils the issue down to one of whether or not the Church should exclude those who identify as LGBTQ from any aspect of participation or leadership. After describing his process of spiritual discernment and examination of relevant scriptural passages, Wilson arrives at what he refers to as “a new way forward” that “emphasizes acceptance over affirmation or exclusion” (page 18). Wilson views this approach as part of a possible “redemptive trajectory” that is open to what God is doing within the community of gay Christians (pages 164–167).
In Bible Gender Sexuality, Brownson takes a much more analytical approach to his analysis of the polarization facing the Church regarding same-sex attraction. He contends that this polarization arises, to a great extent, due to divisions in interpretation of scripture centered on hermeneutical issues. He maintains that disagreements do not arise “so much” regarding “what the biblical text says…but primarily…about what the biblical text means for Christians today” (page 5). His goal is to “reinvigorate the imagination of the church in the midst of this controversy, not to leave the witness of Scripture behind, but to see and embrace it more deeply and freshly, so that we may discover its wisdom in the presence of new questions and information that the church has not considered before” (page 15). Brownson thinks that the primary point of difference between the two sides in this debate “centers on the underlying moral logic that shapes the text [of scripture], and thus its applicability to contemporary life” (page 262). Brownson believes that “the moral logic under-pinning the negative portrayal of same-sex eroticism in Scripture does not directly address committed, loving, consecrated same-sex relationships today” (page 279). He also contends that the “experience’ of gender complementarity “may be helpful and important in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, even if complementarity is not construed along hard-wired gendered lines” (page 279). He believes that the bible does not teach “a normative form of biological or anatomical gender complementarity” (page 278). Instead he offers a
more complex moral vision…that looks at sexuality through the central category of exclusive one-flesh bond and sees the core meaning of sexuality expressed in: a delight for the other; a deep desire for gratification and union; the attendant call to honor and serve the other in committed bonds of loving mutuality; and a fruitful vision of committed love that overflows in many ways – in procreation, adoption, service to the community, and hospitality to others (page 278).
Analysis:
A Letter to My Congregation:
In his book, Wilson begins by describing his growing unease with his experience of people within his community who identify as same-sex attracted. He indicates that his primary concern centers on the issue of belonging versus exclusion. He believes the question of “belonging is the question addressed by the gospel” (page 5). When confronted with his growing unease, Wilson determined that the “binary” options of “open and affirming” or “love the sinner, hate the sin” were unacceptable in light of the gospel and how decisions on this topic affected real people. He is particularly distrustful of our “ability to distinguish sin from sinner, especially in others,…[because we are] so limited [and] so vulnerable to our own unexamined subjectivity” (page 24).
Wilson continues by describing his discernment journey. This description includes his reflection on interactions he had with people who identify as gay, his engagement with family members of those who are gay and transgender within his community, and his thoughts regarding the similarities between how the Church has over time adjusted her stance and treatment of people facing divorce and remarriage with what she currently faces regarding same-sex attracted people. He believes the Church may be facing a similar adjustment at this time regarding LGBT persons in her midst. In essence, Wilson’s experiences led him to the conclusion that two primary concerns drove his dive into deeper reflection on this issue: “the harm to gay people associated with the traditional exclusionary approach and the harm that this approach does to the Christian mission in [his particular locale]” (page 48).
From this point, Wilson takes a “closer look” at what he labels “the Prohibitive Texts” in scripture. As he delved into this examination, Wilson was struck by the many “major and important differences between the biblical period and our own” and how those differences should inform our reading of the texts. His over-riding conclusion on these texts is that “whatever the bible was addressing, seemed to have a different context, tone, and application than fit the people [he] was thinking about” (page 76). Essentially, Wilson believes the “prohibitive texts were insufficiently clear to justify the traditional position, and especially not clear enough to exclude people over it…” (page 80).
Given his discernment journey and examination of the biblical texts, Wilson migrated to what he terms a “third way” or “new approach to inclusion” (page 81). In essence, he now pleads with the Church to treat this issue as a “disputable matter” in the manner that Paul presents in Romans 14. Echoing Roger Olsen, Wilson explains the difference between dogma (truth that is essential to Christianity), doctrine (a secondary category central to a particular tradition of Christians), and opinion (matters of a “speculative” nature about which there is no broad-based “consensus”) (page 106-107). Wilson wishes for the Church to locate decisions regarding this issue in the “opinion” category. He also maintains that “unity in the Spirit” does not necessarily equate with unanimity in perspective on this issue…but instead, church members should “accept each other as Christ has accepted them…and to recognize the limits of their personal responsibility for the action of others…” (pages 112-115).
Wilson finishes his book by recognizing the very large change in perspective his new position on this issue entails. And yet, he tries to offer a way of lowering the heat associated with the controversy by reminding readers of the ambivalent statements in the bible about marriage. In addition, along with his arguments regarding the lack of clarity concerning how we should interpret the message of the bible on this issue, especially given the context of the relevant passages of scripture, Wilson urges readers to consider what we see God currently doing in the gay community (page 164). In his opinion, we may be witnessing “a redemptive trajectory” in the lives of gay Christians who are newly experiencing a more accepting environment which encourages them to “attempt life-long fidelity” (page 167).
Bible Gender Sexuality:
Brownson begins his book by delivering an overview of where he intends to go in his discussion. He asserts that the primary issues behind the divisions within the Church on the subject of same-sex attraction center on hermeneutics (page 5). He encourages the Church to approach reading the text in a corporate fashion to avoid “the fracturing of the church that comes from the loss of commonly embraced and shared readings of Scripture” (page 13). His goal in delving into the hermeneutical and interpretive problems facing the Church on this subject:
is to reinvigorate the imagination of the church in the midst of this controversy, not to leave the witness of Scripture behind, but to see and embrace it more deeply and freshly, so that we may discover its wisdom in the presence of new questions and information that the church has not considered before (page 15).
Brownson labels the two primary and competing perspectives on this issue as “Traditionalist” and “Revisionist.” He begins by examining what he refers to as the problems with the “Traditionalist Case.” He asserts that the underlying moral logic behind the traditionalist perspective relies on the view that same-sex attraction violates “divinely intended gender complementarity” (page 37). However, through an analysis of the early chapters of Genesis and its implications for gender complementarity, Brownson makes the following arguments:
– The original ‘adam’ in Genesis 1:28 to 2:18 is not a binary or sexually undifferentiated being that is divided into male and female;
– The focus in Genesis 2 is not on the complementarity of male and female, but on the similarity of male and female.
– The fact that male and female are both created in the divine image (Gen 1:27) is intended to convey the value, dominion, and relationality that is shared by both men and women, but not the idea that the complementarity of genders is somehow necessary to fully express or embody the divine image (page 36).
Next, Brownson summarizes both the position and challenges facing a “Revisionist” perspective on same-sex attraction. This position sees the bible’s statements on same-sex attraction as not applying to modern, “committed gay and lesbian relationships” (page 53). As a result, when evaluating same-sex relationships in a church context, they use broad categories such as justice and love. However, Brownson argues that these categories alone fall short in helping to develop a “full sexual ethic from Scripture” (page 53). Instead, Brownson indicates that his task in the remainder of the book is to engage in a “wider canonical exploration of biblical discussions of sexuality in order to develop a cross-cultural sexual ethic…” (page 53).
From this point onward, Brownson examines the issue of same-sex attraction in the context of biblical studies by exploring four broad categories of subjects that impinge on the issue at hand: Patriarchy, One Flesh (and the meaning of sexuality and marriage in the bible), Procreation, and Celibacy. In terms of patriarchy, Brownson shows that the bible exhibits both patriarchal and egalitarian themes throughout. The tension between these themes seems to be resolved by viewing egalitarian themes as representing the eschatological trajectory generally presented in the flow of the biblical narrative. He concludes by stating that hierarchical assumptions that undergird certain perspectives in various biblical texts “are limited in their ability to speak directly to same-sex relationships today – in a context where such hierarchical assumptions no longer apply” (page 84).
When Brownson examines the category of “one flesh” he concludes that the attention of the text in Genesis (and those later texts that quote or allude to Genesis 2) centers on “the establishment of a new primary kinship bond, rather than on the overcoming of the incompleteness of male and female” (page 86). This bonding establishes the bible’s basis for a “categorical rejection of all forms of sexual promiscuity. People are not to say with their bodies what they cannot or will not say with their whole lives” (page 109). Even though the bible assumes that this “one flesh” bonding takes place only between a man and a woman, “there is nothing inherent in the biblical usage that would necessarily exclude committed gay or lesbian unions from consideration as one flesh unions…therefore, what is normal in the biblical witness may not be normative in different cultural settings…” (page 109).
After considering the category of one flesh, Brownson moves on to discuss the category of procreation. He reminds his readers of the difference in perspectives between Roman Catholics and Protestants, with Catholics viewing procreation as “the essential purpose of both sex and marriage” (page 111) and Protestants emphasizing the unitive meaning. Both Protestants and society at large recognize a broader range of benefits for people living together in “long-term committed unions” (page 126). From this perspective, Brownson believes “the lack of procreative capacity cannot of itself be a sufficient reason to deny the legitimacy of stable gay or lesbian marriages” (page 126).
Finally, Brownson moves his discussion to the category of celibacy. After surveying scripture and examining the ancient context within which scripture was written, Brownson indicates that both scripture and the ancient world, for the most part, took a pragmatic approach as to whether someone should marry or remain single. After considering both the statements of Jesus and the writings of Paul, the scriptural witness presents the perspective that God calls “some, but not all to singleness,” and this call is a gift that not everyone has (page 146). As a result, Brownson concludes that:
[T]he persistence of sexual orientation…raises important questions: Are all gay and lesbian Christians whose sexual orientation is not subject to change necessarily called to a celibate life? If so, then this stands in some tension with the affirmation – of both Paul and Jesus – that lifelong celibacy is a gift for some but not for all (page 146).
The third and final section of the book sees Brownson taking a deep dive into the New Testament text of Romans 1:24-27, while exploring related texts in both Paul’s other writings and the Gospels. He conducts this examination by probing the subjects of lust, honor/shame, purity, and natural law. He views these subjects as providing boundary language for sexual ethics, and seeks to explore their nature, cultural particularity and transcultural significance (page 149).
Brownson begins his examination of the topic of lust by summarizing the context of the opening of Paul’s letter to Rome. He maintains that the larger rhetorical context of the letter presents lust as contributing to “the will to power that resists the posture of humble gratitude…” (page 152). Through a very detailed exegesis of the text, Brownson concludes that Paul’s focus and concern in these verses in the opening of Romans is on “out of control desire” (page 178). Brownson concludes by saying that “For Paul, lust is determined not so much by the object of desire but by the excess of desire” (page 261). As a result, he maintains that “these concerns may not be reflected in committed gay and lesbian relationships, opening up the possibility that these relationships may not be ‘lustful’ and thus not directly addressed by Paul in Romans 1” (page 178).
Brownson then moves on to explore the second subject, purity/impurity. He begins this analysis by conducting a broad examination of purity laws in canonical context. The major question he explores is “What is the moral logic underlying the purity laws and why does the New Testament set that form of moral logic aside in guiding the moral responsibility of Gentile Christians?” (page 184). Brownson sees three movements governing the redefinition of purity in the New Testament: from external to internal, from separateness and defensiveness to confident engagement with the surrounding world, and from old creation to looking to new creation which is in continuity with the old creation but expands and extends creation (pages 189-193). Paul, rather than providing detailed legislation regarding purity in this new context, delivers broad categories to encourage Christians to live in ways that please God. The emphasis in Paul’s moral logic is on “internal attitudes and dispositions” (page 203). Brownson concludes by stating that:
Because Paul characterizes the same-sex eroticism of Romans 1:24-27 as “impurity” and therefore understands it as characterized by excessive passion and a lack of restraint, it raises the question concerning whether committed gay and lesbian unions, which seek to discipline passion and desire by means of lifelong commitment should be still characterized as “impurity” (page 203).
Brownson then moves on to tackle the subject of honor/shame. He begins by looking at the anthropological and cultural aspects of honor and shame. He points out that in cultures governed by honor/shame, “honor plays the role that money plays in most Western cultures,” if you have honor, you can get things done (page 205). He moves to interpret Romans 1 in the context of honor/shame. The primary question he seeks to answer is “What Exactly is Shameful in Romans 1:24-27?” (page 218). Brownson delivers this answer: “the presence of lust, licentiousness, self-centeredness, abuse, and the violence of gender roles that were widely accepted in the ancient world” (page 222). He concludes that the “church must wrestle with whether all contemporary gay and lesbian committed relationships are accurately described by Paul’s language. If not, then perhaps this form of moral logic does not apply to contemporary gay and lesbian relationships” (page 222).
Finally, Brownson faces what has been “central to the debates over homosexuality in the church” that is, “Paul’s language regarding ‘nature’ in Romans 1 (page 223). Brownson highlights three dimensions for understanding “nature” in the ancient world. Each of these uses is reflected in Paul’s writing. With respect to the first, nature being understood as “one’s individual nature or disposition,” this usage is reflected in Romans 1 where the “ancient notion that same sex eroticism was driven by an insatiable thirst for the exotic by those who were not content with ‘natural’ desires for the same sex” (page 255). The second dimension had to do with “what contributed to the good order of society” (page 255). The third had to do with procreation; and yet, Brownson maintains that ancient people did not link gender roles to complementary sexual organs apart from “a general concern with the ‘naturalness’ of procreation” (page 255). Brownson thinks:
a biblical vision of new creation invites us to imagine what living into a deeper vision of ‘nature’ as the convergence of individual dispositions, social order and the physical world might look like under the guidance of the Spirit of God. This might also entail the cultivation of a vision for how consecrated and committed gay and lesbian relationships might fit into such a new order (page 255).
Brownson concludes his book by summarizing the ground he has covered. He then briefly mentions the other passages of scripture that are often thought to deal directly with same-sex attraction. His overview of these passages “suggests that the forms of moral logic that undergird this wider range of texts are similar to the form of moral logic [seen] in the more in-depth analysis of Romans 1:24-27” (page 275). In the final analysis, Brownson asserts that “the moral logic underpinning the negative portrayal of same-sex eroticism in Scripture does not directly address committed, loving, consecrated same-sex relationships today” (page 279).
Strengths and Weaknesses:
In my opinion, both books offer much food for thought and provide interesting insights into this difficult challenge facing the Church. Both recognize the pain present in the lives of many within and outside the Church who face the issues related to this topic. Though they approach their respective treatments of the topic very differently, both authors take great pains to closely examine the relevant scriptural texts with care and sensitivity. And both, in differing ways, deliver helpful insights to the Church as she continues to struggle with how to sensitively navigate the changes in her life that will most likely continue in the near future relative to how she welcomes same-sex attracted people into her life.
In my opinion, the strengths of each of these books compliments the weaknesses of the other, particularly the differing approaches that each author takes in their engagement of the general topic. Where Brownson presents a detailed treatment of various hermeneutical and exegetical issues surrounding many of the relevant passages of scripture that are often contested in debates regarding how the Church should approach decisions on the topic of same-sex attraction, Wilson delves deeply into the thorny topics of how the community should handle differences of opinion on these issues from a social perspective. Both authors, at least on a general level, approach each of the topics that the other does; however, in my opinion, the fact that each of the author’s chooses to concentrate in one area more heavily than others makes reading these two books together a fruitful exercise.
In particular, Wilson helpfully directs his readers to consider the context of Paul’s treatment of disputable matters in Romans 14, and reminds us that “the issues Paul placed in this category [of disputable matters] would have been vigorously contested” by his original readers (page 108). The people involved in the disputes in Rome (and in Corinth for that matter) did not think that their position should be considered a matter of opinion.
In addition, I think that Wilson’s admonition for us to be distrustful of our “ability to distinguish sin from sinner, especially in others,…[because we are] so limited [and] so vulnerable to our own unexamined subjectivity (page 24), stands as a very helpful cautionary admonition. Coupled with his opinion that we in the Church should “accept each other as Christ has accepted them…and to recognize the limits of their personal responsibility for the actions of others…” (page 112-115), I think Wilson has offered readers a wise way to humbly walk with care in matters that we face as we seek to navigate both this issue, and others that may arise in the future.
With respect to Brownson, I agree with his insistence that hermeneutics is the primary issue sitting behind the divisions within the Church on the subject of same-sex attraction. I believe that awakening those within the Church to the difficult and complicated factors that affect the process of reading the bible well will not only help the Church to work through her issues on the subject of same-sex attraction, but will help her in the long run on many other issues.
A better awareness of hermeneutics will also go a long way toward one of Brownson’s goals, that of reinvigorating “the imagination of the church in the midst of this controversy” (page 15). I think this goal is a worthy goal, and one that Richard Hays in much of his work has been encouraging Christians to fan into flame as we read the bible. In fact, Hays’ most recent book on reading the Gospels, asserts that the gospel writers encouraged us to read Israel’s scriptures with a renewed imagination. The hermeneutics associated with such readings, as modeled in the Gospels, show forth the importance of being aware of and open to new readings of our sacred texts. How to do that well is a difficult process that requires hard work and sensitivity to a myriad of factors, but especially hermeneutical considerations.
In my opinion, the weakness in these books are small and not particularly significant. I only offer two for consideration. First of all, I think that readers of both books would have benefited if the authors had examined the theological implications of same-sex attraction from an evolutionary biology perspective. Neither probed the implications of how a Christian should view the presence of same-sex attraction from a biological perspective in the context of our world being an active creation of God who continually engages with that creation.
Secondly, I think the reader would have benefited if both of the authors had carefully or more fully probed the implications of, or tentative answers to, questions on the subject of same-sex attraction in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, I think readers would have benefited from either or both authors considering implications of how the internal relationality of the Trinity affects our view of same-sex relationships. In addition, I think it would have been helpful if the authors had considered how the concept of humanity as God’s image in light of Trinitarian theology speaks to their views of same-sex attraction. Brownson does mention his opinion that when humanity embodies or expresses the divine image in the context of relationships, this embodiment or expression is not predicated on the biological complementarity of those in the relationship. However, I think it would have been helpful if he had probed into how this expression of the divine image is tied to his concept of the Trinity. If humanity, when engaged in same-sex relationships, expresses the divine image, how is humanity like God in a Trinitarian sense within the context of that type of relationship?
Todd Rivetti 