A Response to Bishop Sano’s “Call to Biblical Obedienceâ€
by Ben Witherington
(Edited by Dr. Jefrey Breshears)
3/20/2014
Part 1
It was with great sadness, and dismay, that I read the recent article by Bishop Sano, a retired bishop of the UMC, which can be found here, at this site – http://www.pnwumc.org/news/biblical-obedience/. I find it sad not only because Bishop Sano is in fact calling for the very opposite of ‘Biblical Obedience’. I find it sad because he mistakenly thinks that a matter of sexual ethics and sexual behavior is somehow a ‘justice’ issue, when it absolutely is not. The very logic of Scripture is turned upside down in order to support an increasingly popular view of gay and lesbian sexual activity and gay marriage as well. The coup de grace for me was when Bishop Sano decided that we must support these cultural trends as an act of ‘Biblical Obedience’. As a NT scholar who has spent the last thirty five years of my life exegeting the New Testament and writing commentaries on all the books of the NT, this frankly was a bridge too far. So the following is the first part of my response, in four blog posts.
First of all let’s address the presuppositional issue that people are born gay or lesbian. In fact, the scientific jury is still out on that matter. I am not a scientist but I take seriously what good scientists like Francis Collins and others say on the matter. So far, there has been no discovery of a ‘gay’ gene. So far, the study of zygote twins, one of whom chooses a gay lifestyle the other of whom chooses a heterosexual lifestyle, also does not really support such a claim. Here I would refer you to the more than ample data amassed by Dr. Robert Gagnon on his website – www.robgagnon.net/ – and I would refer you as well to his important book Homosexuality and Biblical Practice, published by Abingdon some years ago. As for Francis Collins, here is an important quote:
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 % of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.†(This is found in the Appendix to his book The Language of God, p. 260).
He has further qualified this more recently by saying as of yet no gay gene has yet been found, but there may be such a discovery in the future.
So what should we make of this statement by Collins? That there are certain tendencies or dispositions or inclinations in some persons from birth that lead to same-sex attraction. Fair enough. But what Collins adds is just as important– “sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminationsâ€. In other words . . . we have a choice about our sexual behavior. We are not predetermined from birth to behave in a certain way.
But for the sake of argument let’s assume some persons do have such ‘gay’ inclinations or predispositions from birth. Why exactly would we see this as necessarily a good thing? After all there are such things as birth defects, bad genetics, and so on. Why should we assume that simply because one is ‘born that way’ that therefore ‘God made me this way’ and that thus necessarily this must be declared to be good? If we look at this from an strictly evolutionary point of view, any species that develops tendencies towards relationships with other members of the same species that cannot result in the propagation of that species is a dead end. It is a non-productive activity vis a vis the survival of the species. Why exactly this is never a part of the conversation is hard to fathom.
This whole line of thought (‘that I was born this way and so this must be good’) totally and completely ignores a crucial Christian concept – namely human fallenness. Not everything in its present condition is good. And when it comes to human beings, here is the truth according to Scripture – “All have sinned and fallen short (or lack) God’s glory†(Rom. 8). The Biblical message about our human condition is that we are all in our present condition sinners, and as such we have a rather infinite capacity for rationalizing our bad behavior. Self-justification in fact has become an art form in our overly sexualized and narcissistic culture.
In short, there is neither a scientific nor a Biblical basis for saying ‘because someone is born that way, that is necessarily a good thing and must be endorsed or celebrated’. Not so. And I would reiterate the point that ‘predispositions are not the same thing as predeterminations’.
In fact, as Collins and others also say, there are a bevy of factors which contribute to a person’s sexual behavior, some having to do with nature, and some definitely having to do with nurture, environment, education, friendships and so on. In any case, it is not true that a person is hard-wired and cannot help behaving in this way or that when it comes to sexual expression.
The issue in any case in the Bible is not ‘sexual orientation’ or even sexual inclinations. The former is a phrase invented in my lifetime. The issue in the Bible is sexual behavior. Period. The assumption throughout the NT is that by the grace of God and the help of the Holy Spirit we have control over our behavior. When we cease to believe that fact, we have given up the whole notion that grace and the Spirit of God can enable us to behave in good and godly ways. We will discuss a different presupposition usually brought into this discussion in the next post.
Part 2
Another specious presupposition that we often hear mentioned in discussions of the issue of gay marriage or gay sexual behavior is the notion that this issue is on the same ethical footing as racial prejudice. It certainly is not. There can be no analogy between prejudice against a person because of their ethnic origins (e.g. anti-Semitism) or their skin color (various sorts of racism), and a criticism of the sexual behavior of the gay and lesbian community. The former has to do with some inherent traits of being, the latter has to do with behavior.
Obviously, God loves us all, but what he does not love is sinful behavior by any of us, and neither should we endorse or encourage such behavior. Such behavior simply alienates us from God, which is precisely why God is not pleased with it. And I might add, Jesus is an equal opportunity critiquer of sexual sin by heterosexuals, as well as by others (see the next post). The fact that we should not single out ‘gay’ sin for some sort of special condemnation is a good and proper insight. All sin however, committed by whomever should be called to account.
We are obviously called to love the sinner but not their sin, whether in this case we are talking about heterosexual or homosexual sinful sexual behavior. The almost total inability to understand the difference between a critique of someone’s behavior and a personal or ad hominem attack on someone’s very being, has led to all sorts of faulty logic.
The most basic response to such bad logic is that we are not simply what we do. We are all beings of sacred worth created in the image of God, and loved by God, but we are also all fallen human beings in need of redemption by God. Who we are is one thing, what we do is another. A critique of same sex sexual activity and same sex marriage is a critique of behavior. It is not a justice issue, as racism is. It is a sexual ethics issue. There is a big difference between mere prejudice and having moral principles about sexual behavior.
Sometimes in this context we also hear Jesus himself quoted “judge not lest ye be judgedâ€. Of course this is the same Jesus who made also sorts of moral critiques of sexual misbehavior, spiritual elitism, hypocrisy, and a host of other sins. What Jesus did not mean by ‘judge not’ is “you ought never to correct a brother or sister, since of course you too are a sinnerâ€.
In context, what he says is that one must first and foremost attend to one’s own sins, one’s own blind spots. Of course this is true. We must be far more self-critical than critical of others. But the exhortations in Scripture about warning others against sin and caring enough to confront such sin are too numerous to ignore. The alternative to hypocritically castigating others while ignoring one’s one sins and blind spots is not silence in the face of sin, but a life of integrity, calling one’s self, as well as one’s fellow believers to live more holy lives, lives that please God, whether or not they please other human beings or not.
We would do well to remember that the ethic of Jesus is a community ethic, and it expects the community to uphold the ethic collectively, together, calling one another to account. Sexual behavior is not a private matter, though it is a deeply personal matter. Since most sexual behavior is inter-personal in nature, obviously the community of faith has a right to have standards in place since what one person does affects especially the immediate faith community of which that person is a part. See for example the way Paul deals with the matter in 1 Cor. 6.15-18.
Part 3
I want in this particular post to talk about Bishop Sano’s understanding of Matt. 19:3-12. First of all, here is the context:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?â€
“Haven’t you read,†he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.â€
“Why then,†they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?â€
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.â€
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.â€
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others – and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.â€
As I said in a previous post, the Bible has nothing to say about ‘sexual orientation’, but it is clear enough about sexual behavior. It calls for fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness, as Mt. 19 says and our UMC Discipline reiterates. And this brings me to Bishop Sano’s misuse of a text like Mt. 19.12.
Jesus is talking about exactly two options: 1) fidelity in marriage defined clearly as heterosexual monogamy (notice the clear reference to God creating us male and female); and 2) being a eunuch.
Now eunochoi in antiquity were most certainly not gay or lesbian persons. They were persons who: 1) either had a birth defect in regard to their genitals, 2) were castrated by others, or 3) even made themselves eunuchs by self-castration. In other words we are dealing not with people who engaged in non-heterosexual sexual activity, we are dealing with people who had been incapacitated from engaging in normal sexual activity at all!
Mt. 19.12 has been seized on by the gay community because it refers to people who were ‘born that way’. Unfortunately, they ignore altogether the rest of what Jesus says in that verse – namely that some eunochoi have been made that way by others or even by themselves! All the gay and lesbian persons I know would be very upset with the notion that somebody else made them gay, or that they made themselves gay. To the contrary, their argument is that they’ve always been this way, since birth. The fact that Jesus mentions three ways to become a eunuch absolutely rules out the notion that he is talking about homosexual persons on the basis of the logic of the gay community itself . . .
Matt. 19:3-12 makes perfectly clear that Jesus is not talking about gays or lesbians when he mentions eunuchs, and indeed the only sort of marriage he endorses here is heterosexual monogamy. Clearly, marriage is only under discussion when Jesus refers to heterosexual monogamy. It is not under discussion when he refers to being eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. In fact, not only is Jesus not enunciating a more broad definition of marriage and divorce here, he is actually suggesting a more restrictive view than was current in early Judaism, which is precisely why his disciples protest – “if that is the way it is between a man and a woman, it’s better not to marry”.
Notice as well where that retort comes – just before Jesus’ comment on being eunuchs. Jesus is saying, “If you can’t handle a Biblical marriage, then you should remain single and chaste (like eunuchs, for the sake of the kingdom’). In other words, the traditional exegesis of this whole passage is right – Jesus defines marriages as heterosexual monogamy and the only alternative he allows is celibacy in singleness. Period.
This of course may be an inconvenient truth for some in our United Methodist Church, but it is a truth which Jesus himself has enunciated. So quite to the contrary of what Bishop Sano has suggested, Jesus is not inaugurating a radically different view of: 1) marriage, and 2) sexual morality than was common in early Judaism. To the contrary, he has intensified the traditional view of marriage by in effect saying Moses’ permissions for divorce do not apply as the Kingdom is breaking in (see Mark 10 and I Cor. 7).
Christian ministers should not be celebrating gay or lesbian couplings because by the Biblical definition they are not Christian marriages. A relationship which does not involve both male and female has no sanction from Jesus – not least because it has no possibility of involving both husbands and wives who have at least the constitutional potential to become mothers and fathers. Marriage, Biblically speaking, has as one of its essential components (though not the only one) the ability to fulfill the creation order mandate to populate the species.
A relationship that by its very nature cannot create a coupling that turns male and female into both husbands and wives and potentially into parents is not a Christian marriage. And while we are at it, every child ought to have the right to have a father and a mother, and needs them – hopefully their birth parents, but if not, good adoptive mothers and fathers.
It is understandable that in a narcissistic and ‘my rights are paramount’ culture, people might think about marriage simply in terms of one’s own satisfaction and desires, but what should have been thought of first is the consequences of a relationship, including the consequences for the children, if there are any. In regard to the issue of ‘welcoming’ and ‘affirming’, these are two different issues. All persons are welcome to come to the church as they are. No one is welcome to stay as they are since we are all sinners. Everyone is expected to change, and no one should expect to have their sin baptized and called good by the church . . .
In my next and final post on this matter, I am going to suggest a way forward beyond the current impasse in the United Methodist Church.
Part 4
I am a life long Methodist. I was a cradle Methodist and some day I shall be a grave Methodist. I have lived through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now the nascent 21st century and I have preached and taught all over this church, and in Methodist contexts around the world. Divisions, factions, schisms upset me, as they result from fundamental failures in the church, sometimes even caused by a failure of the chief Christian virtue – love. Furthermore, I’m a Christian pacifist. I don’t like fighting, or words that are shots fired in anger. I have thought a lot and prayed about what I am saying in these posts, and I say them with a heavy heart. I do not say them lightly or merely as the retort of a person who is upset.
We have been debating homosexuality for the last half century and at almost every General Conference since I have been paying attention in the 1960s, and we have actually resolved this matter repeatedly – by once again affirming the traditional stance on fidelity in heterosexual marriage and celibacy in singleness. It’s not like the church hasn’t spoken clearly on this heated issue. It has. It’s just that a vocal minority has not liked the outcome.
But now, since we have ministers and even bishops increasingly unwilling to obey either what the Bible says about sexual behavior and marriage or what the UM Discipline says, or even what John Wesley himself says about celibacy in singleness, it is time for a change. It is time for those folks who insist that it’s a conscience issue for them in endorsing gay and lesbian behavior and marriage to move on.
Some of these folks I have known for a long time and I consider them not only friends, but more importantly my brothers and sisters in Christ. I love them, even though we fundamentally disagree on this issue. It is, however, time, before the 2016 General Conference is turned into a blood bath, to make plans for a new Methodist Church, call it perhaps the Progressive Methodist Church, which leaves behind, and stops troubling our United Methodist Church.
It is time for those who cannot obey our threefold sources of authority (the Bible, the Methodist tradition of holiness, and in particular Wesley’s teaching, and the UM Discipline) at least on this issue to move on. I agree with Bishop Sano that we need a call to Biblical Obedience, it just doesn’t amount to what he seems to think that phrase ought to mean.
The warning signs were there at the last General Conference where it required dirty politics to prevent various resolutions coming to the floor of the conference which would have strengthened our traditional standards on marriage and appropriate sexual behavior. When ‘holy’ conferencing degenerates into gridlock and dirty politics, its time to move on while we can still be a bit civil at least towards each other.
My suggestion, and it is only my suggestion, would be that we allow Methodist ministers (including bishops) and members who cannot abide by the three authorities that should be guiding our church polity and praxis to leave our church in good standing, and with continuing pension benefits. If there are whole churches, or seminary faculty members that want to leave, they too should be allowed to go in peace, and as a peace offering, churches should be allowed to take the property with them. I suspect there are already quiet negotiations in this direction, and with regret I think they are necessary.
Why are they necessary? Because we are like a marriage with irreconcilable differences, no matter how much we talk these issues to death. They are also necessary because those who are agitating for changing our views of marriage, and sexuality and even our view of ordination surely must realize that they are in a minority in our church, and our church decides these issues once every four years by majority vote. With the inclusion of the Central Conferences in voting, and with most UM Churches today being of a moderate to conservative orientation on such issues, and with proportional representation at General Conference, the radicals cannot prevail by any normal or legitimate or democratic means. I am only stating here the facts.
So, sadly it is time to move on. Time for a change. My hope is that this divorce will not involve pure polemics, name-calling, propaganda and the like. I would hope that we could finally resolve this matter with at least some love and respect for each other. I realize that something will be lost if we negotiate such a parting of the ways. I have valued in many ways the diversity and spectrum of opinion on various issues that we have had in our church.
John Wesley himself distinguished between theological and ethical issues about which we could think and let think on, and those issues which are so fundamental to our faith that either we must be in basic agreement or we cannot carry on as one community. One of those fundamental issues is the sanctity of Christian marriage as Biblically defined and the standards of holy conduct when it comes to sexual behavior.
While supporting gay and lesbian behavior and marriage and ordination is an issue of conscience for a minority of us, supporting traditional marriage and sexual behavior is a non-negotiable issue of conscience for the majority of us, and I do not expect either side to change their minds now.
So let us find a way to help those who need to leave and start a Progressive Methodist Church do so without losing our sanctification or our willingness to go on loving one another, no matter how strongly we may disagree on this fundamental issue. The dictum for the UMC should always be ‘in fundamentals, unity, in non-fundamentals diversity, in all things charity’. But make no mistake, the sanctity of marriage as Biblically defined, and the need for personal holiness when it comes to sexual conduct are indeed fundamentals of the Christian faith.
Ben Witherington, Ph.D., is a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, a prolific author, and a prominent Christian apologist.
