The Meaning of Sex

(A Response to Walter Wink’s “Homosexuality and the Bible”)

A friend of mine forwarded Wink’s article to me because he knew that, while I believe that homosexual behavior runs contrary to God’s desire, I remain open to be convinced otherwise. As Anthony Flew stated upon his recent conversion from atheism to theism, “I must follow the evidence wherever it leads.” But after reading Wink’s article (as well as a handful of others written by pro-gay writers), I am surprised at how tenuous the foundations of their arguments really are.

At bottom, Wink’s argument rests on the assumption that Paul’s judgment of homosexual behavior would have been reversed if only he were aware that they act out of innate preferences. Wink’s stance on the issue requires that he read into biblical statements a great many assumptions which cannot be supported by the texts themselves. In fact, parts of this essay (particularly the section on Hebrew sexual mores) read like case studies of logical fallacies including arguments from silence, hasty generalizations, slothful inductions, red herrings, straw men, and multiple fallacies of presumption. In the presence of so many leaps of logic one is tempted to conclude that Wink (among others) holds to a pro-gay view ultimately because he wants to.

Whose Problem with Authority?

Indeed, Wink admits in the end that “Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.” Here we come to the heart of the situation. If the Bible, responsibly read and understood, condemns homosexual behavior, does that settle the matter for you? If not, you will have to choose some other source of authority and you should clearly admit that you have. One should not attempt to demonstrate that his viewpoint can be biblically supported while elsewhere admitting that it cannot. It confuses the reader further to declare in one place that “virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals,” only to turn around later and say: “There is no Biblical sex ethic . . .” and that “No sex act is ethical in and of itself.”

Ultimately Wink values the instincts of animals over the apostolic testimony when he frankly explains: “Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially . . . under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving the species.” Wink presents sexuality as an essentially amoral physical act which serves utilitarian biological and ecological functions and derives its only meaning from “unreflective customs accepted by a given community.” Sexuality in this context serves no ethical or theological purpose (e.g. expressing the image of God in a manner unique to human beings) but merely serves “as a form of crowd control” in the hands of the “Domination System” of each cultural context. This sounds like the meaning of sexuality according to Alfred Kinsey or Marx or Freud, but not Christian revelation.

This brings us back to the age old question: What is the relationship between theology and science, or more basically, faith and reason? Wink states it this way: “the question ceases to be ‘What does Scripture command?’ and becomes ‘what is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?’” The thinking Christian readily admits that theology and science, which are both ultimately man-made endeavors, must be mutually informative disciplines.

Unfortunately, one of the blind spots of historical Christian doctrine has always been that theologians too often forget the limitations of their own reason; they confuse their theology (their thoughts about Divine revelation) with revelation itself. For example, recall the embarrassing fate of Galileo when he tried to revise the medieval understanding of the geocentric universe only to be forced to recant and spend the remainder of his life under house arrest. But scientists and those that implicitly trust them in all they conclude also forget another limitation of reason, namely that science can describe what is but it cannot dictate what should be. Moral and ethical judgments remain beyond the reach of that discipline which examines and quantifies the world around us.

It is true that the tools of modern science have achieved astounding things, and will continue to do so until the line between science and science fiction blurs into a gradual continuum. But those tools most effectively overcome the subjective biases of the communities that wield them when they are applied to the physical sciences; they are significantly less consistent as they approach the study of human behavior, with all of its inherent ethical problems. Wink declares that we cannot “build ethics on the basis of bad science.” While he intended to impugn the prescientific Hebrew understanding of biology in this criticism, I would add that “bad science” also results whenever science oversteps its own parameters and attempts to tell us what should be—particularly in the realm of human behavior. We do not responsibly handle the limitations of reason when we unquestioningly receive the conclusions of psychologists, anthropologists, or even biologists and geneticists.

The New Testament versus the Old

What, then, does the Bible say to us today about homosexuality? Wink correctly observes a broad diversity of standards present within the flow of biblical history. He also incisively poses the question: “What is our principle of selection here?” The answer is simple: While in most cases the Christian’s conscience is free to choose concerning those things forbidden under the Old Covenant but not expressly condemned under the New, those things which the New Testament expressly speaks against are indeed expressions of God’s desire for the conduct of his people today.

Wink attempts to sidestep this conclusion by arguing that we do not serve under the old way of the letter but in the new way of the Spirit. However, while it is true that “we cannot even take what Paul himself says as a new Law,” this does not mean that the conduct of those led by the Spirit will be contrary to the nature of God. The “spirit” and the “letter” represent two different ways of relating to God, not to two opposing systems of ethics.

It is true that we encounter a vast diversity of prohibitions when we move from the Old Covenant to the New, but this transition represents progressive revelation—a progressive disclosure of God’s desire for his people with increasing clarity from the beginning to the end (see Hebrews 1:1-4). Thus we are not surprised when we look into the Old Testament only to find less consistency with the impartial compassion of God in matters pertaining to racism, sexism, and violence than we find in the New Testament. If Moses allows divorce where Jesus forbids it, the modern Christian has no difficulty determining which standard to adopt for himself. Neither are we surprised to find some prohibitions which made more sense in a different time and place but now make little sense under a more sophisticated scientific awareness.

A Double Standard

But Wink seems to acknowledge this principle of interpretation in support of his own view, without giving sufficient attention to its rightful use for the views of his opponents. The most significant inconsistency in his article comes when he reserves for himself the exegetical freedom to allow the New Covenant to supersede the Old (e.g. in his spirit versus letter rhetoric) while not acknowledging his reader’s prerogative to use the New Testament to interpret the Old when it comes to the prohibitions of homosexual practice. Wink hastily dismisses three relevant NT passages (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and eventually Romans 1:26-27) and spends the bulk of his argument demonstrating fourteen Old Testament prohibitions to which we do not adhere today. Here he lumps the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately together and declares that “the Bible condemns these things, but we do not follow them.” He asks, “Why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary.”

Throughout these fourteen points Wink neglects to acknowledge the reasonably nuanced perspective of Christians whose criticism of homosexuality is based on standards presented in the New Testament. They are not being arbitrarily selective when they base their judgments on clear New Testament statements on the matter. Their viewpoint is simply this: Homosexuality is one of the prohibitions in the Old Covenant which is reiterated expressly by the New. For them that makes all the difference. Wink’s early and rapid discrediting of those pertinent NT verses precedes the rest of his argument precisely because he cannot accuse his opponents of poor hermeneutics without doing so. However, in my judgment, he fails to present a strong case here for the elimination of those Pauline statements from our discussion.

With only two sentences Wink dismisses 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 without entering into any substantive discussion about the relevance of these passages to our subject. With these short statements he leads us to believe that Paul may have been speaking more narrowly about male prostitution rather than about the general practice of homosexuality. A handful of scholars have worked hard to validate this interpretation in the absence of any helpful Ancient Near Eastern precedents for Paul’s usage of the term “arsenokoitais” (literally “male bedding”). But does Wink really accept this interpretation? While he mentions it in the interest of disqualifying these passages from the debate, he later makes it clear that Paul most likely did condemn homosexuality for all, not merely in the form of prostitution. Romans 1:26-27 leads Wink to argue that “Paul believed that everyone was straight” and that “Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature.” Given that he believes this, would it make sense for him to have Paul elsewhere limit his condemnation to male prostitution, omitting the general practice of homosexuality from his code of conduct? This omission would be quite surprising if, as Wink suggests, Paul gives an “unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27.” Consequently, all three of the Pauline references to homosexuality should remain in the discussion of how the Old Testament should be weighed against the New.

The Unspoken, Hence Unquestioned, Assumption

Turning to address the statement in Romans, Wink admits that Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality, even adding female homosexuality to the prohibition. However, he disagrees with Paul’s condemnation of their behavior on the basis of his belief that, if a person naturally prefers homosexuality, then it must be acceptable. Although this belief is never explicitly stated, it is obviously implied here and serves as the foundational assumption for the rest of his essay. Wink then piles one presumption upon another by first assuming that Paul cannot have understood that some gays and lesbians were born that way, then by assuming that if only Paul had known this he would have (or at least should have) changed his tune. Therefore when Paul describes heterosexual relations as “natural,” this cannot apply to all people everywhere. Instead it should only be a standard (if there is such a thing within Wink’s framework) for those who are born heterosexual. In other words, even if Paul declared that heterosexuality was “natural” for all men, he did this on the basis of an incorrect understanding of human sexuality and we must therefore reject his conclusion on the matter.

This string of assumptions should be too much for anyone to accept with much confidence, yet it is eagerly received by scores of individuals hoping to contextualize the gospel for a twenty-first century audience without excluding the growing homosexual population. For others, however, this posture towards the apostolic testimony is simply too much to ingest. It is enough for them that Paul’s code of conduct reinforces those elements of the Mosaic Law which received the strongest condemnation. Unlike eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics, “a man lying with another man as one lies with a woman” was called an “abomination” and received capital punishment under the old code of law. For many it is enough that Paul carried over this standard (minus the legal ramifications) among the other sexual prohibitions of the highest order (e.g. rape, incest, adultery, and bestiality). For Wink, however, and so many others, more is needed. Perhaps more need to know why same-sex intercourse is such a “big deal,” and how something that apparently comes naturally to some could be considered contrary to God’s will.

Natural According to Whom?

When considering Paul’s comments in the first chapter of Romans, we must decide if “natural” means “what you were born with” or “what God intended.” The Christian understanding of a fallen creation leads us to believe that these two “natures” are not necessarily identical. And while Wink accepts the former definition, I must agree with the latter one because biological drives cannot themselves serve as a basis for our ethical reasoning process. In fact, it seems to me that this epistemological inversion parallels the very reversal of the created order mentioned by Paul in this passage. “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator” until eventually “God gave them over to the depravity of their minds” (Rom. 1:25, 28). Are we not doing the same thing, albeit on a more sublimated level, when we reason that because animals do it, we can too? Or that if our bodies desire it then it must be right?

We miss the force of Paul’s argument entirely when we suppose that “Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were ‘straight’ and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them.” Wink fails to acknowledge that Paul recognized genuine physiological desire among those under consideration (men “burned in their desire for one another”). In the larger context of Romans 1, the genuineness of their sexuality is not what is in view; it is the progressive disruption of the natural order and form of God’s creation due to mankind’s age-old failure to recognize the supremacy of God in relation to all created things:

Under this scenario, we should be slow to resign ourselves to following whatever is “natural” in the sense that Wink indicates.

Wink’s assumption that a biologically based homosexual orientation validates homosexual practice should be applied to other activities to see if such a basis for an ethical code will suffice. How would he answer a man who has sexual relations with his own sister if that man were to contend that he didn’t choose to feel what he feels for his sister, but that it just came naturally? Would it contradict Wink’s simplified “ethic of love” for this brother to commit to a lifelong monogamous relationship with his sister? What if the relationship proved to be neither exploitative nor objectifying? While incest is as objectionable to most cultures today as it was to the biblical writers, nothing in Wink’s basis for understanding sexuality would disapprove of it.

Furthermore, whose body limits its attraction to only his or her spouse? Once one has determined which gender he or she finds attractive, why not pursue sexual intimacy with as many individuals as can be lovingly acquired? As long as it seems “natural” to the people involved (and doesn’t violate the “love ethic of Jesus”), what should prevent them from acting on their biological drives? Within a context of mutual consent, open marriage with multiple partners becomes legitimate, and marriage itself becomes fluid to the point of meaninglessness. Since abstinence of any kind entails the repressing of natural desires, under this framework it can be argued that abstinence itself is unhealthy. What, then, should guide our evaluation of the many diverse expressions of human sexuality?

The Meaning of Sex

The central problem in Wink’s view comes from his failure to view human sexuality within the framework of divine revelation. Sex between humans beautifully and sensually expresses the intimacy, vulnerability, and passion of the marriage relationship. Lest we conclude that marriage is an ancillary issue in the intention of God (or just a human convention with no inherent meaning), we must remember that the biblical story begins and ends with a wedding. At the beginning of our story, God creates mankind uniquely in His image (Gen. 1:27 adds “male and female He created them”) and then brings them together so that they become “one flesh.” Before the entry of sin, the serpent, or “knowledge of good and evil,” we are given this view of marriage, the physical union of man and woman, as a foundational expression of God’s intentions for His creation. Furthermore, on numerous occasions in the history of Israel God speaks of His relationship with His people using bridal imagery.

Moving forward to the great turning point in the history of redemption, the gospel of John introduces Jesus with a miracle at a wedding in Cana (John 2). At this festive event he seems to anticipate another great future event, declaring: “my time has not yet come” (John 2:4). His forerunner, John the Baptizer, describes himself as the “friend of the bridegroom” (John 3:39), and Jesus likens his followers to those who enjoy the presence of the Bridegroom (Matthew 9:15). Moving finally to the end of our story, John’s vision in Revelation concludes climactically with the presentation of “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9), and a proclamation that “the marriage of the Lamb has come” (Rev. 19:7).

Paul gives us the key to understanding this imagery when he refers us back to the beginning of the story: “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife…this is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:31-32). The centrality of bridal imagery at crucial intervals in both the history of Israel and of the New Testament Church elevates the act of marriage to a place of primary importance. Consequently, human sexuality is distinguished from animal sexuality by its parallels to the eternal purpose of God in Christ. God’s image expressed through mankind as male and female, particularly within the husband-wife relationship, demonstrates the essence of God’s relationship to his people and therefore remains normative for New Covenant believers today. Same-sex intercourse among the followers of Jesus undercuts the most illuminating physical expression of Christ’s relationship to the Church that God has made. Our disapproval of homosexual behavior is not some arbitrarily preserved relic of ancient Hebraic superstition. This standard is rooted in the design of God for all ages and all peoples.

What’s a Gay Christian to Do?

It seems to me that this response would be incomplete without some explanation of what I think a believer attracted to his or her own sex should do with these passions. At the risk of overstepping my own place in the life of another believer, I will offer this word: Like any other condition into which God has placed a number of other believers, you may use this situation in which you find yourself as an opportunity to experience the all-sufficiency of Christ in your life. What is a sister whom God has blessed with singlehood to do with the natural inclinations of her sexuality? If God has called her to her status then she will not be able to act on the passions that she feels either. It would do her little good to demand from God, “Why did you make me this way?! How could you make me attracted to men and not give me the satisfaction of enjoying that attraction?!" At bottom, she will do just as her married counterparts will do with their natural strengths, weaknesses, and circumstances—she will receive them from God as a means of discovering that Christ will be the I AM in her life. In this sense she is no different from her brothers and sisters in Christ, homosexual or heterosexual, because all are under the same discipline of the Spirit in the daily outworking of their natural inclinations.

Do you consider it unfair that some are blessed with a marriage partner while you are not? Do you see that in this sense you are in the same boat as the heterosexual brother or sister who “has never met the right person?” Would you conclude that because the right person hasn’t (and may never) come along they should nevertheless feel free to act on their natural desires? Or would you contend that this person has been cursed by God with an insurmountable problem? Paul argues that singlehood is preferable to marriage because of the freedom from practical entanglements that comes with that territory. At any rate, he explains that each condition should be viewed as a unique blessing for its own reasons (1 Cor.7:7; see also Mt.19:12).

This to me is the highest way of viewing these things. Marriage is not the calling of every human being. Singleness brings its own unique opportunity for dependence on Christ. And sexuality for humans must never be defined in terms of sheer biological functionality, but rather viewed in light of the expression of God’s eternal purpose in preparing a “helpmeet” for His Son. This is the true meaning of sex.