L. William
Countryman, professor of New Testament at The Church Divinity School of
the Pacific (an Episcopal seminary of the Graduate Theological Union in
Berkeley, Calif.) has written a highly tendentious review of my book
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2001). Countryman’s 452-word review appeared in Anglican
Theological Review 85:1 (Winter 2003): 196-97. Shortly thereafter the
same review appeared on the web at
http://www.clgs.org/5/5_9_1.html.
The
following response to Bill Countryman’s review will deal with the five
charges raised in his review:
1.
The charge of “maximalist” arguments as regards (a) the
interpretation of the Sodom narrative and (b) the so-called
“silence of Jesus” on homosexual practice.
2.
The charge of imposing natural law theory on Jesus and Paul.
3.
The charge of careless exegesis in the interpretation of Jude 7.
4.
The charge of careless arguments in assessing the impact of
culture on the incidence of homosexuality.
5.
The root problem of Countryman’s review and of his scholarship on
sexual ethics generally.
We will
begin with some important background information and brief mention of a
telling omission in Countryman’s review.
I. Background
Information
On Sept.
24, 2002, I had the opportunity of dialoguing/debating with Bill
Countryman on the issue of the Bible and homosexuality, in Orlando,
Florida. Bishop John Howe and the Episcopal diocese of central Florida
sponsored the event. It was here that I first learned—not from
Countryman—that Countryman was writing a review of my book for Anglican
Theological Review.
It would be
an understatement to say that I was not optimistic that the review would
be fair.
First,
Countryman had announced at the start of the discussion in Orlando that he
was a “gay man” (divorced from his wife). It seemed to me that he was too
personally invested in justifying his homosexual identity to deal fairly
with the biblical witness on same-sex intercourse.
Second,
even for a prohomosex advocate, his positions on sexual ethics were
extreme. He had written the following in his book Dirt, Greed, and Sex:
Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today
(Fortress Press, 1988):
- Paul regarded same-sex
intercourse only as an “unpleasingly dirty aspect of Gentile culture”
but not as sinful (pp. 104-23). I know of no reputable biblical scholar
who has followed Countryman’s interpretation—not even on the prohomosex
side (not, for example, Bernadette Brooten, Martti Nissinen, or William
Schoedel).
- “The gospel allows no
rule against the following, in and of themselves: . . . bestiality,
polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” As regards such matters we
are not free to “impose our codes on others” (pp. 243-45).
- With respect to
incest, Countryman conveniently avoids the subject of incest between
adults. Although he seems finally to draw a line against adult-child
incest, Countryman is the only biblical scholar that I know who argues
that society’s “taboo” against adult-child incest is too high (pp.
257-58). Nearly everyone views strong societal revulsion for adult-child
incest as a good thing, namely, as an effective deterrent against
would-be perpetrators. Furthermore, the reason that he gives for
adult-child incest being problematic—it preempts the process of sexual
maturation—does not explain why incest per se is wrong. It treats
only the facet of age, not the facet of blood relatedness.
- Perhaps at times
prostitution “may serve to meet legitimate needs in the absence of
genuine alternatives” (p. 264).
In response to a question about how the Church should respond to
nonmonogamous homosexual relationships, Countryman has said: “I would be
distressed if the drive toward blessing gay unions merely applied
Reformation understandings of heterosexual unions to gay unions.”
I could
think of few, if any, other persons whose views on sexual ethics would be
more opposite to my own.
Third, in
my book I had strongly critiqued Countryman’s isolated view that Paul
regarded same-sex intercourse as “dirty” but not sinful (Bible and
Homosexual Practice, 273-77). In fact, I think that it is correct to
say that, of all the prohomosex positions that I refute in my book,
Countryman’s was the easiest to refute. Most likely he would be out for
blood.
Finally, my
interaction with Countryman at the Orlando event indicated to me a certain
unfortunate shallowness in Countryman’s response to evidence. When
presented with a mountain of evidence against his position he would simply
say “That’s not true,” or words to that effect, and move on without
supplying any arguments to the contrary. To me Countryman exhibited a
prior commitment to dismiss Scripture’s credibility on the matter of
same-sex intercourse, irrespective of the evidence.
While I was
not hopeful that Countryman would give a fair review, I thought that, at
the very least, he would have to discard his criticisms of my work that I
had already refuted at the Orlando event and for which he had no response.
Sadly, he did not do even this. He makes the same unsubstantiated charges
as if he had never heard my rebuttal at Orlando, apparently banking on the
fact that his readers have not heard that rebuttal. So it is necessary to
make that rebuttal available to readers here (and then some). Then readers
can decide for themselves whether Countryman has given my book a fair
review.
With one or
two minor exceptions, the entire review is negative. The two minor
exceptions are as follows. First, Countryman states in the first sentence,
somewhat neutrally, that I offer “a detailed argument, framed in terms of
critical biblical scholarship.” Second, in the second-to-last sentence, he
notes my “breadth of reading” as the book’s “principal value,” though he
follows this up with a criticism regarding the lack of a bibliography.
Since the book contains indices for modern authors and ancient sources,
perhaps Countryman has in mind by “bibliography” a subject index.
Regardless, I had wanted to include a subject index and a bibliography but
could not because Abingdon Press had informed me that if, I added these, I
would have to subtract an equivalent amount of pages of text from the
book.
II.
An Implied Countryman Concession?
The overall
impression left by Countryman’s review is that he was desperate to say as
many bad things about the book as he could possibly think of. In view of
that, it is telling that Countryman makes no attempt to overturn my
critique of Countryman’s own thesis; namely, that Paul viewed same-sex
intercourse as dirty but not sinful. Apparently, Countryman knows that
this thesis cannot be sustained.
III.
A “Maximalist Argument”?
In his
first paragraph, Countryman claims that my book develops a “maximalist
argument” against homosexual behavior. He had made the same claim at the
Orlando event. The purpose of this claim is to get people to think that
the Bible’s witness to same-sex intercourse is full of ambiguities; Gagnon
takes every ambiguity and imposes a definite antihomosex spin. Countryman
cites two, and only two, examples.
(a)
Sodom.
According
to Countryman, I seek “to reclaim the Sodom story for [my] purpose after
most scholars on all sides of the question have set it aside”—this from a
person who stands alone in his untenable belief that Paul did not view
same-sex intercourse as sin. Most scholars have set aside the Sodom
narrative (even Richard Hays). But I contend against such scholars that
they should not do so. In fact, one of the main messages of the book is
that scholars have underestimated the strength and interconnectedness of
the biblical witness. Countryman would like readers to think that my
interpretation of the Sodom story is improbable. An interesting aside is
that I devoted 15-20 minutes of my presentation in Orlando to this
interpretation. At no time did Countryman attempt to rebut this with
counterarguments—an odd state of affairs had the case for an antihomosex
reading been as improbable as Countryman infers.
As it is,
the case for an antihomosex reading of the Yahwist’s Sodom narrative is
overwhelming. It is a “kitchen sink” story of Canaanite depravity: not
just about rape, but about gang rape as severe inhospitality to travelers
seeking temporary lodging; and not just about this but about treating
males not as males but as though they were females with an orifice for
male penetration. That male-male intercourse per se is a significant
compounding factor in the story is evident from many considerations:
- The Yahwist’s story of
the creation of woman in Genesis 2:18-24 and its clear portrayal of
woman as the one and only sexual “counterpart” for man.
- The Yahwist’s story of
Ham’s incestuous, same-sex rape of Noah in Genesis 9:20-27, with its
ideological links to the laws against (non-coercive) incest and
male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18.
- The probable
antihomosex interpretations of the Sodom story in Ezekiel 16:49-50
(Ezekiel interprets the Sodom narrative through the lens of Holiness
Code or something very much like it) and in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:7, 10,
to say nothing of a number of antihomosex interpretations in early
Judaism.
- The parallel story of
the Levite at Gibeah in Judges 19:22-25, told by a narrator (the
“Deuteronomistic Historian”) who elsewhere abhors the receptive
homoerotic associations of the qedeshim (literally, “holy ones,”
but referring to “homosexual cult prostitutes”).
- The absolute
prohibitions against male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
- The ancient Near
Eastern context, which often disparages males who willingly play
the role of females in sexual intercourse.
- The implications of
the rest of the Old Testament canon, which in any material dealing with
sexual relations always presumes the sole and exclusive legitimacy of
heterosexual unions.
For the
documentation behind the claims made above, I refer readers to The
Bible and Homosexual Practice, 43-157 (esp. 63-110) and
Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, 56-68. In short, one needs to
read the Sodom narrative contextually—that is, in the light of an
array of literary concentric circles that fan out from the text itself:
(1) other material in the Tetrateuch by the same author, the “Yahwist”;
(2) other material in early Israelite literature; (3) other material in
the ancient Near East; and (4) the subsequent history of interpretation.
When one does that, there is little doubt that the story rejects all
male-male intercourse on the grounds of structural discomplementarity. For
the narrator the difference between consent and coercion is the difference
between a man who willingly dishonors himself by serving as the sexual
counterpart to another male and a man who is forcibly dishonored by
others.
(b) Jesus
According to Countryman
the other example where I create a “maximal argument” involves Jesus’ view
of same-sex intercourse. “He even argues at length that Jesus’
silence on the subject confirms his position” (my emphasis). I spent 20
minutes laying out this position at the Orlando event. Once more
Countryman did not bring forward a single argument that might have
rebutted my position; nor does he do so in the review.
As with the Sodom
narrative the case for claiming that Jesus was opposed to every form of
same-sex intercourse is overwhelming. One need only consider:
- The univocal and
intensely strong rejection of same-sex intercourse in both the Hebrew
Bible and early Judaism.
- The univocal and
intensely strong rejection of same-sex intercourse by Jesus’ earliest
and closest followers—including Paul, who was a far more vigorous critic
of the law of Moses than Jesus.
- Jesus’ view of the law
of Moses generally, in which Jesus prioritized “the weightier matters,”
amended the law to close loopholes, and intensified many of its demands,
without abrogating any portion thereof (Matt 5:21-48; 23:23).
- In particular, Jesus’
intensification of other areas of sexual ethics, including divorce and
remarriage (Mark 10:2-12; Matt 5:32 and Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11) and
adultery of the heart (Matt 5:27-28), and the application of the saying
about cutting off offending body parts to sexual behavior (Matt
5:29-30).
- Jesus’ back-to-back
appeal to Genesis 1:27 (“male and female he made them”)
and 2:24 (“for this reason a man . . . will be joined to his
woman/wife and the two will become one flesh”) as normative and
prescriptive texts for defining human sexual relationships (Mark
10:6-9). While focusing on the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus
clearly presupposed other-sex pairing as the essential prerequisite,
believing that the Creator God had ordained marriage as a lifelong union
of one man and one woman into a sexual whole.
- Other sayings of Jesus
that implicitly forbid same-sex intercourse: on “sexual immoralities” (porneiai;
Mark 7:21-23); on the Decalogue command against adultery (Mark
10:17-22); on Sodom (Luke 10:10-12 and Matt 10:14-15); and on not giving
what is holy to the “dogs” (Matt 7:6).
For further documentation of these points I refer readers to The Bible
and Homosexual Practice, ch. 3 (pp. 185-228) and Homosexuality and
the Bible: Two Views, 68-74. When referring to the “silence” of Jesus
regarding same-sex intercourse, “silence” has to be put in quotes because,
in so many ways, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse—any more
than he was silent about incest or bestiality. Countryman’s feigned shock
over the contention that Jesus was opposed to same-sex intercourse is the
equivalent of saying: “Gagnon even argues at length that Jesus’ silence on
the subject of man-mother sex confirms Jesus’ opposition to such
behavior.” Of course, there is overwhelming inferential evidence that
Jesus agreed with the strong and unequivocal consensus against man-mother
sex in the Jewish Scriptures and throughout early Judaism. The absurdity
would be to argue otherwise—that Jesus’ so-called “silence” indicates some
equivocation about, or even affirmation for, man-mother sex, or that
Jesus’ view on such matters is beyond knowing.
When Paul received an oral report regarding an adult consensual
relationship between a Christian man and his stepmother at Corinth, it was
not necessary for Paul to pace the streets of Ephesus trying to figure
out, in the absence of an explicit saying from Jesus, what Jesus’
position on man-mother incest might have been. The answer to “WWJD?” (What
Would Jesus Do?) or “WIJD?” (What Is Jesus Doing?) was a no-brainer. Paul
urged the Corinthian community “in the name of the Lord Jesus, when
you and my spirit are gathered together with the power of our Lord
Jesus,” to disfellowship temporarily the offender in the hopes of
rescuing him for the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 5:4-5; cf. 6:9-10). The
same certainly would have applied to serial, unrepentant participants in
same-sex intercourse; note the references to “soft men” (viz., effeminate
men who play the sexual role of females) and “men who lie with males” in
the vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus did not loosen the restrictions
on sexual freedom; he tightened them, albeit in the context of an
aggressive outreach to the lost. Paul, and the early church generally,
understood this quite well. The question is why Countryman does not.
As regards the Sodom story and Jesus’ views on same-sex intercourse, I
have not adopted a “maximalist argument,” as opposed to Countryman’s
“minimalist argument.” When a strong preponderance of historical and
literary evidence pushes in a single direction, terms such as “maximalist”
and “minimalist” are out of place. Countryman isn’t adopting a more
cautious approach to an allegedly ambiguous trail of evidence. He is
ignoring altogether the one and only trail that historical and literary
evidence gives us.
IV. An Imposed Natural
Law Theory?
Countryman alleges that I
rely
on a
theology of creation that appears to have originated in the last
century as a kind of Protestant counterpart to Roman Catholic natural
law theory. Genesis 1 and 2 are read as establishing a permanent and
exclusive order of heterosexual monogamy. Jesus and Paul are perceived
not simply as making use of Genesis for their own purposes, but as
anticipating this later systematic understanding of the passage in all
its implications. Gagnon also finds this created order manifest in
“nature” through the “obvious complementarity” of male and female
genitalia.
It is clear what
rhetorical trick Countryman is trying to play. Without any substantiation
of his claims, he tries to raise the suspicion in readers’ minds that I
have committed an anachronism, imposing some elaborate modern apparatus
regarding creation and nature on Scripture. However, nothing particularly
elaborate is required and no anachronism is committed. There are some very
basic principles here that the ancients grasped long before Roman Catholic
natural law theory. Indeed, the latter was constructed on the foundation
of significant antecedents in the ancient world. I am surprised that
Countryman seems not to know this.
Before tackling the
question of a heterosexual prerequisite, I need to address briefly
Countryman’s charge that I see Genesis 1 and 2 “as establishing a
permanent and exclusive order of heterosexual monogamy”
(emphasis mine). I confess to agreeing with Jesus: The logic of Genesis 1
and 2 does imply that sexual unions are to be lifelong and
monogamous (Mark 10:2-12), to say nothing of male-female. In general,
this logic worked itself out in ancient Israel for women; but
human—chiefly male—hardness of heart led to some time-limited concessions
in the Mosaic law as regards divorce and polygamy. Would Countryman, out
of concern for the extreme rarity of lifelong monogamy among homosexuals,
care to argue that Jesus got it wrong?
Now on to
the matter of a heterosexual or “other-sexual” prerequisite.
- Genesis 2:18-24
portrays an originally binary human split down the side into two
sexually differentiated counterparts. Clearly, marriage is imaged as a
reconstitution, into “one flesh,” of the two constituent parts, male and
female, that were the products of the splitting. One’s sexual “other
half” can only be a person of the other sex. Men and women are
complementary sexual beings whose (re-)merger brings about sexual
wholeness in the sphere of erotic interaction. This is so obvious a
point that it is ludicrous to deny that the Yahwist had no clue about
the negative import of this story for same-sex intercourse—and all the
more ludicrous in view of the Ham and Sodom narratives in the same
literary corpus. Does Countryman really believe that the absence of the
missing sexual complement in same-sex erotic unions would have been
inconsequential to the Yahwist? The one prerequisite most stressed in
the narrative is the other-sex dimension. Aristophanes’ myth of human
origins in Plato’s Symposium (191e-193c) tells of the splitting
of primal male-female, male-male, and female-female humans and its
effect on same-sex and opposite-sex pairing. Obviously, then, the
ancients were capable of conceiving of the implications of the kind of
account given in Genesis 2:18-24.
- Would Countryman have
us believe that the Priestly Writers in Genesis 1—in a chapter
that gives special attention to issues of structural congruity or
“kinds”—failed to notice that there is anything structurally essential
to an other-sexual union?
- Countryman belittles
the notion that ancient Israel could have both developed an
other-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions and justified that
prerequisite with structural considerations based in creation and
nature. And yet the Old Testament shows a strong interconnected witness
against male-male intercourse and provides absolutely no support
anywhere for homoerotic relationships. There is no attempt anywhere in
Scripture to distinguish between good and bad types of homoerotic
relationships for the simple reason that all such relationships were
unacceptable to the authors of Scripture. All the extant evidence
indicates that there was indeed a heterosexual prerequisite operative in
ancient Israel (to the extent that Israel remained faithful to the
values of the tribal confederacy of old) and this prerequisite
persisted, of course, in early Judaism, and early Christianity. So are
we to believe that ancient Israel maintained, over and against more
porous attitudes in the ancient Near East generally, an unbending stance
against male-male intercourse without the aid of any rationale regarding
the way males and females are made? The creation stories in Genesis 1-2
transparently provide foundational legitimation for this prerequisite.
As regards nature, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 emphatically reject any
attempt to supplant a woman in sexual intercourse with another male on
the grounds that it compromises a man’s gender integrity (“…as though
lying with a woman”). The Deuteronomic prohibition of cross-dressing and
special disgust for males serving as the receptive partners in
intercourse with other males convey the same lines of structural
demarcation for the sexes. The logic of sexual intercourse, the way men
and women are constructed by God, requires a complementary sexual other.
Although a specific word for “nature” is not employed in the Hebrew
Bible, there is a “natural theology” of sorts already present in the
biblical text (cf. James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology
[Clarendon, 1993]).
- Because of conceptual
affinities already present in the Hebrew Bible early Judaism had
little problem adapting Greek terminology of natural law to their own
distinctive male-female prerequisite. Countryman needs to review
carefully the material in ch. 2 of my book (“Same-Sex Intercourse as
‘Contrary to Nature’ in Early Judaism,” 159-83). So far as extant
evidence indicates, it was the universal view of early Judaism that God
had structured men and women in ways that made all same-sex intercourse
an incongruous and obscene affair.
- As regards Paul’s
view of creation, the fact that the two key creation texts, Genesis
1:26-28 and Genesis 2:18-24, clearly lie in the background of Paul’s
indictments of same-sex intercourse in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians
6:9, respectively (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 289-97),
leads to an inescapable conclusion: Paul understood the creation stories
as establishing an other-sex prerequisite. It is also no mere
coincidence that Jesus lifted up the same two creation texts, Gen 1:27
and Gen 2:24, to define normative and prescriptive human sexual behavior
(see above), texts that stress a male-female, man-woman prerequisite.
Given the clear evidence laid out in my book, it is intellectually
perverse for any reviewer to allege that it was beyond the capacity of
Jesus, Paul, and first-century Jews generally to view the creation
stories as having implicit proscriptive force against same-sex
intercourse.
- It is also evident
from Romans 1:24-27 that Paul believed that there was a
natural, structural complementarity to male-female unions and a
corresponding unnatural, structural discomplementarity to female-female
and male-male unions. The whole point of the discussion in 1:18-32 is to
stress that humans have deliberately suppressed the clear evidence of
God and God’s will for human behavior available in creation/nature.
Idolatry and same-sex intercourse are highlighted because Paul
considered both to be prime instances where humans, especially Gentiles,
consciously and absurdly deny obvious, often visible, and important
structures of material creation.
- There is nothing
anachronistic about asserting that Paul saw the complementary character
of male and female sex organs as a significant clue to God’s will for
human sexual relationships. We see this kind of thinking in Philo,
Josephus, and some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians. For
example, the physician Soranus (or his translator Caelius Aurelianus)
described the desire on the part of “soft men” to be penetrated (cf. 1
Cor 6:9) as “not from nature,” insofar as it “subjugated to obscene uses
parts not so intended” and disregarded “the places of our body which
divine providence destined for definite functions”(Chronic Diseases
4.9.131). A similar point is made by Jewish philosopher Philo of
Alexandria in describing the actions of the men of Sodom: “Although they
were men, (they began) mounting males, the doers (i.e., the active
partners) not standing in awe of the nature held in common with those
who had it done to them (i.e., the passive partners)” (Abraham
135). Craig A. Williams also acknowledges this point: “some kind of
argument from ‘design’ seems to lurk in the background of Cicero’s,
Seneca’s, and Musonius’ claims: the penis is ‘designed’ to penetrate the
vagina, the vagina is ‘designed’ to be penetrated by the penis” (Roman
Homosexuality [Oxford University Press, 1999], 242). So does William
R. Schoedel: Ancient writers “who appeal to nature against same-sex eros
find it convenient to concentrate on the more or less obvious uses of
the orifices of the body to suggest the proper channel for the more
diffused sexual impulses of the body” (“Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the
Greco-Roman Tradition,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain
Sense” of Scripture [ed. D. Balch; Eerdmans, 2000], 46). In view of
the evidence, when Countryman claims that I have imposed an argument
from design on Paul and his contemporaries, it is self-evident that
Countryman is either unaware of the data—in which case he has not read
my book carefully and should not be doing a review—or, worse still, he
has deliberately chosen to suppress that data for his audience.
- I would add,
parenthetically, that Countryman knows, or ought to know, that I do not
limit the argument for male-female complementarity to the
visible, anatomical dimension. The complementarity of the sex organs is
a very important dimension of the whole, as is evident from the health
hazards and repulsive quality of men who eroticize the anal cavity of
other men for penetration and even oral activity. Anatomy is also a clue
not easily falsified, unlike the malleable and non-congenital character
of human desires. Christians are not anti-body gnostic dualists. But the
matter is about more than sex organs. It is about essential maleness and
femaleness. It is as if Paul says in Rom 1:24-27: Start with the obvious
anatomical “fittedness” of human anatomy. When done with that, consider
procreative design as a clue. Then move on to a broad range of
interpersonal differences that define maleness and femaleness. The image
behind this is the splitting and holistic remerging of the two sexual
halves in Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:21-24.
In sum, if
there is any anachronism in the discussion of creation, nature, and
homosexual practice, it is in Countryman’s claim that the creation texts
and embodied sexuality were as inconclusive in establishing an
other-sexual prerequisite for the authors of Scripture as they are for
Countryman.
V. On
Careless Exegesis and Jude 7
Countryman writes:
The author
is not always careful with exegetical details. In Jude 7, for example,
he wants the ‘harlotry’ of the men of Sodom to be homosexuality rather
than sex with angels, a reading that ignores Jude’s statement that
they acted ‘in the same way’ as the Watchers of Genesis 6 (87-88).
Indeed, he seems to have misplaced the phrase in question into Jude 8
in place of the weaker comparative language there.
The opening line is an
interesting negative formulation: “The author is not always careful with
exegetical details.” Countryman made the same comment and gave the same
example from Jude 7 at the Orlando event. After I had shown the flaw in
Countryman’s own exegesis of Jude 7—which, incidentally, Countryman did
not attempt to rebut—I asked him whether he had any other examples of
careless exegesis on my part. He declined to offer any. “Not always
careful” suggests other instances of carelessness, yet from a book with
about 470 pages of text Countryman was not prepared to cite another
example in my presence (or in the review). And the one instance of
carelessness that Countryman alleges comes from a text that is not at the
center of the debate, to which I devoted only one paragraph in my book.
Even so, Countryman has
misunderstood both Jude 7 and what I say about Jude 7. Here is Jude 5-8
(my translation):
5Now
I want to remind you, although you know all things, that the Lord, having
once saved a people from the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed
those who did not believe (or: were unfaithful). 6Angels,
too—those who had not kept their own sphere of influence (or: position of
authority, rule, station, domain; archen) but who had left behind
(or: deserted, abandoned) their proper dwelling—he (i.e., the Lord) has
kept until (or: for) the judgment of the great Day in eternal chains under
(or: in) darkness (i.e., of the nether regions), 7(just) as
Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, which, in a manner
similar to these (or: in the same way as they; ton homoion tropon
toutois), committed sexual immorality (ekporneusasai)
and went after ‘other flesh’ (or: strange/alien flesh, another kind of
flesh, flesh other than their own, i.e., angelic flesh; kai apelthousai
opiso sarkos heteras), are set before us (or: are exhibited) as an
example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 8Yet,
similarly (or: in the same way, likewise; homoios), these
dreamers also defile (the/their?) flesh, reject authority (lordship,
dominion; or: bearers of authority, dominions), and slander glorious
beings (i.e., angels).
Countryman contends that
I ignore the comparison that Jude makes with the angelic “Watchers” in v.
6. This is false, as is Countryman’s assumption that readers must choose
between two evils, male-male intercourse and sex with angels. As I note:
The two actions (committing sexual
immorality and pursuing angels) are to be treated as related, but
distinct, actions. . . . In their lust for sexual intercourse with other
men, the men of Sodom inadvertently put themselves in the sacrilegious
position of pursuing sexual intercourse with angels. “In like manner” the
false believers, against whom Jude wages combat, had through their lust
for immoral sexual behavior come into conflict with the angelic guardians
of this world order. (pp. 87-88)
Nor do I “misplace” the
phrase “in a manner similar to these” in v. 7 into v. 8, as Countryman
falsely alleges. The Greek adverb introducing v. 8 (homoios), which
I translate “similarly” above, can also be rendered, as in my book, “in
like manner.” Jude sees the actions of the Sodomites as sharing
similarities with the actions of the rebellious angels, known as “the
Watchers,” recorded in Genesis 6:1-4 and in much Second Temple Jewish
literature (note the expression “in a manner similar to these [angels]” in
v. 7). Jude also sees similarities between these two actions and the
actions of the false believers criticized in Jude’s letters (note the word
“similarly” introducing v. 8).
Apparently
Countryman thinks that the Greek text of Jude 7 requires that the
actions of the Sodomites match exactly the actions of the rebellious
angels who copulated with human women. It does not. (Countryman actually
made such a claim in the debate at Orlando and falsely accused me of bad
translation.) The two places where Countryman might claim an exact
correspondence do not substantiate his claim. (a) The Greek phrase ton
homoion tropon toutois in v. 7 can be rendered either “in a
manner similar to these” or “in the same way as these.” The actions
of the Sodomites in “committing sexual immorality and going after other
flesh” bear similarities to the actions of the rebellious angels in
copulating with humans. However, the extent of the similarity and the
degree of dissimilarity are not specified. (b) By the same token, in
isolation the phrase “committed sexual immorality and went after other
flesh” could be construed as a hendiadys (literally, “one by two”:
coordinating two words with “and” to express a single idea, with one of
the words being in a dependent relation to the other). Countryman seems to
interpret the expression along these lines, as meaning “(the Sodomites)
committed sexual immorality by going after other flesh.” However,
it is just as possible that the first word in a hendiadys expresses the
subordinate idea (see examples in Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament, section 442 [16], p. 228a). In that
event the phrase could mean something like “by (or: in the act of)
committing sexual immorality (the Sodomites) went after other flesh.”
It is also possible that the coordination of the two participles in this
instance is not a hendiadys.
Not only is it not
required by the wording of the Greek text that ekporneusasai
(“having committed sexual immorality”)
refer exclusively to copulation with angels, there are also at
least six indications that ekporneusasai alludes, at least in part,
to attempted male-male intercourse.
- Both the story of
Sodom in Genesis 19:4-11 and the subsequent history of interpretation
portray the men of Sodom as being unaware of the angelic identity of the
visitors (e.g., Testament of Asher 7:1 states clearly that
the men of Sodom “did not recognize the Lord’s angels”). In the story
line, two angels are sent by Yahweh to Sodom, in human disguise, to
investigate whether the outcry against the cities’ sin was accurate (Gen
18:16-22, 33; 19:1). The Sodomites, unaware of the true identity of the
visitors, treated them as they would have treated any foreigners. It is
precisely at this point that the parallel with the actions of the
Watchers breaks down. Both Genesis 6:1-4 and the subsequent history of
interpretation presuppose intent on the part of rebellious angels to
subvert the divide between divine and human.
- Jude 7 emphasizes
moral culpability when it presents Sodom and Gomorrah “as an example
by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” for their culpability in
heinous immorality—a culpability that would be inexplicable if
“committed sexual immorality” referred exclusively to attempted sex with
angels.
- Hebrews 13:2
exhorts believers: “Do not neglect the love of strangers, for because of
this some, without knowing it, have received as strangers angels.” This
text undoubtedly echoes the Sodom tradition, in inverted fashion. In
sinning against visitors one may be sinning against angels, as did the
men of Sodom. The moral is: So do not sin against strangers. The
rationale of Jude 7 is similar. The men of Sodom “committed sexual
immorality and [in the process of doing so] went after ‘other flesh.’“
Rather than honoring their guests, the men of Sodom dishonored them,
both by attempting coercive sex and by treating their guests’ embodied
masculinity as though it were embodied femininity (cf. Josephus,
Jewish Antiquities 1.200-201, which combines the themes of
inhospitality and dishonoring passions for same-sex intercourse). As it
happened, their outrageous act of sexual immorality was made more
grievous by the fact that the visitors turned out to be angels.
- After recounting the
stories of the Watchers (v. 6) and of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), the
author makes an application to false believers in his own day:
“Yet, similarly, these dreamers also defile (the/their?) flesh,
reject authority, and slander glorious beings” (v. 8). As with the
adverbial phrase “in a manner similar to these” (ton homoion tropon
toutois) in v. 7, the adverb “similarly” (homoios) suggests a
certain degree of correspondence but nothing like precise identity. In
the view of Jude, the false believers’ lust for immoral sexual behavior
had put them on a collision course with the angelic guardians of this
world order, which subsequently led them to revile angels, not to lust
after them. In a similar way, the immoral sexual desire of the
Sodomites, in this case for male-male intercourse, led them to pursue
sex with angels unknowingly.
- This interpretation of
Jude 7 that I espouse in my book and here fits best with “Second
Peter’s” own read of Jude 7-8, referring as it does to the
“licentiousness (aselgeia) of conduct of the lawless” at Sodom
(2:7) and to those who follow in their footsteps as “going after (i.e.,
following, indulging) (the/their) flesh in (or: with its) defiling
desire (or: lust)” (2:10). The “defiling desire” of the Sodomites can
only refer to their desire to “know” or have sex with Lot’s male
visitors, whom they did not recognize as angels.
- According to the
Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4, the descendants of Naphtali
shall not be like the Gentiles who changed “the order” of nature by
devoting themselves to idols; instead, they shall recognize in the
heavens, earth, and sea “the Lord who made all these things, in order
that [they] may not become like Sodom, which exchanged the order of its
nature.” Strikingly similar motifs to Rom 1:19-27 make it likely
that either Paul formulated Rom 1:19-27 with this tradition in mind or
T. Naph. 3:3-4 is another Christian interpolation into the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. I think the former is more
likely, but either supposition increases the probability that the clause
about Sodom exchanging “the order of its nature” refers to same-sex
intercourse. This is important because, like Jude 7, the actions of the
men of Sodom are compared with the actions of the angels in Gen 6:4, who
“similarly (homoios, cf. Jude 8) exchanged the order of their
nature” by copulating with human females (3:5). Again, the “similarly”
suggests similarity but not identity. How far does the similarity go?
Both the Sodomites and the angels acted against “the order of their
nature,” engaging in, or attempting to engage in, structurally
incompatible forms of sexual intercourse. Both acts involved, or
threatened to involve, human-angel copulation. Yet the very concept of
“exchange” implies volition, an intentional action—as with the exchange
of nature’s order for idols—and that is precisely the point where the
analogy between the Sodomites and the angels breaks down. This
volitional element comes across clearly in Rom 1:18-27, which correlates
the concept of exchange with a conscious suppression of truth in
creation/nature. Consequently, one should probably understand T. Naph.
3:3-5 in a way that confirms our interpretation of Jude 6-8: the
Sodomites deliberately exchanged the order of their nature as males by
attempting intercourse with other males. In the process they got more
than they bargained for, unknowingly attempting sex with “other flesh,”
angels. The primary exchange is opposite-sex intercourse for same-sex
intercourse but the undertone is unintended sex with angels. The latter
component solidifies a connection with the rebellious angels—a
connection already intimated by the fact that both, in different ways,
consciously exchanged the natural for the unnatural. Cf. also the
observations of J. A. Loader on T. Naph. 3:4: “In this context
the changing of its order by Sodom can only refer to the homosexual
aspirations of the Sodomites mentioned in Genesis 19:5” (A Tale of
Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and
Early Christian Traditions [CBET 1; Kampen: Kok, 1990], 82; cited in
The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 88 n. 121).
In
conclusion, if Jude 7 is the best example that Countryman can cite of
careless exegesis on my part, then he is in trouble. I trust that it will
be clear to most readers that all that Countryman has done is shown his
own capacity for both careless exegesis and careless remarks about the
exegesis of others.
VI. On
Careless Arguments and the Effect of Societal Approval
Countryman charges:
[Gagnon]
can also be careless in constructing arguments. After citing David
Greenberg, for example, to the effect that societies lacking
proscriptions against homosexual behavior may show little homosexual
activity, he then concludes by claiming that any approval of
homosexuality will necessarily increase its incidence (414-416).
This is another example
where the carelessness lies entirely with Countryman. The fact that
homosexual behavior is unknown, or virtually so, in some societies that
lack proscriptions against homosexual behavior in no way disproves the
assertion that cultural endorsement of homosexual behavior can
affect significantly the incidence of homosexuality or even that strong
cultural disapproval can reduce the incidence of homosexuality.
That Countryman does not understand this logical distinction is very
surprising.
Recent
studies, both American and British, indicate a significant upsurge in
homosexual self-identification over the past decade. Prohomosex apologists
like Countryman would like to explain this rise as due entirely to
homosexuals having greater freedom in accepting their allegedly
predetermined and rigid orientation. This is at best an inadequate
explanation. As I note in my book, there are many lines of evidence that
suggest that macro- and microcultural factors have a significant impact on
the incidence of homosexuality per se. For example:
- Significant
cross-cultural differences in the incidence and forms of
homosexuality have existed over the millennia and even within our own
time between the “first world” and “third world” (cf. David Greenberg,
The Construction of Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1988]).
Congenital influences do not explain such differences. Nor is it likely
that these differences can be attributed in all cases to forced ritual
conformity. For instance, in ancient Athens homoerotic practice
flourished despite the absence of mandatory homosex rituals. See my
book, pp. 413-16. Implicit in Countryman’s statement above is that I
have misunderstood Greenberg--though Countryman’s own comments suggest
that he knows Greenberg’s work only through my own. Here is what
Greenberg himself says (note the strongly pro-homosex cast to
Greenberg’s statements):
To some, the social-constructionist
position has seemed troublesome because of its political implications.
When heterosexual chauvinists have told homosexuals to change,
essentialist theories have provided a ready response: I can’t. When
parents have sought to bar homosexual teachers from the classroom lest
their children (horror of horrors!) become homosexual, essentialist
theories have provided a seemingly authoritative basis for denying the
possibility. The present study . . . cannot make concessions to such
opportunistic considerations. It should be pointed out, though, that
nothing in the social-constructivist position legitimates the denial of
rights. . . . Assertive gay liberationists have argued that it may be
strategically wiser to concede the possibility that a few students might
be influenced to become gay by having an openly gay teacher as a role
model, and to say, “So what?” (p. 492)
By chance in the past few days I came across in
www.religion-online.org a 1989 review of Greenberg’s book, written by
Don Browning, professor of religion and psychological studies at the
University of Chicago Divinity school, and originally published in
Christian Century (Oct. 11, 1989, pp. 911-16). It seems that Browning
came to the same conclusion that I did over a decade later in my own
independent reading of Greenberg: “Accepting Greenberg’s thesis might
suggest that the new tolerance of [mainline] churches, especially the move
toward the ordination of homosexuals, is one more way modern societies
help create, not just liberate, individuals with gay and lesbian
identities” (p. 916).
- Researchers for the
1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), mostly from the
University of Chicago, found large differences in the incidence of
homosexual self-identification in the United States correlating with
geographical (rural, suburban, urban) and educational variables.
They concluded: “An environment that provides increased opportunities
for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both
allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual
behavior.” Their study also confirmed that there are significant
differences in the way that men and women respond to cultural stimuli.
See my book, pp. 416-18.
- Studies have indicated
that the sexual identities of adolescents are less stable than
those of adults (which is also common sense). See, for example, G.
Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,”
Pediatrics 89:4 (Apr. 1992): 714-21. Here’s is the authors’
abstract:
This study was undertaken to explore
patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of
Minnesota junior and senior high school students. The sample
included 34,706 students (grades 7 through 12) from diverse
ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic strata. . . . Overall, 10.7% of
students were “unsure” of their sexual orientation; 88.2%
described themselves as predominantly heterosexual; and 1.1%
described themselves as bisexual or predominantly homosexual. .
. . Gender differences were minor; but responses to individual
sexual orientation items varied with age, religiosity,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Uncertainty about sexual orientation
diminished in successively older age groups, with corresponding
increases in heterosexual and homosexual affiliation. The
findings suggest an unfolding of sexual identity during
adolescence, influenced by sexual experience and demographic
factors. (emphasis added)
If
adolescents experiment in homosexual behavior, those whose sexual identity
is still somewhat in flux will probably experience a higher incidence of
homosexual proclivity than if they had never participated in such
behavior. We also know now that the brain rewires in accordance with
experiences in life; in short, nurture can become nature (cf. my book, pp.
398-99).
- We also know that
those who self-identify as homosexuals are several times more likely to
have experienced sex at an early age, nearly always with an older
male. It seems difficult to believe that these older males are so adept
(clairvoyant?) in picking out those youngsters who will one day
self-identify as homosexual. The most obvious interpretation is that it
is the early homosexual experience that increases the likelihood of
subsequent homosexual self-identification. See my book, 412-13.
- The work of Bell and
Weinberg indicates that even most exclusive homosexuals (category 6)
have experienced, at one time or another in life, some degree of
heterosexual arousal. This speaks to a degree of elasticity in sexual
desire, which could be elevated or decreased in one direction or the
other depending on macro- and microcultural influences. See my book,
418-20.
- Research has indicated
a strong correlation between early manifestations of gender
nonconformity and the development of homosexual attraction. Yet even
gender nonconformity does not lead in a straight line to homosexual
development. There may be a connection between gender nonconformity at
an early stage of life and congenital influences. But the link between
congenital influences and homosexual development is at least one step
further removed. Different family, peer, and societal influences, along
with incremental choices and responses to life’s unique experiences,
best explain why early gender nonconformity leads to homosexual
development for many but not for all. See my book, 408-12.
- A standard textbook on
psychiatry makes the following observation: “Genetic factors play some
role in the production of homosexual behavior, but . . . sexual
behavior is molded by many influences, including ‘acquired tastes’
(or learning) closely related to the culture in which the individual
develops. . . . It is possible . . . to picture a future in which
homosexual behavior will be so much in the cultural experience of every
individual that the genetic contribution will become undetectable” (Paul
R. McHugh and Phillip R. Slavney, The Perspectives of Psychiatry
[2d ed.; Johns Hopkins, 1998], 184-85; both authors are professors at
the John Hopkins University School of Medicine). Cited in my book, p.
402.
- The two best
identical twin studies to date suggest an insignificant correlation
between, on the one hand, genes and intrauterine hormonal influences,
and, on the other hand, homosexuality. One of the two, by prominent
Northwestern researcher J. Michael Bailey, is cited in my book (pp.
404-405). The other was published after my book went to press: Peter S.
Bearman (Columbia University) and Hannah Brückner (Yale University),
“Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,” American
Journal of Sociology 107:5 (2002): 1179-1205. They concluded that
“less gendered socialization” in childhood, not genetic or hormonal
influences, plays the dominant role in the development of same-sex
attraction.
The
convergence of multiple pieces of evidence puts the lie to Countryman’s
rigid essentialist assumption that no amount of cultural incentives and no
amount of individual experimentation that goes along with such incentives
could ever affect the incidence of homosexuality in the population. It was
obvious at the Orlando event that Countryman did not know the relevant
scientific data. Yet in the absence of such knowledge he showed no
reticence in making unsubstantiated generalizations and categorical
denials.
VII. The
Problem with Countryman’s Review
After his unsubstantiated
charge about my alleged carelessness in constructing arguments, Countryman
presumes to diagnose the reason for my “difficulty”:
Part of
the difficulty here is that Gagnon is writing something more like a
court brief than a work of sober theology. The rhetoric is more
interested in persuasion than in reflection and elucidation.
This criticism has to be
seen for what it truly is: an attempt on Countryman’s part to find excuses
for his inability to deal rigorously, logically, and fairly with the
evidence. If Countryman’s previous work on the Bible and homoerotic
practice, or his review of my book, is any indication of what he means by
“sober theology” and “reflection and elucidation,” then perhaps Countryman
could benefit from a bit more rigor in his analysis.
Unfortunately, Countryman’s work on sexual ethics is often more an
exercise in self-justification than a model of careful “elucidation” of
the biblical witness. His book Dirt, Greed, and Sex suffers from a
need to justify his own extremist brand of sexual ethics—apparently fueled
by a deep personal desire to secure religious legitimacy for his life
decisions and the sexual excesses that typify the homosexual community
generally. This need repeatedly leads him to distort and/or trivialize the
witness of Scripture on sexual ethics. Let me give three examples (many
more could be cited). (1) His argument that Paul did not regard same-sex
intercourse as sin is not a good example of “sober theology” or of
“reflection and elucidation.” It is, rather, a classic instance of reading
back into the text of Scripture what Countryman wants the text to say
rather than what it actually says. (2) Another case in point is his claim
that the Bible’s opposition to incest has in view only “the violation of
the patriarch’s status.” This ignores the fact that a number of incest
laws actually constrain patriarchal authority. Moreover, he seems
oblivious to the overarching reason for the proscription of incest in
Leviticus 18:6: “No one shall approach any flesh of one’s flesh to uncover
nakedness.” In other words, one should not have sex with someone who is
too much of a familial same—someone who is already one’s “flesh” prior to
and apart from any sexual intercourse with that person. (3) Although
Countryman states that the gospel allows no rules against polygamy, it is
clear that Jesus’ reason for opposing divorce/remarriage implicitly
forbids multiple sexual partners at one time. See my book, p. 203.
I do not
know of any scholar writing on the issue of homosexuality who is not
interested in persuading—including and especially the work of homosexual
biblical scholars such as Countryman, Bernadette Brooten, and Dale Martin.
The issue is whether the evidence is accurately represented. I make no
bones about the fact that the biblical witness against same-sex
intercourse is strong and the case against that witness is weak. I am not
going to hide these realities just to please Countryman and other
prohomosex apologists. I would not be doing him or anyone else a service
by distorting the evidence. Indeed, a little dose of reality is precisely
what Countryman needs. When his review is subjected to a rigorous
analysis—the kind of analysis that Countryman dislikes—every criticism
made by Countryman falls apart. Not a one has any merit. The historical
and literary evidence indicates strongly, against Countryman, that:
- The Sodom story
targets, in part, all male-male intercourse as abhorrent.
- The historical Jesus
strongly opposed homosexual practice.
- Jesus and Paul
perceived the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 as precluding all same-sex
intercourse.
- Paul, probably in
agreement with biblical authors generally and Jesus, believed that God
had designed males and females as complementary sexual beings and that
this complementarity was most evident in, but not limited to, the sex
organs.
- The reference in Jude
7 to Sodom’s commission of “sexual immorality” contains a significant
allusion to male-male intercourse.
Contrary to
what Countryman infers, there is also a substantial body of scientific
evidence that indicates that societal incentives for homosexual behavior
can have a significant impact, over time, on the incidence of
homosexuality.
When it
comes to claims of doing “careful” work, the proof is in the pudding.
Countryman’s review exhibits bad scholarship. Countryman is not a
“minimalist” as regards the Bible’s witness on same-sex intercourse;
rather, he is someone who suppresses evidence that is disagreeable to his
life choices.
Obviously
the aim of Countryman’s review was not to assess accurately the merits of
my book but rather to do damage control for his own vested ideological
interests. For him that meant doing a “hatchet job,” making every
paragraph of the review negative and conceding nothing positive about any
of my exegetical or hermeneutical work (except by oblique comments: “The
author is not always careful with exegetical details,” “He can
also be careless in constructing arguments”). It is acceptable to be
very critical of a book. In this case, though, Countryman’s comments are
not generated by strong argumentation but rather by a predetermined and
ideologically based vendetta against the book’s message.
Countryman more or less states his motivation for writing the review in
the third-to-last sentence: he does not regard my book “as an overture to
friendly conversation.” To him, I am a dangerous enemy. Countryman does
not like the fact that I underscore Scripture’s witness; namely, that
people should reach out in love to those who commit homosexual acts while
retaining a strong and natural revulsion for the act of same-sex
intercourse. For Countryman, apparently, before a work can be categorized
as “an overture to friendly conversation” it must first concede that there
is nothing objectionable about homoerotic acts per se. In other words,
only after I adopt, or come close to adopting, Countryman’s
self-justifying stance on homosexual behavior can there be “friendly
conversation.”