Thinking Outside the Box, Part 2: On the “Plain Sense” of Holy Scripture

In our church we confess that the Scriptures are “the Word of God written,” that they attest “God’s self-revelation,” and that they are central in various ways to Christian worship (W-2.2001). We believe that the preached Word is to be based upon the written Word in order to attest the living Word, which is Christ the Lord (W-2.2007; W-1.1004). Our confessions instruct us that Holy Scripture provides the most complete account of “all that pertains to a saving faith” as well as to “the framing of a life acceptable to God” (C-5.002). “The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel” (C-9.27). By them our “faith and obedience are nourished and regulated” (C-9.27). Because the Scriptures are historically and culturally conditioned, however, we recognize an obligation to approach them “with literary and historical understanding” (C-9.29). Nevertheless, we do not believe that such conditioning contradicts our understanding of scriptural authority (C-9.30). In sum, as we read in the French Confession of 1559: “No authority may be set above Holy Scripture. . . . On the contrary, everything must be examined, measured and reformed according to Scripture.”

In the modern period situations have arisen where we have new knowledge about various matters that was not available to the biblical writers. We are not inclined to think for example (as Augustine had already appreciated) that the world was created in six 24-hour days, nor would we regard as “demon possession” everything that seems to fall under that category in the gospel stories. What the biblical writers would have said if they had access to the new knowledge available to us is fruitless and speculative to ask. The real question is what we must say on our own responsibility before God as we try to take everything properly into account.

In general, situations have arisen where we must try to think responsibly with Scripture and yet beyond it (not against it), or where we must think carefully with the spirit of the text beyond the letter. In short, although responsible interpretation will not seek to overturn the plain sense of Scripture, there are times when, in light of new knowledge unavailable to the biblical writers, we must seek to reconsider Scripture’s meaning for today, beyond what the text directly says.

About the vexed question of homosexuality, which for nearly a generation our church has been debating so catastrophically, it seems that we do indeed have access to new knowledge. As Richard Hays, for one, has pointed out, the idea of an involuntary homosexual disposition was unavailable to Paul and the other biblical writers: “Neither Paul nor anyone else in antiquity had a concept of ‘sexual orientation’” (The Moral Vision of the New Testament, HarperSan Francisco, 1996, p. 388). Like other biblical writers, Paul assumed that homosexual behavior was simply a voluntary action or perversion. How can our current understanding that homosexual behavior is actually rooted in a strong involuntary disposition make any difference in evaluating Paul’s words?

Here we may begin with another question. What, according to Paul and other biblical writers, made homosexual behavior immoral? It seems that three aspects were in view: (i) the desire and the act, (ii) the relationship, and (iii) the explanation. The desire and the act were seen as “contrary to nature,” the relationship as casual, promiscuous or exploitative, and the explanation as volitional. While aspect (i) remains what it was, aspects (ii) and (iii) need to be reconsidered in light of current understandings. We now know that homosexual relationships need not be casual, promiscuous or exploitative. On the contrary, as gay Christian couples and others have proved, they can be relationships of lifelong fidelity and commitment. We also know that mere volition is not a sufficient explanation for homosexual behavior. It is this point that requires special consideration.

An involuntary homosexual disposition finds its closest parallel neither in a compulsion like addiction (as some traditionalists have supposed) nor in a condition like left-handedness (as some revisionists have supposed). On the contrary, the closest parallel to a homosexual disposition is a heterosexual disposition. Although the desire and act are obviously different in each case, the dispositions have essential features in common. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, the involuntariness, the strength of passion, the drive for pleasurable satisfaction, and, above all, the need for intimacy, companionship and mutual self-giving are the same. A sexual disposition is basic to being human in a way that no mere compulsion or condition can ever be.

It is the involuntariness of the disposition, as unknown to the biblical writers, that especially requires us to think beyond them. If the contrasting dispositions are comparable as dispositions, and especially on the points of being strong, basic and involuntary, then a much greater principle of equity is called for than is evidenced in the biblical accounts. In particular, heterosexuals must use far more empathetic imagination than has been customary in pondering the homosexual’s situation. They must realize that homosexuals experience their sexuality in much the same way as heterosexuals experience theirs. Moreover, since abuse or deprivation in childhood may in some cases have been crucial in the formation of an involuntary homosexual disposition (as we now know), that is yet a further mitigating factor which can only elicit our compassion in the place of misguided condemnation.

In conclusion, if we think responsibly with Scripture, and not against it, then we will continue to uphold aspect (i). We will regard homosexual desires and actions as “contrary to nature,” i.e., as counter to the Lord God’s intentions for the created order. (A broad ecumenical consensus, along with strong scholarly argument, exists at this point about the plain sense of the relevant texts.) If, however, in light of advances in modern knowledge, we reconsider Scripture’s meaning for today, then we will no longer uphold aspects (ii) and (iii) without significant qualification. For reasons suggested in my theses, we will see lifelong homosexual partnerships as vastly preferable to casual, promiscuous and exploitative sexual relationships. And we will commend but not require either reorientation or celibacy for homosexual Christians as a group. But on this latter point, I will say more in my next installment.