This is an excerpt from a paper I wrote this semester. The paper was an attempt to offer a theological justification for the legitimacy of homosexual marriages/relationships. The excerpt that follows is from the beginning section of the paper in which I have to qualify what I consider to be legitimate and valid authorities from which we might be able to then engage theologically and ethically with the question of homosexuality. I really like this section, and consider it to be the best part of my paper. I hope ya'll enjoy it and engage with it so that we, as a community of reconciled believers, might be able to develop a solid understanding of homosexuality in light of the nature of God that is revealed to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Authorities For Ethical and Theological Reflection

Before anything can be said about the moral position of homosexuality, I must first discuss the authorities upon which I shall base my argument and position. Ethical reflection requires us to make judgments about what types of things we recognize as having authority for any given situation. In the following section I shall present and explain the things that I hold to be authoritative, as well as critique and expressly reject other things as not having authority for this discussion.

The foundational authority upon which all Christians should base their thoughts, actions and intellectual reflections upon is the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, who is the norm for all ethical reflection. I hold Jesus and His nature as witnessed to in the Bible as the normative basis upon which we can judge, affirm, critique, engage and witness and this requires that we posit the normative Christ that we see in Scripture as being truly God’s fullest self-communication. Thus, the “ground and grammar” of theology is Jesus Christ and His nature revealed to us, for sure, through the biblical witness, but also not bound to the finite and fallible Scripture.

The norming norm that I advocate, that of Jesus Christ as witnessed to, but not bound by, Scripture, gives due diligence to the biblical witness but it does not allow the biblical witness to be interpreted in such a way that it contradicts the nature of God as revealed to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The nature of God that we see in Jesus Christ is one of love, of compassion, mercy and grace. In Jesus we see the love of God being revealed as radical and transformative action, and something that flips our modern understandings of love upside down. God’s love is that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. This is the heart of what God’s love is. We had originally cut ourselves off from the source of life, God Himself, and fractured our relationship with the Almighty, but God, in His grace and love, took on the fullness of our fallen humanity in the incarnation, lived and worked amongst those whom the culture said were sinners and worthless, flipped the teachings of His day upside down, and eventually graciously and willingly gave up His life for those whom by their own actions considered themselves to be enemies of God. Yet, the gates of hell could not contain the love and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ and death itself was decisively defeated by the love of God-in-Christ.

In Jesus we see the fullest revelation of a God who stands on the side of the oppressed and who struggles with, and on behalf of, those who are persecuted and exploited. In Christ we see God’s preferential option for the poor and oppressed. We also see a God who is more concerned with faithful disciples than with people acting good and believing the right things, as evidenced to us by Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees in Matt 23:26-8.

However, the question should rightly be asked, how can we know Jesus apart from the biblical witness? To this I would respond that we, by this I mean modern Christians in the West, cannot know Jesus apart from the biblical witness. However, I would then respond using the great theologian Karl Barth’s understanding of the three-fold Word of God.  Barth’s understanding of the three-fold Word of God goes something like this: Jesus Christ is the self-communication of God, the Word Incarnate (made flesh), the Bible is the Word Written, and the preaching of the Church is the Krygmatic Word. All three of these are rightly to be understood as the Word of God because a gracious act of God enables them to be so. However, the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, is the final and definitive Word through which the other two must be understood.[1] In the same way that we cannot say that a testimony is the same thing as that which it testifies to, so to can we not say that the Bible and the witness it gives us to Jesus is the same as Jesus Himself. Nevertheless, we can legitimately understand and know the nature and reality of the person of Jesus of Nazareth and the God who He reveals, through reading and studying Scripture. We simply have to remember that the God who loves in freedom is the master, not the servant of Scripture. Jesus Christ, as witnessed to, but not bound by Scripture, is the ultimate and final authority from which we are able to make ethical and moral claims.

Be that as it may, Scripture itself is also a valuable authority for engaging the issue of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. However, Scripture cannot have the final say in our ethical reflection because the witness of scripture on the issue of homosexuality is very sparse, and the contexts in which the various books of the Bible were written are drastically different from ours, and thus, there cannot be anything like a one-to-one correspondence between passages that mention homosexuality and the nature of homosexuality in today’s world.

There have been a handful of verses that have been held up as proof-texts to help legitimize the Church’s position on homosexuality throughout the Church’s history. I shall briefly try to show why these verves are irrelevant to the current discussion. The first of these is the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-29. The “sin of Sodom and Gomorrah” has come down though the tradition as being homosexuality, although this is completely unsubstantiated by the Bible as well as by other scholarly works. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was rather the sin of not being hospitable to the poor.[2] Next people attempt to use the Levitical laws concerning the admonition against homosexuality, although the Levitical laws are no longer something that holds authority over us as gentile Christians.[3] Also on the validity-chopping block are the traditional verses from the New Testament that have been classically cited to condemn homosexuality. These verses have recently come into question because of issues of translation.  In the 1 Corinthians 6:9 ‘sin-list,’ the traditional translation, of which I am using the New King James version to highlight, includes the terms “homosexuals” and “sodomites.” Recent scholarship has shown these terms to be inaccurate translations of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai, which both have no clear scholarly consensus concerning their meanings. The same concept holds true for 1 Timothy 1:10, in which the term arsenkoitai is included in another sin-list; in this case it has also been inappropriately translated as “homosexuals.” While the meaning of these terms is an on-going debate within the scholarly world, it is sufficient for the purposes of this paper to simply say that based upon the lack of knowledge we have concerning the appropriate rendering of malakoi and arsenkoitai, we cannot turn to these verses to give warrant to our ethical reflection. [4]

Thus, I find myself forced to reject the traditionalist view of the complete literalness of the Bible and consequently, the particular passages which have been used to condemn homosexuality in the Church’s tradition. Thus we have to say that in Scripture we are able to find helpful ideas and concepts that point us in the right direction for ethical reflection but never have the final word in that reflection.

I reject the use of what some consider to be Church tradition as an authority from which we might speak about homosexuality. I reject this for two different reasons. The first reason is that tradition itself, far from being a unitary and unanimous voice, is made up of multiple voices and many different “channels” of tradition, many of which disagree quite strongly on very fundamental and important issues. Thus to treat “tradition” as though it were a singular construction would be a great mistake. The second reason I reject the use of tradition as an authority is because it doesn’t have a very good record of being faithful to the Gospel in its encounters with things that are outside of its narrow view of orthodoxy. By this I mean simply that the Church has a poor record of upholding the Gospel of Christ when it confronts and challenges the status quo. We see this in the Church’s “baptizing” of the powers that be during the reign of Constantine in 312 CE. We see this again in the Church’s legitimization of slavery in the 14^th to 21^st centuries, and yet again in the Church’s position on the inferiority of Africans to Europeans (and later Americans) during the same time periods. Still yet we see the traditions poor record in the Church’s rejection of inter-racial marriages and its “baptizing” of racist and xenophobic ideologies. The Church doesn’t have a very good record of understanding and engaging with those who are other than it in a way that’s faithful to God’s self-communication in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Consequently, why should we assume that the traditions of the Church, which could historically considered to be a great defender of the status quo, will be able to provide us with faithful grounds from which we could reject homosexuality? The trajectory of the history of the Church shows a continual cycle of the tradition lagging behind the progressive understanding of God that comes from being faithfully engaged in the praxis and life of the Church, which continually challenges and provokes a new and more faithful understanding of the Triune God. Thus, I am forced to reject the use of tradition as an authority from which the Church can speak about homosexuality.

---

[1] This section concerning the theology of Karl Barth is indebted to ch. 1 of Karl Barth’s Evangelical Theology, ch. II.I of Eberhard Busch’s The Great Passion and Volume 1, book 1 of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (CD I/1, 120-121).

[2] See Ezekiel 16:49

[3] See Acts 15, which is the biblical record of the so-called Jerusalem Council, in which the Apostles decided that Gentile believers did not have to abide by Mosaic Law.

[4] This section of the paper is deeply indebted to an essay written by biblical scholar Richard B. Hays. Richard B. Hays, “Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies: The Witness of Scripture Concerning Homosexuality,” (ed. Jeffrey S. Siker; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 5-7.

Some Unfinished Reflection on Liberation Theology as an Alternative to the Ivory Towers of Today, or Truly the Good News

As anyone who has had any theological interaction with me knows, I fancy myself an amateur student of liberation theology. I’ve cut my teeth in the theological world on theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, Camilo Torres and others like them. The praxis of liberation theology and the concern with the physical realities of the world deeply attracted me to it. Not only that, but the emphasis upon praxis and solidarity with the poor as the guiding hermeneutic really places the work of theology in proximity to the God we are seeking to give witness to. Liberation theology is a theology of action, while the theology we tend to think about is more of theology in thought. Liberation theology reminds me that the work of the theologian is to be a participant and witness to the work of God in the historical realities of the world.

I really do love the methodology that the authors highlight of liberation theology. The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes lays out a three-tiered method for theological reflection. First, analyze the context that on finds them self in using the understandings afforded to us by the various social sciences (in the case of Liberation theology, Marxist social critique). Second, compare the understanding gained in step 1 to the biblical narrative and tradition. Third, decided upon actions based upon insights gained in the two previous steps and engage in the decided upon action. One of the main reasons that I like this so much is because it reminds us that theology is meant to affect change and requires participation. In this sense, I would consider the work of the theologian to be comparable to the work of a prophet. Theologians interact with the God who has made Himself known to us in person of Jesus of Nazareth and in light of that revelation they attempt to bear faithful witness to God. However, that bearing witness always requires a continual change on the part of the theologian because the more deeply we understand the self-communication of God, the more we are able to see the reality of the world and of ourselves. When a person interacts with, bear’s faithful witness to, and reflects upon the God of Jesus Christ, they will always be transformed.

Liberation theology also seems to be an answer to the more speculative and metaphysical theology that has become the norm in the academic circles of the world. For liberation theologians, the starting point for theological reflection is found in real life experience of standing in solidarity with the poor. Thus, instead of starting out with theoretical theological postulations (which often have their basis in philosophical traditions that start outside of the realm of God’s self-communication) and then attempting to find some way to fit in human experience and the realities of life, the liberation theologian bases is the concrete, physical and historical ways that God has revealed Himself to us. So, instead of starting with the Platonic “Supreme Good,” or the Aristotelian “Unmoved Mover,” Liberations theologians start with the God of the Oppressed and the God who brought the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt. However, the lens of solidarity-hermeneutics is fraught with dangers unless qualified and placed in its proper context, something that many liberation theologians have spilled countless gallons of ink in the attempt to do.

The emphasis of liberation theologians on the three-tiered understanding of liberation is a very helpful understanding to me theologically because it seems to really give shape and content to the work of Christ as God-Incarnate. The three-tiered view of liberation put forth by Gutierrez sees the work of liberation as; 1.) liberation from the socio-economic oppression, 2.) liberation from dehumanization or anything that makes us to be less than what we are, and 3.) liberation from sin which is the ultimate form of and root of injustice and oppression. I find this helpful because, not only does it seem to provide a substantial foundation for ecclesiological praxis, but it also seems to encompass the totality of Christ’s work on our behalf. This understanding of liberation allows us to become participators in God’s work of establishing His Kingdom through the work of Christ the Liberator, and then the continuing of that work through the Body of the Liberator, the Church. Liberation theology, to me then, not only provides us with the methodology but also the theological content that allows us to understand the Gospel as being truly the Good News.

How Karl Barth Has Changed My Mind

When I was 15 a friend of mine gave me Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Life Together. I instantly fell in love with Bonhoeffer. I thought that Bonhoeffer’s ideas were revolutionarily radical while still being faithful to Christianity. At the time I remember thinking that theology had reached its pinnacle and conclusion in the ideas of Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church really piqued my curiosity, so after a little bit of research I found the Barmen Declaration, which was, for all intents and purposes, written by Karl Barth. At the time I was intent on absorbing everything theological, so I looked into this Karl Barth. I never expected that simple action would have such far-reaching effects on the way in which I viewed (and still view) theology.

The first book I found by Karl Barth was Humanity of God and while I can admit now that I barely understood any of it, it was huge in my development. Up until that point, I had never read anything that discussed God in such wonderful and imaginative terms, or something that made me think God loved me as much as Humanity of God did. From there, I put Barth on the backburner, and turned my attention to the Christian anarchist movement and other radical Christians. However, I never really have forgotten about my love of Barth. Karl Barth has changed my mind in so many ways, and I’ve interacted and wrestled with his ideas so much that I feel, in a large way, deeply indebted to him.

The first thing that I learned from Barth, and the way in which he shaped my mind rather than changed it, was Barth’s insistence of Jesus Christ as the paramount and most complete form of God’s own self-revelation. Barth’s emphasis upon Christo-centricity over the anthropocentricity that was common amongst theologians of his day (and even ours to some degree) is a wonderful reminder that God has posited himself to be known by us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth as an act of grace and mercy. This is a wonderfully liberating concept, because it shows us that we aren’t responsible for hearing God or attempting to know him on our own terms, but rather that God has set the terms through which we are to know him. This is an idea that seems so simple to me now that I’ve been studying theology for a little bit of time, but when I first read it 'way back when, it completely revolutionized the way I thought about theological work.

This leads into the next big idea that I learned from Barth, namely that the work of theology is a work of gratitude. God has first spoken his Word to us, so now we may, in gratitude, respond to God’s first Word with words of our own. I remember reading some theologian or another when I was younger that talked about God’s radical and complete otherness and feeling incredibly discouraged because I felt a call to do theology, but I couldn’t figure out how I could ever speak about this God, let alone know him. So when I read about Barth’s theology of the Word, I was ecstatic: I could talk about God in a way that was real and true because God has first spoken his Word to me (and all of humanity!). I am now free to respond to God because he first addressed me.

One of the things that I admire most about Barth was his commitment to the Church. I remember hearing a story about how Barth changed the title of his seminal work from Christian Dogmatics to Church Dogmatics because he considered theology to be only possible in its proper context, the Church. Barth was committed to being fully engaged in the life of the church because he felt that, in order to speak about God, one has to be rooted in the place that God’s Word would be most faithfully heard. Barth’s ideas have pushed me to reconsider the sphere in which I do theology, and the reason for it as well. I started to question the legitimacy of theology that isn’t done in the context of the faith community and I decided to commit myself to always be a theologian in and of the church. Barth’s constant dedication to the Church was a huge inspiration for me.

One of the final things that Barth taught me, and one of the biggest ways that Barth changed my mind was concerning the doctrine of election. Barth’s doctrine of election, that of all people being elected in Christ, the Elected One, absolutely changed my mind. I used to be a staunch Arminianist, firmly believing that it was the turning of the person towards God that initiated the salvific work in their lives. I remember firmly debating some of my Calvinist friends concerning the doctrines of predestination and election, and getting very frustrated with the narrowness which defined the category of ‘elect.' But after reading Barth and engaging with his beliefs on election, I started to see that the idea of a person being able to turn to God of their own volition and in their own strength was to firmly root the object and final authority of salvation in man rather than in God. This was not a move that I could make because it seemed to reject the totality of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and to place a power in the hands of humans that I cannot believe we have. However, at the same time, I wasn’t able to accept the traditional doctrine of double predestination so prevalent in Calvinism because it seemed to also deny the totality of Christ’s sacrifice and make it only available to some, rather than all humanity. Barth’s idea of election seems to flow fluidly and logically out of the biblical narratives of Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

When I think about all the ways that Karl Barth has changed my mind, I begin to realize that more and more of my ideas are, at the very least, influenced by Barth. I’ve come to see that I am decidedly a Barthian; whether this is good or bad is yet to be determined. However, I don’t think that I would change this at all because Karl Barth has allowed me to see a theologian who loved God, the Church and theology and for that I am eternally thankful.

I’ll end with a joke I once heard about Karl Barth that I found to be not only hilarious, but also to be indicative of how influential Barth has been for most modern theologians, myself included. It goes like this:

Hugo Rahner had an audience with the Pope. After a great deal of discussion, the Pope asked Hugo Rahner his opinion of the world’s greatest theologian.

Rahner squirmed a little bit, breaking eye contact with the Pope while he sought the proper and most humble way to answer the question. Finally, he looked up, shrugged, and said, “I suppose, Your Grace, I would have to say the world’s greatest theologian is my brother, Karl.”

The Pope’s eyes widened. He sat straight up in his chair in astonishment and exclaimed: “Your brother is KARL BARTH?!”

-I wrote this after reading a book of the same title, in which various Barth scholars and theologians wrote essays concerning the ways that Barth influenced their thinking and careers. Anyone that knows me knows of my deep love for Karl Barth and I thought it would be appropriate to sort of give some reasons about why I love Barth. Plus, I just happen to really like this essay.