Why Three Traditionalist Arguments Fail to Persuade
Part 2 looks at reasons reformists reject traditionalist arguments against same-sex relationships.
In my last post, I expressed concern that discussions on sexuality and gender are hindered by lack of genuine listening across divides. So, I decided to write a two-post series on why each side’s common arguments are often rejected. In my last post, I discussed “Why Three Affirming Arguments Fail to Persuade.” In this post, I now look at why three traditionalist arguments fail to persuade those who affirm same-sex relationships.
My goal for these posts is to foster better conversations, where we can discern and address the real disagreements (not strawmen). If traditionalists and reformists more authentically wrestle together, we can make greater progress in constructing a robust theology of sexuality for the Church.
Traditionalist Argument 1: Consensual Relations Condemned
Traditionalist Argument: “Scripture condemns consensual, peer same-sex relations, and not only exploitative relations. Both Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 indicate mutuality. That’s why both parties are punished in Leviticus 20:13 and why Romans 1:27 says the men “were consumed with passion for one another” (ESV). Also, Romans 1:26 refers to women and there’s no evidence that female same-sex relations were exploitative in ways that certain men’s same-sex behavior might have been.”
Reformist Objection: That both parties are condemned is not conclusive. It assumes that mutuality is always non-exploitative. But prostitution, which can be a consensual transaction, was a common form of exploitative same-sex relations in antiquity. Even traditionalist Robert Gagnon has said, “Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 130). Similarly, traditionalist Preston Sprinkle acknowledges true peer relationships were “rare” in antiquity; most of the evidence shows male same-sex relations were exploitative. That being the case, it’s reasonable to believe the biblical authors have in mind the consensual transaction of prostitution.
As for the alleged reference to female same-sex relations in Romans 1:26, the Greek text doesn’t say the women exchanged relations with other women. It only says they exchanged natural acts for unnatural ones, but without indicating with men or women. Church father Augustine interpreted this as women having non-procreative sex with men (i.e. anal or oral). In other words, the text can legitimately refer to women engaging in non-procreative sex with men, perhaps because they were prostitutes seeking to avoid pregnancy.
Corrected Traditionalist Argument: While these texts might have a universal prohibition in mind, that cannot be proved from these verses alone. Traditionalists can improve their argument by more clearly explaining they are using the intertextual lens of Genesis to read the prohibition passages as universal. They also need to show why this lens is valid (e.g. hermeneutic of Scripture interpreting Scripture and canonical/intertextual interpretation). In other words, traditionalists cannot assume that those who are affirming of same-sex relationships understand why intertextual readings should override a historical-contextual reading, especially when seeking to discern the biblical authors’ intended meaning. Some traditionalists books that provide a more robust canonical discussion include Darrin Snyder Belousek’s Marriage, Scripture, and the Church and William Webb’s, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.
Traditionalist Argument 2: Created Order
Traditionalist Argument: “Genesis demonstrates that God created ‘male and female’ for sexual relations. This divine ordering of sexuality constitutes a law written into creation itself. That makes it universal and not merely based on exploitative practices. Jesus affirms this reading when he refers to God’s creation of male and female in his discussion with religious leaders about marriage (Mark 10).”
Reformist Objection: It’s long been tempting to use Genesis to make created order/natural law arguments, including to defend slavery, apartheid, or subjugation of women. That should caution us from rushing to make natural law appeals based on the early origin narratives. Misuse of Genesis often stems from prooftexting as an interpretive method. Similarly, prooftexting “male and female” as the basis for an entire theology of sexuality is not persuasive. Traditionalist arguments superimpose much onto Genesis 1-2 that simply isn’t there. Even John Calvin believed Genesis 1 describes creation in primitive terms, portraying only what is visible to the naked eye and not all truth about creation (Commentaries on Genesis; esp. Gen 1:16; see also Inst. 1.14.3). And Augustine believed intersex people are part of God’s created plan, even though they are not mentioned in Genesis 1-2 (City of God 16.8).
Likewise, appealing to Jesus’s statement on Genesis 1-2 sounds like special pleading. It takes Jesus’s words out of context to force them into the modern debate. Mark 10 is a discussion on divorce. The religious leaders appealed to Mosaic law to justify divorce, while Jesus appealed to Genesis as superior to Mosaic law. More specifically, Jesus argues that God intends for marriage to be permanent. He is making an argument about life-long faithfulness, not sex difference. The religious leaders would have thought Jesus was nutty if he was trying to persuade them of male-female marriage, since they already accepted that.
Corrected Traditionalist Argument: Traditionalists need to show how their creation ordinance argument is distinct methodologically from created order/natural law arguments used to oppress particular groups. Traditionalists might emphasize the benefits to the human race as a whole (and not just particular groups) that results from the male-female union, namely, the beautiful wonder of new life. But traditionalists will also need to show why that truth should exclude sexual minorities from marrying each other. In other words, why can’t it be a “yes, and” argument? Yes, male and female is wonderful and good, and sexual minorities also exist and need marriage. Traditionalist books that argue for the on-going validity of natural law and sex difference for marriage are Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Defense by David Haines and Andrew Fulford, as well as Christopher West’s popularization of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (which many evangelicals are now using for their arguments). See also Creation and Covenant by Christopher C. Roberts.
Traditionalist Argument 3: Procreation
Traditionalist Argument: “Marriage is not just about pleasure and companionship. It must be defined as male-female union because of the complementarity of male-female bodies, which results in procreation. Male and female bodies are anatomically designed to come together for reproduction, which is essential for the human race to survive, as well as to advance God’s kingdom through raising godly children. While not every marriage results in children, a marriage must be open to it. Infertile heterosexual couples still have complementary bodies and could conceive an unexpected miracle child. In contrast, the union of same-sex couples is inherently non-procreative and so cannot be included in the definition of marriage. Relatedly, it makes sense that children be raised by their biological mother and father. Same-sex couples with children reflect the loss of an essential biological parent.”
Reformist Objection: Traditionalists too often assume that reformists base marriage only on pleasure or self-interest. But this is false. Reformists have a robust understanding of marriage based on Scripture, especially the covenantal relationship between God and humanity. This biblical divine-human marriage metaphor is rooted in self-sacrificial faithfulness, not procreation (“I will be their God and they will be my people”). Similarly, Elkanah affirms marriage for its own sake when he says to his barren wife Hannah, “Am I not worth more than ten sons?” (1 Sam 1:8).
Traditionalists have turned the blessing of procreation into a requirement for marriage, which is not found in Scripture. Notably, Paul does not demand procreation in marriage, but he does instruct marriage if one cannot live celibate. Scripture does say covenant is foundational to marriage, and that marriage is for kinship (bone of bone, flesh of flesh), mutual support (ezer), stewarding one’s sexual desires (1 Cor 7), and sanctification (Eph 5). These are things gay people need too.
In regards to children, the Church has long supported single sex parenting for orphans. Many orphanages have been run by missionary women (e.g. Amy Carmichael). All Christians are required to care for the orphan and widow. While a child being raised by her biological parents is best (unless abuse or neglect is present), there are circumstances that make adoption a necessary redemptive response. But, even if the argument is made that gay people should not parent, that does not automatically mean they should not be able to marry. Marriage is about much more than procreation and serves a godly purpose even without children.
Corrected Traditionalist Argument: Protestants, unlike Catholics, have long championed companionate marriage, which provides little basis for denying gay couples the same. Some evangelicals are turning to Catholic theology as a correction. But current arguments for requiring openness to procreation are insufficient. Traditionalists will improve their argument by avoiding false assertions that reformists only care about pleasure and self-interests. More helpful would be arguments from Scripture to demonstrate that procreative potential defines marriage. Current assertions overly rely on secular rationales about birth rates, even though the New Testament is not concerned about birth rates (e.g. encourages celibacy). Similarly, some arguments focus on the need for godly children to advance the Kingdom, but the New Testament teaches evangelism (spiritual, not biological means) for expansion.
Traditionalists need to demonstrate theologically why procreation is a deal breaker, and why sexual stewardship is not a deal breaker. Why does lack of procreative potential require forsaking all other God-given benefits of marriage? Also, heterosexual traditionalists would improve their argument if they lived out what they demand of gay people, namely, to forsake sexual intimacy for an entire lifetime. If the situation is truly such that marriage for gay couples threatens civilization (as some traditionalists claim), it’s reasonable to expect traditionalists to “go first” by encouraging young heterosexuals (esp. men) to be prophetic models that life-long celibacy is possible and spiritually healthy for every person who attempts it. For more on procreation as essential to the definition of marriage see Steven Schafer’s Marriage, Sex, and Procreation. See also Darrin Snyder Belousek’s Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, which touches on procreation and child-rearing in his argument.
Summary
Other reasons traditionalist arguments don’t always persuade could be discussed, but these are three common ones. To summarize, traditionalists need to do more than these three common arguments on consensual relations condemned, created order, and procreation. Specifically, traditionalists need to address the following:
clarify hermeneutical method as canonical/intertextual, relying on Genesis as a lens. Clarify the relationship of that approach with historical context study (especially for discerning the biblical authors’ intended meaning). Similarly, clarify whether prooftexting is a valid interpretive method, and if so, what about when it has failed in other cases (e.g. early church views on sex as sinful).
clarify how traditionalist use of Genesis for created order/natural law arguments are distinct from similar appeals to Genesis that adversely affect marginalized populations (e.g. defenses of slavery or apartheid or subjugation of women).
clarify the relationship between natural revelation (science of sexual development) and Scripture. The way traditionalists read Genesis on sexuality can sound similar to the way Young Earth Creationists read too much into these texts. Likewise, Augustine’s views of intersex people suggests “male and female” has been interpreted too literalistically.
provide more Scriptural evidence that procreative potential is required to define marriage. Scripture seems to place greater emphasis on other aspects of marriage, such as covenant, mutual support, stewarding desires, and sanctification.
avoid making false assertions about the reformists’ views of marriage, such that its only about pleasure and self-interest.
be willing, as heterosexuals, especially young men, to prophetically live out the demand you are making of gay people. Go first as role models by giving up sexual intimacy and committing to life-long celibacy so that you can teach from experience how to do so in a healthy and sustainable way.
Traditionalists need to do a better job of listening to why reformists don’t find common traditionalist arguments persuasive and address these unresolved issues. I have linked to some traditionalist books above that are more persuasive than others, but I haven’t seen many resources that address the specific objections noted here. I would be grateful for any suggestions you have that specifically address these issues (not resources on other arguments).
This was really good. Thank you Karen