“Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality” by Walter Wink, The Christian Century, November 7, 1979.
“The Christian Suspicion of Homosexuality” by Hugh A. Koops, New Brunswick Theological Seminary Newsletter, March 1979.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Wink teaches biblical interpretation at Auburn Seminary; Koops is dean of New Brunswick Seminary. Both discard references to Sodom since, as Wink says, “brutal gang rape has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not”. They pass over Deuteronomy 23 as having to do with Canaanite fertility rites. Concerning eight other Old Testament passages, Koops writes: Homosexuality, if condemned, is condemned by the company it keeps”. Wink says that it is unclear just what is in mind in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10. (A dozen New Testament translations share the confusion since, with one or two paraphrase exceptions and one translation, they consistently render the same Greek word differently from one passage to the other.) Wink says that three passages “unequivocally condemn homosexuality” (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26f). He defuses the Levitical texts because they prescribe a mandatory death penalty and he recognizes that even Anita Bryant is not that “biblical”. As Koops puts it, these texts “are enveloped within moral codes of the day that do not allow universal application”. According to Wink, the Romans text shows that Paul “assumes that those whom he condemns are heterosexual … ‘exchanging’ their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them” and that, therefore, together with Leviticus, the romans passage cannot really be helpful in solving “the hermeneutical problem of our attitude toward homosexuality today”. Wink puts these passages into a rich perspective regarding other “sexual” matters in the Bible (e.g., nudity: “characteristic of paradise [but] regarded in Judaism as reprehensible”, intercourse during menstruation, sex between unmarried consenting adults which “the bible nowhere explicitly prohibits … a discovery that caused John Calvin no little astonishment”, polygamy: “regularly practiced in the Old Testament” and “unmentioned in the New”, compulsory celibacy: regarded as “abnormal” in the Old Testament and as “heresy” in the New Testament, and others). Wink overstates: “The crux of the matter … is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic”. It is more accurate to say that there is not a single or unitary sex ethic in the Bible. He rightly interprets that the “law” becomes agape and concludes: “Now the question is not ‘What is permitted?’ but rather ‘What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?’.”
Calling on his readers to take seriously what we now know “in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology”, Wink challenges us with the words of “a little-remembered statement” of Jesus: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57) (Interestingly, Jesus here was referring to “scientific” observations of the day and was urging that such ability at insight be applied to other kinds of decisions.) Wink knows that “such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of Christians [who] would rather be under law and be told what is right”. According to Koops, “it is questionable whether the Bible asserts that homosexuality is evil” and that: “Clearly the bible does not argue that homosexuality is evil”. Koops contends that the biblical writers “assumed that homosexuality is evil” in much the same way, though he does not state it, that they assumed that the world was flat. Koops points out that it would be Pelagian to see sin as isolated acts of evil and understands Paul’s assumption about homosexuality “as illustrative of evil rather than definitive of evil”. Observing an “assumed equation of homosexuality with faithlessness” in Paul, Koops says that this equation might be invalidated when “the [church-maintained] social pressures toward promiscuity are removed.”
Koops goes beyond Wink in attempting to say something more elaborate about gay relationships today. Unfortunately, he gets wound up in his juxtaposing of a coined “heteragapic” or divine love (for the other) as over against homoerotic or “homosexual” love (for the same). This too-neat word game falls apart. He fails to appreciate the love of God for God (e.g., Father for Son, Son for Father, etc.) though he does note that, “love for the self is assumed” in the covenant community. And he seems not to appreciate that, without the perception and experience of a very important positive difference between homosexual partners – indeed, without a perception of complementarity, a fascinating otherness seen in each other – there would be no sufficient attraction between the two homosexuals. Koops reads too much into mere anatomical differentness (male/female) and does not see enough of the differentness between two specific males or two specific females who are attracted to each other. Indeed, even with heterosexuals, the attraction is far more complex than mere anatomical difference, i.e., not just any person of the opposite gender will do. Koops concludes: “Should homosexuals demonstrate the bridging of these gaps by heteragapy, as several homosexual fellowships appear capable of doing, the traditional suspicion of homosexuality may dissipate. Where fidelity, permanence, and creativity reflect the electing, eternal, and life-giving love of God, there he is incarnate among us. The invitation to such demonstration must be extended to homosexuals, even the homosexual pair”.
Although both articles unavoidably suffer from brevity, they are good attempts to clear up what’s been muddied by homophobic Fundamentalists. The main flaw – and it is a serious one – is that each of these commentators fails to consistently distinguish between biblical statements about ancient Near Eastern practice, which may or may not have included same-sex genital acts, and what we know today about a naturally occurring and immutable homosexual orientation and loving gay relationships which don’t center on genital acts any more than do heterosexual relationships.