Introduction
One of the Biblical scholars
promoting ‘LGBT’ culture in the Church is Walter Brueggemann, whose writings in Old
Testament studies are well known.
Intriguingly, he does not dispute that the Biblical texts speaking to
the issue are clear: homosexuality is a sin.
He opposes these texts by other means than exegesis. The present essay's response to him examines
his arguments in three parts.
Brueggemann’s Ways of Dismissing Scriptural Teaching and Authority
Referencing Leviticus 18.22;
20.13 and Romans 1.23-27, Walter Brueggemann says, ‘It is impossible to explain
away these texts.’[1] With this admission, Brueggemann then
proceeds to find a way to dismiss them.
They are ‘old traditions,’ by which he means that they are not to be shown veneration
and respect but disparagement. Those who
cite them are loftily dismissed without consideration: they are said to be nothing other than ‘loud voices’. Seeking to obey the Scripture is also dismissed as 'biblicism’--a disparaging term to Brueggemann for surely elite scholars are above obeying Scripture. They are to control it, and they can do so by extracting its virtues, cleansing them of any attached commandments, and repurposing them for a contradictory application. The ‘Bible contains,’ Brueggemann alleges, ‘all sorts of voices that are inimical to the good news of God’s love,
mercy and justice’. Biblical texts that
fail this ‘gospel’ test are not worthy of ‘gospel attentiveness'. The modern scholar is morally superior to Scripture and can be assured of praise from a culture that has, nevertheless, rejected the faith itself or at least a denomination that is hard at work at making of Christianity a new faith and ethic.
Several responses to this line of
thinking may be offered. The New
Testament is not some alternative, new tradition on sexual ethics from the Old
Testament. Even on this specific topic,
Romans 1.18-28 intends to provide a short but faithful interpretation of the Old Testament on the creation, fall, and history of sinful humanity. Paul is introducing nothing new into Old Testament theology. He is not succumbing to his culture to affirm idolatry or homosexuality. Elsewhere, Paul shows an awareness of Old Testament texts on homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10, we see that homosexuality is uniquely termed ‘man-bedding’ (arsenokoitai), which is a compounding of two words found together to describe homosexuality in the Greek Leviticus 20.13. Paul was not alone in his reading of the Old Testament on this topic. Jude 7-8 and 2 Peter 2
interpret Sodom’s sin not as inhospitality, pride, luxury, violence, or
something else but as a sexual sin.
(Sodom’s sins were many, but sexual disorder was certainly one of
them). The relationship of New Testament
texts to Old Testament ones on this issue shows respect for the authority of
Old Testament teaching rather than a dismissal of it as something old. Neither were early Christians thinking up a new interpretation of the Old Testament: every text addressing the subject of homosexuality in Judaism as well saw it as a sin. Brueggemann summarily dismisses hundreds of years of Jews and Christians as not showing 'gospel attentiveness', not only faithful exegetes today. The pride of the man is astounding.
Another problem with Brueggemann’s perspective seems to be with his representation of the Gospel. The ‘good news of God’s love, mercy, and justice’ is not good news that sin is no longer sin but that Jesus’ died for our sins to make us righteous. Old sins did not suddenly become acceptable or righteous. The problem was not to solved by reclassifying sins as 'good'. The problem sought in Scripture was a forgiveness for sins, an atonement, which Christians have claimed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as accomplished through the sacrifice for sins that Jesus provided in His blood shed on the cross for us. Brueggemann’s definition of the Gospel, at least in this article, lacks any soteriology. John wrote his first letter in response to a faction that distinguished themselves from the apostolic faith by saying they had no sin, did not need Jesus’ death for sin, and did not need to live according to God’s commandments (1 John 1.5-2.6). This is what those rejecting God’s commandments on sexuality and interpreting the Gospel as simply good news of welcoming acceptance rather than good news of justifying sinners are doing. They are saying, 'We are lacking Gospel attentiveness if we say you have sinned. You need no Saviour. We welcome you just as you are. We will celebrate your sexual preferences with you.' Even in the 1st century, some in the Church were saying something similar: they had no sin and needed no Saviour. Of course, John goes on to note that these persons went out from the Church because they were not of it (2.19).
Furthermore, Brueggemann’s
attempt to reduce Scripture’s authority for the Church to his 'Gospel attentiveness' is a restriction unknown to New Testament authors, let alone the Church
through the centuries of interpretation. He neither shows an awareness of the Gospel itself nor of how the Church understood Scriptural authority in Paul's day or ever since. Paul established the alternative hermeneutic: ‘All Scripture is breathed
out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3.16). There is no 'Gospel' test, a test made up of select virtues given new interpretations (from the culture) standing above Scripture.
Brueggemann’s Subjectivism
Another line of argument for Brueggemann
is subjectivity. He mixes a powerful sedative
of subjectivity for his readers. One no longer needs to
be or even can be alert to the meaning of texts, the canonical voice of
Biblical theology, or the reader’s ethic to listen attentively to the historic
Church’s witness. Rather, he claims from
his postmodern podium, (1) the text is never without the filter of human
experience; (2) the ‘Bible does not
speak with a single voice on any topic'; and (3) readers are products of their traditions. To argue against any of these propositions is
futile, since anyone opposing him can be summarily dismissed as a mere product
of his or her own subjectivity, choosing one group of texts instead of another,
or arguing from a different tradition. Brueggemann, as a postmodern interpreter, wants and needs the meaning of texts to remain out of reach, ungraspable, so that interpretation has to do with what readers make of the texts.
Yet Brueggemann’s claims of subjectivity are not claims of relativism. As early postmodernity morphed into a later version, the relativism of existentialism gave way to the cancel culture of critical theory. Thus, Brueggemann is an advocate for same sex unions of some sort that deconstruct orthodoxy. To oppose him on this matter means that one is exposed as one who is from the wrong interpretive tradition, one promoting purity (holiness) rather than justice. To oppose him means that one is stranded in an old world of ‘white male power’ rather than going with the flow of the ‘current politico-cultural struggles’ for ‘a multiethnic, multicultural, multiracial, multigendered culture’ that comes to terms with ‘the other’. The old, mandates the postmodern, must be cancelled, and the new must be embraced. Traditional Christianity’s approaches were different. Because of the worldwide mission of the Church, the Church was universal and therefore multicultural. It was not out to rack up more cultures for the Church but to invite all to Christ. The translatability of the one Gospel into different cultures meant that there was not one culture better than another, and it did not mean that all cultures were to be equally valued. It rather meant that the Gospel was relevant to all cultures because all had sinned and needed the One Saviour who died for our sins. People were not loved because everyone was beautiful in his or her own way but because God loved sinners and gave His only Son to die for their sins. The social remaking of the Gospel in the hands of postmodern scholars is like the bad film version of a book about which everyone says, 'They completely destroyed the book with this film'.
Claiming the moral high ground in all such
matters, Brueggemann disparages orthodox Christianity rather than attempts, as
an earlier postmodern (he himself) might have tried to do, to incorporate contradictory
voices. This is somewhat peculiar,
however, since Brueggemann gets to his end game of subjectivity by insisting on
the presence of different voices in the Biblical texts, canon, and readers or
interpreters. The polyvalence of
meaning, it turns out, is a way of deconstructing orthodoxy in order to replace
it not with another meaning but with a new orthopraxis of ‘politico-cultural’
activism. Interpretation is not necessary
when subjective readings and traditions govern the conversation, but they are
not welcome when a politically correct position (Brueggemann's) needs to be promoted over interpretations with actual merit.
Scripture, of course, nowhere
opposes justice and holiness. These are
not two, alternative trajectories for appropriating Biblical texts. Even so, the justice that Brueggemann has in
mind, as noted, is not Biblical justice but something recently invented in the
West’s postmodern and post-Christian culture.
Scripture, moreover, does not reject holiness but understands it as the mark of one who has been
converted to the Christian faith. This
may be illustrated in Peter and Paul, and in Jesus’ teaching.
As Peter writes, repeating Mosaic
Law (Leviticus 11.44),
As obedient
children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15
but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16
since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1.14-16).
Christians are to be built up into a spiritual house, into a holy priesthood and nation (1 Peter 2.5, 9). The Church is not some 'seeker-service' knocking down walls to be like the surrounding culture; it is to be different enough so that the world will see it is different, and that difference is being set apart to God (the meaning of sanctification, holiness).
This is also Paul’s understanding
of the local church in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul addresses the case of a man
living in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. From this case, Paul then expands his
point to other matters of moral impurity. The
church is a people celebrating the Passover sacrifice of Christ Jesus by
cleansing themselves from the ‘yeast’ of malice and evil (1 Corinthians
5.7-8). He then expands his point in
reference to 'any person' bearing the name of brother (one claiming to be a
Christian) who is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or
swindler. In other words, people who
continue to live sinful lives as proscribed in Scripture are to be excluded
from Christian fellowship. The Gospel is
not about license to sin or a perverted form of grace to welcome sin but about
the power of God to save and transform those who commit sin--even to transform their passions and desires (Galatians 5.24).
The case in 1 Corinthians 5 about a man living sexually with his father’s wife was forbidden in the Law in the same
chapter that forbids homosexual acts, Leviticus 18 (cf. vv. 8 and 22, respectively). In fact, as Paul’s argument continues in
chapter 6 and as already noted, he refers to homosexuality in wording (arsenokoitai) taken from
the Greek version of Leviticus 20.13, a verse echoing Leviticus 18.22. Thus, Paul has no intention of rejecting Old
Testament laws on homosexuality or anything else with a few virtues given a new interpretation such that those laws are turned on their head. He does not, as Bruggemann happily does, reinterpret sexual ethics with
some malleable, abstract principle of justice that sets up an opposition to
holiness.
Brueggemann’s Postmodernism
Brueggemann insists that
‘the Bible does not speak with a single voice on any topic’. This, too, contributes to his affirmation of
subjectivity as a postmodern person.
Postmodernity, with its ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’[2],
is uncomfortable with unity and celebrates diversity—but diversity of a certain
kind. In Brueggemann’s world, the unity
of texts in Scripture on the matter of homosexuality, let alone sexuality, is
problematic. The postmodern values of diversity and inclusiveness require different texts saying different things. Yet he finds a way to
create dissonance. If one moves up the
ladder of abstraction far enough, one can then set some vague value like
‘justice’ or ‘love’ in opposition to concrete texts. One can then use such a value to contradict
another, like holiness, and thereby one can discount the ‘inimical’ texts--all those texts that agree that homosexuality is a sin and against which there are no dissenting texts.
Oddly, Brueggemann simply claims that
the Bible never speaks with unity on a given topic. The elephant in the room--his room--is that such a
statement is the very issue under discussion. Different authors in different contexts
writing in different genre over hundreds of years have said with that dreaded ‘single
voice’ that Scripture claims that homosexuality is a sin. Worse, for Brueggemann, Scripture’s opposition
to homosexuality cohered with its overall sexual ethics—its view on gender,
sex, marriage, and what was said to be sinful.
Making matters still worse for him, the Jews and early Christians all
affirmed this interpretation of Scripture, and it was held in opposition to the
Ancient Near Eastern, Greek, and Roman cultures. One struggles to imagine what
could constitute a better example of the ‘single voice’ of Scripture on a given
topic. And yet, still worse for Brueggemann, he acknowledges that Scripture says homosexuality is a sin. He thinks he can get by this by plastering such passages in Scripture with a few 'Gospel' virtues so that we do not have to look at them.
In truth, Brueggemann has himself
fairly well protected from his mountain-top pill box. He can dismiss any
challenge to his position without having to argue about the meaning of texts. Any debater pressing subjectivity in an
argument thinks his position is only strengthened when someone opposes
him. The mere presence of difference,
even when easily disproven, is considered proof of subjectivity. This may be
why Brueggemann does not spend time addressing the Biblical texts that he is so
eager to dismiss. That would be to
consider one interpretation true and another false.
However, he does run into some serious
trouble with this view. First, no
Biblical author supports his hermeneutical view. Paul, for example, was concerned with what
Biblical texts—including the Old Testament Law—said. He also does not oppose justice or love to
such texts, as Brueggemann does. He is
concerned to show the consistency of the Biblical view of creation with the
Law’s view on homosexuality, and he alludes to the Law in his own list of
things not to do, including homosexuality.
Paul’s understanding of Christian theology and ethics is that they are,
through and through, a matter of Biblical interpretation. Brueggemann’s view is that an abstract
principle or two, given some new form from the current culture, should shape
current practices that stand in opposition to Scripture.
Jesus, furthermore, did not
oppose the supreme laws of the love of God and the love of neighbour to all the
laws and the prophets but said that all the laws and the prophets hung on them (Matthew 22.40). He did not take Brueggemann’s antinomian
stance, who disparagingly dubs the concrete commandments of Scripture ‘texts of
rigour’! Sometimes, Jesus opposed the scribes and the Pharisees for relaxing commandments by means of their
creative interpretations (e.g., Mark 7 regarding korban). He expanded certain
Old Testament laws that merely prohibited outward actions to include matters of
the heart (Matthew 5.20-48). If an Old
Testament law placed restrictions on divorce (Deuteronomy 24.1-4), He tightened
the law in light of God’s intent in creation for marriage and the demand for
perfection in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19.1-9; 5.31-32, 48), eliminating any
accommodation for sin. Sinners were
welcomed in the waters of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, not to have a pool party celebrating their sins. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law
and the prophets but to fulfill them, and not one small part of the Law was to
pass away until all was accomplished (Matthew 5.17-18).
Conclusion
In his interpretation of
Scripture on the issue of homosexuality, Brueggemann’s approach is reminiscent
of the surgeon who lost a patient on the operating table. When confronted in court about his
malpractice, he insisted that he had actually saved her because he had kept some
DNA tissue and could even improve on what she had been with some future
experiment in cloning. One may certainly appreciate
Brueggemann’s readers asking for their Bible back, the disparaging charge of ‘biblicism’
notwithstanding. What stands out most
clearly from Brueggemann’s approach to the subject of homosexuality are his
ways of rejecting Biblical authority and his dismissal of a good news for sinners in the cross of Christ by suppressing the concrete ethics of Scripture with a few Scriptural virtues abstracted and reinterpreted to promote the very thing Scripture opposes.
[1] Walter Brueggemann, ‘Walter
Brueggemann: How to read the Bible on homosexuality,’ Outreach (4 September, 2022); online: https://outreach.faith/2022/09/walter-brueggemann-how-to-read-the-bible-on-homosexuality/
(accessed 1 July, 2023).
[2] This is the famous
definition of Francois Lyotard, The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. G. Bennington and B.
Massumi (Manchester University Press, 1984), p. xxiv.
Comments