REFUTATIO

The Nashville Statement is built on erroneous theological, hermeneutical, and epistemological premises. Thus, this statement is unfair to people and communities whom it is singling out, insulting and abusing. But it is also intrinsically unfair to the treasured religious texts and customs which it is misrepresenting and abusing. In a very blurred and foggy way it is referencing Biblical tradition and divine authority of the Creator to promote likes and dislikes of the authors of the Statement.

     In 1906, in the opening part of the epochal study “Quest of the Historical Jesus”,  Dr. Albert Schweitzer clearly demonstrated the limits of all our human hermeneutic endeavor (particularly our attempts to understand and interpret ancient texts or historical figures). He showed that, absent stringent scholarly approach, we always have tendency to project into the Bible our own biases, prejudices and desires.
    The end of the Nashville preamble “...witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials” is the prime example of what I have just stated as it calls upon the authority of the Scripture, in a foggy way as it does, to support the personal prejudices and resentments of the authors.
     Thus, this whole document is unfair to the Bible and Jesus Christ to use their message and authority without humble yet thorough and thoughtful consideration. It is doubly unfair to use them as absolute prescriptive and proscriptive answers for human culture and behavior thousands of years later.

     We do not use the Bible and divine authority, as much as we value them, to inform our understanding of physics, mathematics, biology, geology, astronomy or any other science. In the same way it would have been futile to use the Bible as direct model for our social structures such as the forms of government, jurisprudence, racial or international relationships, organization of work, healthcare, or as the statement does, to model for us our gender identities or family structures. To do such things (albeit selectively) betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and the role of religion and religious texts in our faith and the life of society. The Nashville Statement does not reveal anything about divine will, it only betrays prejudices of its authors.  

Bronze Age Surrogacy

Laqipum has married Chatala, daughter of Enishru.
Laqipum may not marry another woman except one in the capital. 
If within two years Chatala does not give birth to an offspring, she herself will provide a female-servant, and even after a child is born, she will have her servant under her control (Literally: "she can sell her whenever she wants").
Should Laqipum choose to divorce Chatala, he must pay five minas of silver and should Chatala divorce him, she must pay him five minas of silver.
Witnesses: (four names).

Can you imagine? This is an almost 4 thousand years old marriage contract! It was discovered ninety years ago by a Czech orientalist Bedřich Hrozný in the ancient city of Kaneš (now known as Kültepe in Central Turkey). The cuneiform tablet with this contract is kept by my alma mater Charles University in Prague. 
    But a marriage contract by itself would not be that special, a number of similar contracts survived. What makes this ancient document really interesting is the highlighted paragraph. To my best knowledge this contract is the first documented surrogacy arrangement in history and it predates by many centuries similar practices known from the Hebrew Bible.
     The ancient surrogacy arrangements as well as the similarly old adoption documents and adoption laws (like the Code of Hammurabi) attest to our species’ deep-seated, primeval longing for offspring. It might be also of interest that the oldest surviving examples of surrogacy and adoption are of a legal nature. Clearly from the earliest times people were aware of the substantial emotional load and recognized an urgent need for clear rational rules. Yet even the best rules do not release us from moral and religious responsibilities, as biblical testimony attests many times over.
    Come this Sunday to talk about some of the deepest life instincts, about their challenges and joys. Come to celebrate adoption, surrogacy and families in all their different forms and shapes as we mark Family Equality Day. In Sunday worship I will preach about biblical matriarchs and patriarchs and what we can learn from them. In the afternoon we invited several guests to share with us the challenges and joys of adoption and surrogacy in our modern times and our diverse families.

 

Jonathan and David

For many a year there has been quiet talk among biblical scholars about the nature of the relationship between David and Jonathan. In the 1960s, the now legendary and pseudonymous Allen Edwardes, wrote about it in his(her?) “Erotica Judaica.” This book was based on surprisingly, for 1967, advanced and open minded biblical scholarship. Since then Biblical and Near Eastern scholarship has continued to advance.
    Now it is becoming ever clearer that most of the Hebrew Bible was recorded and written in the late Persian and Hellenistic periods (as was also mentioned in the previous article on this blog about Greek speaking David). That brings to our attention close parallels between the stories of Jonathan and David and another classic heroic couple, Achilles and Patroclos, whose relationship is a pivotal plot in Iliad. The erotic nature of these couples is never really mentioned in the oldest renditions (Iliad and Bible) but can be easily inferred from the cultural context.
    While the exact nature and ordering of Achilles and Patroclos’ relationship has always puzzled both ancient and modern authors, there cannot be any hesitation about the ordering of Jonathan and David’s relationship. Jonathan clearly assumes the role of  ERASTES - a mature (bearded) man in full strength who acts as lover, mentor and protector. David, on the other hand fulfills the role of EROMENOS - a young (unshaven or clean shaven) man or a teen, a love-boy, a mentee and protégé.
    In classical Greece this relationship was called pederasty and over the centuries it rightly became denounced as a highly problematic and abusive love arrangement. Jonathan would today be in great trouble, considered immoral, and most likely also criminal. From our modern perspective the relationship of Jonathan and David is not problematic because of its homosexual nature, but because of the power difference and also the age difference.
    So here you have it. The Bible cannot serve us as a simplistic and literalistic moral compass, not because it is outdated and prudish, but because it is outdated and too wildly immoral (as is often the case - if only people payed attention!).
    True wisdom, joy and morality in life and faith are not born from the fundamentalistic, slavish, mechanical following of any rules, even those religious or divine, but from the existential grappling with difficult conundrums of everyday living and in the search for the deeply rational as well as emotional understanding. In this very quest the ancient biblical texts can serve us sometimes as sparing partners and sometimes as guides.

Greek David for Pride Week

What do you think, did King David speak Greek?

But wasn’t he the famous Jewish king? Shouldn’t he speak Hebrew?

Well, there is a developing consensus among progressive theologians, archeologists and Middle Eastern scholars that the legendary unified monarchy of David and Solomon really never existed. The lively stories about David are exactly just that: lively, formative stories which were composed many centuries later under the influence of Hellenistic culture.

Those are quite bold, if not presumptuous claims! Is there any evidence to support them? 

There are hardly any archeological traces of the unified kingdom of David and Solomon. Jerusalem at that time was a small settlement of about few thousand. And in the Bible, those lively and thrilling biblical stories abound with interesting anachronisms. For instance, units of Greek mercenaries among David’s troops were impossible before the late Persian period. Above it all, the literary style of grand narrative prose would have been itself anachronistic, something like that came only with Greek historiography. Before that, such expansive heroic storytelling was all in poetry. The literary character of king David was inspired by Greek culture, and as such he could easily understand or perhaps even speak Greek! 

 
It is all Greek to me! After all, who cares? What real difference does it make?

Oh it does, for instance on this Pride Sunday, it can liberate us from the shackles of religious fundamentalism. It can help us to confirm and celebrate a unique biblical loving relationship between two men, Jonathan and David. It can also help us to better understand and celebrate surprising cross-culturality rooted deep in our Judeo-Christian faith.

Then, let us celebrate!

Fragrant Medicine

How do you recognize a presence of a demon?
By stench, of course! -  Ancient people were quite clear about it.
They had good reasons for this informed guess, bad smell and decay go hand in hand.
While, on the other hand, a clean fresh fragrant breeze heralds well being and health.
And that was also their way of dealing with bad smelling demons. They fended them off with incense and perfumes. Most exotic and potent fragrances and perfumes were reserved to protect the most vulnerable aspects of life - religion and love. This Sunday we will hear from the Song of Songs the secrets of the Biblical fragrant potion of love. 

  We will also celebrate a great theological and social achievement of our Presbyterian denomination. On Tuesday evening a majority of presbyteries approved the new definition of marriage which now includes the same gender couples. At Rutgers we have been celebrating same gender weddings since our state approved it (in prophetic defiance of the official Presbyterian interpretation) and we have also advocated for this change broadly and loudly in several General Assemblies. Now it becomes reality and we rejoice that the fresh fragrance of openness and caring love is repelling the stench of fundamentalist grudge and prejudice. Come to celebrate this power of fragrant love!

New Faith Idiom

    Right before I left for a vacation this spring, I had a unique religious experience that was special, peculiar, and at the same time emblematic of our current times.
    I was asked to officiate at the wedding of Agus and Jeremy. Jeremy is nominal Episcopalian and Agus is Muslim born in Indonesia. They came to us at Rutgers encouraged by our mutual Jewish friend Wendy who attends meditation classes in our community programs, sings in our Church choir and is familiar with the inclusive and welcoming spirit of our community of faith and our deep respect for diversity and the unique.
    Thus, in the service we read from the Hebrew Bible, from the Greek Testament, and also from Al Qur’an in an exquisite celebration of deep genuine love. I have read from Al Qur’an in Church on several times before, but it has always been to illustrate a point in sermon. This time it was different, not intellectual, but worshipful. The reading from Al Qur’an was an integral part of liturgy. You most likely know the Song of Song and the Song of Divine Love from Corinthians, our Bible readings, but American knowledge of Qur’an is not to be automatically expected, so here is the quotation from Surah 30:
       “Among divine signs is that God created you from earth,
       and you are now human beings dispersed everywhere.
       Another of divine signs is that God created mates
       of your own kind of yourselves
       so that you may get peace of mind from them,
       and put love and compassion between you.
       Verily there are signs in this for those who reflect.
       Among other divine signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth,
       and the variety of your tongues and complexions.
       Surely there are signs in this for those who understand.”
(And I care little that the original Arabic, being a genderized language, has “mates” in female form, it is just a legitimate hermeneutic shift to apply it in our modern times and gender neutral culture to same gender relationships.)
    The same spirit of appreciation of love and diversity shaped this unique worship throughout. Jeremy and Agus now live in Bali and thus for the wedding processional and recessional music they chose the Gamelan Semar Pegulingan. It’s a special music played in honor of local Balian Hindu god Semar, a deity of good fortune and love.  I had never really known it and it instantly caught me by my heart, it is so different and ethereal. This music is played on ancient instruments and in very unique archaic seven-tone scale. This particular live recording even had Balian crickets chirping along on the background! (This link does not lead to identical composition or recording but can give you some idea.)
    Even further in this inclusive spirit, we opened the worship with an old Asian tradition of burning incense to honor ancestors and include all the distant and absent friends and relatives who could not join this celebration. We used the singing bowl to mark this important transition in their lives and entrusted the couple to each other and to AGAPE - the divine love in all this diversity of religious traditions, readings, accents, sounds and smells.
    I find this joyful worship experience symptomatic and hopeful. Nolens volens (like it or not) the world is getting more and more global, interconnected and complex. Jeremy and Agus are almost an embodiment of this reality. World religions, each with its own exclusivist claims, struggle to accommodate while alienating individual people in the process. (Can you imagine any imam marrying a gay couple?!). Hardly anywhere else is this reality more evident than in the cosmopolitan metropolis like NYC. Fundamentalists of all different stripes might try, but they cannot stop it. It is a tectonic shift in the cultural global scale.
    In our church we are now entering process of listening and gathering insight from our broader community and discerning what God is calling us to be and do. This might be an important spiritual part of this process. Where is the balance between exclusivist doctrines and rituals and the inclusive spirit of broad welcome? Where is the balance between doctrinal and ritual integrity, as important as they are, and the disarmingly inclusive spirit of Jesus, who did not care about human labels, but cared for the well being of people beneath the labels of Samaritans, Phoenicians, Romans or Jews? While a dwindling number of traditionalists inside as well as outside might like the church “as it always used to be,” a growing number of people are left outside to their own devices, alienated, spiritually hungry and searching with very little help.
    The Divine Spirit is as always at work among people,  and She is steering the hearts of people. Do we have courage to learn, to listen and to love (AGAPAO) with open minds?

By the way, conservatives in our own Presbyterian denomination are all worked up about preserving the purity of what they call CHRISTIAN marriage. Our wedding ceremony certainly did not fit their narrow definition of “Christian”. How should the inter-religious marriages be categorized and celebrated? In our ceremony we all tried our best to be faithful to the inclusive spirit of Jesus and his deep respect for human longing for wholeness, acceptance, and divine presence.

 

Biblical Poetry of Same-Gender Loving Relationships

The Hebrew Bible contains some exquisitely beautiful poetry in celebration of same-gender loving relationships. It has been known to theologians and biblical scholars for centuries but the minds of people were blinded by all our modern rancor about “homosexuality.” The biblical authors were more nuanced than is often recognized. They could condemn abusive behaviour and at the same time celebrate deep loving and devoted relationships in the most beautiful ways. Take for instance the famous Davidic dirge over Jonathan killed in battle.
    I grieve for you, 
    My brother Jonathan,
    You were most dear to me.
    Your love was wonderful to me
    More than the love of women. (2Sam 1:26)
This is a JPS Tanakh translation, the nicest English translation of this verse I could find. But there could hardly be a translation which would do justice to the beauty and gentleness of the original Hebrew poetry. It is a marvelous expression of the grief and deep love of a gay man. How could it be? Was David not a well-known biblical womanizer? Do not forget that the biblical David is a literary figure! As such, the biblical David is composed of many and divergent, often contradictory, strands of oral tradition. The Bible is like a broad mosaic which depicts human experiences in all their complex diversity. This particular part of the biblical mosaic is a beautiful celebration of deep and committed same-gender relationships.
    David’s poem is not the only example of same-gender biblical poetry. There is also a well-known description of the relationship of Naomi and Ruth (1:16+17). And this Sunday I would like to take us to the book of Ecclesiastes (4:9-12) for yet another special poetic celebration of the same-gender committed relationships.

Sociology of "Family Values"

Rutgers Church sent an overture to 220th General Assembly requesting some changes in the Book of Order which would unequivocally allow Presbyterian Churches to celebrate same gender weddings and thus fully embrace and support same gender families. This is a second short article from the perspective of biblical hermeneutics(interpretation of ancient religious texts). Earlier articles with the similar themes are  Biblical argument for same gender marriage,  Biblical hermeneutics and homosexuality, Family in the Bible and Family now and Reformers and Family Laws.

French anthropologist Emmanuel Todd developed an interesting sociological theory based on family structures. He found persuasive correlations between different forms of families and the social and political shapes of societies. For instance, he claims that there is a clear correlation between the number of endogamous marriages (marriages between close cousins) and a conservative totalitarian form of a tribal society ungovernable by modern means.
Marriages between first cousins in any given society in the late 20th century:
Sudan 57%; Pakistan 50%; Mauritania 40%; Jordan 36%; Saudi Arabia 36%; Yemen 31%; Egypt 25%; Iran 25%; Turkey 15%; West  below 5%.

Also, predominant family models correspond to modes and strategies in which societies as a whole deal with periods of crisis or transition. Societies with a long tradition of authoritarian family models have a tendency to find authoritarian solutions to periods of instability. Societies with egalitarian models of family (for instance egalitarian inheritance) tend to find more equitable solutions in times of crisis. These characteristics persist for a considerable period of time long after the original family models have weakened and almost disappeared.

Our American societal discourse has been shaped most recently by advocates of the so-called “traditional family values.” When these values are analyzed they present only marginally different forms of patriarchal, autocratic, and inequitable/meritocratic models. 
On the other hand, it has to be mentioned that although these advocates might be vociferous and well organized, thankfully they form only a minority. American families represent a wide kaleidoscope of different models based on the different cultural backgrounds of immigrants. This in itself creates a unique atmosphere of diversity and consequently tolerance (different models coexist side by side along one street and in NYC even on one floor of an apartment building). Our society in general does not allow abusive behavior even within families. Thus these “traditional family values” are in, perhaps prolonged, but inevitable retreat. The emergence and growing acceptance of nontraditional same gender families is just a logical continuation of the same unstoppable trend. 
 
The defenders of the “traditional family values” got one thing right - the shape of families does influence the future of our society. And for that very reason we oppose them and strive for a tolerant, benevolent and egalitarian society.

Reformers and Family Laws

Rutgers Church sent an overture to 220th General Assembly requesting some changes in the Book of Order which would unequivocally allow Presbyterian Churches to celebrate same gender weddings and thus fully embrace and support same gender families. This is a third short article this time looking at this matter from the perspective of reformation theology (history of theology). Earlier articles with the similar themes are  Biblical argument for same gender marriage, Biblical hermeneutics and homosexuality and Family in the bible and Family Now.

The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church USA (W-4.9001) clearly states that “Marriage is a civil contract”
This statement about the civil nature of the institution of marriage goes back to the time of the Reformation and was an integral part of reformation struggle for the spiritual freedom and autonomy of individuals from the overreaching and over-controlling medieval church.
Reformers unequivocally declared marriage to be a civil contract and not a sacrament.

Martin Luther in his early work, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, clearly states and demonstrates that there is no convincing argument for the sacramental nature of marriage. He even uses biblical and historical observations to make a contra-argument:

“Furthermore, since matrimony has existed from the beginning of the world, and still continues even among unbelievers, there are no reasons why it should be called a sacrament of the new law, and of the Church alone. The marriages of the patriarchs were not less marriages than ours, nor are those of unbelievers less real than those of believers; and yet no one calls them a sacrament.”

John Calvin in Institutes (Book IV. Chapter 19 §34) stood strongly against the sacramental nature of marriage.

“Marriage is a good and holy ordinance of God. Just as agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments.”

And a few paragraphs later Calvin gives his theory about why marriage was declared sacrament:

“When once the Roman Church obtained this sacramental control over marriage they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of conjugal causes: because now the thing was spiritual, it was not to be intermeddled with by profane judges. Then they enacted laws by which they confirmed their tyranny...”  Calvin gives a substantial list of contemporary examples of an overreaching church.

Reformation theologians were quite clear that the institution of marriage was not sacramental in nature and did not belong under the direct jurisdiction of the church. The Reformation did indeed open the space for the autonomy of the secular and individual. In protestant churches there is no such a thing as a “Christian Marriage”; there is no definition of Christian Marriage, and protestant churches do not have marriage laws in their codices. To the best of my knowledge all protestant churches have immediately or eventually delegated marriage law to the secular authorities (Family courts etc.).

Protestant theology can speak only about marriages of Christian(s) or marriages conducted by Christian ministers or marriages sealed within the bounds of Christian congregations and communities. In our protestant ethos, the institution of marriage is ultimately shaped, formed and regulated by any given society and their appropriate civil authorities. As civil authorities of many states broadened the realm of freedom and expanded the rights to marry to same gender couples, it is in the spirit of Reformation to allow churches and congregations in these states to treat marriages in a similar and equal manner. Church should not be lured back to Babylonian Captivity, sacerdotal tyranny (spiritually disguised), and clerical overreach in which it attempted to rule individual lives.

Family in the Bible and Family Now

Rutgers Church sent an overture to 220th General Assembly requesting some changes in the Book of Order which would unequivocally allow Presbyterian Churches to celebrate same gender weddings and thus fully embrace and support same gender families. This is a second short article from the perspective of biblical hermeneutics(interpretation of ancient religious texts). Earlier articles with the similar themes are  Biblical argument for same gender marriage. and Biblical hermeneutics and homosexuality.

Anyone at least superficially acquainted with the Hebrew Bible knows that its narratives cannot be used today as a model for family life. In these narratives polygamy is standard, endogamy (marriages withing family, clan or tribe) is desirable, certain biblical family institutions are completely foreign and difficult for us to understand (levirate law, surrogate motherhood anchored in marriage contracts...). These biblical narratives clearly presuppose a very different and distant patriarchal tribal society.
    In addition these narratives were part of an oral tradition and later became part of the written literature. Literature almost always records special, unusual, irregular, and all sorts of departures from the norm, in order to educate and/or entertain. As a result, biblical patriarchal and royal families present themselves as kaleidoscopes of pathologies. They almost always represent warnings, hardly ever positive examples.
    When we move to the New Testament and the Gospels, the cultural and societal setting seems more familiar. This impression is unfortunately quite deceptive. Substantial elements of Hellenistic family institutions would be to us very foreign. While modern western families are predominantly nuclear (parents and their children living in their own home) Hellenistic families were complex multi-generational units with married sons living in their father’s house (such large households often included family servants and slaves). An important ancient family function was economic production (family farms, trades, shops), while today’s urban families are predominantly places of economic consumption. Our marriages are based on individual commitments, while Hellenistic marriages were negotiated by families and were accompanied by formal payments. Almost all of the sociological aspects of our family life are different.
    If anyone wanted to use the the NT as a model of family life, even the return to the Victorian “traditional” family would be insufficient. Any such attempt would have to revert further back to a pre-industrial setting not unlike that of Amish communities. As picturesque and nostalgic as it might look, it is certainly not a viable model for modern and postmodern society.
    Ancient forms and shapes of family institutions are clearly part of the biblical historical background and not an essential aspect of the biblical message. Many biblical family models transplanted to our times would be considered highly unusual, nontraditional or outright abusive and illegal. 
      The Bible does not provide a model for slavish direct copying, it gives an indirect spiritual and moral compass in a constantly changing societal and cultural environment.

Biblical hermeneutics and homosexuality

Rutgers Church sent an overture to 220th General Assembly requesting some changes in the Book of Order which would unequivocally allow Presbyterian Churches to celebrate same gender weddings. I was assigned to advocate for this change from the perspective of reformation theology (And I plan to publish this argument soon), but I also prepared some elemental prolegomena from the perspective of biblical hermeneutics.  (Earlier article on this theme can be viewed in this blog under the title Biblical argument for same gender marriage.)

 

It has to be noted that there was no homosexuality before the middle of 19th century.
There certainly were same gender sexual or erotic attraction and behavior, but there was no "homosexuality" as we know it and name it today.
The word homosexuality (itself a strange combination of Greek HOMOIOS - “same” and Latin SEXUS - “gender”) appears only in the mid 19th century. The concept of “homosexuality” has all the characteristics of a social construct. It was developed as societal attempt to name, describe and control (proscribe) certain forms of sexual dispositions, feelings and behaviour.
Using the word “homosexuality” while dealing with the Bible is a clear example of an anachronism and betrays imprecise exegetical thinking. It does not help our understanding of the Bible and leads to the wrong application of biblical testimony today. What the bible (OT as well as NT) speaks about are perhaps some very narrow and highly specific aspects of what we would today describe as homosexuality. Almost all, if not all biblical passages which are so often quoted to condemn “homosexuality” actually address and condemn abusive sexual behavior. In today’s terms: the Bible condemns such aberrations like Abu Graib sexual humiliations and torture(and alike), not same gender loving and committed relationships.

One biblical example - Genesis 19 (infamous Sodom and Gomorrah passage) has a close, less known historical reworking of this classical mytheme (or mythical topos) in Judges 19 (Gibeah atrocity). When these texts are taken as a doublet, it becomes clear that these passages are not primarily about same sex relationships, but about:
     1) serious violation of the concept of Xenia (hospitality and protection of foreigners and guests), 
     2) Grave violence and sexual abuse regardless of gender, 
     3) Disintegration of society which leads to brutal consequences (in one case divine judgement, in another, what we would call, civil war).
     This understanding is further strengthened when you compare a broader Sodom and Gomorah story (Genesis 18+19) with examples of theoxenia (visits by gods in disguise of strangers) in classical literature. Here I wrote about Philemon and Baukis.
For the ancients, it was lack of hospitality towards strangers and God(s) which constituted grave sin. 

------------------------

And for those who read as far as here one more observation:

It is well known fact that the same gender penetrating sexual act between two males was the subject of a strong prejudice in the entire Ancient Near East World. It was severely punished not only in the Hebrew Bible!  For instance Middle Assyrian Laws Tablet A §§ 19 and 20 was quite clear and even in the Classical Greece male-male intercourse was hardly tolerated between men of the same rank. It is quite important to note that the penetrating party was usually punished while the penetrated was acquitted. From this pattern of punishment it is evident that same gender male sexual intercourse was perceived as (or was punished if/when perceived as) a form of abusive, forced and violent behavior towards the penetrated. This is another reason why ancient concepts, rules and laws cannot be easily and straightforwardly applied to different cultural setting many millennia later.

Biblical argument for the same gender marriage

Why we celebrate gay marriage in Rutgers church.
(Written for church newsletter)

     This summer, New York State finally changed the law allowing people of the same gander to marry. The Marriage Equality Act was passed by the State Legislature, signed by Governor on the same day, and thus became effective on July 24, 2011.

     Unfortunately our denomination – the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.,) is less progressive than the secular authority of our state. Our denomination unequivocally allows ministers only to bless same gender unions in special ceremonies. However, our denomination is slow to embrace change and our church law is completely unclear about ministers conducting marriages in states where “gay marriage” is now allowed and legal. [Please understand that this article and blog was written and published before our denomination (PCUSA) changed its Book of Order - the church' constitution. Actually this article was part of our campaign striving for this change.]            

     One of the strongest biblical arguments (at least in my opinion) for gay marriage might surprise you. It comes from the Ten Commandments, a biblical passage which has been otherwise widely abused and misinterpreted by conservative evangelicals. The seventh commandment in the traditional translation states: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In the Hebrew original there are just two words, a negative particle and a verb. I do not want to go into any detailed linguistic analysis, but anyone can understand that when two original words are translated by no fewer than five words, there is a substantial interpretation going on even on this most elemental level of language translation.

We might be in for some more surprises if we decided to understand and interpret this commandment for our times. The Biblical concept of adultery was quite specific and technical: A man could commit adultery only with someone else’s wife, thus undermining the other man’s marriage. A woman could commit adultery only if married, and it undermined only her own marriage (or more precisely, the marriage of her husband to her). 

Thus adultery was a hostile act that undermined the committed relationship of another male member of the society. It is clear that this legal and moral concept was fully rooted in the culture of a patriarchal society. Thousands years later, we do not live in patriarchal society any longer. This commandment must be re-interpreted. Quite often its meaning is simply expanded into any area of sexual morality. That is a clear example of what is called “easy-gesis,” a lazy interpretation that completely misses the main point.

The original intention of the biblical concept of adultery was: undermining someone else’s committed intimate relationship. This concept must remain at the center of any attempted modern interpretations. Our current social structures and definitions of relationships are different, but their protection should remain central to this commandment. 

We also need to recognize that, in our modern times, there are different ways to undermine other people’s relationships. One of ways of undermining other people's commited intimate relationships could easily be self-righteous religious campaigns against the same gender marriages! They vociferously reject providing security and protection to same gender couples. De facto they publicly break the seventh commandment and they achieve it regardless of their own marital fidelity. (Just try to visualize it! It would almost be an amusing idea, if it were not so sad.)    On July 24^th, New York State finally extended its protection to the same gender committed relationships. We rejoiced in this change in our congregation, and we extend our recognition and protection of committed and loving relationships to all our couples. We want to live, as faithfully as we can, according to the tenets of our reformed faith and in harmony with biblical testimony. We hope that our denomination will soon find clarity in this matter, just as it did in the matter of ordination of LGTB deacons, elders and ministers.

Once again, Rutgers Church is offering its cultural and theological leadership.


----------
This blog was written in 2011 - since then PCUSA eventually accepted and approved same gender marriages several years later and the language in the Book of Order was changed in March 2015. Rutgers Church and I personally were allowed to be a part of this change. We submitted several overtures to the General Assemblies and representatives from our church testified before the committees of the General Assembly in Pittsburgh (2012) and Detroit (2014).