What the Bible Really Says About Sex . . . Really?

AlbertMohler.com ^ | February 9, 2011 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[wmfights]

Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years? The current issue of Newsweek magazine reports on “new scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits” that is supposed to turn our understanding of the Bible’s teachings on sex upside down.

Lisa Miller, Newsweek’s religion editor, wrote the article entitled “What the Bible Really Says About Sex.” Well, the one thing you need to know up front is that the article falls far short of its title.

Miller bases her report on two recent books — Michael Coogan’s God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire. Neither of these books breaks new ground. Instead, the books distill arguments that have become common among liberal and revisionist Bible scholars and homosexual activist groups.

Coogan, trained as a Jesuit priest, has served as editor of The Oxford Annotated Bible, a favorite study Bible among theological liberals. He currently serves as director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum. In God and Sex, Coogan argues that the biblical condemnations of various sexual behaviors and relationships should not be considered normative for today. In his words, the biblical texts on sexuality “reflect the presuppositions and prejudices, the ideas and ideals of their authors.” He argues that we should not be bound by those same prejudices.

He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God. The guild of academic biblical scholars has adopted a liberal approach to the Bible, he affirms, and the real problem is that the great multitude of church-goers have not joined the scholars in this liberal approach. Coogan laments the fact that “we have not succeeded in changing the way most nonspecialists and even many in the clergy think about the Bible.” Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”

Yes, Dr. Coogan, people do still maintain that belief.

To his credit, Coogan does not argue dishonestly. He is straightforward in presenting his rendering of the key biblical texts, for his main point is that the church is not bound by the “presuppositions and prejudices” of those texts.

Jennifer Wright Knust follows a very different game plan in Unprotected Texts, though she shares Coogan’s rejection of biblical inspiration. Knust, who teaches religion at Boston University, bases her revisionism on the claim that the Bible simply lacks any consistent sexual ethic. “The Bible is not only contradictory but complex,” she insists. Some parts of the Bible “promote points of view that, from a modern perspective anyway, are patently immoral.”

An ordained American Baptist pastor, Knust argues that the Bible is so contradictory when it comes to sexual matters that we cannot gain any consistent sexual ethic from its pages. Her agenda is clear from the start — she wants to overthrow the normative authority of the Bible on matters of sexual morality.

Lisa Miller summarizes the arguments of Coogan and Knust by explaining that they are each attempting “to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right.” Putting the two books together, Miller explains that they argue along these lines: first, that “the Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.” Second, that “sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.” Third, that “that which is forbidden is also allowed.” And fourth, that “accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.”

Well, one immediate problem with this set of arguments is that they are themselves contradictory. Is the Bible itself wrong, or just its interpretations? If the Bible is just an ancient text, which is not relevant in its particulars for the modern world, why argue over its interpretation? They need to get their story straight.

Knust and Coogan cannot even agree when it comes to the particulars. Knust claims that King David “enjoyed sexual satisfaction” with Jonathan, and that this thus serves as evidence of an authorized homosexual relationship within Scripture. Again, to his credit, Coogan is too careful a scholar to go with that kind of argument. David and Jonathan were covenant partners, he argues — “but despite the claims of some gay activists, they were not sexual partners.”

Lisa Miller notes that “Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex.” As a matter of fact, almost all of the arguments made in these books have been around for the past thirty years. Miller argues that it is the populism of these books that sets them apart. “With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books,” she explains. “But their greater cause is a fight against ‘official’ interpretations.”

In response to that, Lisa Miller quotes me: “That’s why Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities.” I enjoyed my conversation with Ms. Miller, but my point was not that the church needs “proper authorities,” but that just any interpretation of the Bible will not do. The authority in this issue is that of the Bible itself. Those who read it as bearing the very authority of God will read the Bible quite differently than those who see it as a human book conditioned and warped by human frailty and fallibility.

The most important point I made to Lisa Miller is that revisionist interpreters of the Bible are playing a dishonest game. Consider the audacity of their claim: they claim that no one has rightly understood the Bible for over two thousand years. No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual — at least not until recent decades. The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?

I have far greater respect for the intellectual integrity of the scholar who reads the Bible and interprets it honestly, but then rejects it with candor. This is far superior to evasive and clever attempts to make the Bible say what it plainly does not say. The Bible is brutally honest about human sinfulness in all its forms, including sexuality. Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent and clear sexual ethic. The issue is not a lack of clarity.

The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision. To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled.

[Tax-chick]

Heh. Bill kicked me off the computer so he could study for the SAT. He wouldn’t need so much financial aid if I weren’t a grand multipara, over and over again ... muy fecunda.

[conservonator]

...four...

[conservonator]

Heh. Bill kicked me off the computer so he could study for the SAT. He wouldn’t need so much financial aid if I weren’t a grand multipara, over and over again ... muy fecunda.

Ha!

Saved an OBG/Peds. Nurse wife and Spanish class!

[conservonator]

should read "Saved by an OBG/Peds. Nurse wife and Spanish class!"

going home now...

[circlecity]

"Please understand that I am firmly, urgently, on your side, not theirs."

I understand that. I don't consider our posts to be arguing with each other, rather, we've been fleshing out the issue. I think combined they do rather good job of "help[ing] arm fellow Christians against gay exegetes."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yay! Thanks -— and God bless you. I’ll get back to you again, if you don’t mind -— as soon as I mop my kitchen floor!

[Tax-chick]

Foiled! So many people understand Spanish that it’s not very useful for confusicating.

[Theo]

“The historic church” is the Bride of Christ, consisting of those adopted into the family of God. It finds its home in heaven, not in Rome.

And *that* is what Mohler is talking about, not some popous bureaucracy based in Rome or any other earthly location.

It really is stunning how Roman Catholics define “the church” differently from those who have simply responded to Christ’s call to follow Him. It really is stunning how Roman Catholics reject the definition of the Church as the mysterious Bride of Christ, and choose instead to see it as a collection of buildings and staff managed out of Europe. You trace your history back to Rome; I trace mine back to Christ.

[RobbyS]

Most of the stuff people think they about the Puritans is wrong, or a stereotype. Ditto, our grandparents, who were people who kept things to themselves. The Puritans were a passionate race, passionately concerned about the states of their souls, and by our standards narrowly but deep in their appreciation of things. Still water runs deep.

[RobbyS]

And an unbeliever on a mission to discredit his youthful faith. Like Father Crossan. Like Crossan he spins theories, of what might the words have meant but all resting on the supposition that God —the Christian God—is an invention of man and does not exist, or does not care.

[RobbyS]

It really is stunning how Roman Catholics define “the church” differently from those who have simply responded to Christ’s call to follow Him. It really is stunning how Roman Catholics reject the definition of the Church as the mysterious Bride of Christ, and choose instead to see it as a collection of buildings and staff managed out of Europe. You trace your history back to Rome; I trace mine back to Christ.

This is simply not true, as you might see simply by reading the Catholic Catechism if you mind were not closed. But beyond that, if you want to know how pious Catholics think of the Church, one simply has to look at the lives of the Saints they revere and seek to pattern their own lives after. In the Bible there is constant reference to the Remnant, to those who do the will of the Lord, and it is always connected to the Descendents Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Always God is paring sway, Gideon tells us how to choose men who will win in battle. Judah remains faithful to God as Ephraim is scattered among the nations. The Remnant of Judah remains true, while the Edomites never recover their lands, even though they two are descendents of Abraham. And if you were listening, you would hear the words of the pope. If Europe and America are to be saved, it will be by the few, the faithful, the brave--the saints.

[Theo]

If what I wrote about the Bride of Christ is not true, why do Roman Catholics consider non-RC followers of Christ to be outside the fold? Indeed, many consider non-RC Christ-followers to be outright anathema.

Many of “the Saints,” as you call them, were Christ-followers, men and women to be revered. Whether they submitted to Rome or not is irrelevant; whether they served the Lord and others honorably is very relevant. Protestants have as much a connection to “the Saints” as any collection of believers, including the RC Church.

I’ve found that most Roman Catholic FReepers seem to love their denomination more than Christ, and admonish other Christ-followers who don’t tithe to Rome. That kind of provincialism is tiring.

Rome does not save. Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the crucified one — He saves. Pursue Him, not Rome, not the majestic cathedrals, not the ancient liturgy.

It’s interesting that you mention the “remnant.” I would consider those whom God “pared away” from Rome to be God’s remnant.

[RobbyS]

Rome does not save.

Who the heck ever said that?

Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the crucified one — He saves.

Which is exactly what Rome says. So I should not follow their advise?

Pursue Him, not Rome, not the majestic cathedrals, not the ancient liturgy,

But the two are not antithetical. Rome preaches Christ. The churches were built as places to be filled with the glory of God. The liturgy is "Pursued" because it is indeed ancient, because it begins with Jesus himself. Jesus the Jew, for the liturgy repeats not only his words but the words of the Psalmists and Prophets and the Law, words he himself repeated throughout his time with us on earth. How can you disdain the Liturgy when it consists of the Word of God and honors his presence among us?

[Campion]

The Bible interprets itself. All one needs is a bible, a concordance, linguistic books if they don’t speak Greek or Hebrew and lots of hours of study.

If the Bible really interpreted itself, you wouldn't need any of those other things. ;-)

But what you are forgetting is that, no matter how carefully those tools are used, that interpretation still has to go through a human being (that being the one I see in the mirror). And who is more likely than me to try to rationalize away my own sins? As Scripture itself says:

The heart is deceitful above all things,And desperately wicked; Who can know it? -- Jer 17:9

and in another place

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Prov 3:5-6

I should point out that the Catholic Church herself would say that the immorality of homosexual conduct is a matter of natural law, and that neither the Bible nor the Church nor Sacred Tradition is absolutely necessary to know that it's wrong; unaided human reason suffices. (But not when that reason is sufficiently clouded and damaged by sin. The tool is sufficient for the task as originally supplied, but not after it's been badly damaged.)

[Salvation]

The Word Among Us

Meditation: Genesis 2:18-25

“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

In this charming story, God creates man from clay and creates everything else for his enjoyment. Yet something is missing. A solitary human being is incomplete, and even the most special pet cannot make up for it. In the end, God takes a piece of the man’s own flesh and makes a partner who complements him perfectly.

When he is presented with God’s handiwork, Adam is awe-struck. He immediately recognizes that this creature is able to fill the void he has been feeling, and he cries out: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Adam knows that he doesn’t need a yes-man, someone to echo his thoughts and carry out his plans. No, he recognizes Eve as “flesh of his flesh” and yet delight-fully different from himself. As every husband and wife will attest, that difference can be mystifying and frustrating at times. But the love they experience for each other tells them that with patient observation and intimate conversation, they can grow to understand each other more and more—and their love can grow deeper and deeper.

While this passage has much to teach us about the joys and blessings of marriage, it tells us just as much about the joys and blessings of friendship. God didn’t intend for us to live in isolation. No, he created us for relationship.

So treasure your friendships. Cherish your husband or wife. Of course they are not exactly like you. That’s part of the beauty of relationships. God gives us people whose strengths complement our weaknesses. He gives us friends who help us stay honest with ourselves so that we don’t get caught in a trap of self-congratulation. The moment we let our differences overshadow our love for each other is the moment we need to change our thinking and recall the gift that they are to us.

May we always let our love for each other cover the flaws we think we see. Remember: It is not good for us to be alone!

“Father, thank you for placing other people in my life. Help me to see you in their faces, and teach me how to share myself with them.”

Psalm 128:1-5; Mark 7:24-30

[Tax-chick]

I was really touched by that meditation when I read it yesterday morning.

[circlecity]

"But what you are forgetting is that, no matter how carefully those tools are used, that interpretation still has to go through a human being (that being the one I see in the mirror).'

You forgoet to mention the most important tool I listed, the one which can overcome the deceitfulness of the human heart - the indwelling Holy Spirit who sorts all things.

[Theo]

Many Roman Catholic FReepers say that if you’re not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, then you are apostate, outside of true fellowship, outside the faith. Many Roman Catholic FReepers would say that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

In essence, they are saying that one can only be saved through Rome.

And that’s what I’m challenging, this notion that Christ is insufficient to save.

FWIW, I don’t “distain” the Liturgy, or majestic cathedrals. I do bristle when people promote their denomination over others by pointing to the architecture of their buildings and the length of time since someone penned a particular Liturgy.

It seems you’re not as snarky and denominationalistic as many RC FReepers; I wish more were like you, promoting Jesus more than a particular organizational affiliation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It really is stunning how Roman Catholics reject the definition of the Church as the mysterious Bride of Christ, and choose instead to see it as a collection of buildings and staff managed out of Europe. You trace your history back to Rome; I trace mine back to Christ."

You have made an error here, surely inadvertently, and yet in a way that is damaging to your argument.

What you have done is attribute a deformed and unrecognizable definition of "church" to me or to Catholicism, which is quite baseless, and then disdainfully rejected that definition, what was not mine to begin with, but yours.

In other words, you have falsely imputed to me and to my faith community, this version of "church" - "a collection of buildings and staff managed out of Europe" - which neither I nor my faith community accept as a definition. Then you dispatch it: an easy thing to do, since it is not a definition anybody would defend.

It's what's known as a "Straw Man Argument": setting up a false figure and then knocking it down.

If you would like to know how Catholics really see and define "Church", you ought to do the sensible thing and derive it from --- for instance--- the Catholic catechism.

That's what an intelligent and fair-minded person --- like, for instance, Dr. Mohler --- would do.

I don't thiink that's too much to ask.

[Theo]

So you agree that “Protestants” trace their lineage back to Christ and the early Church, and that Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who can claim a rich spiritual heritage going back 2,000+ years?

Most RC FReepers say that non-Roman Catholics trace their lineage only back to Luther, and that only Roman Catholicism goes all the way back to Jesus and His Apostles.

Would you say that the Baptist church down the street is an expression of Christ’s Church no less than the Roman Catholic church down the street?