Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology

Gwen B. Sayler

81

Dialogue in Dialog

Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology
By Gwen B. Sayler
Abstract: What does the Bible say about homosexuality? The argument developed in this article demonstrates that the five biblical texts often cited as proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality reflect a theological anthropology that is challenged within Scripture itself and that has been determined by the church to be contextual rather than binding in relation to other debated issues. By bringing the theological anthropology reflected in the five texts into conversation with contrasting biblical anthropologies, it becomes possible to re-frame the contemporary conversation on homosexuality in terms of discerning which biblical theological anthropology will be considered authoritative for the church in the 21st century. Key Terms: theological anthropology, priestly holiness tradition, gender role distinctions, same-sex sexual intercourse.

Whether they take place in the academy or in the congregational pew, conversations about homosexuality tend to become heated and sometimes painful. Christians confessing the biblical witness as authoritative often are frustrated by the paucity of biblical references to same-sex sexual intercourse1 and by conflicting interpretations of what the few references do or do not claim. To many scholars and lay people alike, the debate over what these verses claim in relation to the contemporary conversation has reached an impasse. This article seeks to move beyond that impasse by utilizing theological anthropology as a heuristic tool to situate individual references to same-sex

sexual intercourse within the context of the theological milieu that generated their composition. By bringing the theological anthropology reflected in these references into conversation with contrasting biblical anthropologies, it becomes possible to re-frame the contemporary conversation on homosexuality in terms of discerning which biblical theological anthropology will be considered authoritative for the church in the 21st century. This re-framing offers hither-to largely unexplored avenues for situating the discussion on homosexuality within the larger context of human sexuality and the holistic mission to which the church is called.

Gwen B. Sayler is professor of Hebrew Bible at Wartburg Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa. Among her works are Who Is God ? (Fortress, 1999), and Genesis: Creation, Choices, and Consequences (Fortress, 1996).

82

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005

Theological Anthropology of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

The times were tumultuous. Significant portions of the Jewish community had been deported to Babylon in the aftermath of the devastating defeat inflicted on Judah by the Babylonian Empire in 587 BCE. Shaken to the core by the collapse of the Davidic monarchy and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the Jewish community in Babylon existed precariously in a religiously pluralistic world in which pagan religions exerted a strong pull on many of the people. Mounting a strong counter-challenge to these competing claims was essential for the community. Many exiles feared that if the walls between us and them werent built very high to avoid any mixing with them, the Jewish community would disappear. This was the world of the priestly authors of the Torah, the men who struggled to give confidence and courage to a community whose identity was threatened as never before. Drawing on ancient traditions and integrating previously written documents into their writings, these authors were responsible for the Torah in its final form. As priests concerned above all with holiness, its not surprising that they were drawn to and further developed the ancient priestly holiness traditions located in the book of Leviticus. From the priestly perspective, the essence of holiness is separation. God is holyseparate from creation. Israel is called to be holy by remaining separate from the nations and by keeping separate the various categories around which daily life is ordered: You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff. (Lev 19:19) The critical importance of keeping categories separate, of avoiding any kind of hybridization, is evident in repeated condemnations of mixtures or confusions as toebahabominations.2 This logic permeates priestly theological anthropology. The human body is perceived as a microcosm of the cosmos. Holiness depends on each Israelite body remaining separate from non-Israelite bodies, and keeping separate the categories built into the structure of the

universe itself. As with seeds and clothing, so with human bodiesno mixing of categories is allowed. This logic guides rules about sexual relationships.3 Like their near-eastern and Greek counterparts, the priestly authors assume that penetration is the essence of sexual intercourse. Men are penetrating agents. Women are penetrated recipients of male activity. The centrality of these male/female categories for priestly anthropology is evident in the terms used to describe the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:27: So God created humanity (adam) in Gods image: male (zakar) and female (neqbah) God created them. The Hebrew word zakar also means memory. The male is the one through whom memory passes; he is the active memory-making agent. The Hebrew word neqbah means hole, orifice bearer. The female is the one whose hole is penetrated by the memory maker. She is the passive recipient, subordinate to the active male.4 From the priestly perspective, these distinctionswhat we would term gender role categoriesare imbedded in creation itself. While the priestly authors share these categories with their neighbors, they utilize them differently. In Greek thought the categories function within a system driven by issues of status and honor. In priestly thought the driving force is what we would call gender clarity. Men must be able to penetrate like real men. Those who cannot must be excluded: He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord (Deut 23:1). Moreover, men are to dress like men and women like women. A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on the garment of a woman; for the one doing this is an abomination to the Lord your God (Deut 22:5). For the priestly authors, abominationmixing or confusion of categories, here what we would term gender role categoriesis abhorrent.5 Within the world of this theological anthropology, it is precisely the mixing of gender-role categories that is stake in the condemnations of male same-sex intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Since Leviticus 20:13 simply repeats the rule given in 18:22 and adds a punishment for its violation, my focus will be on the original statement of the rule. The text is located in the section of Leviticus (chapters 1726) that extends holiness from the

Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology

Gwen B. Sayler

83

sanctuary into the ordering of daily life in the community. Chapter 18 is permeated by injunctions to Israel to remain separate from the idolatrous beliefs and ways of the surrounding nations (18:15, 21, 2427). Rules for maintaining proper categories in sexual relationshipsin particular, rules for keeping separate what needs to be separateare interspersed with these injunctions. In between a warning not to burn children to the god Moloch and a rule about avoiding sex with animals, Leviticus 18:22 states: You shall not lie with a male as with [the lying of] a woman; it is an abomination. The lying of a womana literal translation of the Hebrewrefers to the passive, penetrated position in sexual intercourse. A man is not to take the position of a woman in intercourse; in other words, he is to be on the top, not the bottom. It seems clear that what is condemned is male/male anal intercourse. Why its condemned is equally clear. Within the theological anthropology in which men are defined as penetrating agents, male/male anal intercourse is a mixing of gender-role categories that cannot be toleratedan abomination. The Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin turns to the later Talmud to support the thesis that the issue addressed by the priestly writers is gender-role distinction, not homosexuality as we define it. Commenting on the Babylonian Talmud Niddah 13b, Boyarin notes that the Talmud understands the Torahs interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbationa category that is not condemned. In contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today.6

Over against the priestly call for separation from the nations, the books of Ruth, Esther, and Jonah as well as numerous prophetic oracles paint a much more inclusive picture of Israel and the nations. Over against the gender-role categories so central to priestly theological anthropology, the post-exilic prophet Third Isaiah proclaims: Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say The Lord will surely separate me from Gods people; and let not the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. . . . for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to me besides those already gathered (Isaiah 56:35). Eunuchsmen unable to play the active penetrating rolewill be gathered into the community and given an everlasting name. This oracle of Third Isaiah is a vivid challenge within the Hebrew Bible to the theological anthropology underlying the condemnations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Clearly, the priestly anthropology is not the only theological anthropology in the Hebrew Bible. The Leviticus texts are the only references to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible. The priestly theological anthropology underlying them continues to be reflected in New Testament condemnations of same-sex intercourse.

Theological Anthropology of Romans 1:2427

Several hundred years after the priestly writers did their work, a first century Jew newly named Paul emerged as a leader of the nascent Christian church. His experience on the road to Damascus led him to believe that through the death and resurrection of Jesus the walls separating Jew and Gentile had come tumbling down. In the new creation brought into

The Hebrew Bibles Contrasting Anthropologies

The theological perspective of the priestly authors is dominant, but not exclusive in the Hebrew Bible.

84

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005

being by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, salvation is offered through faith to all who believe in Jesus the ChristJew and Gentile alike. This, of course, is the primary theme of Pauls Letter to the Romans. While in Romans Paul consistently challenges the priestly categories separating Israel from the nations, he is less consistent in challenging the gender-role categories integral to priestly theological anthropology. This is apparent in his argument in Romans 1. Pauls goal in Romans 12 is to convince his readers that neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim to righteousness before God. Chapter 1 establishes the desperate situation of Gentiles apart from Christ; chapter 2 does the same for Jews. Throughout Romans 1, Pauls debt to the theological anthropology of Leviticus is clear. Like Leviticus and similar to other Hellenistic Jewish authors, Paul condemns the Gentiles as idolatrous. Like Leviticus, he utilizes the language of holiness, impurity, defilement, shame, and abomination to develop his theological argument. The condemnation of same-sex sexual intercourse occurs as explication of Pauls assertion that God has given up the idolatrous Gentiles to the desires of their hearts, to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves (1:24). The language of impurity, particularly situated as it is here in the context of condemnation of pagan idolatry, hearkens back to the language and concerns of Leviticus 18.7 Paul continues: Therefore, God gave them over to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and likewise men abandoned natural intercourse with women and burned in their desire for one other, men with men perpetuating shameless acts with one another; and the corresponding penalty which was in the nature of things for their error they received in themselves (1:2627). Here Paul condemns same-sex intercourse as the unnatural act of people who previously have turned away from God. The shape of this condemnation raises at least two sets of questions for us: 1) How does Paul define the categories natural/unnatural, and what are the implications of that definition for our contemporary conversation? 2) What are we to make of Pauls assertion that same-sex intercourse is

a demonstration of Gods wrath against humans who refuse to honor God as creator? Discerning how Paul defines the categories natural/unnatural in Romans 1:2427 is complicated by the rarity with which he uses this terminology in his letters. An inter-textual search for other Pauline references that can shed light on the definition at work in Romans 1 leads us to 1 Corinthians 11. There, addressing the issue of male and female worship leadership in the Corinthian congregation, Paul asserts: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered shames his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her headit is the same as if her head were shaven. . . . For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. . . . Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is dishonorable to him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory? (1Cor 11: 35, 7, 1315). In this text what nature teaches clearly is defined in terms of what we would call gender-role distinction. Men are to look and act like men . . . and women like women. To do otherwise is against natureunnatural. This gendered definition of natural, set in the context of the hierarchical theological anthropology of 1Corinthians 11, sheds light on Pauls definition of natural/unnatural in Romans 1. In fact, Pauls somewhat surprising decision in Romans to mention female same-sex intercourse at all and to condemn it before condemning male same-sex intercourse might be intended to serve precisely as an illustration of where the unnatural gender deviance denounced in 1Cor 11 might lead.8 In Romans 1:26, Pauls condemnation of female same-sex intercourse begins with the pronoun their. Their women are the ones engaging in unnatural intercourse. The referent of their can be assumed to be wives and daughters of Gentile men. The fact that women are identified in relation to the men to whom they are attached is part and

Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology

Gwen B. Sayler

85

parcel of the anthropological model Paul is using the same hierarchical model with its gender role categories that he used in 1Cor 11. It is within the context of this model that his subsequent condemnations are situated.9 Research into the Hellenistic Jewish milieu in which Paul speaks reveals that he is not unique among his counterparts in condemning same-sex intercourse as unnatural. Josephus argues that the only sexual relationship allowed by Jewish law is natural intercourse between a man and his wife, undertaken for the sole purpose of procreation. He further states that in this natural union the woman is inferior in every respect to the man.10 Her womb is simply the field in which the mans seed is sown. Philo argues that Leviticus condemns male samesex intercourse for two reasons: 1) in it one man plays a passive feminine role, which is contrary to nature; and 2) it is not procreative, which to Philo is the sole purpose of sexual intercourse.11 It should be noted that Philo also defines sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman as unnatural, as are sexual relations between one species of animal and another.12 In expressing these views, Paul and his Hellenistic Jewish counterparts reflect both ancient priestly theological anthropology and the Greco-Roman world view in which asymmetrical sexual relationships were viewed as the norm. Utilizing extensive data from the Greco-Roman world, Bernadette Brooten argues convincingly that the shapers of Pauls culture defined any type of vaginal intercourse, whether consensual or coerced, as natural. What makes it natural is the proper gender-role configurationto wit, an active penetrating man and a passive penetrated woman. What we call rape, for example, would be classified as natural intercourse. Within that cultural worldview, female same-sex intercourse is condemned as unnatural on the assumption that one of the women must be attempting to play the active penetrative male role; conversely, male same-sex intercourse is condemned on the grounds that one of the men is submitting to the passive female penetrated role. In the cultural milieu in which Paul speaks, penetrative position is the operative category in evaluating sexual relationships as natural or unnatural.13

Paul doesnt share all the priestly concerns of his Jewish counterparts Philo and Josephus. He says nothing about the naturalness or unnaturalness of sexual relationships with menstruating women and is not at all concerned with procreation. However, writing as a man of his time and culture, he does share with them and with Greco-Roman authors certain assumptions about proper gender-roles configurations. That Paul condemns same-sex sexual intercourse as unnatural is clear. Why he condemns it also is clear. He does so based on a hierarchical theological anthropology that defines men as active penetrating agents and women as passive penetrated recipients. At stake is what we call proper gender role distinction. Situating Pauls condemnations in the context of the anthropological model operative in Romans 1 sheds light on the question of how he defines natural and unnatural. It also leads naturally to the second question raised by Pauls words: is same-sex intercourse by its very nature a manifestation of the Gods wrath against human idolatry? This is the position of New Testament scholar Richard Hays.14 Hays argues that God created man and woman to be in a complementary sexual relationship, an argument for which he finds theological warrant in the creation stories of Genesis 13. From Hays perspective, in Romans 1 Paul is using same-sex intercourse to provide a vivid image of humanitys primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the Creator.15 As he develops his argument, Hays acknowledges that Paul speaks from a Hellenistic Jewish cultural context that shapes his understanding of nature. He also asserts that Paul appeals to an intuitive conception of what ought to be in the world designed by God in distinguishing natural from unnatural intercourse.16 In critiquing Hays argument, Bernadette Brooten agrees that Romans 1 is concerned with humanitys rebellion against God and that for Paul same-sex intercourse does constitute a flouting of the sexual distinctions that are fundamental to Gods creative design.17 She challenges, Hays, however, on the grounds that he fails to deal with the question of why Paul and other ancient writers define certain sexual distinctions as natural. Noting that Hays concedes that Paul constructs his concept of nature

86

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005

by appealing to an intuitive conception of what ought to be in the world designed by God, she questions why Hays doesnt consider the impact of the anthropological model Paul is using on his intuition of the nature of Gods design for creation. She concludes that ultimately Hays attributes full truth and authority not only to Paul, but also to the anthropological model predominant in Pauls culture.18 Building on Brootens critique, I would like to suggest that Hays lack of attention to gender-role categories in the theological anthropology of the priestly texts and in Romans 1 allows him to make ontological claims about Gods design for creation that exceed the biblical witness. Certainly, the stories of Genesis 13 celebrate the creation of male and female and the blessings of procreation and becoming one flesh. Yet, as Jewish scholar David Daube notes, these are blessings, not commands.19 To use these texts to limit the creativity of the Creator in shaping and forming a diverse creation runs the risk of transforming a wonderful blessing into a command that excludes and condemns a part of the diversity that perhaps is Gods design for creation. To establish his carefully articulated argument that Gentile and Jew alike are in utter need of Jesus Christ, Paul utilizes a particular theological anthropology in Romans 1:2427 to condemn same-sex intercourse as a violation of what to him are natural gender role categories. Part of the hermeneutical challenge before the contemporary church is to discern whether this anthropological model with its definition of natural remains authoritative today and then to spell out the implications of what is discerned. Predecessor ELCA church bodies went through this hermeneutical discernment process when considering whether to allow the ordination of women. After struggling with Pauls admonitions in 1Cor 11 and in other texts, the church discerned that the theological anthropology reflected in those texts was contextual and thus not binding in the contemporary conversation. Based on this hermeneutical precedence, I suggest that the condemnations of Romans 1:2427based as they are on a theological anthropological model the church has already determined to be contextualcannot be used in the ELCA to argue

definitively that homosexuality is contrary to Gods will or a manifestation of Gods wrath. While Romans 1 cannot be used to argue for the full inclusion of homosexual bodies within the Body of Christ, neither can it be used to argue against it.

1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10

The question of whether and to what extent Paul refers to same-sex sexual behavior outside of Romans 1 is made difficult by ambiguities surrounding two words arsenokoitai and malakoithat appear in a vice list in 1Cor 6:9. Vice lists were a common genre in the Greco-Roman world. As Victor Furnish notes, Paul utilizes and adapts these lists to address issues of concern for the communities he addresses.20 The list in 1Cor 6:9 condemns the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Difficulties inherent in translating malakoi and arsenokoitai are evident in the ways the terms are translated as: homosexuals (RSV, 1st ed.), sexual perverts (RSV, 2d ed.), guilty . . . of homosexual perversion (NEB), and as male prostitutes and sodomites (NRSV).21 Paul seems to have been the earliest author to use the term arsenokoita. Since arsen is Greek for man and koites means bed, some sort of sexual activity is envisaged. Noting that the Septuagints translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 places the words arsenos and koite in near proximity to each other, Martii Nissinen suggests that perhaps Paul simply is creating a neologism based on the Septuagint version.22 In this case, the reference is to male same-sex anal intercourse, with all the blurring of gender roles inherent in that activity. Clearly, the meaning of arsenokoitai is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant great caution in stating what it does or doesnt mean in reference to contemporary discussions on homosexuality. In contrast to arsenokoitai, the word malakoi was known in the Greek world of Pauls time. Defined as soft, it often has an effeminate nuance, especially when used in reference to pederasty. Nissinen notes that in Greco-Roman sources the term does not refer to we call a mans sexual orientation or gender

Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology

Gwen B. Sayler

87

identification, but to his moral effeminacythat is, to his lack of self-control and yielding to pleasures.23 Self-control and discipline, not sexual object choice, is what is at stake in judgments against malakoi. Thus, while same-sex sexual behavior quite likely is condemned in 1Cor 6:9, the reasons for that condemnation are unclear and seem to bear little resemblance to the shape of the discussion about homosexuality in the church today. Similarly, the reference to arsenokoitai in the vice list of 1Tim 1:10 is full of ambiguity as regards its potential value for the contemporary discussion. The two vice lists and Romans 1:2427 are the only New Testament references to same-sex sexual intercourse. All reflect a theological anthropology in which the issue at stake is gender role distinction, not what in contemporary terms is called orientation. The theological anthropology represented in these texts, however, is not the only theological anthropology reflected in the New Testament.

The New Testaments Contrasting Anthropologies

While Paul utilizes the priestly anthropological model in Rom 1 and 1Cor 11, elsewhere he challenges its gender-role categories on the grounds that in Christ a new realitya new theological anthropologyhas come into being. This anthropology is reflected in the baptismal confession of Galatians 3:2728: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. It is reflected also in Pauls references to the believers body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit (e.g., 1Cor 6:19) and in his use of Body of Christ imagery to describe the Christian community (e.g., 1Cor 12). Pauls insistence on the importance of each part of the Body, particularly those parts often regarded as less worthy of respect (1Cor 12:1426) invites the reader to envision a community structured far differently than through the neat genderrole categories of priestly theological anthropology.

Paul, of course, is not the only voice in the New Testament. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus words and actions consistently challenge priestly theological anthropology. His parables of the reign of God disrupt priestly categories separating clean from unclean, outsider from insider, righteous from sinner. Moreover, in a world in which mixing is condemned as abomination, Jesus table fellowship is one of the greatest mixers of all time. Melanie Morrison argues that Jesus table fellowship with the contemptible of his worldprostitutes, persons with disabilities or incurable illnesses, persons labeled sinner because of their economic and social classfunctions as a sign of Gods inclusive love at the heart of the reign incarnate in Jesus. In this context, she notes that particularly in Matthew and Mark, Jesus call to repentance is aimed not at persons categorized as sinners within priestly theological anthropology, but at those who seek to exclude them as despised and disreputable. Jesus shatters the categories that keep people apart, that separate them from one another. Theres room for all at the table, including and particularly the most vulnerable in society. Of such is the reign of God.24 Jesus challenge to the priestly theological anthropology includes a challenge to its gender-role categories. Jesus invites men who dont meet the criterion real men to the table and includes them as equals. He affirms women who take an active role in reaching out for healing, and includes them as equals in the mixed company of believers that follow him. Old priestly gender-role categories are superceded in the Reign of God. Although he says a lot about adultery and divorce, Jesus says nothing about same-sex intercourse. However, Martii Nissinen suggests that one text may have more bearing on our conversation about homosexuality than is often realized. Matthew 19:1012 reports the following conversation between Jesus and the disciples: The disciples said to him, If this (Jesus response to the Pharisees concern about divorce) is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry. But Jesus said to them, Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are

88

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005

eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. Who might qualify as a eunuch from birth? Nissinen notes that the Greek word eunouchoi, defined as those incapable of marriage, can in a broad sense include anyone for whom marital life is impossible. He suggests that given our modern definition of marriage as the permanent union of two heterosexual individuals, persons who qualify as eunuch from birth, that is individuals for whom marriage is impossible, might well include persons whose orientation is homosexual.25 The proposal is intriguing. Both Third Isaiah and Jesus envision a world in which there is room for men who cannot play the active penetrating role in sexual intercourse. Can these challenges to priestly gender-role categories serve as a resource for the church in the contemporary conversation about homosexuality? The possibility is intriguing.

Conclusion
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? If only the answer were as clear as many questioners would like! The argument developed in this article has demonstrated that the five biblical texts often cited as proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality reflect a theological anthropology that is challenged within Scripture itself and that has been determined by the church to be contextual rather than binding in relation to other debated issues. The question before the church as regards homosexuality actually is one of theological anthropology: which biblical theological anthropology will the church discern as normative in its discernment process? Re-framing the question as one of theological anthropology will facilitate movement beyond the present interpretative impasse to a more expansive conversation on sexuality. Each one of us comes to the conversation as an embodied sexual person with desires and dreams, needs and challenges. We need to learn to talk together about these things theologically. We need to discern the implications of the theological anthropology we claim as authoritative

for each one of us as embodied sexual persons in the marvelous creation with which God has gifted us. Re-framing the question in terms of theological anthropology also will facilitate clarification of what actually is at stake in the churchs conversation on homosexualityto wit, the very presence of embodied homosexual persons within the community. It will clarify, for example, contradictions inherent in the interpretive move of permitting homosexuals to be ordained as long as they dont act on their sexuality. A heterosexual is heterosexual whether engaged in sexual intercourse or not. The same is true of homosexuals. As a lesbian pastor who has chosen to remain celibate in order to be allowed to continue my pastoral call to serve God among Gods people, I can say with all my heart that mandating celibacy as a way around the issue of sexual embodiment is not a healthy route. On the contrary, the requirement has caused deep and searing pain to many homosexual bodies and has been detrimental to the health of the church as well. Re-framing the question in terms of theological anthropology also will reveal the total inadequacy of the varieties of interpretative strategies designed to condemn homosexuality while at the same time welcoming homosexual persons in the church. It will clarify the contradictions inherent in efforts to separate being from behaving, efforts often articulated in the slogan loving the sinner while hating the sin. I am who I am and you are who you are irregardless of what any one of us is or isnt doing in the bedroom. The issue in the conversation is the theological anthropology of embodiment, not activity or the lack-there. The churchs conversation has begun, and theres no going back. Is there room in the various denominational corners of the Body of Christ for homosexual bodies? Truly, I do not know. The theological anthropology the church adopts in its hermeneutical discernment will be crucial. Embodied lives are at stake in the conversation.

Endnotes
1. The five biblical references to same-sex sexual intercourse include Lev 18: 22 and 20:13; Rom 1:2427; 1Cor 6:9; 1Tim 1:10.

Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology

Gwen B. Sayler

89

2. Daniel Boyarin, Are There Any Jews in the History of Sexuality? Journal of the History of Sexuality 5.3 (1995) 341345. 3. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1722. AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 13711378. 4. Boyarin, 341349. 5. Ibid., 340345. 6. Ibid., 337339. 7. Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Eroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 232234. Newton, Michael, The Concept of Purity and Qumran and in the Letter of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 102104. 8. Brooten, 236241. 9. Ibid., 239241. 10. Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, 2.199201, with an English translation by H. St. J. Thackeray in Josephus, vol. 1 (London: William Heinemann, 1926), 373. 11. Philo of Alexandria, On the Special Laws, 3. 742, with an English translation by F. H. Colson in Philo, vol. 7 (London: William Heinemann, 1949), 479501. 12. Ibid., 3.782.

13. Brooten, 241253. 14. Richard Hays, Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1 Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986) 184215. 15. Ibid., 184. 16. Ibid., 194. 17. Ibid., 191. 18. Brooten, 245. 19. David Daube, The Duty of Procreation (Edinburgh: University Press, 1977) 16. 20. Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abington Press, 1968) 84. 21. Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, translated by Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 114. 22. Ibid., 116. 23. Ibid., 117118. 24. Melanie Morrison, The Politics of Sin: Practical Theological Issues in Lesbian Feminist Perspective (Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit, 1998), 217220. 25. Nissinen, 120121.