Moderator Doug Schmidt  

Pastor Jeff Short  
  

Lureen LaFountaine is an ordained minister inthe Denver Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church USA.  

John Rankin is President of the Theological EducationInstitute. Address: TEI, 100 Allyn St., Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860)246-0099 

JOHN: I guess, Lureen, my basic question would be the one I posed. Canyou give me evidence in the order of creation for the provision of homosexualityas God's gift? 

LUREEN: I think in terms of the order of creation, the Genesis 1 storywas not about marriage. If it were, let's look at scripture after it. Whydid we have concubines birthing children for Jacob and Abraham, and whydid we have polygamy? I find it very interesting that people lift up thatGenesis 1 and say, one man, one woman, that's the way it is. If that werethe case, how come the Israelite community had multiple wives, multipleconcubines, extended family? That's one point in really wondering if thattruly... I personally don't think that's about order of creation, per se,I believe that is about humankind, that there is male and female, "adam".Because the word is "adam", humanity. The writer goes on to say male andfemale. To define what "adam" meant in terms of humanity. That's my basicresponse in terms of the order of creation. If it is indeed one man, onewoman, why do we have a scripture that is prolific of polygamy? 

JOHN RANKIN: OK. I think the answer very simply is when I identifiedcreation, sin, and redemption. In other words, God gave us the freedomto choose to accept what was right. But since his nature and power is togive and not to force us, he also gave us the freedom to choose what iswrong. And therefore, once sin comes into the world, all sorts of brokennesscomes into it. In fact, it was my thesis at Harvard... I'm sure you'veread Elisabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza and Phyllis Trible, among others. Mythesis was on their work. These are the two leading feminist theologians,I would say, who articulate ... 

LUREEN: Two of many. 

JOHN: ... well at least, ten years ago ... who articulate a view thatthe Bible is intrinsically patriarchal and treating women as second class.I argued that all the second-class treatment of women begins subsequentto Genesis 3:16, subsequent to the introduction of sin. Therefore, my wholeargument is going to say that that brokenness comes subsequently. 

Real briefly, "adam" indeed is the Hebrew word for male and female.But it's assigned to the first male as well. So there's a representativenature there. Part of the Hebrew use of the word "adam" both in Genesischapter 1 and 2, and chapter 5, is the moral equality but distinctnessbetween man and woman. 

So basically I'll come back and rephrase the question one more time.Actually, I'll leave it rhetorically. 

LUREEN: Or I'll answer it. 

JOHN: OK, you can answer it. Would you agree with me that in Genesischapter 1 and 2 on its own terms, it has no provision for other than heterosexual,faithful marriage? 

LUREEN: I wouldn't agree with you. I would agree that there wasn't anotion of gay-lesbian-bisexuality. There wasn't an understanding of ... 

JOHN: God didn't have that notion, then, when he gave the order of creation? 

LUREEN: No. I believe that people didn't have that understanding. Imean, what do we do with the story of Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi.I mean there's ... 

JOHN: Well... 

LUREEN: Let me finish. 

JOHN: I'm sorry. 

LUREEN: You gotta love this, don't ya. I'm a pastor first, and not alawyer. So when we talk about debate and rebuttal, all that stuff goesover my head. 

In terms of scripture, there wasn't a notion of gay-lesbian-bisexuality.That's a reality. There's people ... I would suggest Jonathan and David,looking at David as a bisexual, Ruth and Naomi. There was an understandingof male and female, and the whole idea was procreation. Because you hada society where the focus was on growing that nation, growing that distinctcommunity of God. So that was the focus, I believe, at that time. Therewas no mention of gay-lesbian-bisexuality, per se. But what do we do withgay-lesbian-bisexual people who are here? 

JOHN: OK, that's fair. But see, I'm looking at our interpretive foundation.In terms of Jonathan and David, there is nothing exegetically whatsoever.The love between two Hebrew men, as a real friendship that had no sexualinvolvement whatsoever is utterly clear. And it is incumbent upon you toshow that these two men were engaged in homosexual behavior and that wasaffirmed. And it's not there. What I think that is, is taking experienceand then weaving your presuppositions into it. 

Back to the whole idea of the order of creation. I guess here is wheremy question is. You are saying, OK, the order of creation knows nothingabout gay or lesbian or bisexual expression. Is therefore the order ofcreation in Genesis 1 and 2 representative of God's character, or is itnot? 

LUREEN: I believe that the scriptures represent the patriarchy, thepatriarchal culture. 

JOHN: Then you can't trust them. 

LUREEN: Hang on. It's a part of God's character. But I think that therehave been gay-lesbian-bisexual people throughout history. Jonathan andDavid I would argue ... I'm a pastor first, not a biblical scholar. Ifyou give me a week, I'll become a biblical scholar on that passage. 

JOHN: That's fair. 

LUREEN: Gay-lesbian-bisexual people have been with us throughout thecenturies. 

The passage in Genesis, particularly Genesis 2 where it says a man shallleave his family and a woman should cleave to him, that was under a patriarchicalnotion that we as women were property. That we had no rights. That cleavage,in terms of property, was a contractual agreement. It was marriage butit was seen as power over, instead of shared. I think with gay-lesbian-bisexualpeople you have a shared power, not power over, not male over female. Butyou have a shared power, male-male, female-female. 

JOHN: OK, I need to respond there, because this was also central inmy thesis. In Genesis 1 and 2, the only power that God the Father exercisedis his power to give, bless, and benefit. The only power he ordains forAdam is to treat Eve the same way, and Eve to treat Adam the same way.You see many sins in the Old Testament because people sinned. But the orderof creation is that to which Jesus is seeking to restore us to all theway through. And so you don't have in the order of creation, in Genesis1 and 2, any basis whatsoever for women to be treated as property. Manyfeminists that I have studied with tried to separate Genesis 1 and 2, becausethey tried to say, well, Genesis 1, which they know is the only origintext in all history that treats women as equal image bearers of God, whereasthe other religious origin texts treats them as property, which is notso here in the order of creation in Genesis. 

And so I think that essentially my question ultimately comes down tothis. Do we trust the order of creation on its own terms in Genesis 1 and2? And I hear you saying that there are many exception clauses which Ibelieve you are reading back into the text, the violation that comes afterthe introduction of sin. I don't think you can read back into the textand then claim the text on itself... For example, you quoted Desmond Tutuin Galatians 3:28, neither male nor female, slave nor Greek, free nor unfree.And yet two verses before that it says all of us will be sons of God. Howcan there be no male and female if we're all going to be sons of God? Andthe reason being is that the Bible all the way through saw sonship notas something limiting to sex, but rather male and female necessary forthe inheritance of God's kingdom. And so at that point it goes back tothat equality in Genesis while acknowledging the difference. 

So I think ultimately what you're doing, whatever your understandingis of interpretation of scripture, I believe you are not taking Genesis1 and 2 as the interpretative basis. If you get rid of Genesis 1 and 2,the rest of scripture falls apart. 

LUREEN: Actually, my interpretative figure for scripture is Jesus. Interms of looking back, that's all we can do as Christians. We can readthe scripture, and all we can do is look back. 

JOHN: Jesus appealed to the beginning, he appealed to the order of creationwhen asked about adultery. 

LUREEN: Right. But Jesus did not, when he was talking about heterosexualacts, behaviors, he did not say one thing about gay-lesbian-bisexuality,which I think is very interesting. He talked about adultery and divorceand the sins in terms of heterosexual relationships. Why did not Jesusmention anything about gay-lesbian-bisexuality? When I get to the otherside, the other side being heaven, that's one of the questions I have.I want to say, Jesus, why didn't you say something? It would've made ita lot easier. 

JOHN: Well, I'd be delighted to spend more time on that. But he alsosaid he came to fulfill the entire law. And he appeals all the way backto the order of creation, and fulfill the law which was an outward constraint,to make it inner. And so to me, the incumbency is this. When there arepassages which very clearly say that homosexuality is not God's gift, andthen you are trying to say no, it is, you are saying silence on your gift,silence in terms of why homosexuality is not mentioned as a gift, and puttingaside that which says it is inconsistent with the order of creation. Andthen you're taking, I believe, your interpretation of Jesus back upon Genesis,when indeed, he interprets himself from Genesis on forward. 

LUREEN: Well, I would suggest that if we're going to take scripture,if we're going to take the six passages that talk about gay-lesbian-bisexuals,actually, five passages, five out of the six talk about gay males, oneincludes lesbians, again which reflects the patriarchical nature. If we'regoing to take part of scripture, let's take it all. If we're going to beliteralists about those six passages, let's take the whole thing, absolutelylock, stock, and barrel, every part of scripture, one hundred percent,and follow that. Otherwise we do what's called eisegesis, we pick up thingsand we use it to our own agenda. 

MODERATOR: John, after your response, Lureen if you have a questionfor John you can address it. 

JOHN: I think your Jonathan and David thing is a classic example ofeisegesis. I am glad to take each one of those texts, as I have done insubstance, OK? So when Mel White asked me a similar question, he said,if you take Leviticus seriously, that says homosexuals should be put todeath, shouldn't you put them to death? I gave him the definition of theIsraeli theocracy as a community of choice, and the distinction betweenthat and when Jesus returns. And he said it was the most loving Christiananswer he'd ever heard, while I still disagreed with homosexuality. Becausethe fact is the Old Testament law is fulfilled in Jesus so we can movebeyond it. And there are elements that are culturally bound to separatethe Israelites from being part of a child- sacrifice culture on the onehand, versus that which is moral, Noahic, and stays with us. So I thinkif you start with Genesis 1 through 3 and work it all the way through,why God selected Abraham, and why he was faithful with Israel to the pointof Jesus, and why he then brought the gospel to the Gentiles, and takethe story from the order of creation on forward, I think every questionyou have could be answered. And I'd be delighted to take the time, longwritten questions, give you my fullest answers, and then see if I'm beingfaithful to scripture on its own terms. 

LUREEN: John, I have a question. You talk about in the creation story,Genesis 1, that it reflects with God and then humanity reflects the Trinity.I'm concerned about that because the text is Jewish in origin. How do youunderstand that from the Jewish perspective, and not reading back as aChristian into that perspective? 

JOHN: Right. And this is a very good question because interpretivelymany Christians have said you argue from Christ back to the scriptures.And I argue passionately, as two weeks ago I was spending three hours witha Jewish Rabbi friend of mine. I'm arguing passionately for Jesus as theJewish Messiah. And the very ethics I embrace are ultimately Jewish. Butactually they are even pre-Jewish, back to the order of creation untilAbraham and Israel becomes a nation subsequent to that. 

But very simply I would say this. You have the famous passages of "letus make man in our image". You have the conundrum for many monotheisticJews that God speaks of himself in plurality. He does this many times throughoutthe scriptures. So I would say that would be the first point. 

Secondly, you see the spirit of God as equal to God and a full personof God, with God. Thirdly, you see the theophanies, the appearances ofGod, say with Abraham. Where God appears as a man completely in human formwhile presumably from a Jewish perspective, God is in the heavens. I believethat there are many indications right at the beginning from a Jewish perspectivethat show that God is not a monad, the way the Muslims would believe Allahto be, but involves something greater than singularity in time and space,and therefore a preview to the Trinity. 

But I do agree with this, that the Trinity cannot be understood untilJesus takes on flesh. Because that's the purpose of the second person ofthe Trinity, is to be incarnate. And in the same sense the Holy Spiritis given occasionally as special gifts in the Old Testaments, but not asa covenant to all believers until Christ has risen and been glorified. 

LUREEN: I don't have any further questions. Can we open it up to theaudience? 

MODERATOR: Sure. Our response time is over. Before John and Lureen givetheir closing arguments, are there any questions or comments that you wouldlike to make, directed at either one of these participants?