And Now, My Frustration with N.T. Wright

Last week I posted how N. T. Wright influenced my views of the resurrection. I was already convinced of the living Christ based on personal experience, but I found his resurrection arguments a convincing enough explanation of the peculiarities of early Christianity. Unfortunately, Wright holds some very conservative views on same-sex relationships that I disagree with. Given the power of his intellect and his reasoning in other areas, I have stopped recommending him without some heavy caveats because I think he can do more damage than he intends.

I think the crux of the matter gets to the real problem in moving forward in Christian unity. The problem is as much a matter of Biblical interpretation and authority as it is about sexual preference. I simply believe different things about Christ and the Bible than Wright does. I don’t disagree with Wright because I’m a liberal who wants to force theology to match my ideas, it’s quite the other way around. I have a theological viewpoint that I believe is fully Christ-centric and provides some consistency with my faith even in the rough parts of the Bible than can cause others to lose faith. I am fully convinced that if you want to follow Jesus you should support LGBTQ+ inclusion and marriage. I think if you follow a traditional, conservative evangelical approach to the Bible, you will eventually lose faith when confronted with some cold, hard facts about the Bible.

What follows is my own take on what I’ve heard Wright discuss on the topic. I don’t claim it is conclusive. I don’t even claim to properly represent him because he is a man of love and charity and has only written sparsely and editorially on the topic compared to his other vast scholarship on Paul. But what he has written or spoken about this issue is flatly and consistently opposed to full LGBTQ+ inclusion.

So here are what I take to be his main arguments and my thoughts as to why they aren’t accurate. Usual caveats apply. First, I’m a blogger and Wright is one of the most prolific and respected scholars of our day, so if you want to pass my post off as some random blogger nonsense I don’t care. I can never compete with Wright’s intellect or education. If you are a conservative who is against LGBTQ+ inclusion, then you might as well stop reading here and just tell yourself I couldn’t possibly muster up an argument against someone so learned. Second, I’m a white cis-gendered straight male and I wonder if I have any qualification writing on this at all. So, understand I’ve only intended to approach this on both sides with humility.

Understanding of Same-Sex Relationships

I firmly believe that – like a lot of issues from slavery to clothing to science – many ideas have changed for the better since the first century. Crazy, right? I don’t think that many people in the first century had a firm grasp of what it meant to be in a fully monogamous, loving and respectful same-sex relationship. Anything they thought or wrote about it could not be as fully formed a concept as what we think now. Paul wrote that slaves should obey their masters. What I think I know about Paul and how progressive he was for his day, there is no way he would write anything close to that today. Likewise, we’ve stopped believing a lot of crazy things about LGBTQ+ people just in the last 100 years, let alone the last 2,000 years.

However, one point that N.T. Wright argues is that people in first-century Rome were fully aware of monogamous same-sex relationships and their thinking on the matter was on par with our modern knowledge. He largely bases this on his study of and interpretation of ancient texts.

He has pointed to Greek and Roman literature that seems to show romantic relationships between same sex people. In particular, I’ve heard him point to Plato’s Symposium. He also says that there was a frequent criticism of homosexuality in that time centered around the disruption of traditional family structures. He thinks these show that people understood that long-term same-sex relationships did exist.

I won’t argue about the depiction of relationships in Plato here. I think it was a cultural idealization of pederasty, not loving same-sex relationships. Many books have been written about the many ways ancient Greeks and Romans had different views on sexuality and gender roles than we do and how power dynamics were at play. Paul was not Douglas Sadownick. It may be that there were some people in the first century who shared our modern ideas on same-sex relationships (I only concede this rhetorically, by the way), but Paul was not one of them. What he saw around him was prostitution and pederasty and he rightfully condemned it. My counter to Wright is that if Paul was truly writing against same-sex relationships, then why didn’t he use the words they would have used for same-sex relationships in that time instead of coining new words and phrases?  

What About Jesus?

Wright has also argued that people in Jesus’ time would’ve understood His references to sexual immorality to include same-sex relationships. Jesus never actually mentioned it. I think it’s a dangerous stretch to put your own preconceived ideas into Jesus’ words this way.

An experience of temple prostitution, pederasty and purity culture would’ve influenced what people thought about sexuality more than an experience of lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships. Further, are you really going to insist that Jesus was talking about a small section of his audience just to continue your bigotry? Isn’t it more likely that, just as straight people do today, the largely hetero audience would’ve ignored same-sex relationships as a context and thought more about adultery and prostitution through their more familiar heterosexual context? If someone talks generically about marriage, I cannot help my bias because I and around 80-90% of the world are heterosexual, and the first image in my mind is a heterosexual marriage. I’m an ally and I still have this stereotype firmly in my head. How in the world would a first-century heterosexual Jew hear Jesus’ words and leap to same-sex relationships? I’m very wary of anyone claiming that Jesus had all these secret meanings that fit a particular unloving agenda. I find this take to be absurd bordering on sacrilegious.

The Creation Story

Wright has said that God’s creative intentions were spelled out clearly in the Adam and Eve story. Really? Are talking snakes part of God’s creative intentions, because I’ve never met one of those (outside of Harry Potter, of course). I generally picture Adam and Eve running around covered in leaves, tilling the soil with sticks and stones and killing animals with their bare hands. So, what else in our modern lives contradicts the Biblical creation story? Probably my iPhone. Were Adam and Eve born black or white or Asian or what? It is unclear of course, but based on the archeological record let’s for the sake of argument say Adam and Eve were black. So, does that mean that as a white person I’m sinning against God’s creative intentions? No sane person would claim that. We know now that some people are born with same-sex attraction or a gender identity that doesn’t match their genitalia, just like some of us are born musical or tall or with blue eyes. God’s creative intentions look a lot to me like evolution and wildly creative diversity. Do not let Wright or any other reactionary make you forget you are fiercely and wonderfully made in God’s image.

We All Have Our Problems

Based on his take on the creation story, it’s puzzling to me that Wright holds the view that same-sex attraction is not a sin, but certain same-sex acts are. He believes that we are all tempted to sin and certain desires are just one more type of sin. At least this focuses on action and not identity, but where does this identity come from if not from God? Again, I simply believe that God loves more and more diversity, and that diversity allows us to experience life in different ways and enrich each other with those experiences. Love honors God in all forms.

Wright has gone so far as to argue that celibacy is a fine way to live your life if you’re gay. I think this is nonsense as sexuality is one of God’s greatest gifts. Sex increases a couple’s bond and improves overall life satisfaction. All of that leads to marriage stability, straight or gay, and isn’t that what we should be supporting in our churches?

The Slippery Slope

Wright believes that Paul was clear in his condemnation of same-sex relationships. I’ve indicated above this is far from the case because Paul used ambiguous language when he could have truly been clear. Wright thinks that Paul was clear, so if we reject the condemnation of same-sex relationships, we will then have license to reject all of Paul’s teachings. If some of the Bible is challenged, why not challenge all of it?

To me, this is the true sticking point for most conservative Christians, including Wright. I mean, how can someone as gentle and loving as Tom Wright still be stuck on this issue? There are clearly some people who are just outright bigots but Wright definitely is not. I believe there are many Christians who really do want to love and accept our LGTBQ+ sisters and brothers but are concerned that their entire system of faith will deconstruct.

I don’t share these concerns because I have such a different approach to Biblical authority. I’ve said it before, but if you can get over Paul’s seeming approval of slavery you can get over his seeming disapproval of same-sex relationships. And if you’re being intellectually honest, the Bible’s words about slavery are direct and unambiguous unlike the words we have mistakenly translated as “homosexual.” I’m able to understand that Paul wrote from a different period, in a different culture with ambiguous words yet still try to use the Bible as a path of wisdom and a place of union with God, not a black and white rule book. My church was built by loving humans but the furnace needs replaced — God still meets me there and we still need a new furnace. These things can be true at the same time. Parts of the Bible need a new furnace, too, and my faith is much stronger because I’m willing to grow and adapt.

Times change, love is eternal.