Sexuality and the New Testament

In my last two columns I focused on current insights on the morality of homosexuality. Here I want to integrate those thoughts into attitudes towards sexuality in general in the New Testament.

Following the watershed experience of the Second Vatican Council, biblical studies have made immense strides, enriching the church with the recognition of the historical and literary contexts of sacred texts. We are now able to read the New Testament as a portrait of its own times, in which we see the authors responding to the specific challenges of their Judaic-Hellenistic culture in the Greco-Roman world in the light of. the teachings of Jesus the Christ. In framing their message for their individual communities they sometimes incorporate current sexual stereotypes and biases, and sometimes confront them, both in the light of their reception of the Lord's teaching.

This dialectical process roots the search for meaning and value in the womb of their contemporary reality and guarantees its authenticity. But the dynamic process is never-ending, since culture is eternally being born in new forms amid the dying of the old. Today, the spectrum of energies constituting our complex human reality is wider and more consciously available and studied than ever before. We explore our nature from the shifting vantage points of anatomy, biology, ethics, politics, economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, male/female relationships, etc. Since issues of human sexuality are intimately affected by all of these factors and more, to neglect their influence is tantamount to a deadly heresy, i.e. mistaking the part, that is, a genital focus, for the whole person, which alone can give life. Clearly, we have more to work with than did the writers of the New Testament. Add to this tall order our recognition that every translation is itself an interpretation. This is evident in the New Testament, which has been largely translated from the spoken Aramaic of Jesus and his disciples into Greek, then Latin, other ancient languages and myriad modern tongues. We have become aware that it is anachronistic to assume that the original text portrays the meaning of any subsequent translation. Finally, we must consider the literary genres and conventions operative in biblical times spanning Hebrew history into the New Testament era. They contrast vividly with our own conventions, demand respect and much sensitive investigation on our part. To miss the medium is to miss the message.

A vital case in point is the issue of sexual orientation. Biblical scholar Raymond F. Collins of Catholic University, Washington D.C. expresses the consensus of scholars today when he writes that, "sexual orientation is a notion with which the ancient authors were unfamiliar." Therefore, "the multiple insights into the complexities of the reality of human sexuality that have been provided by 20th century science were not available to first century Christians, their stoic contemporaries and their Jewish forebearers." His book, Sexual Ethics and the New Testament, is an essential source for our study.

The alternative is a recurring temptation to impose black and white judgments on sexual mores, ripping the biblical text out of its nurturing womb and dealing death instead of life. As Scripture scholar Bruce Vawter writes: "Fundamentalism is not biblical religion; it is a travesty and a parody of biblical religion.

The last word to Anglican theologian John Macquarrie: "Christ himself is no static figure, nor are Christians called to imitate him as a static model. Thus, discipleship does not restrict human development to some fixed pattern, but summons into freedom, the full depth of which is unknown, except that they will always be consonant with self-giving love." This is the 'Good News.'

Fr. Jim Roberts writes from Vancouver.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group