HOW HIEBERT'S "WILD" CRITIQUE GETS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG

Willard Swartley

I agree with Hiebert’s basic point that Galatians 3:28 (the believer’s standing in Christ) could have been a good starting point of my book, in dialogue perhaps with Gen. 1:26-27. I chose, however, to follow the canonical order (as in Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women) and then emphasize the "in Christ" identity as the culminating point of my work.

I stress throughout Chapters 5–9 that our "in Christ" identity is primary for Christian believers, not sexual identity (see pp. 88-91, 101, 130, 133). On that fundamental point I believe we agree.

It is difficult to know how seriously to take Hiebert’s charge that my book promotes a "fertility theology," since in an email to me he said he is responding to how others have been reading my book, not how he himself read it or how I intended it. The charge, however, appears to be damning, for it punctuates his review, though nowhere does he say what he means by "fertility" theology.

The most damning meaning would be that I think the Judeo-Christian faith is another form of Baalism, using the worship cult to promote sexual fertility. Another meaning could be that my book is "procreation oriented," which is not true by any fair reading of pp. 26-28 and throughout. Still another meaning would be to regard "fertility" positively, the creative capacity of a married male and female to conceive and bear children. What an awe-filled mysterious gift of God! For this view, ask a couple struggling with infertility what their view of fertility is. If meant this way, his review compliments!

I assume the "procreation" meaning, with shades of the first meaning implied, since the charge seeks to discount the book because it is seen as not reasoned in a Christian manner. Whether I am responding to Hiebert or to how others (mis)read my book, I note the following:

"Fertility religion" belongs to Baalism and other religions of Israel’s neighbors, providing sex with cult-worship through temple prostitutes (in some cases same-sex) as sacred! With this my book has nothing in common.

Biblical creation theology is not an inferior species to redemption theology. Creation theology—whether Genesis 1–2, Psalm 104, or (Second) Isaiah—is firmly anchored in the redemption theology of the covenant people.

Hiebert’s attack of Barth to condemn "fertility theology" is misplaced. No voice in the history of contemporary theology (nineteenth century on) is as strong as Barth’s in opposing natural religion (in which fertility theology falls). Recall his famous "Nein" in 1938 to Emil Brunner on general revelation. If any theologian stands firmly against "fertility theology," it has been, is, and ever will be Karl Barth.

Hiebert critiques Karl Barth on his exposition of "Man and Woman." He misreads Barth, partly because of an error in the English translation of the German. In CD 3.4 Barth exposits both the differentiation and oneness of hâ’adâm as male and female, as parallel to God’s plurality-in-singularity (pp. 116-168). Only on pages 169ff. does the question of "order" in creation emerge. Barth does not deny equality but says that in the "order" of God’s creation of Man (hâ’adâm) as male and female there is not simply reciprocity and equality ("nicht einfach reziprok und gleichmäßig ist" [3.1:344]). The reason is that man did not come from woman, but woman from man.

Nowhere does Barth imply the right or nature of man to dominate woman. When he says that this order "does indeed reveal inequality," he immediately counter-says, "But it does not do so without immediately confirming their equality" (CD 3.4:170).

Further, "The exploitation of this order by man, in consequence of which he exalts himself over woman, making himself her lord and master and humiliating and offending her so that she inevitably finds herself oppressed and injured, has nothing whatever to do with divine order."

For Barth creation theology is not separate from redemption theology (Gal. 3:28 appears often in his discussion)!

I first learned my textual exegesis in Homosexuality (pp. 26-28) from Phyllis Trible. The same exegesis in my earlier book (SSWW) was lauded by those seeking place for women in leadership. Read Trible’s four points of exposition I sum up in SSWW (pp. 153-154). I wonder how Hiebert would have responded to my interpretation if I had cited Trible instead of Barth.

To pit redemption theology against creation theology is perilous. Christ is the agent of creation (Col. 1:15-17). To make creation theology inferior to redemption theology is the first step toward Marcion’s pitfall, leading him to regard the OT God as inferior to the NT God.

The "historicality" (limits and freedoms of living within time, space, and biology) of redemption theology is important. Jesus Christ incarnate means that our new identity in Christ as neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female does not cancel our historicality in which we continue as Jew or Greek in ethnic identity, slave or free in social status (at least in the first century), and male and female in sexual identity.

In the context of this verse (beginning with v. 21) emphasis falls on "the faith of and the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ" as the means of salvation, no other qualifiers. Moving out from the text the emphasis falls on becoming heirs: what believers inherit by virtue of the new standing in Christ.

Paul is even more explicit on this in 2 Corinthians 6:18. Both women and men equally inherit the royal promise (see my discussion of Paul’s audacity here, in Homosexuality, p. 65).

I value Galatians 3:28, as my SSWW contribution shows (pp. 165-167). But what does it have to do with homosexuality? Nothing more than what I say often in Homosexuality: that our "in Christ" identity eclipses our sexual identity. Here I agree with Hiebert. I recommend a key article on whether affirming equality of women and men in Christ leads us to accepting same-sex practice (Catherine Clark Kroeger, "Does Belief in Women’s Equality Lead to an Acceptance of Homosexual Practice?" Priscilla Papers 18, Spring 2004, 3-10).

In an earlier response to Hiebert, on Galatians 3:28, I noted that Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin laments that Paul’s great achievement, the "one new humanity" through Jesus Messiah, has been interpreted as a universal vision of equality and inclusion that results in loss of particular identities: Jews as Jews, women as women, and so forth

While Boyarin argues that Paul advocates human liberation and equality, he also pleads for not equating equality with sameness, a serious flaw in Paul’s social thought—or our interpretation of it! (See Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, University of California Press, Ltd, 1994. On this question of race and identity in Paul, see also Denise Kimber Buell and Carolyne Johnson Hodge, "The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul," JBL 123, 2004, 235-51. The article argues for a reading of Paul that preserves ethnic identities, even power differences, though all are one in Christ.)

Boyarin objects to insisting on any special value acceded to particularity as well as to universality. Though both are necessary, both are problematic. Boyarin proposes that a synthesis to this dialectic must be found, "one that will allow for stubborn hanging on to ethnic, cultural specificity but in a context of deeply felt and enacted human solidarity" (p. 257).

Applying Boyarin to the issue at hand, replacing ethnic identity with male/female identity, I adapt the quote: "a synthesis to this dialectic must be found, one that will allow for stubborn hanging on to sexual, biological specificity but in a context of deeply felt and enacted human solidarity." I add: "in Christ."

My emphasis on celibacy as a response to living with same-sex orientation—difficult to value in our culture that lacks support of celibacy—precludes the charge of fertility theology. My valuing of celibacy applies to both homosexual and heterosexual people. I speak about celibacy on 22 pages scattered through the book (see Index, p. 241).

Given our "historicality," we continue to live as male or female (with distinct sexual identity) and as male and female (united in community bearing the "image of God"). If we boast in our "historicality," we will fail to await with hope the "redemption of these earthly bodies," in which we now groan (Rom. 8:19-25). If we deny our "historicality," we will go with the Gnostics, who could be ascetic, libertine, or indifferent to sexual ethics.

A "(Christian) theology of sex" for Gnostics is an oxymoron. "Do not covet" either course of life in this world, but stay the course that regards canonical creation theology as being one with redemption theology.

Apart from Hiebert’s "fertility" criticism of Homosexuality, our differing assessment of Gal. 3:28, and interpretation of Barth, I agree with much Hiebert says.

I do not agree that Romans 1 is the only text that speaks against homosexual practices. But I agree that all the sins mentioned in Romans 1 are blotted out through salvation in Christ.

But then I cannot agree with Hiebert’s implication that if people are not idolatrous, the sins have no moral bearing. They do, and they continue to be a plumbline that measures our fidelity in living our salvation. (Here E. P. Sanders distinction between "entrance" and "maintenance" requirements for both Jewish and Pauline understandings is helpful; see Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Fortress, 1977.)

I appreciate that Hiebert rightly perceives my plea for inclusion of those homosexually oriented and that generally he values my exegetical contribution. On the matter of whether I or he has in this case reasoned in a Christian manner, I trust God’s justice and mercy. Above all, "Let the peace of Christ rule in your (our) hearts, to which indeed you (we) were called in one body. And be thankful" (Col. 3:15; emphasis mine).

With these differences and agreements I welcome another opportunity to enjoy in your home, Bruce, hospitable commensality, as I did last fall. Perhaps next it could be in my home.

—Willard Swartley, Goshen, Indiana, is professor emeritus of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, where he also served as dean and director of the Institute of Mennonite Studies. He holds a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary . He is New Testament editor of the Believers Church Bible Commentary Series and has edited or written many books and articles.