Homosexuality in Historical Perspective
On September 29, the Supreme Court began their new term by considering cases for their court docket. Many assumed that the justices would take at least one same-sex marriage case. The outcome of their case would have almost assuredly ruled in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that applies nationwide. However, on October 6 the Supreme Court announced that they would not be hearing any same-sex marriage cases. As Richard Wolf has pointed out, the Supreme Court basically decided by not deciding.[1]
Very few people have experienced such moral transformation in society as we are seeing today. The scope and pace of moral change is disquieting. For the first time in human history, marriage is being intentionally redefined from a heterosexual union with the potential of procreation to an autonomous, romantic union for purposes of self-gratification. “[E]ndorsement of same-sex marriage,” writes Frank Bruni, “has rather suddenly become nonnegotiable. Expected. Assumed.”[2]
How did these changes occur? In this article, we’ll place the same-sex marriage discussion into an historical perspective. When seen in this context, we discover that no community had ever defined marriage as anything other than the male and female relationship until the year 2000—and for good reason.[3] Nearly all nations and peoples throughout history have generally agreed on the nature of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Classical Views of Marriage
Classically, human societies have defined marriage as the union of man and woman. This is true across cultures and time. Discussing this long-held view of marriage, Ryan Anderson writes, “[T]he three great philosophers of antiquity—Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—as well as Xenophanes and Stoics such as Musonius Rufus defended this view—in some cases, amid highly homoerotic cultures.”[4] John Jefferson Davis further explains that ancient Greek culture never accepted homosexuality as a societal norm. Davis writes,
Aristotle, Herodotus, Aristophanes, and many later Stoic and Cynic philosophers expressed moral disapproval of such practices. A minority in the Greek upper classes may have tolerated or even encouraged homosexuality, but Greek society as a whole disapproved of it and held to traditional heterosexual norms.[5]
As Anderson and Davis point out, these early philosophers all agreed on this basic aspect of human nature. By extension, marriage was thought to be a complementary union between a man and woman.
As we’ll see below, this conjugal view of marriage is not peculiar to religion. Sherif Girgis writes,
Ancient thinkers who had no contact with religions such as Judaism or Christianity—including Xenophanes, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, and Plutarch—reached remarkably similar views of marriage. To be sure, the world’s major religions have also historically seen marriage as a conjugal relationship, shaped by its social role in binding men to women and both to children born of their union.[6]
Girgis further states, “[E]ven in cultures very favorable to homoerotic relationships (as in ancient Greece), something akin to the conjugal view has prevailed—and nothing like same-sex marriage was even imagined.”[7] Anderson and Girgis point out further that though no society’s laws have explicitly forbidden gay marriage throughout history, this was because it was not thought possible (until recently).
Same-sex marriage has not been thought possible until recently because those in antiquity saw this complete union, between a man and a woman in marriage, for the common good. The question that deserves attention is what is the common good or orientation that the marital relationship seeks? This bodily, comprehensive union was accepted because it was oriented towards the procreation of new human beings. This vision of marriage shows up in the early Greek philosophers, across cultures and time, and mirrors the inspired tradition from Genesis of a one-flesh union. This act of procreation shows up in Scripture and reveals to us what is true about human nature.
The Early Church’s View on What Is “Natural”
In Romans 1:26, the apostle Paul distinguishes between what is “natural” and “unnatural.” He writes, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.” Paul is not discussing sexual orientation or preference, but God-given human function and design. These terms are important because this type of language will appear in later arguments. The early Romans understood this natural, or normal state to be a complementary union between male and female.
Gregory of Nyssa would utilize this same idea of what is “natural.” His canonical letter gives us a hint at how the church understood same-sex desire. When discussing how pederasty and bestiality were grouped with adultery, Gregory explains that these two sins were “an adulteration of nature.”[8] It certainly cannot go unnoticed just how important the term nature is in discussions on the morality of sex.
Influenced by the apostle Paul, John Chrysostom preached against such “unnatural acts.” He writes,
Look at how vividly he (Paul) chooses his words. He did not say they desired or lusted after one another, but burned in their longing for each other. Now, is not all desire born of greed which fails to adhere to its own limits? For all desire exceeding the laws set down by God is desire for what is strange, and not what has been allowed.[9]
Here we see Chrysostom focusing on the abnormal desires behind such acts. Like other classical views of marriage, the apostle Paul, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom all show us that the early Christian tradition saw homosexual activity as being against nature. This type of union is against nature because it goes against the natural institution ordained by God for the purposes of procreation.
Sex and Culture
One of the most significant works on the rise and fall of great civilizations was written back in the 1930s by a British anthropologist named J.D. Unwin. In his book, Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 varying cultures spanning 5,000 years. He wanted to test the theory set forth by Sigmund Freud that the progress of civilizations was the product of suppressed sexuality. Looking back at the Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Moors, Babylonians, and Anglo-Saxons, he found that these societies flourished most during times that valued and maintained heterosexual, monogamous unions.
Unwin noted that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong marriage ethic. Societies that practiced this strong marriage ethic displayed what he dubbed “social energy.” Writing about this social energy, Unwin says, “Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”[10] Without the natural marital union and the benefits it provides, Unwin found that societies will enter into chaos or mediocrity.
His research also showed that societies suffered when their view of sexual ethics loosened. Societies that flourished had a direct correlation with a strong marital ethic. Referring to Uwin’s research, Janosik Daniel writes:
Unwin concluded that the fabric that holds a society together is sexual in nature. When life-long heterosexual monogamous relationship is practiced, the focus is on the nurture of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan for, and build up the individual family unit. . . . However, he found that when sexual opportunities opened the door to pre-marital, post-marital, and homosexual relationships, the social energy always dissipated as the individual focused more on self-gratification rather than societal good.[11]
Unwin’s research revealed that the firmest societal foundation possible was the family that came from a heterosexual, monogamous union.
The marital relationship is intrinsically ordered to their unity and the procreation of new human beings. This union has been the building block of all human civilization. This is why, for good reason, no community has ever tried to define marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman until the year 2000.
Conclusion
Men in the 1970’s warned evangelical churches in America of such moral decline. Francis Schaeffer and Carl F.H. Henry were two such figures who prophetically envisioned a society in which the moral thinking would be entirely subjective.[12] Henry would actually go on to argue that Christian morality would be seen as a threat, once this subjective way of moral thinking became popularized.
Evidence shows that we are no longer in a position of cultural moral respect. History shows us that we are the first to deal with those who want to redefine marriage outside of the heterosexual union. Yet we do not construct our sexuality or ourselves. Sexuality is something designed by God, and not something we may redefine to fit our orders, which tend toward disorder in all human beings. [13]
When entire societies cut themselves off from their dominant moral heritage, as shaped by God’s Word, all that is left is their own subjective judgments. We must affirm the total truthfulness of the Word of God. And as Christians, we must remember that the Gospel is the only answer to the confusions of our day.
____________________
[1] Richard Wolf, “Supreme Court delays action on same sex marriage” USA Today (October 2, 2014); http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/02/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16547165/. ; Accessed 8 October 2014; Internet.
[2] Frank Bruni, “The New Gay Orthodoxy” The New York Times (April 5, 2014); http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-new-gay-orthodoxy.html?_r=0.; accessed 30 September 2014; Internet.
[3] Vermont became the first U.S. state to give full marriage rights to same-sex couples.
[4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012), 49.
[5] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1993), 114.
[6] Girgis, 10.
[7] Ibid, 11.
[8] Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013), 145.
[9] Ibid, 146.
[10] JD Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934) 412.
[11] Janosik Daniel, “The Fate of Culture in J.D. Unwin’s ‘Sex and Culture’”, Christian Apologetics Journal, Vol. 10:1 (Spring 2012).
[12] See Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970) and Carl F. H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1988).
[13] Everything tends toward disorder and confusion due to the Fall. While sexuality is a gift, it is a gift tainted by sin. This partly explains the phenomenon of gender-identity disorders which figures into LGBT discussions. For more reflection on the question of gender and sexuality, see Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
Recent Comments