한국 개신교신학과 윤리

ㆍ작성자	이건희
ㆍ작성일	2002-12-02 (월) 14:12

ㆍ추천: 0 ㆍ조회: 4201

ㆍIP:

엘룰과 성윤리(1)

http://www.othersheep.org/ellulsex_1.htm

THE BIBLE, SEX, AND IDEOLOGICAL FUNDAMENTALISM:
A DIALOGUE WITH JACQUES ELLUL

JACQUES ELLUL AND SEXUAL "ETHICS": A CRITIQUE

I. Ellul's Solid Foundation: 7 Pillars of Wisdom

Introduction

1. Christocentricism, Not Sexual Docetism

2. The Biblical Revelation Dialectically Interpreted

3. Christian Praxis vs. Greek "Ethics"

4. Yahweh as Liberator--Incarnate in Jesus

5. Bible and Science: the Proper Dialectic

6. Ideological Critique: Patriarchy & Nuclear Family Idolatry?

7. Majority Integrative Propaganda: Heterosexist?

II. Proper Use of Scripture for Sexual Questions

1. Song of Songs: Magna Carta of Sexual Freedom

2. The Jesus of the Gospels vs. the Augustinian Tradition

3. Sex as Power: Sexual Violence (Rape) and the Oppresion of Sexual Minorities

4. Liberation from Oppression and Authentic Sexual Freedom

5. Biblical DIVERSITY: Scientific Exegesis and the Growing "Theological Pie"

6. Biblical CONTINUITIES: Freedom, Justice, Love, Wisdom

7. The 10 Commandments in the Exodus Paradigm: Adultery

8. Sexual Exclusivity and Heterosexual Monogamy

Excursus: Jealous Love? (a Biblical Dialectic)

9. "Fidelity": Freedom to Promise and the Permanence of Love

Excursus: "One Flesh"

10. Paul as "Sexologist": Limitations, Contributions, Proper Approach

Excursus: Was Paul Gay?

III. Controversial Sexual Areas: an Ellulian Approach?

1. Marriage Ideology and Divorced Persons

2. Heterosexism and Homohatred vs. Gay Men and Lesbians

3. "Married" Homosexuals? Only 3 Alternatives

4. Bisexuals--Everybody or Nobody? Only 3 Guidelines

5 First into the Kingdom, Last into the Church: Prostitutes

6-7. Incest Taboos vs. Levirate "Marriage"

8. Masturbation: Loving Self with/without Neighbor?

9. Ancient "Orgies" and Modern Sexual Communities/Group Sex

10. Premarital Sex & Unwed Mothers: Moses' Final Solution(s?)

11. Transvestites vs.Gender-Straightening by Bible Bending

12. "Pornography" and Erotic Art: Nudity in the Bible?

13-14. Voyeurs and Exhibitionists vs. Privacy Rights

15. Sadomasochists and Leathersex (S&M) vs. "Vanilla"

16. Telephone Sex: Obscene Calls, Commercial Services, and Love by Long-distance

17. A Trip to Zoophilia and Fetish Land

18. Fertility & Barrenness: From Aphrodisiacs to the Pill

19. Menstruating Women: Moses vs. Moses vs. Jesus?

20. Sex with Angels: Mission Impossible or Live Danger?

21. "Paul" on Widows: Don't Remarry!/Do Remarry!

22. Victims of rape: from rural/urban to dates and spouses

23. "Bastards" and moabites: still excluded?

24. Eunuchs: Not Welcome!/Welcome!

25. Virgins: Vanishing Species or Spiritual Elite?

Conclusion: MCC vs. Lesbigay Caucus Groups:

Can the Old Wineskins Take the New Wine?

Jacques Ellul and Sexual "Ethics": Seven Pillars of Wisdom

"Wisdom has built her house;

she has hewn out its seven pillars." (Proverbs 9:1)

In his earlier works (1964/1969; 1975/1976) the late French sociologist and lay theologian Jacques Ellul (1912-94) laid a solid theological and Biblical foundation for the crisis in sexual "ethics" facing the church at the end of the 20th century. Fundamental elements in this foundation are well known to students of Ellul and may be outlined briefly as follows:

1. Christocentricism, Not Sexual Docetism. As Waldo Beach put it in his Foreward to To Will and To Do: "Ellul is dogmatically Christocentric. `Everything derives from the fact that Jesus is God'" (1964/69:vii; cf.1969:88). The history of Christian thought is strewn with the wreckage of sexual ideologies that have sought to build on other foundations: the "creation orders" of Genesis; cultic cleanliness codes of Leviticus; decontextualized, obscure expressions and portions in the pauline letters, etc. I cannot here offer a full defense of Ellul's christocentric starting point, but only express my conviction that if Christian theology is to maintain any semblance of credibility in sexual matters and make any significant contribution to the debate that rages, Ellul's Christocentric starting point (similar to Karl Barth's) must be maintained in the face of all attempts to reduce Jesus' praxis and teaching to some kind of footnote to Paul (usually misinterpreted), or to exalt the Law over the Gospel. As Paul himself insisted: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11).

One concrete example of the significance of this point is the theological treatments of same-sex relations. Some 30 years ago even conservative exegetical treatments of the Sodom story began to notice what Calvin had partly perceived: that the sin condemned in Biblical references to Sodom is never simply a same-sex act but in context refers to a failure of hospitality and attempted gang rape--of angels! For centuries Christian sexual ideology operated on the premise that all same-sex acts were condemned by a consistent barrage of more than 50 "sodomy" texts stretching from Genesis to Revelation, and including key examples from the Gospels. The quiet removal of the lynchpin in the homophobic edifice almost went unnoticed. Pulpits were pounded harder when two texts from Leviticus and three from Paul were misinterpreted to foster hatred, discrimination and persecution against homosexuals, but no one seemed to notice the resulting heresy: for 2000 years the church had maintained that trust in Jesus and obedience to his commands was sufficient for salvation; but for homosexuals suddenly this was no longer considered sufficient. Their salvation, unlike that of other Christians, was now made to depend on obedience to isolated texts in the Leviticus Holiness Code (rarely even read, much less obeyed in most other areas) and on three texts of disputed significance in the pauline letters (none of them actually "commandments").

Feminist theology that failed to free itself from heterosexism was in a particular bind: scientific exegesis and heavy dependence on hermeneutics were freely employed to make Paul properly submissive to the legitimate emotional needs and justice demands of modern women; but the much briefer and dubious pauline texts on same-sex relations were not subjected to similar scrutiny. Since 1 Cor. 5-7 offers us what is by far the most detailed treatment of sexual matters in the NT, insights from pauline scriptures may play an important part; but (as in the questions of slavery and women) the proper approach must involve interpreting Paul in the light of Jesus praxis and teaching--not negating the latter in favor of obscure terms in pauline vice lists or the sermon illustration of controverted meaning and dubious contextual thrust in Romans 1:26-27.

2. The Biblical Revelation--Dialectically Interpreted. Ellul's opening blast on the unique place of "the biblical revelation" (1964/69:1) is such that Beach even mistakenly labeled him a "conservative evangelical." Ellul does insist that "nothing authorizes us to expurgage this or that text because it doesn't please us" (vii). Ellul even goes out of his way to defend in Fundamentalist fashion "the dreadful requirement of herem" where "God expressly ordains for his people the massacre of all conquered inhabitants: men, women and children" (1964/69:206-209). His approach stands in stark contrast to Christian ethicists who consider the Bible largely irrelevant to the questions of modern ethics (meat offered to idols and head coverings for women vs. population explosion and the threat of nuclear holocaust; cf. Niebuhr reference, 1964/69:250), and the growing number who consider the Bible and Christian tradition worse than irrelevant for modern sexual ethics ("Gay genocide from Leviticus to Hitler"; Crompton 1978).

As a profound dialectical thinker, of course, Ellul's apparently "Falwellian moments" are balanced by other perspectives, and an often profound and subtle use of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. For instance, warning against possible misuse of stoic virtue lists in the rhetoric of the pauline letters, Ellul points out: "Paul....is not giving us rigorous codes but examples of what such a use of freedom can be. For the virtues in which freedom is manifested relate to what is normal or current in the society at issue. These examples cannot be made into a law again. They are not absolutely binding. They serve to warn us. They are a remedy for our sloth and weakness" (1975/76:219; cf. "Lists, Ethical" in Crim 1976:546-547).

Unfortunately, such insights are not always consistently applied in sexual matters. New Testament scholars have clarified considerably the proper use of terms in the pauline vice lists as well, especially those cruelly mistranslated "homosexuals"--a 19th century scientific term for a concept unknown until modern times (Edwards 1984:70-84; Scroggs 1983:101-109; 62-65). Ellul appears to recognize that arsenokoitai, one of the key words in dispute, may refer to same-sex male prostitution and paedophilia, but this not prevent him from wielding 1 Cor. 6:9 in a Falwellian fashion to condemn "homosexuals" as excluded from the Kingdom of God (1984:295; cf. note 2) and condemned to death by Lev. 20:13 (note 1). The infamous ellulian universalism is here somehow eclipsed by a cloud of homophobic fury. Fundamentalist eisegesis takes over as Lesbians (never explicitly referred to in any Old Testament text) fall under the sword of Lev. 20:13. Still, despite such lapses, proper exegetical and hermeneutical insights are abundantly available within the ellulian corpus if one can only remember to apply them (in the sexual realm) where he often fails to do so (see especially his sensitive treatment of hermeneutics (1975/76: 161-184).

3. Christian praxis vs. Greek "Ethics." Ellul often writes with keen insight into Biblical thought forms and the gulf that separates them from the intellectual history, both Christian and nonChristian, in the East and West. He writes: "It is important to take note of the fact that the word ethic never occurs in the New Testament, although it was current in the Greek philosophy of the time. Likewise the word duty is never employed in a moral sense in the New Testament....When the Bible speaks of morality it uses such words as `the law,' `walking,' or `being' in accord with the will of God or `adhering to' the will of God, and...these are terms in the sphere of action, of being, of living, not in the sphere of speculation" (1964/69:299 note 1).

Similarly: "There are no Christian principles. Most of the heresies came into being as a result of transforming the word of God into principles. That is also why the Bible never presents itself as a book of philosophy, but as a history. And when the will of God takes the form of a law, the latter always appears as a commandment. `Thou,' it says to the hearer. It is not at all a question of a general rule promulgated by a legislator, but the start of a personal dialogue" (1964/69:204-205; but cf. 301-302 and 296 note 4 on individualistic bourgeois morality).

However although "history" also (in the sense of modern scientific historiography) is foreign to biblical literary genre, we will see the importance of tracing fundamental historical continuities on sexual matters in the biblical literature (1964/69:248,255; cf. 300 note 4). Such historical continuities and paradigms, according to Ellul, cannot be formulated into a "system" in the Greek philosophical sense: "the biblical commandments are not so clear and especially do not constitute an obvious ensemble, there are large ambiguities" (1964/69:309, note 3; cf. p. 97). Contrary to traditional Christian thought and ideological Fundamentalism, neoplantonic "values" and the philosophical category of ethical "absolutes" are recognized as alien to Biblical thought (1964/69:74; 246-249). Unfortunately, despite such fundamental insights into Biblical perspectives, Ellul choses to work within basic theological and philosophical categories that are alien to the Biblical thought world: the Fall, morality, and ethics (1964/69:3-110, 111-198, 199-267).

Paradoxically, lesbian philosopher Sarah Hoagland, writing with minimal reference to the Christian tradition, actually works more within Biblical categories as she critiques traditional ethics for promoting oppression rather than authentic freedom. Traditional "ethics," she argues, seeks to "legitimize oppresson by redefining it as social organization. Appeal to rules and principles is at the heart of this endeavor" (1988:12).

4. Yahweh as Liberator--incarnate in Jesus. Perhaps Ellul's major contribution is his profound, sweeping and consistent insistence on God as Liberator and the fundamental character of authentic Christian freedom: "Freedom is the central truth of the Bible and...the Biblical God is above all the liberator" (1988:9; see my detailed presentation on Ellul as "The Original `Liberation Theologian'" (1985:17-32). Only Ernst Kasemann approaches Ellul in his appreciation of the fundamental place of liberation, "the only modern theologian to give freedom the central place which is its due" (1975/76:104 note 1). The so-called "Liberation theologians" might more accurately be termed "theologians of justice" in comparison with Ellul, since their frequent commitment to (now) discredited socialist, marxist and communist political-economic models implied very limited and distorted notions of liberation and freedom.

For many years I wondered why liberation theologians wrote about every subject under the sun, but almost never touched on sexuality. Finally it dawned on me that as (mainly) Catholic priests and purportedly celibate, a methodology that involved "starting from praxis" meant that they had to maintain discreet silence in this area. As a Protestant in the Reformed tradition Ellul has not suffered from such muzzling. Although sexual matters do not loom large in his ethical writings, he does sally forth (somewhat like Don Quixote) to engage in a fierce dialectical encounter with modern notions of sexual freedom. He is not liberation theologian enough to restrict his conclusions to areas of personal expertise and praxis, but takes on several controversial areas (polygamy, homosexuality, prostitution) where a more consistent (ideological) liberation theologian might have remained silent.

In some areas, it might have been preferable had he followed the Latin American paradigm. Methodological limitation to critical reflection on praxis implies something like Dooyeweerdian respect for sphere sovereignty in the ethical area. This would imply recognition that such groups as African-Americans, feminists, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transvestites, prostitutes, fetichists and African Christian polygamists should all develop their distinctive area of ethical reflection. To a remarkable degree this is already happening, but most writers like Ellul (white, male, protestant, heterosexual) pretend omnicompetence and seem largely unaware of the shift (and the enormous specialized bibliography now available). White male theology is presumptuously and mistakenly equated with "evangelical" or Christian" theology/ethics.

5. Bible and Science: the Proper Dialectic. Some 30 years before Liberation theologians canonized the method, Ellul pioneered the incorporation of social sciences in the theological task (Hanks 1985:19-20). He even criticized Barth for the naivete in his ethics that resulted from ignoring the social sciences. However, in his own use of the sciences in the theological critique of praxis, obviously Ellul is more at home with sociology, and politics than in the psychological-medical-biological areas so important in modern sexual ethics. A major weakness is his emphatic dogmatic use of the "Fall" to the great neglect of insights in biology and sexology that come from our evolutionary heritage (Weinrich 1987; Ruse 1988).

While the "Fall" looms large in Ellul's ethics (1964/69:3-110), its tiny and debatable role in Biblical theology has long been recognized by informed conservative scholarship. More than 30 years ago, many scientists and theologians in the conservative Dutch Free University of Amsterdam recognized that modern Christians need to quit harping on the "Fall" and start taking evolution seriously in the theological-"ethical" task. With the exception of Paul (2 or 3 texts) Biblical writers consistently treat the depths of sin without any reference to a "Fall." And the Yahwistic narrative's reference to the disobedience of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) hardly approaches Paul's cosmological concept, which is commonly understood as nonhistorical literary genre ("myth"?) in modern exegesis and theology.

Moreover Ellul's limited use of historical science in the sexual area does not manifest his usual sensitivity to ideological and propaganda factors. As might be expected, his forte in sexual ethics surfaces more in the area involving techniques/technology (the pill and birth control; the condom as a purported solution to the AIDS epidemic).

The chapter on homosexuality in the latest French edition of his Ethics (1984:290-302) is arguably the worst thing Ellul ever wrote and conjures up images of the sincerely determined, but absent-minded professor who once attempted "appropriate technology" and drove his bicycle into a brick wall. Like the bicycle performance, it does maintain the saving ellulian grace of not being dull. I was particularly elated, but then chagrined to find myself virtually "canonized" (by his very kind and favorable resum'e of my book on oppression; 1984:191-194) in the same volume that elsewhere castigated "homosexuals" as excluded from the Kingdom and worthy of the death penalty pronounced in Lev. 20:13. Since then, I have taken unaccustomed comfort from his writings propounding the universalism heresy and continue to hope that the sovereign God of our Reformed tradition (Augustine, Calvin, Barth, Berkouwer), whose ways are not our ways, might further illumine us as to His purpose in permitting such a paradoxical phenomenon.

6. Ideological Critique: Marriage & Nuclear Family. Other related fundamental areas of ellulian expertise that might be expected to stand him in good stead had they been more rigorously applied to sexual questions are his critique of dominant ideologies and the integrative propaganda techniques that support them. Almost everything in the ellulian corpus might be cited in demonstration of his insights here, and a few examples could even be cited in the sexual area. However, recent studies make clear that perhaps in no other area are we so captive to dominant ideologies as in sexual matters. Feminists have struggled for centuries against the titanic force of some of the "Commonplaces" and dominant, unexamined patriarchal presuppositions that captivate us; gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities only recently have begun to mount a similar challenge to heterosexism and related ideologies.

Inevitably, it would seem, we all (including every sexual minority) are daily injected with large doses of heterosexist, nuclear-family ideology virtually with our mother's milk--and an incessant barrage of related supportive heterosexist propaganda from the time we begin to see, hear, read, watch the media--or see countless couples shamelessly "flaunting their heterosexuality" in the privacy of the home and in all public places. It would require a sociological microscope to encounter the very few children (for instance with 2 lesbians or 2 gay men for parents) who would even be aware alternative lives and lifestyles do exist--even though sexual minorities among adults easily constitute more than 30% of the population.

7. Integrative Propaganda: Heterosexist? As lesbian philosopher Sarah Hoagland reminds us, language is a tool of oppression, "for we remain trapped in oppression when we perceive only what the oppressors perceive, when we are restricted to their values and categories" (1988:14). The existing or dominant vocabulary in any language easily limits perception and eliminates certain questions from the debate. "The use of language in structuring reality and trapping us in oppression is not separate and distinct from the manipulation of the material conditions of our existence to structure reality and trap us in oppression" (Hoagland 1988:14).

Hoagland cites the example of missionaries who set out to teach children their "native" language, but impose their colonial categories, with deities assuming masculine gender, ownership replacing sharing, etc. As we shall see, the (unconscious) manipulation of language as a tool of oppression is overwhelming in the sexual area: any verbal and pictorial portrayals of sex may get labeled "pornography" (intrinsically unclean, dirty); any sex involving more than one partner becomes "promiscuity"; "fidelity/infidelity" comes to refer only to genital sex outside of marriage (though never used that way in the Bible); any sexual act that is non-procreative or involving members of the same sex becomes "sodomy" (especially in the chaotic Western legal tradition); in modern (dynamic-equivalent) Bible translations, "households" (involving slaves, same-sex pairs, distant relatives) becomes (nuclear) "family."

The impact of integrative heterosexist propaganda (taking advantage of language as a tool of oppression) is overwhelming and devastating. A sensitive, somewhat affeminate boy will be left to agonize alone as to why he is different, why his father is always angry (perhaps often violent) with him, and why he is the continual butt of jokes at school for being the lowest of the low--a "sissy" (a boy so inferior he is somewhat like a girl; contrary to one common myth only about a third of homosexual men have this background or tendency). Our first-grader may be subjected to a daily barrage of violence and killing from TV and films (designed to cure his deviation?). But even if he lives in "Sin City" he likely would have to stay up long past his bedtime to catch a glimpse of two men or two women embracing or kissing (male football antics being a kind of "situational ethic" exception to be permitted only after touchdowns). One of the Commonplaces that everyone knows is that "pornography" (anything that breaks the heterosexist stereotypes) is bad for children, since they might "catch homosexuality" like the measles (another Commonplace). Better they should watch human beings--and cute cartoon creatures--carving each other up and blood all but gushing on the living room floor. We must protect our children!

Despite his unique expertise in ideological critique and propaganda, Ellul applies almost none of this in the sexual area, and even shows himself in the exceptional position of an uncritical victim of a cultural brainwashing. Scholarly and popular writings on homosexuality have begun to make applications ion the sexual area with a vengeance in the last decade. Ellul however, (in blatent contradiction to his basic propaganda insights) writes off what little he sees in this area as "Gay propaganda" and forgets his contention that majority, integrative propaganda is overwhelming and much more insidious by comparison (Christians 1988). Of the enormous specialized bibliography of scholarly works he shows litle awareness and seems to be operating here with a "scholarship" level of newspaper clippings and TV talk shows (which have their limitations, even when subjected to clever sociological analysis). To his everlasting credit, however, Ellul has given us an unprecedented arsenal of insight that can be properly redirected into the area of sexual ideologies and sexual propagandas.