Thanks for your comments on this subject. If you'll excuse me playing devil's advocate, I have several off the cuff observations to make on the position described. Sorry, everybody, for the length. As somebody once said, I didn't have time to make it shorter...

First up, I have a major problem with reinterpreting the Biblical witness on the basis of its purported "patriarchalism" or "sexism" (or "homophobia" or whatever). Once that sort of value judgment of the Biblical materials is allowed, Biblical exegesis becomes nothing more than an exercise in interpreting the text to match our own (modern western) prejudices. Laying aside my views on the authority of the Bible as Scripture and speaking of it only as a literary text I have always thought that the fact that the Bible speaks to us from another time and culture ought to be seen as giving us an opportunity to subject our own cultural bias to some scrutiny rather than an opportunity to dismiss the Biblical record. Now, people are of course perfectly free to dismiss the Biblical record as "imperfect" because it is "patriarchal" or "sexist" but such exegesis leaves itself open to the charge of being imperfect because of "xenophobia" or even what C.S. Lewis so eloquently described as "chronological snobbery". Actually, you used the word "imperialist" to describe the reproductive model - it would be a good word to use to describe the use of language as above described.

To add a couple of asides; (1) I find it incongruous that one would be considered "racist" for denigrating Australian Aboriginal culture (which acknowledges very marked distinctions in gender roles), yet when one denigrates the gender distinctions of Ancient Hebrew culture one is considered to be enlightened. Go figure...

(2) As soon as one begins to throw around the terms "sexist" and etc, one has pretty much conceded what conservative exegetes have always said - that male female monogamy is the Biblical norm and any alternative is Biblically unacceptable. I have always found it curious that some less careful exegetes could at one and the same time accuse the Bible of being "sexist" or "patriarchal" and at the same time deny that it advocates any idea of gender distinction.

Second, if the Biblical witness is flawed because "its representation of the relationship between men and women is overwhelmingly patriarchal" then this cuts the legs out from under the nuptial metaphor altogether. Why so? Because the nuptial metaphor takes as its model male-female MONOGAMY (not just male-female relationships) as normative. The "monogamy" part is just as culture bound as the "male-female" part. Thus, it seems highly selective to suggest that the "male-female" part is imperfect and culture bound and pretend that the "monogamy" part is to be taken as timeless and absolute.

In point of fact, I would suggest that the critique offered in your post can be more strongly directed at the issue of monogamy rather than that of gender. Here I would like to draw attention to your comment that;

The nuptual metaphor ... is driven by the deepest kind of biblical ethics (or even erotics): hospitality towards an "other" who ultimately escapes our drive to possess and control.

Surely expecting a person to commit to a life-long partnership with another (regardless of gender) is inviting this very problem of possession and control? Ergo, monogamy must be totally contrary to the hospitality which represents "the deepest kind of biblical ethics."

The point is hardly theoretical. At least one pro-gay lobbyist is agitating NOT for the recognition of gay marriages, but the abolition of all marriage and the recognition of ALL cohabitation (regardless of gender or number) as legitimate - their argument is exactly that marriage is an invalid control structure which ought not to be legitimised.

I quite agree _incidentally_ that the point of the metaphor is not reproductive. But does anybody seriously advocate that it is? Surely the Ancient Hebrews weren't thinking about making babies with God and I doubt that any of Jesus followers had the slightest homo-erotic attraction toward the Master. In fact, even if one takes the most naive and literalistic (biblicist?) reading of Gen 2:18-25, one sees that the creation of woman was an issue of companionship at the first, not procreation. Clearly male-female relationships are concerned with far more than simply sex. But just because the relational aspect is of major significance this does not (1) make the sexual issue of no importance, or (2) give license engage sexually with anyone with whom one has a relationship.

Third, in the context of the canon of scripture, the nuptial metaphor is intended to remind Israel of her covenant obligations toward the Lord of the Covenant. This is significant in that covenant agreements always have stipulations which dictate the form of the covenant relationship. The basic idea is that Jehovah cares for Israel in return for Israel living in covenant faithfulness. And this covenant faithfulness is defined by obedience to the Law - which means avoidance of homosexual practice (the Law being all very "sexist" and "patriarchal" and all that). In other words, the whole point of the nuptial metaphor is to remind Israel to obey the law and thus if the nuptial metaphor doesn't _exclude_ homosexual practice _by definition_ then it certainly seems to hint very strongly in that direction.

Fourth, in its original context the nuptial metaphor spoke of two "types" of relationships - the first was the "secular" (male-female), the second the "religious" (Israel-Yahweh) Obviously the second is the major concern of the Biblical writers. What seems to me problematic for the position described below is the following; if one suggests that "faithfulness" is the major point and that the parties to the relationship are free to relate to anybody in any manner as long as they are "faithful" then what is to stop us from drawing a conclusion that is obviously totally antithetical to the entire point of the metaphor, viz; that Israel could as well serve Baal or any other deity as long as they did so "faithfully." If it doesn't matter _who_ one is faithful to, then Yahweh has no grounds for complaint when Israel runs off and serves foreign gods. I acknowledge that this is rather a bizarre twist in logic, but then I'm not the one attempting to reinterpret the metaphor...

I also have serious reservations about where the logic of the position described below would take us. If "faithfulness" is the only prerequisite for sexual intimacy, then what is to stop one from engaging in incest, paedophilia, bestiality, sacred prostitution (seeker-sensitive orgies?), etc, etc? No doubt Total Acceptance advocates would say that paedophilia (to take perhaps the most contentious example) is wrong because it involves an inequity, it is "imperialist " and involves the "drive to possess and control." And I would quite agree. But what I think is not the issue. The fact is that advocates of paedophilia would NOT agree. Perhaps the most prominent advocates of paedophilia are The North American Man-Boy Love Association who consider adult-child sexual relationships to be consensual and healthy. In fact, no matter what sort of sexual practice we might want to introduce by way of example, and no matter what _our_ views on such practices might be, the simple fact is that participants do not consider their erotic shenanigans to be in the least questionable. So while one is perfectly free to disagree with advocates of paedophilia one has to remember that the paedophile will regard such opposition in exactly the same way as homosexuals regard opposition to their particular sexual bent - as a demonstration of the same "imperialism" and "drive to possess and control" which purportedly motivates the advocacy of male-female monogamy.

For these reasons (among others) I consider the Total Acceptance position described below to be quite without merit.

Regards, Murray Hogg