THE BIBLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY
The church must always ask: "what does the Bible say?"
NOT IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS
Many Christians wonder what the fuss is all about, why this issue is not settled quickly, since the Bible is so clear on the subject. It's obvious homosexual behavior is wrong. Because, simply, the Bible says it is!
However, other Christians make a case that the Bible does not condemn all homosexual practice. The passages which mention same-sex relations are not as straightforward as they appear:
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
These passages are found in what is commonly called the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26) and may refer to ritual impurity (uncleanness) rather than immorality. In other words, same-sex relations might not be "sin" but "impurity"--like eating bacon. If so, they are irrelevant to us, for the Gospel releases Christians from this part of the Jewish law.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts [arsenokoitais], for slave traders and liars and perjurers...
The Greek word often translated as referring to homosexual practice is unclear. It does not occur in any literature prior to the New Testament, and does not occur again for 200 years. It possibly describes and forbids only pederasty or same-sex prostitution--not the kind of homosexual behavior which gay Christians try to defend.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural [para physin] ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This passage may refer solely to heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts. (Evidence that Paul is talking about heterosexual persons: he says these persons abandoned their "natural relations." That is, they knew and experienced heterosexual affections but abandoned them.) As such, the passage does not condemn those who are homosexual by nature, but only individual heterosexuals who occasionally deny their own "natures" by performing homosexual acts.
Or perhaps these explicit remarks on homosexuality apply only to some forms of same-sex relationships. For instance, Paul may not have had in mind loving, committed same-sex relationships -- he may have known only of abusive, promiscuous, and/or cultic homosexuality. If so, no wonder he spoke against it!
Other persons point out that the downward spiral of behavior depicted in Romans 1:18-32 does not appear to describe the gays and lesbians in our congregations. Some are good people with strong Christian ministry.
However, more and more persons view the above understandings as inadequate.
SIGNS OF GATHERING CONSENSUS
|
After reviewing the passages on homosexuality, Richard B. Hays (professor at Yale and now Duke) in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins, 1996) writes: "Though only a few biblical texts speak of homoerotic activity, all that do mention it express unqualified disapproval" (p389).
Walter Wink in Homosexuality and Christian Faith (Fortress, 1999) writes: "Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that biblical judgment is correct" (p47). |
The tide is flowing toward the understanding that the Bible indeed does condemn all forms of homosexual sex.
Tim Stafford in Christianity Today (November 13, 1995) reviewed several books on homosexuality. In a context of asking about what the Bible says, he wrote: "a degree of clarity has emerged after much vexed exegesis."
Many scholars now assert that the Bible addresses not only abusive or cultic forms of homosexuality but also the loving, caring homosexual relationships of today. These scholars are not just evangelicals; they span the Christian communion. (See Willard Swartley's list of recent articles and books.)
Even more clarity emerged with the publication of the first comprehensive exegetical treatment on the subject, Robert A. Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, 2001). Gagnon concludes that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin. Reviewers critical of the book tend to challenge its understanding of the biblical authority rather than its exegetical arguments.
SHORT SUMMARIES ON BIBLICAL PASSAGES
The following paragraphs outline why persons conclude that the Bible passages which mention homosexual behavior view it as sin.
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Pro-gay comments: These passages are found in what is commonly called the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26) and may refer to ritual impurity (uncleanness) rather than immorality. In other words, same-sex relations might not be "sin" but "impurity"--like eating bacon. If so, they are irrelevant to us, for the Gospel releases Christians from this part of the Jewish law.
The Holiness Code is not just concerned with ritual purity but also with moral purity. It contains much moral law (not just ritual law). For instance, the chapter between the two texts contains prohibitions of idolatry, injustice to the poor, theft, vengeance, and so on. These texts (and, for instance, the prohibition of bestiality which accompanies them) may remain relevant today.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts [arsenokoitais], for slave traders and liars and perjurers...
Pro-gay comments: The Greek word often translated as referring to homosexual practice is unclear. It does not occur in any literature prior to the New Testament, and does not occur again for 100 years. It possibly describes and forbids only pederasty or same-sex prostitution--not the kind of homosexual behavior which gay Christians try to defend.
The word arsenokoites (plural: arsenokoitai) is a compound word formed from two Greek words "man" and "to lie". It has a simple and obvious meaning. The fact that the word occurs nowhere prior to the New Testament and does not occur again for at least 100 years indicates that it could not have, through use, acquired a meaning other than the simple and obvious one.
The Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 uses the same two words: meta arsenos koiten gynaikos ("whoever lies with a man as with a woman"). Would this not have been in Paul's mind? Leviticus 18-20, seen as a summary of the law, is often quoted in the New Testament. Paul was very familiar with the Greek version of the Old Testament, citing from it more than the Hebrew.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural [para physin] ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Pro-gay comments: This passage may refer solely to heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts. (Evidence that Paul is talking about heterosexual persons: he says these persons abandoned their "natural relations." That is, they knew and experienced heterosexual affections but abandoned them.) As such, the passage does not condemn those who are homosexual by nature, but only individual heterosexuals who occasionally deny their own "natures" by performing homosexual acts.
When Paul stated that acts of sexual passion between two women or two men ("consumed with passion for one another" NRSV) are "unnatural," he did not mean "contrary to what a person feels is natural" but rather "contrary to the natural order as God originally created it."
Persons ask whether Paul's assessment of homosexual behavior can be the final word, if he does not take into account the distinction between those who are "by nature" homosexual and those who are "by nature" heterosexual. Many persons are indeed "by nature" homosexual (many gays and lesbians say that they have always felt attracted to others of their own gender). Should not that nature be respected?
Even if we grant that persons are "by nature" homosexual, we still cannot assume that God wants them to do what is natural to them. Having a "nature" does not justify acting according to that nature. Consider someone who is anxiety-prone or hot-headed by temperament, or an alcoholic. Even where there is a genetic predisposition, we must still ask whether such a predisposition should be acted on. The existence of inclinations, orientations, or preferences have little to do with God's moral call upon our lives. One cannot argue from an "is" to an "ought." |
Paul was not thinking of an individual's "natural relations", but of humanity's "natural relations." The Greek expression para physin ("unnatural") is the standard terminology in dozens of ancient texts for referring to homoerotic acts. This passage is not about "heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts." It is about homosexual behavior.
Pro-gay comments: Perhaps Paul's explicit remarks on homosexuality apply only to some forms of same-sex relationships. For instance, Paul may not have had in mind loving, committed same-sex relationships -- he may have known only of abusive, promiscuous, and/or cultic homosexuality. If so, no wonder he spoke against it!
The historical record indicates that Paul very well may have known of same-sex conduct in committed forms. Eva Cantarella in her book Bisexuality in the Ancient World (Yale University Press, 1994) gives instances of homosexual marriage occurring in Greece and Rome. It is tenuous to hold that Paul in Romans 1 did not have in mind all homosexual behavior. In linking female and male same-sex relations and using terminology denoting mutual desire ("consumed with passion for one another" v27), Paul describes behavior similar to most forms of homosexual conduct as we know it today.
Pro-gay comments: The downward spiral of behavior depicted in Romans 1:18-32 does not appear to describe the gays and lesbians in our congregations. Some are good people with strong Christian ministry.
"Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which human fallenness distorts God's created order. God the Creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful and multiply. When human beings 'exchange' these created roles for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have 'exchanged the truth about God for a lie.'"
--Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (Harper Collins 1996) p388
|
The church needs to take time for careful discernment here. In many ways the gays and lesbians in our congregations lead positive and productive lives. We do, however, see indications that the gays and lesbians being welcomed into congregations are "worshiping the creature rather than the Creator." These persons place the right of sexual expression very high; it is often an authority equal with (or above) Scripture and Christian tradition. Gays have felt justified in choosing to divorce their wives -- choosing fulfillment of their sexual nature over the fulfillment of a covenant to wife and family, allowing sexual identity and desire to trump all other values and identities. Also, gays seldom hold up monogamy as a standard.
STILL NOT OBVIOUS
Even if the biblical passages which specifically mention homosexuality do indeed view homosexual practice as sin, what the Bible teaches on homosexuality is still not immediately obvious.
H. Darrell Lance, a professor of Old Testament Interpretation (Colgate; Rochester, NY), recounts the conclusion of an exegesis paper done by one of his students:
"The student, an African American woman, was struggling with the realization that her beloved Bible nowhere condemns the institution of human slavery. She wrote: 'The Bible says, "Slaves, be obedient to your masters" and "Be subject to rulers," and "Thou shalt not steal." Yet we esteem as heroes women and men like Harriet Tubman and Denmark Vesey who were disobedient to their "masters," broke the law by taking their freedom, and "stole" other slaves to freedom when they were "legally" the property of their "masters."'...
"'Something,' she concludes, 'in us knows that the words cannot always capture and effectively communicate the will of the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.'"
--BULLETIN from the Hill (December 1992) |
More important than a few proof-texts or propositional rules are broad, basic themes in the Bible. The "spirit" of the Bible takes priority over its "letter".
For instance, we disregard a repeated command to greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thes 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14). Its intent (show warm affection) is better achieved in our culture by a holy hug or firm handshake.
Another instance: we no longer follow the prohibition against usury (taking money at interest - Exodus 22:25, Lev 25:36-37, Deut 23:19) because we give priority to the broad theme behind the regulation (the rich should not take advantage of the poor) rather than to the regulation itself. In a simple economy, money taken at interest only enriched the lender. Today in a complex economy, money borrowed at interest can benefit everyone.
In other words, the larger themes in the Bible (love, justice, liberation) at times overturn the Bible's more minor themes.
The most basic theme of the Bible is that love is the fulfilling of God's law (Romans 13:8-10). Every New Testament ethical instruction is subordinate to the principle of love.
Gay and lesbian relationships, it is argued, can be according to an ethic of love--can involve mutual consent, faithfulness (commitment), and fruitfulness (nourish those inside and outside the relationship), etc. As such, the argument continues, a life partnership between two persons of the same sex can be good and be blessed by God.
CAUTION
"From Genesis 1 onward, scripture affirms repeatedly that God has made man and woman for one another and that our sexual desires rightly find fulfillment within heterosexual marriage (see, for instance, Mark 10:2-9; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Corinthians 7:1-9; Ephesians 5:21-33; Hebrews 13:4)."
--Richard B. Hays Sojourners (July 1991)
"The Bible undercuts our cultural obsession with sexual fulfillment. Despite the smooth illusions perpetrated by American mass culture, sexual gratification is not a sacred right, and celibacy is not a fate worse than death. Scripture, along with many subsequent generations of faithful Christians, bears witness that lives of freedom, joy, and service are possible without sexual relations. Indeed, however odd it may seem to contemporary sensibilities, some New Testament passages (Matthew 19:10-12; 1 Corinthians 7) clearly commend the celibate life as a way of faithfulness."
--Richard B. Hays Sojourners (July 1991) |
People of God through the centuries have had confidence that biblical instructions are inspired by the Spirit of God (Love) and lead humanity in the way of wholeness and well-being. The teachings on usury and on the holy kiss, though now disregarded, were exactly what the Spirit of God wanted to say to the original hearers. They were not mistakes. Paul's instructions for living within the system of slavery, along with seeds for its elimination (encouraging Philemon to free Onesimus, teaching that in Christ there is neither slave nor free), may have been the most that that society was able to receive.
Out of that confidence in the Bible, we should resist "correcting" any of its ethical teachings (eg. usury, the holy kiss) unless a compelling case is made that a change in culture or redemptive history necessitates it. When the church has judged such a change necessary, often Scripture itself has led us, as it did in changes regarding slavery. Is this the case with homosexuality? Rather than undercutting the specific texts on homosexuality, many broad themes in Scripture support them.
We should move slowly in deciding to disregard biblical passages which view homosexual behavior as sin.
DO Same-sex RELATIONS FULFILL GOD'S LAW OF LOVE?
"Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love."
--Wolfhart Pannenberg, "Revelation and Homosexual Experience," Christianity Today (Nov 11 1996) |
Many persons have same-sex desires and lack desires for the opposite sex due to no seeming choice of their own. But is it for their good and for the common good for them to satisfy that same-sex desire? Much love can be present within lesbian and gay relationships; but are such relationships in accordance with love that is "the fulfilling of God's law"? Is there harm present in same-sex relations?
Is there PHYSICAL WHOLENESS in same-sex relations?
"A simple understanding of human reproduction and anatomy is enough to make it clear that homosexual intercourse is [behavior which is contrary to the intent of nature]."
--Plough (Feb/March 1993) p22 |
Homosexual practice in its most common form represents such serious health risks that it constitutes a sin against the body.
"Doctors who work with homosexual men are trained to look regularly for at least 15 common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS, and we could double or triple the number by taking into account less common problems."
--Thomas Schmidt, Straight & Narrow (IVPress 1995) p116
In the well-known Bell and Weinberg study male homosexuals named insertive anal intercourse as their preferred sexual activity (Homosexualities [Simon and Schuster, 1978] p 108-109; see also New York Times November 23, 1997 "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality"). Physical trauma is a common result of this practice (Schmidt, p117-118). Further, that receptive body area is lined with cells designed to absorb liquids and prone to admit whatever microorganisms come along. The equivalent area in heterosexual intercourse, by contrast, is lined with tough cells prone to repel microorganisms. Thus the incidence rate of sexually-transmitted disease among male homosexuals is far higher than that of the most promiscuous segment of the general population (Schmidt, p121).
What about RELATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL WHOLENESS?
Researchers McWhirter and Mattison, a gay couple with MD and MSW degrees, studied gays in long-term relationships. In 156 male couples, sexual exclusivity was a general expectation early in the relationship, but the partners became more permissive with time. None of the 100 couples that had been together five years or more had remained sexually exclusive.
--David P. McWhirter, MD, and Andrew M. Mattison, MSW, PhD. The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall, 1984). Their study is summarized in a recent professional source, Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health (ed. by Robert P. Cabaj & Terry S. Stein; American Psychiatric Press).
|
Walter Wink talks of relationships of same-sex love "between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple" (Homosexuality and Christian Faith [Fortress Press, 1999] p36). However, that kind of faithfulness is foreign to the experience of most male homosexuals. There is little indication, for instance, that monogamy is typical of gays -- even in long-term committed relationships. John Stott writes that "the concept of lifelong, quasi-marital fidelity in homosexual partnerships is largely a myth, a theoretical ideal which is contradicted by the facts" (Same-Sex Partnerships? [Revell, 1998] p51).
Few (if any) lesbian and gay Christian communities have written guidelines or standards of the lifestyle they feel called to live. When their leaders do write about standards such as monogamy, they take positions that are atypical of the larger Christian community. They say fidelity does not mean being sexually exclusive -- fidelity really means only keeping your promises (Presbyterian minister Chris Glaser).
They say a wide variety of life patterns are equally valid, such as the following alternatives: monogamy and multiple partnerships, partnerships for life and partnerships for a period of mutual growth (Malcolm Macourt of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in Britain). Few gays see monogamy as an ideal. National gay leaders (like Andrew Sullivan, author of Virtually Normal) have written that gay male relationships are served by the "openness of the contract." McWhirter and Mattison (see sidebar above) consider monogamy detrimental to the male homosexual relationship. They believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel; these couples learned quickly that ownership of each other sexually is a threat to their staying together.
"Societal repression fails to account for the radically different patterns of sexual behavior between male and female homosexuals, patterns that we may best understand in terms of traditional gender roles. That is, men tend to treat genital sex as a means of self-expression, central to their individual identity, and women tend to treat genital sex as one of several enjoyable options in the expression of affection, which is integrated into their more relational sense of identity."
--Thomas Schmidt p115,116
"It may be that the homosexual community cannot embrace monogamy because homosexual sex can never produce what God made sex for. They turn instead to promiscuity and perversions to create sexual highs. . . . When sex outside of God's will does not do what God made it to do, many people, gay and straight, search for some way to make sex deliver an ever bigger electric charge, the elusive ultimate orgasm, that can somehow make up for the absence of what sex was meant to create: unity."
--Stanton L. Jones |
Few would claim that relational wholeness is present in a sexual relationship if monogamy is not also present.
Gay persons' lack of commitment in relationships can be attributed in part to societal pressures working against them and to dysfunctional families of origin. But are those the only factors sabotaging the relationships? Or is it also the fact that God created us humans as male and female? Isn't there a complementarity in a union of man and woman, as well as the probability of children, which ups the odds that one will reach the end of life having long-term, fulfilling relationships? The nature of maleness and femaleness is different, complementary. This is obvious physically. Is it not also true emotionally? A man and a woman in marriage can refine, support, and complete one another in a way that two men or two women in a relationship cannot. The woman (tending toward valuing relationships) civilizes the man (tending toward natural aggression), harnessing his energies and sexual drive toward their relationship. There is higher probability of promiscuity in gay (male) relationships than in heterosexual relationships because two men together act more like men in general (ie, any male tendency is exacerbated) -- and men tend not to put as much energy in maintaining relationships.
Perhaps sexual exclusivity is so lacking among gays because our Creator did not design men to "marry" men. There indeed is something about male same-sex relationships which is lacking and not satisfying -- otherwise we wouldn't see so much promiscuity. And so we would expect the Spirit of God to steer persons away from such relations. It is evidently not the love God had in mind when creating us as sexual creatures.
Signs of SPIRITUAL WHOLENESS are present in the lesbian and gay Christian community.
"There are numerous homosexual Christians...whose lives show signs of the presence of God, whose work in ministry is genuine and effective."
--Richard Hays The Moral Vision of the New Testament p399 |
Sexually-active homosexuals witness to God's Spirit shaping and empowering their lives. Does this mean God approves of their lifestyle?
Many of us know church leaders who have been disciplined for sexual sin; and during the time the sin was occurring we often discerned the Spirit's ministry. God in grace places the Spirit even on us sinners. God meets us where we are at and comes into any area of our life we open to the Spirit. Consider David with his many wives in the Old Testament. We must not confuse grace with approval.
Do gay and lesbian relationships bring greater SOCIETAL GOOD?
"Marriage and the family--husband, wife, and children, joined by public recognition and legal bond--are the most effective institutions for the rearing of children, the directing of sexual passion, and human flourishing in community. Not all marriages and families 'work,' but it is unwise to let pathology and failure, rather than a vision of what is normative and ideal, guide us in the development of social policy. ...
"Having and rearing children is among the most difficult of human projects. Men and women need all the support they can get to maintain stable marriages in which the next generation can flourish. Even marriages that do not give rise to children exist in accord with, rather than in opposition to, this heterosexual norm. To depict marriage as simply one of several alternative 'lifestyles' is seriously to undermine the normative vision required for social well-being."
--Ramsey Colloquium (group of Christian and Jewish scholars sponsored by the Institute of Religion and Public Life); from statement on morality and homosexuality in First Things (March 1994); obtained 10/96 at http:// www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/ chase/h/articles/art8.htm |
How crucial is the institution of marriage between a man and a woman? (See sidebar quoting Ramsey Colloquium.) Any alternative model, just by its existence, undercuts and weakens it.
Plus, there are observations that can lead one to question whether same-sex relations are for society's good.
Here are (speculative) seed thoughts along that line:
There is a complementarity between woman and man that contributes to their union. (Mentioned briefly above.) Same-sex couples can also have the necessary complementarity, and not every heterosexual couple experiences blissful complementarity. But clearly among same-sex couples the percentage of stable households diminishes. And anything that ups the odds, even slightly, that households will cohere is very valuable to society.
Is satisfaction of personal desire the highest value? In many situations it is hard to discern what choice is actually for the greater good, is love. More often than we wish, it is the way of self-denial.
Each of the above considerations of lack in same-sex relations (physical wholeness, relational wholeness, societal good) can be blunted to some extent. Can they be fully discounted? Is there a cumulative effect?
GayMatter Site
|