With the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court regarding Same Sex Marriage, there are devoted Christians who, in good faith and genuine commitment to the teachings, traditions, and foundations of the Bible, have asked how any Christian could possibly advocate for Same Sex Marriage in light of what the Bible says. It is a fair question and one that deserves a fair answer.
Christianity is divided over the topic of homosexuality. Of this fact, there is no question. In all fairness to both sides of the homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage debate, coming to a mutually agreeable compromise on how Scripture should be interpreted, applied, and lived in Christian fidelity to our Creator is very difficult. It is fair to say that both sides of the rancorous debate rely highly on interpretive assumptions and faith foundations that we both believe are fundamentally true. Therefore, to suggest otherwise, is accepted as heresy. If one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, there can be no communication. Consequently, conversations of this nature are fraught with difficulty. Essentially, it comes down to what one believes the Bible says.
So, what does the Bible really say? Realistically, the answer to that question depends on who is doing the interpreting but in order to cut through the emotional and highly irrational rhetoric that is flying around, this is my attempt to offer a little perspective on how two very devout and faithful Christians can read the same Bible and come up with such vastly different interpretations.
The questions are multiple. Is homosexuality a sin? Should a homosexual person hold leadership in the church? Should a homosexual be allowed in the church or restricted from the table? Should the church bless and affirm same-sex marriage? What exactly does it mean to be “gay” or “lesbian”? Is sexual orientation a choice or a genetic predisposition? Do so-called “gay rights” extend to bisexuals or transgendered individuals (women and men who, through surgery or hormone therapy, change or alter their gender)? Is homosexuality a sin or perverse distortion of normal sexual orientation? If the church speaks of homosexuality as a sin, is that engaging in hateful speech and discriminatory language? What should the church’s stance be regarding these complex and emotional issues?
Unfortunately, these questions do not have clear-cut and simple answers. As faithful believers and Christians, the first place believers should turn regarding these complex questions is to the Bible. Unfortunately, in this we are left to our individual faith, the customs and traditions of the church, and the Church’s experience in engaging the world throughout history in the name of
Neither the Old Testament Hebrew nor the New Testament Greek contain words that can be directly translated to the English words “homosexual,” “lesbian,” or “gay.” There are definitive implications and correlations, but the concepts contained in the ancient Biblical languages are distinctly different. The Bible lacks any cognitive, practical, or theological understanding of explicit “sexual orientation” as it is commonly understood in a modern context. Many Christian Traditions fervently believe that sexual orientation as it references anything other than normative heterosexual behaviors within the context of a one-man-one-woman marriage is sin and therefore unambiguously condemned by Scripture. While there are legitimate reasons for this conclusion, it necessarily truncates any faithful conversation on the complex matters of human sexual identity. Given the realty that not all Christian traditions adhere to the same theological and moral interpretations, the ambiguity of sexual orientation is left for prayerful discernment in this document.
This does not mean the Bible is silent on the subject, only that English translations are based on conjecture rather than literal translation. That is, at least in part, why the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality are controversial. Its references are not necessarily as clear-cut as many believe. With that in mind, it is good to look at what the Bible does say and explore how variant interpretations approach the Sacred Word.
It begins with a story from Genesis 19 that is familiar to many; the depravity and destruction of
and Gomorrah. Jude
7 offers a New Testament commentary on the Sodom
story. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the references in the Holiness Code and
Old Testament Law that condemn the practice. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 contain two sin lists that typically
include homosexuality. Most critically,
there will be a look at Romans 1:18-32 which is arguably the most significant
argument regarding homosexuality in the Bible.
The issues regarding homosexuality, same sex marriage, and Christianity are more complex than can be adequately addressed in one blog posting such as this. The focus of this particular analysis is limited to the specifics of scripture. Many questions will be left unanswered awaiting further prayer and study.
Finally, in posting here, I am assuming that homosexuality is open for civic, prayerful, and respectful discussion. Everyone can agree that the culture is changing with regards to acceptance and inclusion of homosexuality as normative. While some celebrate this as a triumph for equality and justice, many others legitimately fear it as a deadly slide into sinful disobedience into God’s judgment. For the Christian on either side of the argument, we must remember that for many, we believe our very salvation may be at stake so we are prone to be very defensive of our own beliefs and judgmental of others. As much as each is able, it is vital that we make the make the effort to engage with Christian love, respect, and prayer; withholding any initial judgment and prayerfully considering all options, theological assumptions, and interpretations. Then, prayerfully coming to a faithful understanding of how one can faithfully approach the matter of homosexuality and same sex marriage in the Christian faith while understanding that others may rightfully disagree with one’s own conclusion. Ultimately God has the final answer.
In this posting all scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
Genesis 19:1-29 –
Sodom and Gomorrah
In this Biblical story men from the town of
depicted as trying to gang rape the two male guests of Lot. The explicit implication of homosexual
contact in narrative not only grounds this text as a common reference in
preaching on homosexuality, but the English rendering of Sodom as the root for
the practice of sodomy has further crystallized Sodom and Gomorrah with
homosexual sex and God’s judgment. Yet, a careful examination of the text
reveals much more than homosexual issues. In fact, homosexuality and the act of
sodomy in human sexuality may actually be insignificant when compared to the
Lot extended appropriate hospitality to two male strangers who where journeying through
The two guests were in actuality male angels sent from God, but their identity
is known only to the readers and not to the main actors in the narrative. When faced with the travesty of his neighbors
gang-raping his guests, Lot bargains with the
villagers to prevent the crime and, parenthetically, his bargain is
exceptionally vile and inexcusable. In the end of this story, God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah
for the depravity exhibited by the villagers.
This text itself neither condemns nor condones homosexual sex. It is, however, interpreted elsewhere in scripture;
Ezekiel, Matthew, and Luke. Understanding it in context of these other
Biblical references is vital for a faithful interpreter of scripture. This is
important when looking not only at the homosexual implications of the text, but
also while exploring the other—and often overlooked—realities presented in the
While bargaining with the angry mob,
Lot tragically and unapologetically
offers his own daughters as sexual alternatives to his male guests. This is a
bewildering and abrasively offensive turn of events in the narrative. Yet, in
its implications, the passage is also rooted in the archaic understanding of
women as the property of the male head of the household and does not take into
account a necessary mutuality of sexual health. This obscure, but unavoidable
reality in the Sodom and Gomorrah
story also further illustrates the great danger in making absolute
appropriations of the story for moral judgment since there seems to be no
condemnation toward Lot for essentially
prostituting his own daughters.
Jude 7 reads, “Likewise,
Sodom and Gomorrah
and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in
sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing
a punishment of eternal fire.” Some ancient manuscripts translate “lust” to be
“went after other flesh.” (A further discussion of Jude 7 follows below.)
Ezekiel is more direct and to the point. God, speaking through the prophet says in 16:49, “This was the guilt of your sister
she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did
not aid the poor and needy.”
Repulsive as it may be for many in the modern world; ancient records indicate battle field rape was a practice in the Ancient Near East. This was the way a victorious army would humiliate and degrade the loosing army. As with rape in general, the crime is not really sexual in nature, but one of violence, hatred, and power. One does not rape out of sexual desire for the victim but out of lust for power over, and the subsequent humiliation of the victim.
The majority of Biblical evidence indicates the “sin” in question at
had nothing—or at least very little—to do with sexuality. Rather, Sodom’s great sin was the
inhumane treatment of others, violations of hospitality laws, and wealthy
arrogance. It is only in Jude’s letter that condemnation of homosexuality is
explicitly mentioned. Yet even then the exact intent can be scrutinized.
story into the context of modern Christianity with regards to homosexuality is
tenuous at best. In spite of homosexuality’s common association with Sodom there is little specific cause to use the account of
Sodom and Gomorrah
as rationale for condemning homosexuality.
Jude’s interpretation, however,
deserves further consideration.
The argument against homosexual conduct in
Jude must be seen in the broader context of three
distinct sins being condemned. Jude
uses historical events as examples of deprived and ungodly behavior.
The first (v.5) recalls the Israelites in the wilderness and their unwillingness to trust God so they could enter the Promised Land.
here highlights Israel’s
failure to trust God and the subsequent dire and often deadly consequences.
The second example (v.6) takes on a supernatural tone. Citing the ancient tradition recorded in Genesis 6:1-4,
Jude calls attention to evil or fallen angels. Their
crime in the eyes of God was sexual union with mortals on earth, thus giving
cause for the great flood which, in turn, serves as the foundation for needing
the flood and calling of Noah. Such
union violates the created order and is therefore sinful and punishable by God.
Jude is specifically writing to
counter false teachers (people in positions of authority, control, and
spiritual influence) who themselves engage in acts of illicit sex with those
under them (often with those under their influence and subsequently without any
legitimate power to refuse sexual advances). Jude’s
point is that they will be judged in the same manner, as were the “fallen”
angels of Genesis.
Finally, the third example (v. 7) recalls
Sodom and Gomorrah specifically. Within the framework
of this reference, there are actually three implied sins.
1. Use of violence and inhospitable behavior
2. The act of homosexual sexual contact and rape
3. The act or desire of going after “different flesh” (humans toward the angels)
The witness of
Jude can legitimately be interpreted in two ways. On
one hand, the practice of homosexuality can be easily condemned by citing this
passage. Jude’s reference to false
teachers can also be used to speak out against homosexual persons having any
leadership or teaching positions in the church. Similarly, the notion of
violating the created order is a frequent condemnation of homosexual
activity. Providing that sexual contact
is primarily or exclusively created for the purpose of procreation and
therefore must take place in exclusively heterosexual contexts, any deviation
from this practice would be considered a pursuit of “different flesh” and a
violation of God’s created order. In this instance, homosexual contact of any
kind is sin and must be condemned by the church. It should be noted, however,
that assuming sexuality is solely for procreation, heterosexual couples in
legal marriages who have sex and, by any means are either infertile or choose
to use birth control, may also be in violation of God’s law.
On the other hand, there are some contextual issues that favor a different interpretation.
writing in the Greco-Roman tradition, would have been keenly aware of the
popular homosexual activity of his time. It was common in the culture of the
day for men to have young sexual partners in relationships that constituted
exploitation, male prostitution, and sexual slavery. Given this context, and
the direct implication of homosexual rape in the Sodom story, Jude
could be writing against the specific practices of rape and exploitation. Given
this reading, Jude is not speaking at
all about the practice having adult consensual sex with members of the same
gender. In this instance, homosexuality as is commonly understood today, would
not be sinful and therefore it must not come under judgment by the church. Sexual
exploitation of any means is sin!
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – “An Abomination unto the Lord”
A cursory glance at the two verses in Leviticus that condemn homosexuality leave little doubt as to what was being said. 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” 20:13 reads, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
These references belong to the Holiness Code of Leviticus and make up one of the 613 laws of the Old Testament. Many of these laws are not followed today; not even by the most ardent followers of the Old Testament Levitical or Holiness Code. This reality results from the fact that many laws require the
and its sacrificial system. Likewise, there are also many laws interpreted as
unnecessary in modern culture. Finally, Christians generally disregard many of
these laws (for example the dietary regulations, purification regulations,
regulations regarding menstruation, and strict 8-day circumcision) on the
belief that in Jerusalem Temple Christ and his sacrifice on the
cross, they are redundant.
For the Christian, in dealing with the prohibitions in Leviticus, the question must be one of how much or what part of the Law is applicable. Do the verses that condemn homosexuality apply in today’s world or not? Due to the fact that some of these laws are still followed by the church and others are disregarded, any decision on the applicability of the Holiness Code is easily defendable or refutable. Consequently, as with much of scripture, one must prayerfully consider how God is leading on the matter and trust the Spirit for an answer. Understandably, not all Christians will “hear” the same answer from God on this so respect for diversity may be the most critical thing!
In addition, a challenge facing modern Christians lies in the issue of sexual orientation, sexual exploitation, and consensual sexual expression in mutually loving and affirming relationships. It is possible that God was prohibiting
form of homosexual contact. It is also possible that God was prohibiting the exploitative
use of people for sexual gratification but not the genuinely shared consensual
exchange of sexuality in mature, affirming, and equally “oriented” relationships.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1
1:10 – The Sin Lists
Both Corinthians and
Timothy include homosexuality in lists of other sins.
These lists are of “people that will not inherit the ”
and those guilty of “lawless behavior.”
The term translated “homosexual” in the Greek text has come under some
scrutiny. Some imply that it cannot refer to people exchanging sex with members
of their own gender. The Greek indicated in these passages comes closest to the
modern understanding of the word “homosexual.” It literally translates “one who
lies with a male.” Yet, there is some ambiguity to the precise meaning of this
word, thus prompting some scholars to disregard an absolute specificity of
homosexuality. Kingdom of God
It is most probable that
Paul (author of both books) was thinking of the
Holiness Code and the Leviticus passages mentioned above when writing. This
being the case, a very solid argument is made that Paul
was reinforcing this part of the Levitical Holiness Code as law as essential
for Christians to follow. Given this argument, homosexuality cannot be
acceptable and must be condemned by the church.
Note however, that the exact meaning is ambiguous. Although the Greek distinctly implies some sort of homosexual contact, the exact meaning of the text is unclear. As has been noted previously, forced and coerced sex between grown men and boys was common in the Greco-Roman world of the First Century (See Jude 7 above). The Greek wording is also found in non-Biblical references associated with inhumane sexual exploitation. Given the cultural context of its day, it is possible that
is not condemning consensual sex, but rather the unholy and despicable practice
of child sexual exploitation, sexual slavery, and rape. If this is the likely translation, it is
reasonable to argue in favor of accepting consensual sex between adults. In
this instance the church should not condemn homosexuality providing it conforms
to the same moral and healthy standards applied to heterosexual sex.
Romans 1:18-32 – The Theological Argument
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;
21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;
23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.
29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32)
Any Christian Biblical conversation regarding homosexuality must take seriously this passage from Romans. Unlike the other passages, this one is much more direct and distinctively theological in its makeup.
This entire passage is essentially setting up an argument that will not be resolved until the second chapter of Romans. In this section
Paul is categorizing the consequences of failure to
properly glorify God and verse 21 is the pivotal verse in the passage. It reads “for though they knew God, they did
not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their
thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.”
By the time
gets to homosexuality, the direction of his argument has shifted from cause
(not honoring God) to consequence. Rather than provoking God’s wrath through
homosexuality, the sinful behavior categorized is the inevitable result of
failing to glorify God. It does not
bring God’s wrath; it is God’s wrath—that is the inevitable consequence of a
fallen and depraved human race.
At this stage a question arises regarding the appropriate application of the word “natural.” Many advocates of gay rights contend that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle but a true representation of what is genuinely natural for a gay or lesbian person. In other words, heterosexuality is the unnatural way of expressing sexuality for one who has been created by God as a homosexual. Medically and scientifically there is mixed evidence to support this claim and researchers and interpreters who claim research evidence are frequently biased by preconceived assumptions regarding the nature of homosexuality.
Likewise, within Christianity, there is mixed information. Some churches become havens for “natural” homosexuals, advocating the created beauty of each person regardless of sexual orientation. Other churches boast of “curing” homosexuals through
Jesus Christ and vehemently condemn the “unnatural”
practice. (In the extreme is the practice of organizations such as the
under the leadership of Westboro Baptist Church . This organization has made
the outright condemnation of homosexuality the central and most essential component
of their entire theology and have, subsequently, garnered headlines and media
attention in their efforts to rid the world of the practice completely.
Arguably, many of the most Conservative churches who openly oppose gay rights
also condemn the distinctively hatful practices and destructive theology of
fringe groups such as the Fred
Phelps .) Making up a vast middle ground in theological
tradition, many churches are relatively ambivalent regarding matters of
homosexuality. They may, or may not, accept the practice, but generally it is
not a matter of primary concern or focused attention. (In many cases, they wish
it would just go away and feel there are more important matters of faith to
think about.) Westboro
Theologically an argument in favor of homosexuality is a little more difficult to make in Romans. The understanding of “sexual orientation” as is commonly understood today was completely unknown in antiquity in spite of the fact that there were then, as now, people who felt drawn toward same sex relationships. For
Paul, there appears to be a clear understanding that
homosexual sex was a chosen perversion and distortion of God’s created order—in
other words, a sin.
This does not necessarily rule out the possibility of reading a modern understanding of sexual orientation into
Paul’s intent, but it must be done with the knowledge
that such readings go beyond Paul’s
worldview. As with the discussions above, sexual abuse and distortion of sexual
practice and human dignity may have also influenced Paul
in his ideology. Some interpreters of Scripture are comfortable with making
this theological leap, others are not. It is important, however, to remember
all serious interpreters of Scripture (regardless of conclusion) are likely
very passionate in both their love of the Bible and God.
Looking at this text in the broader context of Romans, one must see it as a building crescendo toward the pivotal statement in 2:1 which reads, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” It is here that
argument reaches its pinnacle. This statement, and not necessarily any previous
statement, is what Paul intends to
carry the most theological and spiritual weight.
Holding pejorative judgments against homosexuality when contrasted with the claim in 2:1 radically neutralizes all sin as being simply sin, while simultaneously universalizing sin to all of humanity. In other words, there is no difference between the sin of homosexuality and any other sin and no person is without some sin.
Clearly, it is easy and logical to make a strong argument against homosexuality using Romans 1. Considering it a definitive distortion of the created order, it is logical to adopt
treatment of homosexuality as unquestionably sinful. Such judgment, however, must be tempered with
Paul’s equilateral treatment of
sin. It may be a sin, but it must not be
elevated as particularly worse or more despicable than any other sin. (To quote Jesus
in John 8:7 “Let anyone among you who
is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”)
On the other hand, one can make the interpretative application of “sexual orientation” and apply it to the argument; yet only with the understanding that no such concept existed when
Paul was alive.
This is, however, substantially more tenuous than the opposing argument.
The only way this argument may have any validity is with the assumption that
homosexuals are genetically predisposed toward same-sex relationships and
therefore heterosexuality is truly the unnatural course for them to follow.
Many interpreters clearly understand the argument in the context of sexual
orientation to be the most valid application and based on matters of rape,
exploitation, and sexual slavery as the real sins indicated in Romans rather
than the blessing of a loving, mutual, exclusive, and intimate relationship
between two consenting and sexually healthy adults.
The Church, Our Bible, and Our
of Transformation: Rich History
The Biblical argument for the acceptance of homosexuality is very complex; particularly when held against a long tradition that has been virtually universal in its condemnation of the practice. Likewise, this is not the first time the church has faced the possibility of transforming reversals of traditional prejudice and practice. For example, teachings in scripture that imply discrimination against women have long been used to religiously mandate the doctrinal practice of a created inferiority for woman in society. The many discussion in this study indicating a cultural belief regarding women as property rather than as fully human is the most vivid example. Similarly, in terms of slavery, the long-held practice of human slavery was strongly validated through fervent scriptural interpretation. In the
a bloody war was fought, in large part, to resolve the bitter tensions arising
from the diversity in genuine Christian interpretation and application of
scripture in regards to slaves. For many, newly developing and culturally
changing attitudes toward homosexuality indicate a similar shift in process.
One may also cite the seismic rifts created in the church as classic thinkers such as
all challenged the long-held and Biblically supported belief that the Earth was
flat and existed at the center of the universe. Similarly, after the writings
of Galileo Galilei and scientific theories of
evolution have taken center stage, Christians have bitterly divided over
matters of creation and the biological origins of human life and interpretations
of the Creation story in Genesis. When it comes to great changes in the way
Christians think based on changes in how the world views itself, this is
nothing new—not the controversy it causes, not the painful division that
results, and not the entrenched viewpoints of conflicting sides of the debate.
Truly, we have been down this road before! Charles Darwin
Marriage also has seen tremendous changes over the course of time and throughout scripture. While the Genesis story introduces the concept of the populist “traditional marriage” as defined in terms of one man and one woman, it is the exception in the Old Testament, not the rule. Throughout the Old Testament, men express tremendous sexual latitude including polygamy, the use of prostitutes and concubines, and the freedom to end a marriage without consequences of condemnation. Marriage in the Bible is rarely fostered in love or freely chosen by both bride and groom. Culturally, the woman was the property of her father to be sold by an agreed upon dowry to the family of the groom so that she would become his property. In many polygamous marriages, the union was made for property gain, political advantage, or by means of a peace treaty and the woman frequently had no say in the matter.
Throughout Christian history, men and women enjoyed marriages that appeared “traditional” in the sense that they were defined as lifetime unions of one man and one woman, but these marriages often lacked equality or mutuality. Marriage was defined more in terms of social function and strict gender roles than by love or choice. It is only in the last century that free choice and love have become predominating factors in developing the marital relationship. Predictably, the increased freedoms and choices afforded to women and men have also contributed to an escalation in divorces and cohabitation relationships that function as marriages without the formal recognition. (As an aside, it is the increasing divorce rate and cohabitation rate that pose the greatest threat to traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage.)
Marriage in the modern age, at least for the vast majority of Americans, is fundamentally a love-based covenant. It can (and frequently is) broken. It does not define itself in procreative terms, nor is it bound to gender roles. To some, this seems an increasing degradation into a life of tumultuous decay and sin. To others, the increased equality and priority on love are the fulfillment of God’s law as God is love and those who live in God live in love. Anything less would be deemed a violation of God’s priority for full equality and justice!
The same sex marriage debate enters into the marriage issue at this point. If marriage in the modern age is no longer defined by unequal (and often exploitative) arrangements or property exchanges, but is rather based on the priority of God’s love, and if marriages are not defined by their procreative possibility, then traditional gender definitions no longer have their priority. Furthermore, assuming that a gay or lesbian person truly is created to fulfill their defined sexual orientation, to engage in a heterosexual union is a lie and distortion of God’s love. Yet, along that same line, two people who share the same sexual orientation and, by circumstances of their shared life in partnership together, choose to formalize their partnership into a life-time commitment, that constitutes a practical marriage that is functionally no different from any healthy, legally defined, heterosexual marriage. Therefore, same sex marriage is the fulfillment of God’s law of love.
Homosexuality and same sex marriage are, however, more complicated than previous issues such as establishing the equality of women in church life, abolishing the practice of slavery, rethinking the physical makeup of the unversed, or rethinking the physical means by which humanity came to exist on earth. These issues have great tension within the canon of scripture with verses clearly advocating and prohibiting the concerns. All Biblical references to homosexuality, however insignificant or prominent, are all inherently negative and there is no Biblical mandate or example of same sex marriage. Likewise, there is no Biblical passage explicitly expressing God’s acceptance of homosexuality and those who favor an understanding of homosexuality as sin are legitimate in pointing this fact out. (Some may point to the great love
had for Jonathan as a possible
illusion to homosexuality. In this
passage, David is lamenting the death
of his dear friend. “I am distressed for
you, my brother Jonathan; greatly
beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of
women.” (2 Samuel 1:26) Although there is no way to absolutely refute
this claim, greater evidence does not seem to support it. For purposes of
discussing homosexuality and Christianity it is most likely irrelevant to the
Noteworthy in the Biblical witness is the fact that at no time does
Jesus Christ even
mentions the subjects. For Christians, this absence of comment must be taken
into serious consideration. There are, of course, two plausible explanations
for the absence of comment. First, Jesus
assumed everybody already knew homosexuality and same sex marriage were
abominations and therefore had no reason to bring them up. With that rationale,
the church would have to lean toward condemnation. Second, the practice is of
such little consequence in the mind of Christ that
it is not worth singling out. With that consideration, the church would lean
Whether the church accepts homosexuality and same sex marriage or condemns them,
explicit ministry must be taken into consideration. Throughout his ministry, Jesus exhibited preferential compassion toward the
sinner and outcast while rejecting legalistic religiosity. The church must
balance any stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage with the same
compassion manifest by Christ himself. It may have
to come down to proverbial practice of “loving the sinner while hating the sin”
or simply—and perhaps more compassionately faithful—loving the human as created
by God, regardless of differences in sexual orientation or marital status.
Regardless of how any individual may feel or how the church as a whole may choose to side, the issue is real and very volatile in the
. The issue of homosexual
inclusively and reality of same sex marriage are two of the most volatile issues
driving many congregations to division. Because of these issues faithful
Christians divide, leave or join denominational traditions, appoint or remove
leaders, and approach or deny ministries. At the level of the larger church
bodies such as General Assemblies, Conferences, Presbyteries, or similar
gatherings the issue is destructively polarizing as individuals and
congregations on both sides of the debate demand universality of their own
opinion. On many occasions, the rancor has become anything but Christian
Church Christian in its tone and out of fear, anger, and
hatred manifest from both sides of the debate, many Christians have become
unfortunate victims of the fracas. Worst yet, the issue will also likely not go
away any time soon. Even with the Supreme Court Ruling, there is a lot of
unknown future and many Christians on both sides of the argument are genuinely
fearful process ahead and of the ultimate outcome.
The call and the challenge for churches at this time is neither to condemn nor embrace homosexuality in the church, but simply to understand the issue in its entirety. With prayer as our means, the Holy Spirit as our guide, and the Bible as our foundation, we are able to more fully explore and study this important and vital issue facing our church today.