Homosexuality and Christianity: What does the Bible Say?
Overview
Christianity
is divided over the topic of homosexuality. The situation is only made worse by
the fact that the issue is more than a spiritual or moral one, but a highly politicized
one. In the last 24 hours the rhetoric has become even more intense as North
Carolina voted to constitutionally define marriage as an exclusive union between
one man and one woman and President Obama
publically announced his support of gay marriage. Predictably, Christians are
taking sides and each side is using the Bible against the other.
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 hold “Blessed Union”
services, effectively advocating and performing same-sex marriage? Should the
church affirm and support 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. Neither the Old Testament Hebrew nor the New Testament Greek contain
words equating to the English words “homosexual” or “lesbian.” The Bible does not have an 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. This document will explore all the major
Biblical references to homosexuality.
It begins with
a story from Genesis 19
that is familiar to many; the depravity and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 7 offers a New Testament commentary on the
Sodom Gomorrah 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 and Christianity are more complex than can be
adequately addressed in one brief document such as this. The focus of this
particular study is limited to the specifics of scripture. Many questions will
be left unanswered awaiting further study. It is likely (and expected) that
this document will leave open as many questions as it asks.
Finally, this document
assumes homosexuality is open for discussion, but does not presume it to be
neither good nor bad. As much as each is
able, it is vital the reader make the same assumptions; 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 in the Christian faith while understanding
that others may rightfully disagree with one’s own conclusion. Ultimately God
has the final answer.
In this document
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 Sodom 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
primary message.
Lot extended appropriate hospitality
to two male strangers who where journeying through Sodom and Gomorrah. 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. 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; Jude ,
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
passage.
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.
Ezekiel is
more direct and to the point. God, speaking through the prophet says in 16:49 , “This was the guilt of your
sister Sodom
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 Sodom 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.
Interpreting the Sodom and Gomorrah
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.
Jude 7
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. Jude ’s
point here highlights Israel
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 Gomorrah
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.
On the other hand, there are some
contextual issues that favor a different interpretation. Jude ,
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.
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 Jews. This reality results from the fact that many laws require the
Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial system. There are also many laws
interpreted as unnecessary in modern culture. Likewise, Christians 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 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!
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 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 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 could be 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 Paul 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
18For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness
suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to
them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever 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; 21for 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. 22Claiming to be wise, they became
fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the
lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among
themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie
and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to
degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and
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.
28And 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. 29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,
covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they
are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful,
inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31foolish, faithless,
heartless, ruthless. 32They 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 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 Paul 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 natural for a gay or lesbian
person. In other words, heterosexuality
is the unnatural way of expressing sexuality for one who has been created 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 Westboro
Baptist Church under the leadership of Fred Phelps
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 was clearly an understanding that
homosexual sex was a chosen perversion and distortion of God’s created order.
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 Paul ’s 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 Paul ’s 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
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.
Biblical Perspective: A Broad Approach
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 United States, 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 Nicholas Copernicus , Johannes Keppler , Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei Charles Darwin
It is, 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.
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 David 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
conversation.
Noteworthy in the Biblical witness is
the fact that at no time does Jesus Christ even mentions
the subject. 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 the practice was an abomination and therefore had no
reason to bring it 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 toward acceptance.
Whether the church accepts
homosexuality or condemns it, Christ ’s 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
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.
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 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment