Like Old Faithful, the topic of homosexuality pops up on Christian blog sites with a regularity most of us would die for. This week it was at Tony Jones’ blog on BeliefNet where he asked a seemingly honest question about homosexuality and sin. While I would not have asked the question in the way Tony asked it, it nevertheless is a valid question. It is one that any of us who take Scripture seriously (and by that I mean a life with God) should mull over, wrestle with, pray about.
For we who are Methodists this should come naturally. Over 50 years ago we mulled over, wrestled with and prayed about the issue of women’s roles within the church. We recognized that there were texts in Scripture that taken at face value were rather damning to any woman’s aspirations to pastoral ministry. Even so, we came together and declared more or less that it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that women are every bit as called and gifted for ministry by God as are men.
One of the ways I have tended to approach the topic of women in ministry is similar to the way Tony is approaching the homosexual issue. I would often ask people, “What is it about being a woman that disqualifies them from being a pastor? Apart from just saying, Because God said so, why?” Most people are wise enough to know that they must step carefully at this point lest they render themselves or God a sexist. Answers like: Because men are smarter, or, Because women are sinful, or, Because women are not gifted, do not ring true. They also betray the sense of identity we come to know about ourselves when we have long subjected ourselves to our Master and his Word.
Tony’s question, as I read it, is trying to get at this. Why has God called it a sin? In my own conversations with people about this I found they were more than able to give ready answers about why God has forbidden us to lie, cheat, steal or murder. When I ask them why God would have called such actions “sin” they are quick to say (and right to say) that these sins hurt other people who are created in the image of God. And yet, when asked why God would call a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship “sin” the answers revert back to “Because God said so.” On this issue, it seems,there can be no discussion, no speculation about why God would declare homosexuality an abomination.
I think there are very good reasons God called homosexuality an abomination.
This past spring I wrote a paper for my Christian Ethics class titled, “Homosexuality: God’s Gift to the Church.” My thesis was that no matter what side you come down on this issue, this issue, like all issues, are gifts. We need to learn to see all that comes at us as gifts rather than threats. The question for the Church is: What do we then do with this gift? How do we appropriate it? I do believe God wishes to teach us something. For some of us it may be something as radical as recognizing how far God’s grace might reach. For others of us it may be a rebirth of how we view God’s holy and inspired word. And for some of us it may be an opportunity to learn again the art of conversation and the virtue of humility.
As I said, I think there are good reasons God called homosexuality an abomination. For some reason I felt drawn to throw my hat into the blogosphere on this issue, for whatever it may be worth. If you read the comments on Tony’s blog that I linked to above you will find many people who desire to engage what are often called “The 6 Clobber Verses.” In the paper I wrote for my ethics class I dealt with each of these 6 verses in turn. I will not post the entire paper here (it’s long) but only the portion that pertains to those verses. This is my answer to the question, “Why?” I offer it prayerfully in hopes it will be received as the gift it is intended to be. Grace and peace.
Bring up the topic of homosexuality and a real-time illustration of how scripture functions authoritatively in the lives of Christians will come to life. Lines will soon become drawn between those who ostensibly value God’s holy word and those who, by virtue of their opinion, mock it. Thus, any discussion about what scripture has to say on a contentious topic like homosexuality tends to warrant a short diversion into philosophical musings about what scripture is and is not. For the record, I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume all of us who confess Jesus as our Lord are also People of the Book. Each of us, in our own muddled way, desire to remain faithful to the witness handed down to us from the prophets and apostles. Therefore, we come to scripture not as her master but as her servant, seeking to be led into truth by the same Holy Spirit who inspired it. With that said, there are scant references in the Bible dealing with homosexuality although what is said is, in a sense, a lot. We have six in total – three in the Old Testament and three in the New – that are generally used for good or ill in this debate. I will summarize each one here while offering some brief thoughts.
Genesis 19:1-29
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often cited as proof of God’s negative judgment towards homosexual behavior. I say behavior here because it is important to note that all of the biblical passages that mention homosexuality seem to revolve around behavior, not orientation. In this story Lot encounters two angelic figures, strangers, at the gate of Sodom and does what is culturally expected of him to do – he invites them into his home to rest, clean up and to eat. The strangers, after first protesting, accept the invitation. During their feast in Lot’s home the “men of the city” surround the house and demand Lot send the visitors out to them so that they may “know them.” Lot refuses, offering his virginal daughters as a substitute on the grounds that these visitors “have come under the shelter of my roof.” It is an offer that is met with anger and an attempt on the part of the city men to break down the door and “deal worse” with Lot than they intended to do with the visitors. The angels pull Lot into safety and strike the men of the city blind. The city is destroyed by God the following day.
It is noteworthy that this story has no direct reference to either homosexual behavior or orientation. It is true that there is some strong sexual connotation, particularly in the verbal phrase, “to know,” as this is the same word used to describe the intimacy Adam knew with his wife, Eve, in Genesis 4:1 which bore them a son. Therefore it seems apparent that the city men desired getting to know Lot’s visitors in more than a neighborly fashion. Moreover, it is troubling that Lot would offer his two daughters to appease the crowd. How could a father do such a thing? J. Harold Ellens in his book, Sex In the Bible: A New Consideration, posits that Lot, a native of Sodom, knew the sexual exploits and perversions of the gang outside his door and offered his daughters as an ironic jibe, knowing that they would be safe in the midst of this crowd. This reading would also account for the harsh reaction Lot gets for his suggestion, stirring the crowd to even more rage as they attempt to rape Lot in the process of barging through his door, caring nothing for the women offered them.
What is patently absent from this story is any judgment, positive or negative, on the sexual misconduct of the mob. Lot seems to not care about this side of the matter and the story itself does not express any concern or judgment on the kind of sexual behavior intended. Certainly it can be said that abusive homosexual behavior was the intent of the mob but this is not the focus of the story and more importantly, it is not the purpose for which Sodom is destroyed. Isaiah declares that Sodom’s sin was unapologetic lack of justice (3:9) and Jeremiah refers to Sodom as full of adultery, lying and unrepentant attitudes (23:14). Ezekiel names the sins of Sodom as “promiscuity, pride, materialism, prosperous ease, and a failure to care for the needy, that is, to give the required hospitality to strangers.” And when Jesus refers to Sodom’s sin there is no reference to sexuality at all, let alone homosexuality (Luke 17:28-29). As already noted, the implication of sexual abuse forms part of Sodom’s story in Genesis 19, but as Ellens is right to point out, “sexual assault and violence, as physical and psycho-spiritual violation, is always wrong, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.” He further adds, “Even if homosexual assault were condemned in the Sodom story it would not, therefore, follow that homosexual behavior in other circumstances is wrong.”
The primary issue in Gen. 19 is seen as breech of justice and hospitality, not just from biblical scholars today but also from the inter-textual citings given above (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus). Therefore it is a mistake for us to use this story as proof of God’s disfavor towards homosexuals, whether that be behavior or otherwise. When we look at history I will suggest a few reasons why Sodom has become linked (mistakingly) to homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22-24 and Leviticus 20:13
In Lev. 18:22 we have the first obvious reference to homosexual behavior which is clearly forbidden. The entire book of Leviticus is primarily about proper liturgical worship. Chapter 18 is a long list of commands by God against behavior that leads to ritual uncleanliness under the cultic worship codes of Israel. The chapter concludes by warning Israel not to lose her distinctiveness as Yahweh’s people, thereby defiling themselves as well as the land, lest the land “vomit” them out like the nations before them.
Leviticus 18 is a catalog of Egyptian and Canaanite ritual practices which are considered perverse and if followed would defile the people of Yahweh and cause them to lose their distinct role in the land. The list includes practices conducted by these pagan peoples in their worship ceremonies: incest, sex with women during their menstrual cycle, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexual behavior and bestiality. These practices are declared an “abomination,” or toevah in Hebrew, which is a significant word. It is a word “derived from the sphere of the religious rituals of the cultures of the Near East. It means to ‘abhor’ something for religious reasons.”
(emphasis mine). Alex Markels, in his article titled “Love and Leviticus, Debating the Bible’s Stand on Homosexuality,” points out that toevah includes the rules for kosher eating, planting seeds discreetly, trimming beards and various kinds of prohibited sex. The point of these abominations “wasn’t narrowly about condemning homosexuality but rather about not engaging in the practices of other religions, which were considered ritually unclean.”
The point of Leviticus 18 then is not to condemn homosexual behavior outright but about forming a sort of people that are distinct from the modes of worship their pagan counterparts practiced. Sex of any kind in a worship service was something that Yahweh abhorred. This point is reinforced by Yahweh’s forbiddance of transvestitism as well as cult prostitution (male and female) for liturgical purposes (Deut. 22:5, 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12) and echoed in Paul’s letters to the Romans and Corinthians. Thus, Ellens concludes, “This statement forbidding homosexuality as an abomination intends to convey the meaning that such behavior, when practiced as the Canaanites practiced it, namely by heterosexual persons in worship liturgies, was, like idolatry, a bad mode of worship, that is, an abomination. It was bad worship liturgy. Not Yahweh’s kind of worship service or communal behavior.”
Leviticus 20 is a near repetition of the list given in chapter 18 with two additions. First, all of the behavior, including homosexual behavior, is described metaphorically as whoredom with Molech, the Canaanite god. Second, a death penalty is added as the penalty for the behavior. Lev. 20, then, serves to further illustrate the connection between homosexual behavior and worship behavior.
While these are the only Old Testament texts that speak about homosexual behavior outright, it is common to refer back to the Genesis creation stories as evidence of God’s intentions and desires for marriage. Andrew Mein, in his essay “Threat and Promise” believes that it is these chapters, more than any overt text condemning homosexuality, provides the core of the argument for those who resist affirming gay and lesbian relationships. From very early on in the the life of the Church women have been regarded as man’s helper, and this role was fulfilled primarily through childbirth as the natural order of things set up by God. Augustine, in his notes on Genesis, wonders, “If the woman were not made for the man as a helper in begetting children, for what purpose was she created as helper?”
Whether Augustine ever considered that the Hebrew word to describe a woman as helper, ezer, is the same word used to describe God as God relates to humanity in the Psalms is debatable. Mein does not go there but takes a different tact. Citing Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann, two of the most influential commentators on Genesis in the 20th century, Mein shows that Genesis is a story about origins of the sexual drive and need for relationships and human community, not about the institution of marriage. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue for some universal understanding of marriage from Genesis when the Old Testament is filled with stories of polygamy and concubinage and prostitutes. John Gibson sees in the Genesis stories of creation a symbol of human relationships: “It is the ideal symbol of a bond that ought to exist between all people the world over. God intended all humankind to be ‘one flesh.’”
Finally, Gareth Moore offers a creative interpretation of the Adam and Eve story that nevertheless takes the text seriously. He starts with God’s judgment that “it is not right for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). God is prepared to experiment in finding a solution to Adam’s loneliness, starting first with animals to see if any are appropriate before offering to him a woman. God does not impose any of these upon Adam, but accepts Adam’s judgment that the woman is the right one for him. Moore concludes, “The fitting partner for the man, then, is the one that he, the man, receives with joy, the one whom he himself recognizes as a partner fit for him.”
Where the Old Testament speaks about homosexuality it is never about orientation but about behavior. The behavior, however, is viewed over and against cultic practices of the Ancient Near East and how Israel’s behavior must be distinct from all others in the land. Sex of any kind during cultic worship is wrong. It defiles the person and the land. Now let us consider the remaining three texts found in the New Testament.
Romans 1:26-27
Paul begins his letter to the Gentile Christians announcing his apostleship over all kinds of humans, including even these whom are “called to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6). The set up of chapter one is an argument against the perversion of our relationship with God that arises out of 1) denial of God’s self revelation in nature, 2) human arrogance, and out of 3) pagan forms of worship such as idolatry. The idolatry, according to Paul, is that we have taken to worship of the creature rather than the Creator.
Just like the Levitical passages above, Paul (a good Jewish scholar), is reminding his Gentile disciples of their distinctive identity as people of Yahweh. The ritual idolatry that was so common to them in former times, attended with ritual homosexual behavior, is no longer acceptable in the worship of the God of Israel. At this particular time and place, there was something Paul saw in homosexual behavior that did not jibe with the lifeblood of the Church and detracted from sincere, faithful worship of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Here Paul places homosexuality in a catalog of other sins such as greed, immorality, idolatry, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, revilers and robbers. Three things are worth noting. One, Paul says some of the members of the Corinthian church were once practitioners of this pagan activity (6:11). Second, he declares them saved and sanctified by Jesus Christ. Third, Paul emphasizes the sacral and sacred nature of our bodies and by implication, our sexuality. Paul is butting up against what appears to be a popular slogan around Corinth: All things are lawful for me (6:12). Paul says, no. Not if you are a member of the Church, part of the “body of Christ” (6:15).
If we assume Paul’s thought is consistent on the matter of homosexuality (and I believe he is) and we allow the address to the Romans to be about making worship of Yahweh distinctive, set apart from the pagan practices of the day, than there is no reason to think Paul is going for anything different by writing to a “carnal” people such as those in Corinth. All of the grievous sins which Paul lists are those most certainly enjoyed by the most “debased” or “defiled” minds mentioned in Romans. Placing homosexuality within the catalog of the sins Paul lists (greed, adultery, idolatry, robbery, thievery, drunkards, etc.) is like a game of “Which one does not belong?” It is difficult to imagine Paul having in mind a monogamous, faithful, devoted relationship between two people of the same sex. Rather, it is more likely that he has in mind behavior that is destructive to self or others and ultimately robs God of glory and blurs the lines between Christian worship and pagan worship. Furthermore, in a letter where Paul calls for Christians to actually act like them, to “be reconciled!” and to adopt certain gender roles which subverted the culture in Corinthian temple worship we can imagine the desire Paul had to distance the Christian church from homosexual practices in their cultic life (Women were often used as priestesses in Rome’s mystery religions. By restricting women from certain roles in the church Paul was making a cultural distinction between what Christians do in worship and what the pagans do in worship). Once again Paul has the Church in mind as he thinks about how they should act ethically. How will they be a viable witness in their culture if they worship like everyone else?
1 Timothy 1:10
Paul’s letter to Timothy only reinforces what has already been said. Paul lists, just like in the letter to the Corinthians, sins that the lawless and disobedient revel in. Homosexuals, or sodomites, are mentioned among those who kill their father or mother, murderers, fornicators, slave traders, liars, and perjurers. Again, it is hard to imagine Paul having in mind a covenant bond between two people of the same sex who are simply expressing their love to one another according to their nature.
A concluding thought about the texts in the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Romans states that it is unlawful to go against one’s nature. Paul had no idea in the first century that there may be something about homosexuality that goes beyond mere perverse behavior or cultic temple worship. That is, he would not know about sexual orientation or have the knowledge we have today about how sexuality develops (science and psychologists are agreed that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a choice but inborn). Naturally, the New Testament speaks against any perverse, destructive or abusive sexual activity whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Given the sorts of sins homosexual behavior is linked to throughout the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul sees this behavior as unnatural for those partaking of it (i.e. heterosexual men committing homosexual acts as part of their liturgical worship) or is witness to a sort of behavior that is abusive and violent towards others, much like killing one’s father or mother would be abusive and violent.
Share this Post
