|
OUTLINE What the Bible says on homosexuality is not immediately obvious. The passages are not as straightforward as they appear. But there are signs of gathering consensus. A degree of clarity is emerging after much vexed exegesis.
Short summaries on biblical passages: Even if those passages do indeed view homosexual practice as sin, what the Bible teaches is still not obvious . We sometimes "correct" the minor themes of the Bible (eg. "greet each other with a holy kiss"). Every ethical instruction is subordinate to the principle of love (Romans 13:8-10). A word of caution is in order, though: we should move slowly in deciding to "correct" a biblical passage.
Do same-sex relations fulfill God's law of love? Or is harm inherent?
|
| return to outline |
|
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). |
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.
| return to outline |
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.
| 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." |
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. Further, Paul wrote about female same-sex relationships which tend to be long-term. 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 |
| return to outline |
|
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) |
| return to outline |
| "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." |
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.
| return to outline |
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) |
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 |
"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."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).
--Thomas Schmidt, Straight & Narrow (IVPress 1995) p116
| return to outline |
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). |
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." |
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.
| return to outline |
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 |
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.
| return to outline |
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 |
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?
