For many Christians homosexuality doesn't fit their view of God
For many people it is difficult to accept that God would allow something as profoundly different as homosexuality to be part of the lives of so many people—something that is such a clear "reversal" of what is spelled out in Genesis as a wonderful hallmark of creation. And if you add to this the other difficulties that gay people experience it can seem too different and too tragic an "error" to be allowed by God, especially in large numbers. As a result, for many of us it is less disturbing to imagine that gay individuals must somehow be at fault. (The same was true in biblical times—note the story of the healing of the man born blind in John 9:1-41.)
But if you think about it, people in the Genesis account of Eden were not created blind or deaf, but we do have people who are blind and deaf in society. In fact, the World Health Oganization states that approximately 15% of the world's population live with limitations that are classified as disabilities. Like homosexuality, these could be viewed as in opposition to God's plan for humankind. The same is true of people who are sterile, who, like gay couples, are not able to procreate within their relationship. In most of these situations we encourage people to adjust to their limitations and live the best life they can—without our blame. However, we do tend to treat homosexuality differently. Many people find gay people to be offensive and blame them and want them to do what blind or deaf people can't do (get rid of their "affliction") or stay in the closet, just as people used to hide their disabled children from the sight of their neighbors. Speaking personally, given my current age of 71 it was pretty clear in society when I was in my 30's that I would never be a father with children and grandchildren in any form or fashion, including adoption. Hopefully things have changed, but it was very difficult for me, and I mourned that loss for a long while. Though I don't think of being gay as a "disability" like blindness, it has been a limitation in my own life—and a big one.
The good news is that if we work with our limitations they will bring us gifts. And even though a gay person can have a variety of talents and a joyful life (by the grace of God, like anyone else) there has always been suffering in being gay. So, perhaps it would be more accurate to see homosexuality in the "suffering" category rather than the "sinful" category.
But these thoughts are just an introduction to this topic. There's more...
What about the Bible?
Of great concern for many Christians are the passages in both the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament that are commonly thought of as addressing homosexuality. These passages, like biblical passages on various topics, can be difficult to understand.
|
Sexuality as it was practiced in the ancient world is foreign to the modern mind. It is widely acknowledged that in Roman times there was no concept of sexual orientation, and the gender of ones partner might vary from day to day. In fact, a well-documented Wikipedia article states that in ancient Rome “it was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes, and pederasty was condoned as long as the younger male partner was not a freeborn Roman. ‘Homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ did not form the primary dichotomy of Roman thinking about sexuality, and no Latin words for these concepts exist.” (Pederasty is an ongoing sexual/mentor relationship between an adult male and a teenage male twelve and older. Also, see the box at right about the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality.)
As it turns out, the above articles state that in contrast to modern thought the distinguishing factor about ones sexuality in Rome (at least for men) was not the gender of ones partner, but whether one was an active vs passive participant. To be a passive participant was to have less status—to be viewed as the weaker man. In general, sex was about status in a variety of ways and was not to be had between equals. Romans also didn't have the concern about being sexual with younger people that we consider important today.
In summary, Rome was known for its sexual excesses, routinely going beyond opposite-gender adult sex to include pederasty and same-gender sexual behavior with male prostitutes in temple worship. History primarily records the same-gender sex as between men, though the apostle Paul attributed it to women also. Given the prevalence of these behaviors, it’s no wonder that Paul described Rome as a society so consumed by lust that ones sexual desire grew to include his or her own gender, much like a river that overflows its banks (Romans 1:26–27). The depraved nature of this culture was further demonstrated when they eventually burned Christians as torches and fed them (and criminals) to wild beasts for entertainment.
Hebrews during this time
The book of Leviticus in the Old Testament contains two verses about same-gender male sexual behavior—verses 18:22 & 20:13. They are part of a list of behavioral prohibitions in which God commands Israel to refrain from following the practices of its neighbors. These prohibitions included, among other things, various types of incest, offering children as sacrifices, and same-gender sexual behavior. Apparently some of the practices of the neighboring nations were considered unholy, to say the least.
What is interesting though, is the language in Leviticus and other places in the Bible about same-gender sexual behavior. In several places the meaning of the original text is unclear and is still the source of much debate. In order to get a clearer understanding of how these verses have been historically viewed a biblical scholar by the name of Ed Oxford investigated centuries old translations of the Bible in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish and eventually most other major European languages. He found that prior to 1946 in both I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-11 the words translated now as "homosexual" were translated as "boy molester" (literally). These are the only two places in our current Bible where the word "homosexual" is found. Also, the two verses in Leviticus were previously translated as sex with "young boys." This included Martin Luther’s own German translation in the early 1500’s, and he was very careful about his translation. Luther’s translation used “Knabenschänder” instead of the word “homosexual”, where “Knaben” is boy, and “schänder” is molester.
There’s been lots of speculation in the literature about the exact use of the term “boy molester” during the time of these European translations and the cultural meaning it had for the biblical translators at that time, but its origin as a term—before any changes in cultural use occurred over time—seems pretty clear. There must have been other words or phrases that could have been used, but the translators of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into various European languages were apparently content to use words whose literal meaning was “boy molester.” The concept of a personality orientation that involves caring relationships between same-sex adults was not even on the table for discussion. This doesn't "prove" anything about the original meaning of the passages in scripture about same-gender sexual behavior (that argument will probably go on forever), but it certainly demonstrates that our modern understanding of those verses was not the understanding of biblical translators for hundreds of years in the past.
So, ultimately the word "homosexual" entered the Bible when translators in the 1900's decided that the words that had been previously translated “boy molester” or sex with "young boys" should now be translated as general homosexual behavior. And this translation didn't appear in a German Bible until 1983, after homosexuality became more a topic of public controversy in the 1970’s. It seems like a rather culturally biased translation—which many today embrace as the traditional view of the Church.
Changing the RSV
The 1946 edition of the Bible mentioned above was the RSV (Revised Standard Version). There is a rather heart-warming story by Kathy Baldock about how its editors decided that the use of the word “homosexual“ had been an error, and how they replaced it in the next revision with a word that deliberately included heterosexual behavior. Unfortunately this revision wasn’t published until 26 years later—in 1971. In the meantime other translations had used the RSV as a resource, and much damage to public opinion had been done.
If you are interested, two additional sources about this story are particularly interesting. The first is an article by Ed Oxford describing his role in discovering how the retraction happened. The second is a video of him relating the story in person followed by an interview with the seminary student who challenged the translation committee way back in 1959. The first 10 minutes gives a picture of the genuine interest of the translation committee in this matter. In addition, a documentary movie—1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture—has been filmed about these developments.
But of course, the controversy from the 70's has continued. The question is: “Is there such a thing as an unchangeable sexual orientation that dictates ones sexual preference?”
The "clobber passages"
The above discussions touch on five of the six biblical passages most frequently associated with homosexuality—often called "clobber passages". If you are interested in investigating all of them for yourself, just google “Bible and clobber passages”, and you will have your hands full.
It can be very easy to get lost in all of the differing explanations of these passages. Articles on both sides can demonstrate significant bias, while others will seem more convincing. Read for yourself and take away what seems reasonable to you. I like the article mentioned on the first page of this site, written by a well-known Methodist bishop. His handling is not as in-depth as some others, and he had obvious reason for bias, but his ministry in mainstream Christianity is respected. Lewis Smedes, known in the Christian ethics world, is also worth reading. And finally, two other articles may be of interest. The first is by Matthew Vines and discusses both the clobber passages and the more humane aspects of the discussion of homosexuality from a Christian viewpoint. The second is a very good article regarding the passages in Leviticus which are often a topic of conversation regarding homosexuality. (And if you want to get really techincal, then read this.)
Though this reading is helpful, it will not be enough for many of us to change both our thoughts and our feelings about homosexuality. That may take time.
Arguments about human behavior are not new in Christianity. One’s approach to understanding the Bible is important.
After getting lost in ancient language and culture while researching biblical perspectives on homosexuality, one can appreciate that some rather famous Christian leaders have felt that looking at biblical passages only can be confusing when attempting to sort out controversial subjects, since the Bible itself can be confusing about them. The attitude, "I look to the Bible alone for my direction!" has led many people to adopt attitudes that they later changed. John Wesley, famous for founding Methodism, looked to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience as important sources of information when deciding about significant beliefs. Not a bad idea! Though he considered scripture to be primary, he understood that the other three areas can assist in avoiding error, as well as shining new light on difficult areas to understand.
A critical understanding: How the Bible was used in the past
One of the most enlightening discoveries made when writing these pages was learning about the importance of themes in scripture when interpreting individual verses. This actually played an important role in our country’s history. There was a time when our country was even more intensely divided over a public issue than it is about homosexuality today. It happened during the Civil War.
The biblical view about slavery was argued from both sides by people who claimed to be speaking God's opinion as revealed in the Bible. In a truly excellent article David Booth explains how those who supported slavery, a practice we now consider to be barbaric, argued by quoting chapter and verse from the Bible much in the same manner that chapter and verse are quoted by those who condemn homosexuality today.
However, some passages in the Bible about slavery are very harsh. Consider Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB) - "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." This verse is not part of a ceremonial code that was abandoned after Old Testament times. It was an instruction that was based on common knowledge...a slave was his master's property, and if his master harmed him without killing him, it was "unfortunate" for the slave. There were other limits placed on what a master could do to a slave, but try preaching this passage from the pulpit today and see how biblical you are considered to be!
David Booth goes on to say that those who took the opposing view to slavery during the Civil War claimed that the themes of scripture contradicted the "plain meaning" of the verses that pro-slavery ministers quoted. They said that it is rather difficult to say that you love your neighbor as yourself when you claim to own them and keep them as your prisoner.
It was a long and difficult public argument, and not just a few churches took the pro-slavery stance, as some have claimed. However, it is clear who won the argument, because you won't find a church teaching a biblical basis for slavery these days. The Church eventually accepted that the specific verses in scripture about slavery were not God's ultimate thoughts about the matter.
Reality changes perception
A delightful essay by Rev. Charles Morrow, Jr. points out in a lively way that that the church (like John Wesley) always ends up going beyond the Bible to include reason and experience as it matures in its understanding of difficult human situations. (Click here to read it in its full text.) Many of his arguments are included below.
Paraphrased and quoted ideas from "Reality Changes Things", by Rev. Charles Morrow, Jr. (Italicized and indented passages are quotes from Rev. Morrow.)
Over the centuries the church has tended to label people with broad paint strokes...including "drunkards", addicts, "possessed", and those divorced or remarried. These people have been considered unworthy of compassion or support because they made the simple, willful choice to live an ungodly life. After all, the Bible clearly says so!
However, as the nature of these conditions became better understood the church changed its response to these people, changing also its interpretation of the scriptures that had been the basis for condemnation. The average person now understands that alcoholism is a difficult condition, and that children of alcoholic or drug addicted parents have a far greater chance of becoming that way themselves.
It has also become clear to the church that physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and abandonment can also be appropriate grounds for divorce. Divorced people are no longer considered to be "all but banned from heaven simply because they failed 'to honor their marriage vows' and keep themselves pure in marital fidelity."
According to Rev. Morrow, "The church has even gone so far as to nearly rewrite the Bible so as to allow for just about every divorced individual to suddenly find heavenly permission to remarry after divorce, in spite of numerous Scriptural admonishments clearly to the contrary. (See Matt. 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12, Deut. 24:1-4, I Cor. 7:27)"
He goes on to make the vital point that "reality changes perception." As the worldview of Christians has changed, the Church has always updated its understanding of the Bible to reflect its new understandings. If you didn't read it earlier, see this excellent article by Lewis Smedes).
In terms of the Church's view of homosexuality, Rev. Morrow writes that the Church...
"...still chooses to define the complex issues of an individual's sexuality, it's expressions and attractions, as being nothing more than a conscious choice to chose evil over good, right instead of wrong, Satan in place of God. No other explanation is acceptable. None other is needed. After all, did not the apostle Paul clearly define homosexuality as being nothing short of unbridled lust and fierce, wanton, godless sexual appetite? (Romans 1:24-27)"
"I, for one, hold no grudge against Paul for his position. That 'brand' or manifestation of homosexual conduct which he was privy to witness and hear of emanating from the filthy palaces of pagan Rome would nauseate even the most liberal of Gay or Lesbian Biblical scholars. But to label all people of one race or ethnicity 'savages' because you grew up in a place where only the most backward, secluded, and uncivilized of their bloodlines' tribes lived is to do a great injustice to an otherwise proud, constructive, productive, and commendable people."
"Why are so many Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender people fighting their way into the churches? Because they are indeed these godless sorts of whom Paul writes? I think not!"
He continues by suggesting that the use of the term "gay lifestyle" is used to stereotype gay people in a way that wouldn't happen if they were taken seriously by the church. We also understand that any attempt to discuss a "straight lifestyle" would be silly...there isn't one.
He closes by saying,
"Sadly, reality is often overlooked by those who must live within its confines. When finally realized, reality has in times past changed the churches' perception on such complex issues as alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, divorce, and divorce-and-remarriage. With God's help, one day the reality of homosexuality as a natural, innate, biological state of existence for some people will emerge in sufficient evidence to speak to the hearts and minds of even the harshest of homophobic, Bible thumping critics. In that day the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender soul will no longer have to silently sit week after week in the pews of most churches while the preacher unburdens himself of that same heavy load of misguided and abusive condemnation that their alcoholic, recovering drug addict, mentally ill, divorced, and divorced-and-remarried neighbor once too had to endure. Only then will the wonderful truth of God's grace, manifest in the person and provision of the man Jesus Christ be fully understood and much more fully realized and celebrated."
These comments are powerful. It is clear in the full text of Rev. Morrow's essay that he is not suggesting that homosexuality is an addiction or mental illness. The parallel he draws is that none of the common human conditions discussed above are simply the result of an immoral choice.
|
Another example from hundreds of years ago underscores the concept that "reality changes perception." A huge amount of social upset was caused when Galileo made the scientific suggestion that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than vice versa. The Church rose in fury, and he almost lost his life. After all, didn't the Bible talk about the rising sun? Because of his claims he lived in house arrest for the last part of his life. He was finally allowed a "Christian" burial 100 years after his death, and wasn't removed from the roles of heretics by the Catholic Church until 1992.
Though people say that they are opposed to homosexuality because of what is said in the Bible, I believe that is not the main reason. The Bible's verses may be a primary cause of concern for some people, but I believe that the biggest reason for most people is fear of what seems different and unnatural. Over and over again in these pages it is plain that people are afraid of homosexuality because it is unfamiliar to them. They feel their way of life is threatened, and they act harshly as a result.
Our understanding of the Bible will eventually change, but that will happen only when we are pushed beyond our fears and become willing for it to change. Eventually we will run out of plausible reasons to maintain our harsh stance, and we will change our views.
To find out more about homosexuality and the Bible, click here.
Otherwise, let's look at another frequent concern...
Isn't homosexuality unhealthy?
