Homosexuality and the Bible
Craig Anderson
Romans 1:16-2:11 May 6, 2001
As Arnold Thomas tells his story, it sounds similar in
ways to mine and perhaps to yours, and to ours as a church as well. As he tells it, Rev. Thomas “grew up in the home of a
fundamentalist Baptist minister who preached that homosexuality was a sin,
unaware that one of his children was gay.”
“Lee was my older brother. He concealed his sexual orientation from
every member of his family and all his friends as he excelled in academics,
sports and popularity. He was team
captain, class president, and A student.
Several years after we left our hometown
in Ohio, (Thomas writes), I took a break from seminary classes to visit Lee in
New York. When I directed a cab-driver
to his address, he referred to the neighborhood as ‘Fag Haven.’ When I told Lee what the driver said, I
guess he felt it was about time I knew the truth.
Suddenly ‘those people’ whom my
father had condemned and I never before knew, were sitting right next to me in
the person of my brother, whom I loved.
Suddenly the words of 1st John took on a whole new meaning:
‘There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. (1st John 4:18)
Lee told me that for many years he had
prayed that the feelings which made him different would go away. But when they didn’t, he then prayed that
God would grant him the ability to accept them, and to accept himself. That’s when he smiled and said, ‘God answers
prayer!’
Like these two brothers, many of us also grew up
believing that homosexuality is a sin.
Then later in life, many of us encountered homosexuality in a personal
way and began to re-examine our earlier beliefs. For me, it was at about this season thirty years ago, when a
group of seven students from various seminaries on Holy Hill in Berkeley,
identified themselves as lesbian and gay by publishing a pamphlet calling for
recognition, understanding and acceptance.
Perhaps for you it was a neighbor, co-worker or friend, a sister or
brother, a son or a daughter, who introduced you to “those people” you thought
you never knew. Or perhaps like Lee, it
was your gradual recognition and
acceptance of your own sexual identity which caused you to reexamine your feelings
and convictions about homosexuality.
Then again, maybe the forums being offered at Brookside this year by the
Open and Affirming task force are providing you with the occasion for thought
and reflection.
From whatever direction, perspective or experience we
come to this topic, we come with misgivings and anxiety, ambivalence and
uncertainty. Our sexuality is never
easy to talk about, even in a culture which is suffused with sexual imagery and
innuendo. Without sex, what magazine or
newspaper would ever carry another advertisement; without sex, what dress or
shirt designer would ever sell another frock; what Hollywood producer would
ever make another dime; without sex, what family name would ever reach a second
generation? We live in a sea of sexual
images, and let’s confess, a whirlpool of sexual desire, and yet in church and
polite society, the subject of our sexuality remains either a great taboo, or
an object of nervous humor and hushed gossip.
But not this morning. Not this
year. It is time for us to talk.
As difficult as this conversation is, we need to
acknowledge that when we remain silent, we give the field over to others who
are only too willing to fill the airwaves with their take on matters
sexual. Hundreds of thousands listen to
and watch exploiters and opportunists like Jerry Springer or Dr. Laura. Hip-hop artists sell cd’s by the millions
and pornographers flood the internet with words and images which degrade women
and reduce them to sexual objects.
Meanwhile some TV preachers with national audiences are only too sure
that God condemns who they condemn. We
are even exposed to extreme hate-mongers like the so-called Reverend Fred
Phelps whose group raised signs outside of Matthew Shepherd’s funeral,
proclaiming that “God hates fags.” It
is time for US to talk; to offer healing words and alternative points of view.
Since most of us grew up like the Thomas brothers,
believing homosexuality is a sin, and given the theological tenor of that belief,
we would do well to ask about its origins, and so we begin with the Bible. It’s been thirty years since I began to
think about these topics, but it was only last week that I learned that our
words and concepts for sexuality and sexual orientation were never used in the
original texts of ancient scripture.
The word homosexuality is simply not to be found in any translation of
the Bible until the Revised Standard Version in 1946. The concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality weren’t
developed until the late 19th century. Thinking in terms of sexual identity and orientation is a modern
development. There is some real
question therefore, whether scripture speaks to what we call human sexuality at
all. We cannot add voices from the
first century and earlier to a 21st century debate without careful
interpretation, study, and exploration.
As Peter Gomes frames this question, “When the Bible speaks of
homosexuality, does it mean what we mean when we speak of homosexuality?”
Given the frequent appeals to scripture on this topic,
one might assume that the Bible talks all the time about same-sex
relations. It does not. In fact, there are only six passages in the
whole 1,300 pages; in five books out of 66; no references in the Gospels
(which means that we have no word from Jesus on the issue); three citations in
the Old Testament, three in the New. It
is not even unequivocally clear that all six passages speak of same-sex
relations. Only one of the six mentions
women as well as men. Nevertheless,
that one, today's passage from Romans, does seem clear; and it is frequently
cited to prove scripture's opposition to such behavior.
Be certain, however, to read this passage in
context. Yes, it does condemn same sex
relations. But don't stop reading and
start quoting there! Read the entire
passage. Paul says that "the wrath
of God is revealed against all ungodliness and wickedness..." So don't look at a single verse. Take in his whole catalogue of sins: idolatry, lusts of the heart, degrading
passions, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, parental
disrespect, craftiness, gossip and slander, not to mention the boastful,
foolish and faithless! Is Robin Leach
still on Fox Five? I hope not, but
whether on television or driving down Roxciticus Road to Peapack, one can't
help but feel some envy glimpsing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Or, is it possible to live with a teenager
and not encounter someone who is rebellious toward her parents? Do we not worship the idols of success and
hard work and money and the waving flag on the putting green? Haven't we admitted a few gossips and some
fairly crafty types into church membership?
Yes, what we describe as homosexual behavior, is in
Paul’s catalogue; but why linger there and single that behavior out for special
condemnation? If you take Paul's list
in its entirety, who's left out?
Nobody! And that's the
point. Instead of quoting selectively
and judging selectively we should keep reading: "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."
While the full intent of this passage asserts that we are
not to judge others, Romans has nevertheless been cited in judgement. Paul does condemn same-sex sexual
behavior. But the first thing to
notice, is that this is sexual behavior of a particular kind. In Walter Wink’s words, these relationships
“are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of genuine, respectful,
same-sex love.” Some scholars also
believe that what Paul condemns here is pederasty, common in Greece and Rome,
of heterosexual men having sexual relations with boys, who sometimes were servants
or even slaves. The same-sex relationships
we are being asked to be open to, and affirming of in the 21st
century, relationships which are monogamous, covenanted and faithful, lived with respect for the
ideals of love and fidelity, were simply not spoken to, nor perhaps even
conceived of by Paul. Indeed, in some
respects, what Paul would condemn, so would we, but what he condemns is not at
all what we are being asked to affirm.
A dialogue between the first and twenty first centuries must proceed
with caution and care.
Likewise we cannot take any of the three passages from
the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament, and apply them directly to our
context. Indeed that endeavor is still
more difficult and subject to nonsense.
People turn to Genesis to the passage about Sodom, which describes an
attempted gang rape, and then apply the judgement there, as Wink says, against
expressions of “genuine love between consenting persons of the same sex.” Again, what Genesis condemns, is not what we
are being asked to affirm. Somewhat
more legitimately, others reach into the Holiness Code of Leviticus and cite
passages from chapters 18 and 20, where it is said, a male “shall not lie with
a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Clear enough. But then, even the
most literalistic interpreters have been reluctant to call for the punishment
assigned in chapter 20: “They shall be
put to death.” The selective way in
which these passages are appropriated only begins there however, for the
Holiness Code also makes it abundantly clear that several other behaviors are
forbidden, many also resulting in banishment or capital punishment.
If you want to take a stand against homosexuality based
on Leviticus, then notice that same sex behavior between women is never
mentioned. Furthermore to be
consistent, you are going to need to decide what to do with me after this
morning’s service, because contrary to chapter 19, verse 27, I shaved earlier
today. Any of you wearing
cotton/polyester blends today, are also in trouble, that behavior is also
forbidden. (19:19) Local farmers who
have sowed two crops in one field are goners. (19:19) If you had a shrimp cocktail last night, let an usher show you
the door, because you have rendered yourself unclean. (11:10) And by the way,
examine the ushers and deacons before they approach the altar today, any
blemish in their eyes, any defects on their faces, any broken or mangled limbs,
any scabs or itching diseases render them unfit; and you know we can’t have
that. (21:17-20)
On the other hand, while Leviticus forbids a lot of
stuff, including same sex relations between men, the rest of the Old Testament
allows other behaviors you might want to explore. As I said, lesbians get a pass; and so do polygamists! The Old Testament might frown on a man
marrying a man; but it condones multiple wives; and slavery; and prostitution,
if not the prostitute. You unmarried
males needn’t save yourselves for marriage, but you unmarried women had better,
because for women the penalty for pre-marital sex is death. You married folks had also better stay on
the straight and narrow, or else Biblically speaking we’re going to need to
build a good many more execution chambers for those who commit adultery. To jump ahead to the Gospels, Jesus never says
a word about homosexuality. But he does
forbid divorce, and equates remarriage with adultery. Had enough? Or shall we
indiscriminately quote scripture, and force the conclusion that complicated,
ancient scripture passages speak simply and directly to complicated 21st
century topics, without any need for interpretation, adjustment, and
recalibration?
Our discussions this year are important for many reasons,
not the least of which is that they are inviting us to reexamine how we use and
interpret the Bible. If God said it,
you believe it, and that’s that, fine; but be consistent, and explain why
homosexuality is to be condemned without quarter, while adultery, divorce,
cotton/polyester blends, and shrimp cocktails get a pass. On the other side, if we are not to throw
the baby out with the bath water, we who do not interpret the Bible literally,
will have to describe the role the Bible continues to have in our life together
as a Christian faith community in the 21st century.
Yes, we will want to apply ancient scripture to modern
situations carefully; taking the context of each into account. And we may also conclude that many parts of
scripture no longer speak with authority to the world in which we live. Some passages are so time and culture bound,
that we simply must dismiss them. And
yet, can we not also affirm that there are great, overriding and underlying
themes in scripture which seem timeless and eternal. It is incomprehensible to me that concerns for love, justice,
mercy, peace and forgiveness, will not continue to resonate with human
experience. Walter Wink says that
behind the legal tenor of books like Leviticus, there is also in the Bible an
even deeper tenor, “articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus
and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus’ identification with harlots, tax
collectors, the diseased, and maimed
and outcast and poor. This deeper tenor
is that God sides with the powerless.
God liberates the oppressed. God
suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all
things. In light of this divine
compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel’s imperative to love,
care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.”
These days in our society, and during this year at Brookside, we are being asked to consider and contemplate anew ‘those people’ who perhaps we once condemned, or were confused or frightened by. People we “never before knew,” who in this 21st century world of ours, are now sitting right next to us at work, in the diner, at church, in the persons of our brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors, sons and daughters, persons who we love. Let us pray that for us the words of 1st John will also take on a whole new meaning as they did for Arnold Thomas, ‘There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.’ Let’s hope that God will answer our prayer!
![]()