Homosexuality
The Rev. Dr. Tom Eggebeen – revised, Lent, 2004
Homosexuality is a question that will not go away, and its persistence is God’s prompting, because is an issue of justice and mercy. I offer the following in the hopes of helping the reader clarify his or her thoughts.
My position on homosexuality was finalized by biblical studies. I grew up convinced that the Bible taught homosexuality to be wrong. Biblical studies in the last thirty years, however, have shed a different and helpful light on those passages traditionally used to build a case against homosexuality.
Please note: the following biblical work is from, Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality, and Social Justice, submitted to the 203rd General Assembly (1991).
Biblical Passages Referring to Homosexuality
The biblical study of gay and lesbian issues usually centers on passages that are assumed to refer specifically to homosexuality. While it is important to look at these texts with an openness to hear the word they have for us, they are not the only pertinent biblical texts about human sexuality. Scripture that deals with oppression and the call for justice, as well as passages that deal with love and the yearning for deep intimacy, are even more pertinent. After all, the pressing moral problem, as we have argued, is not homosexuality, but rather the unjust treatment of gay and lesbian persons and their devaluation as sexual-spiritual persons in our midst.
Looking at the passages typically cited in discussions about homosexuality, we must attempt to discover, as clearly as possible, the context of these writings. All texts from their first reading were interpreted; meanings changed as the subsequent life situations of the people changed. (This can be seen by a careful historical study of any biblical text or story.) Our approach to these difficult and enigmatic passages is to clarify the original context as much as possible, and then to ask how it is related to the norm of all Scripture, which is the saving act of God in Jesus Christ.
Guided by these concerns, we offer a consideration of some of the passages frequently cited in this discussion.
a. Genesis 19:1-11
The story in Genesis 19:1-11 is one of the most commonly used to propose the sinfulness of homosexuality. As one reads the account, it becomes apparent immediately that the demeanor of the men of Sodom was violent. Their intent was to gang rape the guests in Lot’s home. In order to understand this text, it is important to know what cultural meaning the writer and readers attached to the violent sexual assault of males by males.
In the first place, greater value was placed on a man in that time than on a woman. When Lot offered his two virgin daughters as substitutes for the two men, the offer was turned down because the rape of a man was considered a worse crime than the rape of a woman. Furthermore, violent and brutal rape was intended to humiliate, and was at times sanctioned for use on a conquered or foreign enemy. In this particular story, the intent was to humiliate and emasculate the distrusted foreign guests, who might well present a threat to the citizens of Sodom. What is condemned in this text is violent gang rape. To say that this account condemns homosexual behavior is to read into the story what is not there.
As a result of this narrative, the term “Sodom” became an elastic metaphor that was used in different ways by subsequent generations. Ezekiel 16:49-50 states that the “sin of Sodom” was to have great prosperity and yet ignore the poor and needy. It was not homosexuality. Even the mention of “abominable things” refers to idolatry. The word “abomination” (Hebrew: shiqquz, to’ebah, sheqez) has to do with pagan and idolatrous worship very frequently involving flesh of prohibited animals and sacrificial flesh.
[Recently on TV, there was a special (60 Minutes, I believe; winter, 1996)) that dealt with gang rape in prisons. It was stated several times that such rape has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but rather power, humiliation and control. When I heard this, it occurred to me that such was the reality of the Sodom story. The men of the town were not homosexuals (otherwise Lot would never have offered his daughters) but wanted to demonstrate their power over the visitors whom they probably feared, much as an inmate might fear losing his position and so violently dominates new arrivals.]
In Luke 10:10-13 Jesus says that Sodom and Gomorrah will be treated more kindly than any city that mistreats and rejects his disciples.” The connection between the mistreatment of Lot’s guests and Jesus’ disciples is quite clear. 2 Peter 2:6-10 uses the Sodom metaphor to dramatize God’s judgment on the ungodly. Jude 1:7 speaks of Sodom as a symbol of sexual immorality and pursuit of unnatural lust. While 2 Peter and Jude both imply sexual misconduct, neither specifically describes generalized homosexual behavior. Many other forms of sexual behavior were, in the opinion of the early church, lawless and defiling. (This would include insolence, brutality, and disregard for social structure.)
The original meaning of the Genesis Chapter 19 story, as accurately as we can ascertain, indicates that the biblical writer was condemning the violent gang rape of men whom the men of Sodom considered a threat. Consequently, the Sodom and Gomorrah story should not be used in today’s context to condemn homosexual behavior per se, since that was not its original intent.
b. Judges 19:22-26
This story has many similarities to the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah. When the men of the city demand that the Levite hand over the man who was a guest so that they might rape him, the Levite hands over his concubine who is raped and brutalized all night. Finally, at daybreak she staggers to the door of the house only to die. Gang rape by males of a male was intended, but gang rape by males of a female was performed. As in the story of Sodom, the intent of the rape was to humiliate and violate a stranger who was considered a threat to the well-being of the city’s residents. Therefore, we must again conclude that the sin which is condemned is violent and brutal rape and not homosexual behavior. A tragic but often overlooked implication in this story is that ancient Hebrew culture valued male life and well-being over female life and well-being. Additionally a tragic but often over-looked consequence of a falsely “homosexualized” reading of this story is the absence of outrage over the brutal rape and murder of a woman in a male-dominated culture.
c. Deuteronomy 23:17-18
We also include the following passages, since they deal with the same subject: 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. Attention in these passages is given to “whore” and “sodomite” as translated in the King James Version, which in the New Revised Standard Version is translated “temple prostitute.” The Hebrew words used are gedesah (referring to a female) and gades (referring to a male). A literal translation is “holy woman” and “holy man,” which is an obvious indication that the persons so designated play cultic roles. Such pagan priests and priestesses were associated with fertility cults, which practiced ritual heterosexual intercourse to ensure good crops and plentiful childbearing. Therefore, the context of the passages helps us see that this reference is not to homosexuality, since there would be no promotion of fertility involved.
d. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn sexual relations between persons of the same sex. However, further exploration of this same holiness code reveals that the eating of animals declared unclean is sinful (11:4-8); a woman who gives birth must offer “sin offerings” to be clean (12:3-5); a chief priest is strictly forbidden to marry a widow, a divorced woman, a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot (21:14); and any man who is maimed or deformed in any way cannot be ordained as a priest (21:18-21). In addition, the holiness code forbids wearing clothing of mixed fibers, eating shellfish or rare meat, and having intercourse with a menstruating woman.
We should not select in an arbitrary manner those parts of the holiness code which will and will not be applied. We believe that it is inappropriate to condemn only sexual relations between persons of the same sex, as if this one part of the holiness code is applicable to our contemporary situation.
The more basic question we must answer however, with regard to the holiness code is this: What should Christians do with the different perceptions of human holiness that are present in the Old Testament? In Leviticus - as throughout the priestly portions of the Hebrew Bible - holiness is defined in terms of purity. Elsewhere - in Isaiah, for example - holiness is instead defined in terms of corporate and personal justice. Some of our ancestors in the faith were convinced that to be holy meant to observe the stipulations of the holiness code. Others, however, particularly our Christian ancestors, have consistently embraced Isaiah’s vision of holiness as justice. The early church concluded, on the basis of Jesus’ own teaching, that love and justice are more compelling Christian virtues than ritual purity. Mark 7:1-23, for example, especially subordinates the purity concerns about table fellowship to justice concerns about human relationships in community (cf. Also Rom. 14:13-14; I Cor. 8:1-11:1). Similarly, Mark 5:21-43 rejects the purity regulations concerning vaginal discharges and dead bodies, and Acts 8:26-40 (esp. Vv.37-38) rather remarkably reverses the holiness requirement of Deut. 23:1. In light of these passages, the prohibitions of homosexual intercourse in the holiness code need to be reexamined, particularly when we consider our nearly universal dismissal of the other regulations in the code.
e. Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New Testament references frequently cited in the debate over homosexuality are Romans 1:23- 7 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. Both passages require careful linguistic and contextual analysis, because the original Greek is not as clear as one would like. They have to be seen in the broader context of Paul’s argument within those specific chapters, and within the total logic of each letter. Much exegetical toil has occurred on both of these passages, and a full recounting of the literature is beyond our purpose here. We can, however, underscore some of the more salient issues.
It is true, of course, that in Romans Chapter 1, Paul condemns the blatant homosexual practices that he knew about in pagan Hellenistic society. Such practices, he was convinced, illustrated the sickness, sinfulness, and decadence of the Hellenistic world. But just what was it that Paul was condemning?
Recent scholarship, notably that done by Robin Scroggs, has helped us understand that these biblical passages were written in an historical context that was fraught with dehumanizing same-sex practices, such as pederasty (exploitive pairing of adult males with young boys) and prostitution involving young males. It is not surprising that Paul condemned “homosexuality,” when it implied pederasty or male prostitution. This helps us understand the Romans Chapter 1 passage, which is the most commonly cited passage by those who are persuaded that the Bible as a whole condemns all forms of homosexuality. The broad point that Paul is making in Romans Chapters 1 and 2, of course, is the universality of sin. No one, he argues, Jew or Greek, is worthy before God, nor does anyone have an excuse.
The passage in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 includes a list of those whose habits and lifestyles will keep them from entering the realm of God: “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.” We have already commented on the ambiguity of the Greek terms. Paul’s intention in 1 Cor. Chapter 6 is to remind the Corinthians of the implications of living in the Spirit, and to stress that our bodies are “temples of the Holy Spirit” (6:19). He condemns a lifestyle of licentiousness and lust, and castigates those who know no higher calling. We cannot simply appropriate Paul’s concern for the first century Corinthians, however, to the realities and concerns of Christian gay and lesbian persons of our time.
The Christian gay and lesbian community today values committed and loving relationships in which there are mutuality and respect for one another. This makes the context very different from that of biblical times. Furthermore, in biblical times, current psychological understanding about sexual orientation was unknown. Biblical writers presumed that everyone was heterosexual; therefore, same-sex relations by persons who were regarded as heterosexual were considered abnormal.
This analysis clarifies, we believe, why it is inappropriate to assume that the bible speaks with one clear voice on matters of homosexuality, and why we cannot simply transfer texts from ancient cultural worlds into our own. It is our faith conviction that the biblical mandate of justice-love, or right-relatedness, best informs our understanding of homosexuality today. Therefore, we seek to apply the ethical principles presented in the framework of this report to the issues faced by gay and lesbian persons today.
My own journey is reflected in the following observations:
1. Homosexuality, per se, is not sinful. What IS sinful is our lack of love and compassion, the exploitation of others for our own interests, blindness to the suffering of others, contentment without compassion, self-centeredness and pride.
Sexual sin is not an orientation, but behavior: an abuse of power and a disregard for the well-being of another.
2. Anal and oral intercourse are not gender-determined practices.
3. Promiscuity is the central issue. Some homosexuals cruise, and so do some heterosexuals. Whatever the sexual problem may be, sexual orientation isn’t the issue. The problem or behavior is the issue.
4. Homosexuality is found in every race and culture.
5. Homosexuality is like being left-handed or having red hair; a small percentage (10 percent or less) of the population is homosexual. Perhaps a friend or someone in your family is gay or lesbian.
6. There is something both learned and predispositional about our sexual orientation, whether it be hetero- or homosexuality. But how we become what we are, whatever learned and predispositional factors shape us, we are what we are, and if there is nothing inherently “wrong” or “evil” about homosexuality, then precisely how it comes about is hardly any more or less important than how heterosexuality comes about. To look for “causes” for our particular persuasion is as complex and mysterious as looking for reasons why someone would like musicals and someone else murder mysteries.
7. The “myths” of homosexuals -- used to incite fear and hatred: Tactics of Hitler, KKK, etc.. At different times in our past, Protestants fears Catholics, Christians feared and despised Jews, Whites feared and hated African-Americans, and so on. Social fears and hatreds are always irrational -- they have no basis in reality but only in our collective imagination. Sadly, it is common for societies to identify certain segments of their population as “different” and perhaps even threatening, thus justifying all sorts of cruel behavior.
- Irrational images do a great deal of harm. For example, someone opposed to the installation of a lesbian pastor said, “Well, if we allow homosexual ministers, what about those who have a fondness for children, or someone who likes whips and chains?” An acceptance of homosexuality is not the same category as accepting pedophilia or sado-masochism (although what two consenting adults agree to do in the privacy of their bedroom is quite different than abuse of children -- i.e. there is no sexual practice between consenting adults that is inherently evil or wrong, except that which is degrading or physically harmful to one of the partners).
- What about teachers in school? If they’re homosexual, will they “convert” or “recruit” youngsters for the homosexual life-style? Only if the teacher is unhealthy. Unhealthy heterosexuals do terrible things, too. Mental health or disease, is not directly related to sexual orientation, any more than is love, or faith in Christ.
- Will their sexual orientation have an adverse affect on children? No! When we come to the point of accepting sexual orientation as we do red-hair or left-handedness, homosexuality will become a non-issue.
Minorities, be they homosexuals, Blacks, Jews, or women, have borne the brunt of society’s ills. As Christians, it is imperative that we search our souls and pray, and constantly seek ways to build bridges rather than dig chasms. At all times, Christians need to be vigilant about the irrational fears and prejudice that reside in our hearts and minds like a computer virus, quietly doing their damage long before we know it . “Discipleship does not afford us a point of vantage from which to attack others; we come to them with an unconditional offer of fellowship, with the single-mindedness of the love of Jesus” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, p.204). Christians must stand firm against conventional prejudice, and strive, with all our might to keep on growing in the expansive love of Christ, especially for the marginalized.
8. AIDS: how many restaurant cooks have gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, etc., or any number of other communicable diseases brought about by heterosexual promiscuity?
AIDS is very difficult to transmit. We are more than likely safer with an AIDS-infected cook than a cook with the flu or tuberculosis. AIDS is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids, by sexual intercourse or using contaminated needles. The AIDS virus is not particularly strong , and dies quickly once outside the body.
9. To accept homosexual behavior as we do those who are left-handed or who have red hair has political implications: marriage, tax forms, medical and retirement benefits, etc..
Allowing for the same “marriage failure” as with heterosexuals, and all the other aberrant behavior and failure that we find with heterosexuals, we cannot expect any more of the homosexual than we would expect of the heterosexual, but neither should we expect, or offer, any less.
10. If heterosexuality were suddenly outlawed and driven underground, heterosexuals would soon manifest many of the same symptoms of estrangement and alienation seen in the homosexual community. What is denied and repressed soon becomes overwhelming. A person compelled by law and culture to deny something so essential as his or her sexuality is soon dominated by it. To let it surface and be received as normal soon brings this powerful part of life into a “normal range.” Obviously, this does not apply to aberrant behavior such as the abuse of children, etc..
- Why do so many male homosexuals have effeminate behavior, and lesbians masculine behavior? While this is true of some homosexuals, it’s not true of the majority, and there are heterosexuals who also possess obvious traits of the other sex. But in the long run, we’re all very different people, and we’re all put together uniquely. There is no easy definition of what is specifically "male" or "female" behavior.
- Are homosexuals more inclined to be artistic? That’s like saying African-Americans are all good dancers or basketball players. In reality, the artistic community has been more accepting of people, but homosexuals are employed and working successfully in every area of life.
11. Is homosexuality anti-family? Hardly! One person is a family, a single parent with children is a family, two homosexuals are a family, and so are a husband and wife with two children, or a husband and wife who chose to have no children. These are all families. At the very least, everyone comes from a family and belongs to family, no matter who they are. Homosexuality is not inherently anti-family any more than celibacy for the priesthood, the decision to remain single, or to have no children.
12. When dealing with ordination for officers, I don’t investigate sexual inclination, homosexual or heterosexual; I’m not interested in witch hunts. I believe that those who are called to an office in the church are people of integrity and love (not perfect, by any means) dealing with their sexuality in appropriate ways. I believe that we can trust the work of the Holy Spirit to equip people, call them to an office, and give to the larger body a recognition of that calling.
13. The times in which we live compel me to take a clear and determined stand on this matter. In a climate where some are inclined to condemn and exclude, I raise my voice on behalf of understanding and inclusion, because of my walk with Christ. I come to this issue as a Christian.
14. As a Christian, I affirm the Bible's call to a moral life, to be faithful to one's spouse, to be loving toward one another. I reject a promiscuous life-style. I believe that however our orientation may be, the call to a faithful life lived in the grace of Jesus Christ applies equally to all.
- I cannot reject, carte blanc, a group of people simply because of their sexual orientation, yet my acceptance of gays and lesbians is not a carte blanc acceptance of every expression of their sexuality either. In the same way that I reject heterosexual promiscuity: shallow and over sexuality intended to seduce, power over another, abuse of the vulnerable, and degrading language about the other.
- A promiscuous life-style is destructive because it's self-centered. A life-style faithful to Christ and loving of others builds life up and is pleasing to the Lord.
Gender-orientation is a basic fact of life and is likely to happen to within us long before we know what’s happening to us.
Whatever our orientation, what really counts is love and faithfulness, kindness and mercy, decency and courage, justice and patience. These are the building blocks on which the highest quality of life is established, and the goals toward which we should encourage one another.
