Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sex and Scripture has moved and changed names.
Sex and Scripture is now October Seven and is located here.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Threat of Injustice
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the civil rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother-and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." (Coretta Scott King)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Three Important Words
The following is a response to Mel White's pamphlet "What the Bible Says About Homosexuality," a product of www.soulforce.org.
I want to mainly address the Hebrew word toebah and the Greek malokois and arsenotoikai. I find it regrettable that White didn't give sources for his findings; perhaps because it was directly from his own translations and interpretations. I've gone ahead and included a few on the subject. In my own research I've found numerous debates over these words, telling me there definitely is controversy and indefinite understandings of what they mean, and why we think they mean that. Then I want to lay out a broad context of how I interpret the Bible.
Toebah
I think White used incorrect terminology in defining "toebah" too. It means more than unpleasant, but rather ritually impure. In pagan religions of the time and place when and where Leviticus was written, their worship included most of the only type of homosexual behavior known to the time. It was homosexual prostitution, for the sake of sexual exploration and worshiping other gods. (Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View or S.M. Baugh. "Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society or Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics or James B. DeYoung, “The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality”)
The word "toebah" is used a few times in Leviticus' Holiness Code. The sexual relations section of the holiness code is only part. The term is actually blanketed over a wide range of issues, including many we do not follow or even argue over today. Eating fruit if the tree is less than 5 years old, eating the food of an offering on the third day, cross-breeding animals and plants, wearing garments of different fabrics (throw out those poly-cotton blends)...these are all toebahs to God, according to Leviticus.
Rev. David Eck points out that "toebah" is translated in Greek as "bdelygma," which means, specifically, a ritual impurity. The word "anomia" most likely would have been used if homosexual practice itself was detestable because that word means an outright sin, not just something objectionable to the ritual practice of God's chosen. Furthermore, the homosexual acts described in Leviticus are surrounded by God's concern that we refrain from idol worship. "Toebah," when used elsewhere almost always refers to idolatry (ex. Deuteronomy 23:17). Alongside its mention in Leviticus, homosexual practices are tied with things like child sacrifice, idol worship, and the sex rites of fertility cults. All of these were common practice for pagans. One of the major themes of Leviticus is to present a Holiness Code to separate the chosen people from the rest, therefore, these things are abominations because they betray how God would have us worship. They are ritually unpure.
>Obviously this wouldn't retract everything in the Holiness Code. I, for one, do not agree with pederasty or beastiality, and that is because in cases where someone or something is an unwilling participant or is physically or emotionally hurt, it is not okay. See: Golden Rule<
Arsenokoitai
Arseno = men, and koitai (from koitaio = to lie down). Presumably, when used here, it means men who lie down with each other. This word is actually a Pauline neologism (he appears to have invented it). The precise meaning is actually only "known" to those already opposed to homosexuality; however it is a fact that the precise meaning is unknown. Yet I would agree with conservative scholars who say that the best way to understand this word is by framing it in context of his understanding of the Septuagint. Paul used the Septuagint mostly; their is substantial evidence that shows the Septuagint was used more than the Hebrew Bible in the writing of the New Testament when they cite Old Testament passages. In the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, the words "arsenos" and "koiten" appear next to one another in the context of condemning to death "men who bed men as they do women."
Even with this, the exact meaning is not fully understood. There is a euphemism at play here, and it isn't clear exactly what it is. "Bedding" or "to lie down with" may refer to any number of sexual and affective intimacies. For example, is the injunction only against anal penetration? What about mutual masterbation, fellatio, heavy petting, frotting, kissing, cuddling, etc.?
If we assume it is talking about anal penetration, why exactly is anal penetration bad? The Bible makes no argument about it being an unnatural form of "showing affection" physically. In fact, it is quite doubtful that such a thing as physical affection between two men existed in common knowledge. What did exist with the connotations of anal penetration was what would happen at the end of a battle or war. The winning soldiers would often anally penetrate their fallen foes to demonstrate further power over them and to humiliate them. So if we go this route with the idea of arsenokoitai, you have to realize this was their world-view at the time. If you were a man having sex with a man, there is no way it was out of physical affection, there is no way it is because you are homosexual; that someone can actually be a homosexual is a relatively new concept. (If you believe that someone can be homosexual, you are already operating on a different view than those in Leviticus' time). So again, if you were a man having sex with a man, it was because you were perverting your nature to get-off (excuse me) in another man, and you were probably doing it to show dominance or as an act of idol worship. In either case, the act is detestable, but I suggest that it is not because of the act, but because of the motives.
Two Stories of Love
With a very literal reading of two famous stories in the Bible, one finds that profound love can exist between members of the same sex, and that love can show itself in the form of physical affection that would most definitely be considered homoerotic if not an outright act of homosexuality.
I didn't buy that take on the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi at first, but upon further examination, there is something going on. In 1 Samuel 18:4 we read, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." Disrobing is bad enough, but relinquishing the very signs of his masculine potency, now that's downright scandolous! It would appear to belong to the same category of perversion as anal penetration between two men since it is an intentional emasculation. We read as well in 1 Samuel 20:30-31, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." This is a beautiful verse because it demonstrates what any reader of the Bible ought to already know: political infidelity is often described in terms of sexual pervsion, for example Israel's "fornication" with foreign powers in the prophets. How far we want to take that hermeuntic in this particular passage determines how we hear "you have chosen." There is a strong argument to be made that, whether fair or blasphemic, Saul is quite conscientiously deploying the double entendre of dynastic and sexual/nuptial infidelity/perversion. We must note, he does so with good reason since I Samuel 20:41- 42 concludes with a covenant statement of nuptial character after an exchange of kisses (sound familiar? maybe the first instance of gay marriage lol): "As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, "The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.' "
When David learns of Jonathan's death he laments:" I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This is a tough passage to argue with because it plainly states that Jonathan's love passed "the love of women." It baffles me that a "plain sense" reading of the Bible interprets arsenokoitai as "homosexuals" without any doubt, but it wants to read any sexual sense out of this declaration. If David had wanted to intone it in a less romantic, sexual way he could have left out the whole women bit. He's obviously not referring to his mother and sisters. The love of women is an overt sexual/romantic reference. And it fits with what else we read about their relationship in Scripture. Of course, it could be argued that by this he meant that their love transcended those same sexual/romantic impulses, but then again so should his love for his family, his nation, etc. It's an odd comparison to make if he's not implicating Jonathan in some kind of romantic/sexual rapport since that's the quality that separates a woman's love from, say, a father's love. I feel like that is how opponents of homosexuality interpret this story to remove the possibility of homosexuality. They interpret the love as that between a father and son when it is clearly something romantic between a woman and man. If we replace Jonathan with the name of a woman, I don't think there would be any hesitance.
In the Book of Ruth 1:16-18 we read: "Ruth said, "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her." Ruth's words are so nuptial in character that they are actually used today in wedding ceremonies! Obviously, something's going on here that is rather unique and special, something beyond just "really good friends" or even "best friends"
Malokois
Literally translated, it just means "soft." Like English, "malokois" can be used to describe a man who is effeminate. If we assume "soft" means "like a woman," what does that mean? We do not know if there was a direct correlation to male-male sexual behavior. We do not know the extent of what is feminine and masculine; there has already been a great deal of debate over gender roles. If we read this plainly, and go by our understanding of soft, we can assume that a soft man is one who is generally non-confrontational, dislikes sports, and enjoys things like cooking, cleaning, and gardening. In this case, you don't have to have sexual relationships with other men to be found detestable to God. God wants his men manly. If we go beyond the plain reading, or draw from conclusions made by some scholars, we might decide that soft is more extreme--that it means "men who bed other men." Paul wrote (in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) that men shouldn't be soft and men shouldn't lie with other men as with women. White highlights the confusion of the words because, quite frankly, there is some. The words arsenokotai, and malokois are used very infrequently. There is disagreement over them, though some claim that we are sure of their meaning. Some do believe that a further connotation with malokois deals with homosexual prostitution. It's very possible, but again, it isn't there. It is anything but explicit. As it is used, you could replace "men" with "metal" and suddenly God doesn't want gold, a soft metal, to exist. That is with a very literal reading of these verses.
To what extent do these writings of Paul get perverted against the wishes of Jesus Christ? How much focus should we have on debating moral rightness, especially when the things don't affect anyone but those involved and in love? To what extent were all of the old laws destroyed when Jesus ascended? Galatians 3:22-25 says "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" and it should be noted that it is by faith alone that we live in Jesus Christ. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, but he does say everything about love, justice, mercy, and faith.
In God's Image
Aside from these very specific arguments, I want to go broader and delve into the question of what the Bible is, how God's hand is in it, and how we should be interacting with it. Simply speaking, I don't believe God wants us to passively take things the Bible says and just comfort ourselves with "well God said it, so it's our job to be flexible." Genesis says God created us in God's image. God, if anything, is creator. If this is so, I have to believe that we weren't created to be automatons. God didn't just make us on a whim. God wants us to wrestle with faith, scripture, etc. That's why we have such tremendous mental capacity to do so. That's part of the reason God specifically used human hands, and minds, to get the Bible out there. It wasn't meant to be taken as a uniform law code; it simply isn't written as one. I'll be frank, we could go back and forth on different interpretations of this verse and that verse, but ultimately what I believe it comes down to is the ability for us, as friends and fellow brothers and sisters of God, to understand that each of our interpretations of the Bible are not superior to another's. I believe the problem when people use the Bible to judge or condemn, whether violently, vocally, or even with an unspoken negative thought, is that people assume their understanding of the Bible is superior, and therefore gives them the right to grade another's correctness/value as a human being. With homosexuality, there are enough facts and logical reasoning available to cast enough doubt to keep hetero-minded individuals from judging homosexuals.
We could easily go back and forth, quoting different books, Bible dictionaries..etc. but ultimately, all of those resources were compiled by people like you and me who simply looked at the evidence and made specific decisions about things (like definitions) guided by their own agendas. In my experience, and perhaps your own, I've witnessed how it can be difficult, even impossible to translate one idea completely from English to Spanish (or vice versa). Thinking about that, it's easy to see why there is argument over the meaning of words in a language that has been dead for 1500 years. Some things just don't quite translate, and it requires lots of context for which there just isn't much for the three words we've discussed. Most of that context for homosexual behavior is in the setting of cults or idol worship and male prostitution. Others are in the context of the aftermath of war and a declaration of dominance. Two instances in the Bible fairly convincingly portray homosexual romance without condemnation from God. Scholars for centuries have struggled to understand this stuff, and every time we find a new original piece of writing we are able to put certain words into better context. Our understanding is always changing as well. Old translations are quite simply not as good as many new translations because newer ones have the opportunity to correct old translations that were obviously guided by the principles of the people who made them. For example: Victorians translated much of Cicero and when he would use an expletive for penis, translators would actually create a euphemism like "member" to appeal to their standards. This kind of thing happens, and it isn't outrageous to think that so many translations have embraced the abomination-quality of homosexuality because it was, quite frankly, easier to do so. There is a significant amount of doubt due to the rarity of these words in the original text and the context in which those words are used.
Some good resources you might be interested in:
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-
This one is on "arsenokoitai."
http://www.robgagnon.net/2VBiblio.htm
This one is actually from the site of probably one of the biggest public opponents of homosexual Christians, but this page has other resources on it from both lines of thought.
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
This one is an interesting little dialogue between Tony and Peggy Campo (a husband and wife who disagree on the issue).
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak
This is an excellently written viewpoint with a lot of original research about what we've been discussing. If you buy anything on the subject, this would be the book to buy.
Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Edited by R. L. Brawley
Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth.
This offers a great treatment on a biblical world view along with all its assumptions and rhetoric around social, political and religious authority.
I want to mainly address the Hebrew word toebah and the Greek malokois and arsenotoikai. I find it regrettable that White didn't give sources for his findings; perhaps because it was directly from his own translations and interpretations. I've gone ahead and included a few on the subject. In my own research I've found numerous debates over these words, telling me there definitely is controversy and indefinite understandings of what they mean, and why we think they mean that. Then I want to lay out a broad context of how I interpret the Bible.
Toebah
I think White used incorrect terminology in defining "toebah" too. It means more than unpleasant, but rather ritually impure. In pagan religions of the time and place when and where Leviticus was written, their worship included most of the only type of homosexual behavior known to the time. It was homosexual prostitution, for the sake of sexual exploration and worshiping other gods. (Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View or S.M. Baugh. "Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society or Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics or James B. DeYoung, “The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality”)
The word "toebah" is used a few times in Leviticus' Holiness Code. The sexual relations section of the holiness code is only part. The term is actually blanketed over a wide range of issues, including many we do not follow or even argue over today. Eating fruit if the tree is less than 5 years old, eating the food of an offering on the third day, cross-breeding animals and plants, wearing garments of different fabrics (throw out those poly-cotton blends)...these are all toebahs to God, according to Leviticus.Rev. David Eck points out that "toebah" is translated in Greek as "bdelygma," which means, specifically, a ritual impurity. The word "anomia" most likely would have been used if homosexual practice itself was detestable because that word means an outright sin, not just something objectionable to the ritual practice of God's chosen. Furthermore, the homosexual acts described in Leviticus are surrounded by God's concern that we refrain from idol worship. "Toebah," when used elsewhere almost always refers to idolatry (ex. Deuteronomy 23:17). Alongside its mention in Leviticus, homosexual practices are tied with things like child sacrifice, idol worship, and the sex rites of fertility cults. All of these were common practice for pagans. One of the major themes of Leviticus is to present a Holiness Code to separate the chosen people from the rest, therefore, these things are abominations because they betray how God would have us worship. They are ritually unpure.
>Obviously this wouldn't retract everything in the Holiness Code. I, for one, do not agree with pederasty or beastiality, and that is because in cases where someone or something is an unwilling participant or is physically or emotionally hurt, it is not okay. See: Golden Rule<
Arsenokoitai
Arseno = men, and koitai (from koitaio = to lie down). Presumably, when used here, it means men who lie down with each other. This word is actually a Pauline neologism (he appears to have invented it). The precise meaning is actually only "known" to those already opposed to homosexuality; however it is a fact that the precise meaning is unknown. Yet I would agree with conservative scholars who say that the best way to understand this word is by framing it in context of his understanding of the Septuagint. Paul used the Septuagint mostly; their is substantial evidence that shows the Septuagint was used more than the Hebrew Bible in the writing of the New Testament when they cite Old Testament passages. In the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, the words "arsenos" and "koiten" appear next to one another in the context of condemning to death "men who bed men as they do women."
Even with this, the exact meaning is not fully understood. There is a euphemism at play here, and it isn't clear exactly what it is. "Bedding" or "to lie down with" may refer to any number of sexual and affective intimacies. For example, is the injunction only against anal penetration? What about mutual masterbation, fellatio, heavy petting, frotting, kissing, cuddling, etc.?
If we assume it is talking about anal penetration, why exactly is anal penetration bad? The Bible makes no argument about it being an unnatural form of "showing affection" physically. In fact, it is quite doubtful that such a thing as physical affection between two men existed in common knowledge. What did exist with the connotations of anal penetration was what would happen at the end of a battle or war. The winning soldiers would often anally penetrate their fallen foes to demonstrate further power over them and to humiliate them. So if we go this route with the idea of arsenokoitai, you have to realize this was their world-view at the time. If you were a man having sex with a man, there is no way it was out of physical affection, there is no way it is because you are homosexual; that someone can actually be a homosexual is a relatively new concept. (If you believe that someone can be homosexual, you are already operating on a different view than those in Leviticus' time). So again, if you were a man having sex with a man, it was because you were perverting your nature to get-off (excuse me) in another man, and you were probably doing it to show dominance or as an act of idol worship. In either case, the act is detestable, but I suggest that it is not because of the act, but because of the motives.
Two Stories of Love
With a very literal reading of two famous stories in the Bible, one finds that profound love can exist between members of the same sex, and that love can show itself in the form of physical affection that would most definitely be considered homoerotic if not an outright act of homosexuality.
I didn't buy that take on the stories of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi at first, but upon further examination, there is something going on. In 1 Samuel 18:4 we read, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." Disrobing is bad enough, but relinquishing the very signs of his masculine potency, now that's downright scandolous! It would appear to belong to the same category of perversion as anal penetration between two men since it is an intentional emasculation. We read as well in 1 Samuel 20:30-31, "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." This is a beautiful verse because it demonstrates what any reader of the Bible ought to already know: political infidelity is often described in terms of sexual pervsion, for example Israel's "fornication" with foreign powers in the prophets. How far we want to take that hermeuntic in this particular passage determines how we hear "you have chosen." There is a strong argument to be made that, whether fair or blasphemic, Saul is quite conscientiously deploying the double entendre of dynastic and sexual/nuptial infidelity/perversion. We must note, he does so with good reason since I Samuel 20:41- 42 concludes with a covenant statement of nuptial character after an exchange of kisses (sound familiar? maybe the first instance of gay marriage lol): "As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, "The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.' "When David learns of Jonathan's death he laments:" I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This is a tough passage to argue with because it plainly states that Jonathan's love passed "the love of women." It baffles me that a "plain sense" reading of the Bible interprets arsenokoitai as "homosexuals" without any doubt, but it wants to read any sexual sense out of this declaration. If David had wanted to intone it in a less romantic, sexual way he could have left out the whole women bit. He's obviously not referring to his mother and sisters. The love of women is an overt sexual/romantic reference. And it fits with what else we read about their relationship in Scripture. Of course, it could be argued that by this he meant that their love transcended those same sexual/romantic impulses, but then again so should his love for his family, his nation, etc. It's an odd comparison to make if he's not implicating Jonathan in some kind of romantic/sexual rapport since that's the quality that separates a woman's love from, say, a father's love. I feel like that is how opponents of homosexuality interpret this story to remove the possibility of homosexuality. They interpret the love as that between a father and son when it is clearly something romantic between a woman and man. If we replace Jonathan with the name of a woman, I don't think there would be any hesitance.
In the Book of Ruth 1:16-18 we read: "Ruth said, "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die— there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her." Ruth's words are so nuptial in character that they are actually used today in wedding ceremonies! Obviously, something's going on here that is rather unique and special, something beyond just "really good friends" or even "best friends" Malokois
Literally translated, it just means "soft." Like English, "malokois" can be used to describe a man who is effeminate. If we assume "soft" means "like a woman," what does that mean? We do not know if there was a direct correlation to male-male sexual behavior. We do not know the extent of what is feminine and masculine; there has already been a great deal of debate over gender roles. If we read this plainly, and go by our understanding of soft, we can assume that a soft man is one who is generally non-confrontational, dislikes sports, and enjoys things like cooking, cleaning, and gardening. In this case, you don't have to have sexual relationships with other men to be found detestable to God. God wants his men manly. If we go beyond the plain reading, or draw from conclusions made by some scholars, we might decide that soft is more extreme--that it means "men who bed other men." Paul wrote (in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) that men shouldn't be soft and men shouldn't lie with other men as with women. White highlights the confusion of the words because, quite frankly, there is some. The words arsenokotai, and malokois are used very infrequently. There is disagreement over them, though some claim that we are sure of their meaning. Some do believe that a further connotation with malokois deals with homosexual prostitution. It's very possible, but again, it isn't there. It is anything but explicit. As it is used, you could replace "men" with "metal" and suddenly God doesn't want gold, a soft metal, to exist. That is with a very literal reading of these verses.
To what extent do these writings of Paul get perverted against the wishes of Jesus Christ? How much focus should we have on debating moral rightness, especially when the things don't affect anyone but those involved and in love? To what extent were all of the old laws destroyed when Jesus ascended? Galatians 3:22-25 says "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" and it should be noted that it is by faith alone that we live in Jesus Christ. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, but he does say everything about love, justice, mercy, and faith.
In God's Image
Aside from these very specific arguments, I want to go broader and delve into the question of what the Bible is, how God's hand is in it, and how we should be interacting with it. Simply speaking, I don't believe God wants us to passively take things the Bible says and just comfort ourselves with "well God said it, so it's our job to be flexible." Genesis says God created us in God's image. God, if anything, is creator. If this is so, I have to believe that we weren't created to be automatons. God didn't just make us on a whim. God wants us to wrestle with faith, scripture, etc. That's why we have such tremendous mental capacity to do so. That's part of the reason God specifically used human hands, and minds, to get the Bible out there. It wasn't meant to be taken as a uniform law code; it simply isn't written as one. I'll be frank, we could go back and forth on different interpretations of this verse and that verse, but ultimately what I believe it comes down to is the ability for us, as friends and fellow brothers and sisters of God, to understand that each of our interpretations of the Bible are not superior to another's. I believe the problem when people use the Bible to judge or condemn, whether violently, vocally, or even with an unspoken negative thought, is that people assume their understanding of the Bible is superior, and therefore gives them the right to grade another's correctness/value as a human being. With homosexuality, there are enough facts and logical reasoning available to cast enough doubt to keep hetero-minded individuals from judging homosexuals.
We could easily go back and forth, quoting different books, Bible dictionaries..etc. but ultimately, all of those resources were compiled by people like you and me who simply looked at the evidence and made specific decisions about things (like definitions) guided by their own agendas. In my experience, and perhaps your own, I've witnessed how it can be difficult, even impossible to translate one idea completely from English to Spanish (or vice versa). Thinking about that, it's easy to see why there is argument over the meaning of words in a language that has been dead for 1500 years. Some things just don't quite translate, and it requires lots of context for which there just isn't much for the three words we've discussed. Most of that context for homosexual behavior is in the setting of cults or idol worship and male prostitution. Others are in the context of the aftermath of war and a declaration of dominance. Two instances in the Bible fairly convincingly portray homosexual romance without condemnation from God. Scholars for centuries have struggled to understand this stuff, and every time we find a new original piece of writing we are able to put certain words into better context. Our understanding is always changing as well. Old translations are quite simply not as good as many new translations because newer ones have the opportunity to correct old translations that were obviously guided by the principles of the people who made them. For example: Victorians translated much of Cicero and when he would use an expletive for penis, translators would actually create a euphemism like "member" to appeal to their standards. This kind of thing happens, and it isn't outrageous to think that so many translations have embraced the abomination-quality of homosexuality because it was, quite frankly, easier to do so. There is a significant amount of doubt due to the rarity of these words in the original text and the context in which those words are used.
Some good resources you might be interested in:
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-
This one is on "arsenokoitai."
http://www.robgagnon.net/2VBiblio.htm
This one is actually from the site of probably one of the biggest public opponents of homosexual Christians, but this page has other resources on it from both lines of thought.
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
This one is an interesting little dialogue between Tony and Peggy Campo (a husband and wife who disagree on the issue).
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak
This is an excellently written viewpoint with a lot of original research about what we've been discussing. If you buy anything on the subject, this would be the book to buy.
Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Edited by R. L. Brawley
Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth.
This offers a great treatment on a biblical world view along with all its assumptions and rhetoric around social, political and religious authority.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A Broad View of Homosexuality in the Bible
This is what I've come up with as far as the mention of homosexuality in the Bible.
The original versions of the following were in email form to a friend of mine. I've edited them to make them available to more people. I'm telling you so you understand why they are broken into pieces.
------------------------
To understand what lies at the core of the argument against a hetero-centric biblical interpretation, you must understand that I believe that an important word in the Bible is "whosoever" because God's promises to us, through Jesus Christ, are for all of us. We all have powerful needs for healthy and fulfilling personal relationships, of all kinds. Using rationale that I will provide later, I'll explain why homosexuals are not in need of healing; there is nothing "unnatural" about it--in fact it is in my "nature." Also, the reason I am comfortable challenging the more widely held interpretation of these scriptures is because Biblical interpretation has changed drastically throughout the years (even though the Bible really hasn't). A logical, historical interpretation of scripture commonly used to condemn homosexual behavior shows that it DOES NOT condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. It actually only condemns that behavior in the cases of prostitution and idolatry.
I'll state that I believe the Bible is a key source of authority for the Christian faith, and when it is unclear about some things the best we can do is act on the things it is clear about.
Let's start with Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:1-25) God announced judgment on these cities in the previous chapter (Gen 18) and sent two angels to Sodom where Abraham's son Lot lives. Lot invites them in and ALL of the people in the city surround the house and demand to "know" them. In many cases, "know" means something sexual, and the word used here was "yadha," which means to have thorough knowledge of and to know one's credentials. Sometimes "yadha" implies sexual intercourse. To assume that it means something sexual here, assumes that the entire city wanted to gang bang the angels...literally. That argument thinks that the entire city has "gone homo" and for that reason they are condemned by God. Setting aside that only a small percentage of any population is homosexual, God put his judgment on the cities before this incident for the reason that they worshiped idols and neglected to help the poor, the marginalized. When the people are outside demanding to know the angels, Lot offers his two daughters. Why would Lot offer women to a group of men who had such strong homosexual tendencies that they would gang bang the two angels? And if God punished Sodom for sexual crimes, if that was the point of this story, why does God not punish Lot and his daughters for engaging in incest in Gen 19:30-38? Ezekiel 16:48-50 states the sin of Sodom:
"As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it."
One might say that the "abominable things" refers to the alleged homosexual attempt, but if it were so important, if it were the point, why isn't it clearer? It is not definite, and it doesn't reflect my attitudes about wanting a male partner.
Moving on to Leviticus 18, an entire chapter on sexual relations. Reading this out of its context can be dangerous. Leviticus was written as a manual for Israel's priests. It was written to people surrounded by Canaanites who worshiped multiple gods...fertility cults. Male and female cult prostitution prevailed in this society (Deut 23:17). The word used in Deut. is "qadesh," a male cult prostitute. Sometimes this can be mistranslated as a sodomite--using a specific term for a broader concept. Lev. calls men lying with men as with women an adomination; it is something God finds detestable. The actual word used here is "toevah," which is associated only with idolatry in Ezekiel. It is used here making the connection between same-sex behavior and idolatry...the idolatry of the male cult prostitutes in Canaan, acknowledged in Deut. While one can assume that this extends to ALL same-sex behavior, the passage really says nothing about loving, responsible homosexual relationships. In its original context, it only refers to male prostitutes of a society of idol worshipers.
Galatians 3:22-25 says "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian." We live by faith in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ says not one word about homosexuality. He says EVERYTHING about love, justice, mercy, and faith. He is clear. The gospels are full and complete about that message. Other writings of the NT are clear about those.
Paul is the only author in the NT to reference homosexuality. In Romans he develops an argument about the peoples' need for people to know Jesus and experience the Gospel. In Romans 1:24-27 he writes that certain homosexual behavior is an example of "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles. He writes to an audience of Roman Gentiles and Jews whose experience of homosexuality came from the excessive behavior of emperors and the laws in Leviticus that are based on prostitution and idol worship. Again, this context is important because when we take these writings out of their intended context, we put them in our own and they often lose what is their intended meaning...
...The question of "what is natural" comes up in these passages. "Physin," the word for natural, does not actually mean: according to some abstract natural order, but according to one's own nature. This is shown when God makes an uncharacteristic action to accept the Gentiles in Romans 11:24. This act is descried as "para physin," or unnatural (again, against one's nature, not an abstract natural order). It was an action that God had not taken before, but that doesn't mean it was against the natural order--it was of God! So when Paul says that men committed shameless acts with each other, he is not saying that same-sex behavior is against nature, it was actually against the nature of these men. These men he refers to were not homosexuals, but were seeking new sexual experiences just for the sake of sex in the context of idol worship and prostitution. They were seeking a physical high, not a deeply intimate and loving, monogamous relationship. God wants for us to have these relationships, they were just having casual sex. Such reckless behavior is contrary to God's wishes, but even in Romans, nothing is said about same-sex relationships.
Paul makes another reference in I Corinthians 6:9 that is commonly cited in anti-homosexual arguments. To further understand the context in which Paul writes, one should know that prostitution and pederasty (sex between men and boys) were the common male same-sex acts. These are acts that are more obviously contrary to healthy behavior. Prostitution is sex without real intimacy and pederasty hurts the boys because of their inability to experience a real relationship.
In Cor 6:9, Paul condemns the "effeminate" (KJV). In some translations, "effeminate" is exchanged with "sodomite" or "homosexual." I've read scholars (who I will need to search for more to cite, that call this a gross mistranslation. The actual word used is "malakos," which means a lack of discipline and control. The word is used elsewhere in the NT, but NEVER with reference to sexuality. He uses the word "arsenokoitai," which is made of two words that mean "males" and "beds," "beds" meaning sex. Since in this context Paul's concern is with prostitution, the reference probably means to condemn male prostitution, yet the true meaning of this is unclear. One thing to keep in mind is how Paul concludes this chapter: "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." When Jesus died for us, we ceased to be sinners. We still sin (intentionally and unintentionally), but we are saved by Jesus.
Some would say that The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the NT on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ (He's our savior) and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love. Against such there is no law.
--------------------------------------
Since Leviticus' laws are dead with the new covenant in Jesus Christ, I'll let that argument go, I was just using it to show that even in those passages, the author was referring to fertility cults...etc.
It is true, in Genesis' first account of creation, God tells the unnamed men and women to be fruitful and multiply. So does this mean that the only natural relationship is one with a man and a woman? Personally I think that is a grand assumption and a jump from logic, and it misses the point of the creation stories. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus says that the point of marriage is about companionship, NOT procreation. Marriage is a bond for two people, for this life. Gen 2:18-25: God gives the man a woman because "it is not good that [he] be alone." I don't see a definite answer on this argument: is male just for female?
There is an argument in the biology. Women can bear children while men cannot, yet women cannot bear children without the seed of the man. So is this an attempt by God through scripture to limit relationships? Was that really the point? Why isn't there a passage saying something about quenching our basic sexual instinct (going along with the argument that it is not a choice). From the evolutionary standpoint, not everyone can be homosexual...we'd go extinct. This is true. Luckily, "gay" isn't a virus, and only a small percentage of any population feels so attracted to the same sex that sex with the opposite isn't possible. Obviously we shouldn't all be gay.
I wonder what homosexuals are to do. Should they remain celibate? Should they pursue heterosexual relationships, ignore the sexual dysfunction that will ultimately occur, deal with the inevitable depression, and put the stability of their families at risk? God says to be fruitful and multiply, but with so many orphans in the world, should our primary goal be to make more children? Will we not plunge further into societal dysfunction with more bad marriages, depressed/repressed individuals, and orphans without homes? Is THAT scenario of God? Is THAT the point?
Life is not fulfilled in raising children, and you won't find that perspective in the Bible. Life is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The creation stories are not meant to restrict sexuality, they are to celebrate humanity: men and women. Adam and Eve, though created by God, do not exemplify some abstract universal moral order. Such assumptions about what ISN'T there are used to condemn behavior in a way that is contrary to the meaning of the word and the word made flesh. God encourages us to have companionship more than he wants to limit it.
The Bible does not encourage or even mention homosexual relationships. This doesn't make them right OR wrong. While homosexual acts happened, the concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation (as we know them) didn't exist before the 19th century. Why and how would the Bible discuss something that didn't exist? The Bible says nothing about dinosaurs and evolution, an age of accountability, cremation, atoms, dating, rape as anything but an attack on property, the outer appearance of Christ, more than 20 years of his life, the trinity as doctrine, euthanasia...the list goes on. Just because the Bible doesn't speak of these things does not mean they are wrong and without existence. There is nothing conclusive to point us either way, unless we understand that the Bible has a purpose and is written in a way that we do not fully understand. It is both perfect and imperfect. It contains many contradictions (ex. at the cross, in Mt Mk and Lk, no disciples are near the cross...in Jn, a beloved disciple talks to him.) We can attempt to explain these differences away. We can say that the author of John had a source no one else did who told him this. But this does not explain how there can be such a difference in scripture that is supposed to all be the true word of God. The Bible just isn't a perfect, clean-cut, factual document. Unfortunately, the nature of the Bible leaves it open for people to support their prior beliefs, and do clever footwork to support their point(s). I think if we start with the clear messages, the ones repeated by Jesus himself throughout all of the gospels, we can frame these arguments better. We must take what we know to be true, and not just settle with society's norms on relationships, or anything.
God accepts sexual 'misfits;' God has a place for gay couples, straight couples who don't/can't conceive, and others who physically cannot reproduce.
The point we absolutely MUST remember through all of these arguments is Jesus' message about love and acceptance. We have to love each other unconditionally without judgment. Whether or not you believe homosexuality to be 'right,' it isn't really for anyone to say if s/he has no experience being a homosexual. You may have your opinions, and because their really is no solid statement in scripture that says homosexuality is right or wrong, you're entitled to them, but one umbrella we all fall under is the expectation for us to follow the Golden Rule. This discussion is an excellent one to have, especially since it is such an issue for the Church and the United States. But when it is finished or paused, we need to be in a place where we can live, work and play with one another. I think that THIS is 'the point.'
------------------------------------
The original versions of the following were in email form to a friend of mine. I've edited them to make them available to more people. I'm telling you so you understand why they are broken into pieces.
------------------------
To understand what lies at the core of the argument against a hetero-centric biblical interpretation, you must understand that I believe that an important word in the Bible is "whosoever" because God's promises to us, through Jesus Christ, are for all of us. We all have powerful needs for healthy and fulfilling personal relationships, of all kinds. Using rationale that I will provide later, I'll explain why homosexuals are not in need of healing; there is nothing "unnatural" about it--in fact it is in my "nature." Also, the reason I am comfortable challenging the more widely held interpretation of these scriptures is because Biblical interpretation has changed drastically throughout the years (even though the Bible really hasn't). A logical, historical interpretation of scripture commonly used to condemn homosexual behavior shows that it DOES NOT condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. It actually only condemns that behavior in the cases of prostitution and idolatry.
I'll state that I believe the Bible is a key source of authority for the Christian faith, and when it is unclear about some things the best we can do is act on the things it is clear about.
Let's start with Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:1-25) God announced judgment on these cities in the previous chapter (Gen 18) and sent two angels to Sodom where Abraham's son Lot lives. Lot invites them in and ALL of the people in the city surround the house and demand to "know" them. In many cases, "know" means something sexual, and the word used here was "yadha," which means to have thorough knowledge of and to know one's credentials. Sometimes "yadha" implies sexual intercourse. To assume that it means something sexual here, assumes that the entire city wanted to gang bang the angels...literally. That argument thinks that the entire city has "gone homo" and for that reason they are condemned by God. Setting aside that only a small percentage of any population is homosexual, God put his judgment on the cities before this incident for the reason that they worshiped idols and neglected to help the poor, the marginalized. When the people are outside demanding to know the angels, Lot offers his two daughters. Why would Lot offer women to a group of men who had such strong homosexual tendencies that they would gang bang the two angels? And if God punished Sodom for sexual crimes, if that was the point of this story, why does God not punish Lot and his daughters for engaging in incest in Gen 19:30-38? Ezekiel 16:48-50 states the sin of Sodom: "As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it."
One might say that the "abominable things" refers to the alleged homosexual attempt, but if it were so important, if it were the point, why isn't it clearer? It is not definite, and it doesn't reflect my attitudes about wanting a male partner.
Moving on to Leviticus 18, an entire chapter on sexual relations. Reading this out of its context can be dangerous. Leviticus was written as a manual for Israel's priests. It was written to people surrounded by Canaanites who worshiped multiple gods...fertility cults. Male and female cult prostitution prevailed in this society (Deut 23:17). The word used in Deut. is "qadesh," a male cult prostitute. Sometimes this can be mistranslated as a sodomite--using a specific term for a broader concept. Lev. calls men lying with men as with women an adomination; it is something God finds detestable. The actual word used here is "toevah," which is associated only with idolatry in Ezekiel. It is used here making the connection between same-sex behavior and idolatry...the idolatry of the male cult prostitutes in Canaan, acknowledged in Deut. While one can assume that this extends to ALL same-sex behavior, the passage really says nothing about loving, responsible homosexual relationships. In its original context, it only refers to male prostitutes of a society of idol worshipers.
Galatians 3:22-25 says "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian." We live by faith in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ says not one word about homosexuality. He says EVERYTHING about love, justice, mercy, and faith. He is clear. The gospels are full and complete about that message. Other writings of the NT are clear about those.
Paul is the only author in the NT to reference homosexuality. In Romans he develops an argument about the peoples' need for people to know Jesus and experience the Gospel. In Romans 1:24-27 he writes that certain homosexual behavior is an example of "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles. He writes to an audience of Roman Gentiles and Jews whose experience of homosexuality came from the excessive behavior of emperors and the laws in Leviticus that are based on prostitution and idol worship. Again, this context is important because when we take these writings out of their intended context, we put them in our own and they often lose what is their intended meaning......The question of "what is natural" comes up in these passages. "Physin," the word for natural, does not actually mean: according to some abstract natural order, but according to one's own nature. This is shown when God makes an uncharacteristic action to accept the Gentiles in Romans 11:24. This act is descried as "para physin," or unnatural (again, against one's nature, not an abstract natural order). It was an action that God had not taken before, but that doesn't mean it was against the natural order--it was of God! So when Paul says that men committed shameless acts with each other, he is not saying that same-sex behavior is against nature, it was actually against the nature of these men. These men he refers to were not homosexuals, but were seeking new sexual experiences just for the sake of sex in the context of idol worship and prostitution. They were seeking a physical high, not a deeply intimate and loving, monogamous relationship. God wants for us to have these relationships, they were just having casual sex. Such reckless behavior is contrary to God's wishes, but even in Romans, nothing is said about same-sex relationships.
Paul makes another reference in I Corinthians 6:9 that is commonly cited in anti-homosexual arguments. To further understand the context in which Paul writes, one should know that prostitution and pederasty (sex between men and boys) were the common male same-sex acts. These are acts that are more obviously contrary to healthy behavior. Prostitution is sex without real intimacy and pederasty hurts the boys because of their inability to experience a real relationship.
In Cor 6:9, Paul condemns the "effeminate" (KJV). In some translations, "effeminate" is exchanged with "sodomite" or "homosexual." I've read scholars (who I will need to search for more to cite, that call this a gross mistranslation. The actual word used is "malakos," which means a lack of discipline and control. The word is used elsewhere in the NT, but NEVER with reference to sexuality. He uses the word "arsenokoitai," which is made of two words that mean "males" and "beds," "beds" meaning sex. Since in this context Paul's concern is with prostitution, the reference probably means to condemn male prostitution, yet the true meaning of this is unclear. One thing to keep in mind is how Paul concludes this chapter: "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." When Jesus died for us, we ceased to be sinners. We still sin (intentionally and unintentionally), but we are saved by Jesus.
Some would say that The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the NT on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ (He's our savior) and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love. Against such there is no law.
--------------------------------------
Since Leviticus' laws are dead with the new covenant in Jesus Christ, I'll let that argument go, I was just using it to show that even in those passages, the author was referring to fertility cults...etc.
It is true, in Genesis' first account of creation, God tells the unnamed men and women to be fruitful and multiply. So does this mean that the only natural relationship is one with a man and a woman? Personally I think that is a grand assumption and a jump from logic, and it misses the point of the creation stories. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus says that the point of marriage is about companionship, NOT procreation. Marriage is a bond for two people, for this life. Gen 2:18-25: God gives the man a woman because "it is not good that [he] be alone." I don't see a definite answer on this argument: is male just for female?
There is an argument in the biology. Women can bear children while men cannot, yet women cannot bear children without the seed of the man. So is this an attempt by God through scripture to limit relationships? Was that really the point? Why isn't there a passage saying something about quenching our basic sexual instinct (going along with the argument that it is not a choice). From the evolutionary standpoint, not everyone can be homosexual...we'd go extinct. This is true. Luckily, "gay" isn't a virus, and only a small percentage of any population feels so attracted to the same sex that sex with the opposite isn't possible. Obviously we shouldn't all be gay.
I wonder what homosexuals are to do. Should they remain celibate? Should they pursue heterosexual relationships, ignore the sexual dysfunction that will ultimately occur, deal with the inevitable depression, and put the stability of their families at risk? God says to be fruitful and multiply, but with so many orphans in the world, should our primary goal be to make more children? Will we not plunge further into societal dysfunction with more bad marriages, depressed/repressed individuals, and orphans without homes? Is THAT scenario of God? Is THAT the point?
Life is not fulfilled in raising children, and you won't find that perspective in the Bible. Life is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The creation stories are not meant to restrict sexuality, they are to celebrate humanity: men and women. Adam and Eve, though created by God, do not exemplify some abstract universal moral order. Such assumptions about what ISN'T there are used to condemn behavior in a way that is contrary to the meaning of the word and the word made flesh. God encourages us to have companionship more than he wants to limit it.
The Bible does not encourage or even mention homosexual relationships. This doesn't make them right OR wrong. While homosexual acts happened, the concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation (as we know them) didn't exist before the 19th century. Why and how would the Bible discuss something that didn't exist? The Bible says nothing about dinosaurs and evolution, an age of accountability, cremation, atoms, dating, rape as anything but an attack on property, the outer appearance of Christ, more than 20 years of his life, the trinity as doctrine, euthanasia...the list goes on. Just because the Bible doesn't speak of these things does not mean they are wrong and without existence. There is nothing conclusive to point us either way, unless we understand that the Bible has a purpose and is written in a way that we do not fully understand. It is both perfect and imperfect. It contains many contradictions (ex. at the cross, in Mt Mk and Lk, no disciples are near the cross...in Jn, a beloved disciple talks to him.) We can attempt to explain these differences away. We can say that the author of John had a source no one else did who told him this. But this does not explain how there can be such a difference in scripture that is supposed to all be the true word of God. The Bible just isn't a perfect, clean-cut, factual document. Unfortunately, the nature of the Bible leaves it open for people to support their prior beliefs, and do clever footwork to support their point(s). I think if we start with the clear messages, the ones repeated by Jesus himself throughout all of the gospels, we can frame these arguments better. We must take what we know to be true, and not just settle with society's norms on relationships, or anything.
God accepts sexual 'misfits;' God has a place for gay couples, straight couples who don't/can't conceive, and others who physically cannot reproduce.
- Acts 8:26-39 - Although this eunuch is racially and sexually unaccepted by society, he is baptized and welcomed into the kingdom of God.
- Isaiah 56:3,8 - Eunuchs and outcasts are welcome in the Lord's house.
- Mt 19:11-12 - "Eunuchs from birth" are welcome (according to Jesus). Reproductively speaking, what is a homosexual if not a eunuch from birth? (Unable to be in a committed relationship that would produce children).
The point we absolutely MUST remember through all of these arguments is Jesus' message about love and acceptance. We have to love each other unconditionally without judgment. Whether or not you believe homosexuality to be 'right,' it isn't really for anyone to say if s/he has no experience being a homosexual. You may have your opinions, and because their really is no solid statement in scripture that says homosexuality is right or wrong, you're entitled to them, but one umbrella we all fall under is the expectation for us to follow the Golden Rule. This discussion is an excellent one to have, especially since it is such an issue for the Church and the United States. But when it is finished or paused, we need to be in a place where we can live, work and play with one another. I think that THIS is 'the point.'------------------------------------
I want to sum up that last part now. It was a bit emotionally charged.
My main point is that I can´t rationalize drawing conclusions about sexuality from what is not there. There is a lot of evidence to deduce that homosexuality is not prohibited in the Bible and that it really isn´t addressed at all. This is largely because the concept, as we know it, didn´t exist. There wasn´t a widely known concept of loving, same-sex, intimate relationships.
I believe that what God wants for us is community, and that involves many dynamic relationships--none of which are exactly like another. I truly believe that true homosexual tendencies are of the creator, and I don´t think they are there to avoid and dismiss, or even to ´deal with.´ In the larger picture, it seems like these are differences which cause a culture to look beyond--to realize the true nature of our existence and salvation through Jesus Christ.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
A friend asked me this question: "Is the Bible a guide for living or is it a book that tells us just some of what we need to know?" I think my answer is "yes."
I too have struggled with this issue. I believe it is inspired by God, written/edited/organized/
I too have struggled with this issue. I believe it is inspired by God, written/edited/organized/
And I think it really comes down to a personal feeling, and the choice we make of which feeling to follow. God speaks to us through the written and the living word, and because that living word is in each of us when we believe in Christ, God speaks to us from within. One asks what interpretation is right. Well I don´t know that there is just one answer to every question, mostly because there is so much variety in the world. Really that is a deep, philosophical, and unanswerable question. How DO we know what is right? Is one of us not living in harmony with the holy spirit because we disagree on this issue? I don´t think so. When two people come from different places, it only makes sense that they would have differing perspectives. One thing we share in common is our belief in how we interact with each other despite those differences. We do this, I believe, because of our love of Jesus Christ and our belief in his message.
We do things so as not to hurt one another. A friend gave the example of adultery: If someone decided that adultery was alright, and lived that way, how would we react? If we believe adultery is a sin, how are we to treat this situation? This is one I´ve contemplated myself. For me, the difference is that in this example, someone was probably getting hurt. The spouse of the adulterer, most likely. That is the difference between something like adultery and healthy homosexuality. Many of the laws set for us are intended to protect, not restrict--that´s my belief. If someone is getting hurt by another person, then they aren't being loved by that person, which is a great error on his/her part. It is against the nature of Jesus Christ.
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
I certainly don´t intend to change anyone's mind about the issue, I just want to challenge the idea and I want to relate where I'm coming from to ensure that this discussion surfaces. To ensure that we don't become stagnant, and to keep from letting these things silently divide us. Please comment, privately or publicly (below).
------------------------------------
In the Bible we find many contradictions within and between books. We find deeper meaning when we look around, through, and beyond them. When I think about how we view and interpret these, it seems to come down to faith and a choice to follow what seems right in our heart. (Don Henley´s "Been tryin´to get down, do the heart of the matter..."). This is true for all of us--to some extent, we´re going to view and interpret the scripture in a way that coincides with what we feel is right. These ingrained feelings of what is right come from all of our surroundings for as long as we've been alive; they come from prayer; and they all come from God. It's what we do with those feelings when we interpret scripture and interact with people that is important. It is crucial that we stick to Jesus' commandment to love one another.
Many have a hard time accepting homosexuality in the church. I know how this feels because I went through the same thing. How can someone who is deemed "living in sin" lead a body of worshipers, lead a church? Will this ultimately cause a divide, where only people who think homosexuality is alright will be able to be led by a homosexual? Has it already?
Homosexuality doesn´t negate all of the other factors of faith and evangelism that a church leader should have. I think that even if some people are opposed to or permanently confused about homosexuality, it is still quite possible for them to worship and be involved with a church where the rector could be of that orientation. I actually think it opens some very interesting doors as far as teaching lessons of acceptance and love and how community can be (and should be) formed with people of all kinds. Community requires that we make a sacrifice so that we can accept the people as a whole into our hearts. True community happens when we forget the differences and look at the similarities.
Homosexuality doesn´t negate all of the other factors of faith and evangelism that a church leader should have. I think that even if some people are opposed to or permanently confused about homosexuality, it is still quite possible for them to worship and be involved with a church where the rector could be of that orientation. I actually think it opens some very interesting doors as far as teaching lessons of acceptance and love and how community can be (and should be) formed with people of all kinds. Community requires that we make a sacrifice so that we can accept the people as a whole into our hearts. True community happens when we forget the differences and look at the similarities.
That being said, homosexuality may be a fatal issue to some, and I can completely understand that position (as long as it doesn´t interfere with the commandment to love one another).
----------------------------------
I certainly don´t intend to change anyone's mind about the issue, I just want to challenge the idea and I want to relate where I'm coming from to ensure that this discussion surfaces. To ensure that we don't become stagnant, and to keep from letting these things silently divide us. Please comment, privately or publicly (below).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
