homosexuality... and the Bible

There have always been debates in the church about homosexuality. However, in the church of Scotland, things are reaching fever pitch, as a minister has been accepted as a minister in a church in Aberdeen. This minister is homosexual.

My issue is not with this man, as I know nothing about him. My issue is with the arguments that are put forward against homosexuality that claim to be biblical.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in its authority in my life.

What bothers me, is that I've only ever heard arguments that don't really stand up to scrutiny. Here are the 3 key passages I've heard used from the Bible to argue against homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Matthew 19: 3-9
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him [Jesus]. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1 Corinthians 6: 9(b)-10
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now, I should state that I am neither pro-homosexuality nor anti-homosexuality. It shouldn't be relevant, but I am writing this as a heterosexual, married man. Here are my problems with using the above quotes to put forward an argument that says homosexuality is unbiblical.

Leviticus is a passage that shows how God has given the Israelites various laws as they settled as a community and began to establish themselves. This quote comes in a long list of unlawful sexual relations. It includes not sleeping with relatives, women during their periods and animals. Interestingly, that chapter starts off with the following statement (verses 3-5):

"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them."

Part of what follows appears to be a list of prohibited activites that does two things. Firstly, it makes a distinction between God's people and the other people around (who worshipped other gods). Sexual promiscuity was probably rife, and God didn't want this to be the case for His people. Secondly, a lot of these commands are to do with hygiene and health. We know now of the dangers of in-breeding and sleeping with close relatives. We know about sexually transmitted diseases too. Remembering that we are talking about about a time that is around 3-4000 years ago, it's pretty impressive to be reading about early sex education. Sleeping with a man as one sleeps with a woman probably refers to anal sex.

Now, it wasn't a pleasant experience, but I just did an internet search on the health risks of anal sex and found enough information about disease, illness and damage to put me off tomorrow's breakfast.

Yes, it's true that one possible interpretation of this passage is that God hates homosexual practice. However, it's not convincing me, because it could equally be a passage that is talking about sexual health and well being. What makes me even more uncomfortable about the use of this passage is that just a chapter before, we read that it was totally forbidden for an Israelite to eat any blood. To apply that directly to today (as people do with the homosexual passage) would mean that it is a sin for people to eat black pudding (or as they say in the US, blood pudding) or meat that is rare (as many chefs love to prepare!).

So why do we hear preaching about homosexuality being a sin, but we don't hear about black pudding or (as Leviticus 18:19 says) the sin of approaching a woman for sexual relations when she is in her monthly period?

Furthermore, there are verses scattered throughout Leviticus that are completely ignored by the church today. For example, it is wrong to hold back the wages of a hired man overnight (Leviticus 19:13). What about the 30 day invoices we use regularly or sending a cheque in the post?

Or what about Leviticus 19:19... where I read that I am not to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? My jumper is 65% polyester, 35% cotton. Am I subject to God's wrath on account of this?

I'm not saying that God is pro-homosexual in the 21st Century. I am saying that we cannot use Leviticus 18:22 as a sound argument to say that God "hates" homosexual practice.

Matthew 19 is also often referred to. Now, here we move away from Leviticus into New Testament times and in fact, the actual words of Jesus Christ. What has always intrigued me is that Jesus never actually spoke about homosexuality. If he knew it was going to be such a big issue, why didn't he address it? Of course, just because Jesus says nothing doesn't mean he said it's okay either - after all, Jesus didn't mention suicide bombing a primary school but it's fairly safe to assume that he probably wouldn't have approved. But what does Jesus actually say here? Well, it's really important, before we look at Jesus' answer, to look at the question. Jesus refers to Genesis, to man and woman uniting to become one flesh. Sounds like we might be getting close now... but no, we aren't. The reason is that this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with divorce. The teachers of the law are trying to trick him and ask a question about divorce. "Is it always okay?" they ask. Some commentators argue that he was being asked to side in a debate between two prominent Jewish teachers who argued about when divorce was acceptable. Jesus basically says [and I paraphrase] "look, Moses said you could divorce, not because it was the right thing to do, but because your hearts are hard. It's not the way it should be. Faithfulness is what's important. The only legitimate reason is if one party isn't faithful."

What fascinates me here is that Moses seems to have given them permission to do something that Jesus says stems from something that isn't the way it should be. So wait... it's not black and white? Life's not that straightforward? Surely not (!).

Another interesting point about this passage is that Jesus' disciples then pick up the discussion and say "if this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry". This sounds very similar to teaching by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. In this letter to the church in Corinth, Paul essentially says it's better to be single than married. Why? Because when you're single you can devote yourself entirely to God, whereas when you are married, you have other concerns.

Why do we not hear this preached in churches? Why do we hear arguments about homosexuality being "un-natural" and how the natural order is for one man to be married to one woman (when interestingly, so many people in the Bible had many wives). Why are we not hearing that being single is a great thing to be?

While we are on this passage in Corinthians, I think it helps us wrestle with another argument often put forward. We're told that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I have no problem with that. But then we're told by some that God loves homosexuals, but hates homosexual practice. Well, he certainly hated it in Leviticus, but perhaps for different reasons.

It is often suggested that a homosexual person should force themselves to live a celibate life. True, it's acknowledged that this might be difficult for some, but it's assumed that it's the way it just has to be. At first I was taken along by this argument. But when you look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, it throws a whole new perspective on things. Paul says "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

So here, the apostle Paul essentially says to people that if they have passions and can't control themselves, then the best thing for them is to commit to another person in marriage. So I would ask the question - why are we happy to let heterosexual people listen to this teaching, but we tell homosexual people they have to be single or be excluded from the church or positions of leadership? Would it not be better for a homosexual man or woman to be committed to another in a loving relationship where they have made vows in front of witnesses in the eyes of God than for them to suffer and feel excluded and abused by the church? Then we could apply the same principles we hear Jesus talking about - divorce is not an acceptable way forward unless there is marital unfaithfulness. So, it's a serious, lifelong commitment, not just a romantic gesture.

On another argument, that of "the way things were created in Genesis", I think that Paul's teaching above gives us problems. If God created man to be with a woman and Paul says "actually, it's better to be single", then how can we argue that Genesis gives us the blueprint for all Christian life decisions? The apostle Paul himself seems to put forward a compromise to the "way of Genesis".

Some people compare homosexuality to having an illness, perhaps as a result of the original sin or fall. This is a tempting analagy to draw on, yet is a very harsh way to describe someone. I do actually believe that homosexuality is a result of the fall, but in the same way that old age was the result of the fall. I would never consider calling someone who is elderly "being un-natural as a result of a sinful world". I would love them, encourage them to live godly lives and the age issue would be a non-issue for me.

Finally, if you do a search for the word "homosexual" in the NIV Bible, you only find it once. It's in the same letter from Paul. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul talks about homosexual offenders not inheriting the kingdom of God. Now, what is really interesting here, is to consider the context. Just as we got a lot from understanding the context of Leviticus, we learn a lot here when we understand how Corinth was full of sexual activity. The temple to Aphrodite at one time had 1,000 prostitute priestesses. The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by a culture that involved sexual activity. What intrigues me about this passage is that Paul doesn't say "homosexuals will not inherit God's kingdom" No, he says "neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". Seen in the context of religious activity that involved all these things in the list, it makes sense that Paul is essentially saying "come on guys, don't be like these people!" If we use that passage to say that Paul is anti-homosexual (and that therefore God is anti-homosexual) then this means Paul (and God) is anti-drunkards. Now, it's probably true that God doesn't want us to get drunk, but why don't we hear drunkards and slanderers mentioned in the same sentence as homosexual offenders... oh, and how strange, the word "offender" is attached. Yes, Paul could be saying that all homosexuals are offenders. But he could equally be saying that there are people out there who are homosexual offenders (emphasis mine) - perhaps something to do with the temple prostitution? It is also interesting that today we use the expression "sexual offender" but I hear no-one saying that God hates the sexual. A sexual offender is someone who commits a crime that is sexual in nature, not who is an offender because they are sexual. Perhaps the same applies to the homosexual offender?

On a side note, I read recently that the concept of homosexual identity only really emerged in the 19th Century, with the first use of the phrase "homosexual" being used in 1869. The Bible does, however, talk about homosexual activity, but people were probably not thought of as being homosexual in nature, rather people who practiced homosexual behaviour. It might seem a trivial point, but it does show us that in various translations of the Bible, the way of expressing homosexual activity probably is heavily influenced by the culture of the time.

I think I'll have lost most of my readers by now... either to sleep or starvation, so I'll stop soon. The point I'm trying to make is that I've yet to find a convincing argument that says the Bible is anti-homosexual. Perhaps homosexuality is a product of a fallen world in the same way that heart disease and old age are also. I don't mean to offend anyone who is homosexual by that comparison. I also have a genetic disorder and I believe this is a product of me living in a sinful world that is not (yet) as God intends. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus died on a cross for me, that I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My prayer is that fear and prejudice will be assuaged by the love of the Holy Spirit to allow us to wrestle with the issues relevant in our society today. Instead of condemnation based on mis-interpretation of sacred texts, let's try and grow closer to God and learn how to fulful the great commission on our earth - Love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

God bless you all <><