LGBTQ: Part 2

Jul 19, 2024

I’m on sabbatical from work for the month. I’m also moving this month and have to get a house ready to move in. So from mid-July to mid-August, I’m going to post pieces of a blog post I wrote six years ago about my change of heart and mind about LGBTQIA+ people and the church.

This may not seem like something you’re interested in, and maybe it’s not. But there’s four reasons I’d encourage you to read:
1. Not too many people read it in full the first time. Many people got to “I think same-sex relationships that are monogamous, lifelong commitments can be holy before God” and quit reading. I’m breaking it up into digestible chunks this time, so if it makes you angry, you won’t have to read for very long.
2. If you’re LGBTQIA+ and have been hurt by Christians, maybe this will be a little healing.
3. If you’re a Christian who’s shifting on this issue, maybe this will be helpful in some way.
4. If you’re a church attender (or especially a pastor), maybe this will help you understand the difficulties of pastors who are changing their mind about LGBTQIA+ people and the church. I hope and pray more change their minds and are public about it, but I also know how painful and frightening it can be.
I hope you read. And I look forward to hearing from you about these things. Comment both positive and negative things below. I’ll read them all in mid-August when I’m back.

I’ve grown and changed somewhat since writing this, and probably need to update it to a 1.5 version, but this is verbatim what I wrote in 2019.

Part 1

To begin, I'll say that I get frustrated with the level of explosiveness associated with the homosexuality debate in Christian circles today. This is the single most heated debate in the church today, despite the fact that it is addressed in five (some would say more, I argue five below) verses out of around 31,000 in the Bible. I don't think a less than 1 in 6,000 ratio warrants the focus that many Christians seem to have on this one particular issue.

Don't get me wrong. It's important. I don't think it's as important as many Christians seem to think it is.

This is going to be a very brief overview of the texts often associated with same-sex behavior, and why I have not found them to be a convincing rebuke to covenantal, lifelong same-sex relationships. There are numerous superior resources out there. None of this work is my own. I'm drawing from many other sources. I would point to some of the books listed below as some good resources for further reading. (For the most in-depth resource, I would recommend Bible Gender Sexuality by James Brownson. It's a heavy read, but it's worth the effort.)

The bottom line in the following rundown of the texts used to condemn homosexuality is that I don't find any of the texts convincing in terms of condemning two men or two women who are committed to a lifelong covenantal relationship that puts the needs of the other above their own. The greater contextual meaning behind each of these texts points to something other than a covenantal marital relationship.

I've been told by some that my interpretations are akin to disregarding scripture or considering it not authoritative. I've heard that these interpretations are merely "following the whims of culture instead of reading the scripture as-is." I disagree. Scripture always needs to be interpreted and reinterpreted in light of new information and changes in society. People today often cite Bible verses about "the sword" when they debate gun use in the modern day. Guns weren't around in the first century. Can we really use a text that refers to a weapon with a range of one foot to talk about a weapon that has a much longer range?

We have to reinterpret scripture constantly based on what we experience in the world.

Another example--"You shall not murder"--but what if someone breaks into my house and I kill him? Does "murder" refer solely to premeditated murder? I clearly meant to do it when I killed the guy who broke into my house, but I didn't plan it for weeks ahead of time. So did I break God's law or not?

I'll talk about divorce a little bit below, but here I'll simply say that no scripture allows for divorce and remarriage because of abuse. So what do we do when someone has been physically and emotionally abused in the past, but has moved on, fallen in love, and plans to commit themselves to a new partner for life?

Galileo was condemned for saying the earth revolves around the sun, when scripture says the earth "cannot be moved."

Slavery was long defended by people arguing that "scripture is clear."

Interracial marriage was long condemned by people arguing that "scripture is clear."

You get the point. We interpret scripture constantly. Things that change in our world force us to look anew at scripture and discern whether our previously held understandings were correct. That's what I'm trying to do below.

I'm in no way undermining the authority of scripture. I still maintain that scripture is authoritative for our lives today.

A word of warning: I'm going to attempt keep the frank talk about sexuality tasteful and to a minimum, but obviously I can't keep it out altogether. Honestly, how could I? We're digging into Bible texts about sexuality.

All of the following scripture breakdowns come from many sources. I'll have a list of recommended resources at the bottom of this post.

Sodom (Gen. 19):
The story of Sodom is not a story about homosexuality. It's a story about rape and assault.

The term "sodomy" is used by many to refer to gay sex. Thus it is assumed that the sin of Sodom must have been homosexuality. However, it only takes a cursory reading of the story of Sodom to understand that one cannot make a 1 to 1 comparison between this story and two people who love each other and want to live a committed, covenantal existence with one another for life. The story of Sodom is a story about an attempted gang rape (there is a very similar story in Judges 19 as well). God plans to destroy the city of Sodom in Genesis 18 (which interestingly occurs before the story at hand), and when Abraham pleads for leniency, God sends two angels to the city who look like men. All of the city, young and old, demand that the two men be given to the mob so they can "know" them. The story is a horrifying account of attempted sexual assault.

Were the angels in the form of women, no person on earth would say, "Clearly this story is about the evils of heterosexuality." We recognize the difference between rape and consensual sex.

In addition, no other reference to Sodom in the Bible refers specifically to homosexuality. Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom is that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). "Sexual immorality" in Sodom is sometimes mentioned in scripture, but not same-sex behavior.

The story simply does not refer to the types of loving, committed relationships we see in our world today. It is a story about attempted rape and assault--things that all Christians should still find abhorrent.

Leviticus:
Levitical law is difficult to parse, because there are clearly some laws in Leviticus that are cultural and are not binding for all time. This can cause problems for those questioning whether Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are eternally binding or were cultural laws for the people of the time. One argument for the eternal validity of these verses is the word "abomination." If homosexuality is said to be an "abomination," then that must hold true for all time. However, other modern common practices are called "abominations" throughout scripture (lending money and charging interest--Ezek. 18:13; eating pork or shellfish--Deut. 14).

Another argument advocating that these laws still apply today is that their punishment is death. However, charging interest on a loan (again, Ezek. 18:13) and working on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2) carry the same punishment. Many Christians today have taken out bank loans, and would not consider the bank teller worthy of death. Most Christians have worked seven-day weeks at some point in their lives. Do they consider themselves to be worthy of death? No. We've contextualized these verses based on how our culture works today, and have deemed them not to be binding for all people for all time.

The fact that sexual laws in Leviticus are still seen as valid by many is also used as an argument for continuing to honor these laws. But Lev. 18:19 prohibits sex during menstruation, which is normally not prohibited by Christians today.

Societies in the ancient near east, including ancient Israel, were patriarchal. In these societies, men being treated like women would have been degrading. Male same-sex intercourse was seen as degrading in these cultures because one partner has to take the passive, feminine role. James Brownson points out that in the Leviticus texts, "the wording itself suggests that treating a man as if he were a woman is the core problem" (Bible Gender Sexuality, 83).

In context, these texts appear to point to something different than the kind of loving, committed relationships that gay and lesbian people seek out today. The prohibitions in these texts appear to speak against dominance and shame in sexuality. In a culture that devalued women, dominating another man as if he were a woman shamed that man.

In context, the cultural prohibition is against using sex as dominance.

A prohibition against using sexuality for dominance and shame is one that I fully endorse. A view of women as inferior to men is one that I fully reject. I cannot view these laws and endorse their validity for all time if they were written to a world that viewed women as inferior to men, and saw homosexual intercourse as problematic because it put a man into a feminine role.

Romans:
When viewing New Testament texts on homosexuality, it needs to be noted that the overwhelmingly dominant forms of same-sex acts of the Greco-Roman period were exploitative and dominating. As Matthew Vines points out, "There are no ancient examples of lifelong monogamous same-sex relationships between equals." Even the most loving examples of same-sex relationships involve hierarchies and power differentials. Pederasty (adult mentors sleeping with minors they are mentoring), temple prostitution, and master/slave sex were some of the most predominant kinds of same-sex acts--all of which Christians today would find deplorable (and, you know, criminal).

There was also an assumption in the Greco-Roman world that homosexual acts were committed by those who gave in to their unrestrained lust. Same-sex acts were seen as excessive, and committed by those who abandoned heterosexual lust and gave in to excess.

Much like those who first use alcohol in moderation, then drink more and more heavily, and finally step up into harder and harder drug use, same-sex acts were a move into excess. Pederasty, prostitution, and master/slave sex were the forms of homosexuality on display in the first century. It was promiscuity and excess.

This kind of thinking is seen in the Romans 1:26-27 passage, which refers to men "abandoning natural relations." Because there was an assumption in Paul's world that heterosexual relations were satisfactory and homosexual relations were "excess," Paul is addressing those who have given in to excessive lust.

Paul didn't have in mind two men or two women who loved one another and wanted to commit themselves to each other in a covenant for life, because these kinds of relationships did not exist in his world. The modern understanding of sexual orientation was entirely foreign to the world in which Paul was writing. Today, most of us know people who are gay. We know people who are not attracted to the opposite sex, but the same sex. These people are not in search of someone to spend their lives with because they suffer from perverse excessive lust. They want love. They want romance. They want commitment. They want to walk through life together. They want to put the needs of the other above their own needs. Paul in this passage does not condemn these kinds of relationships, because they didn't exist in his time. He condemns the excessive lust that searches beyond self-sacrificial committed unions to other avenues.

In context, this passage does not appear to condemn the types of unions that we know today. I absolutely affirm Paul's condemnation of excessive lust. I condemn those who search beyond their own marital bed and seek out fulfillment with an affair. I condemn those who use their positions of power to have their sexual needs fulfilled from a subordinate.

A move from monogamy, commitment, and covenant into excessive lust is not what I believe God has in mind for our sexuality.

Context matters when looking at biblical passages, and the context of this passage does not appear to condemn the type of relationships that many gay and lesbian Christians seek.

1 Corinthians/1 Timothy:
It's again imperative that we remember that there are no instances of gay or lesbian couples who were monogamous and seen as equals in the first century. Pederasty, prostitution, and master/slave sex were the dominant forms of sexuality between two people of the same sex. These were all exploitative and/or had power differentials at their core. So when we see a word translated "homosexuality" in a vice list, we need to ask ourselves 1. how is it translated?, and 2. what does it mean? As Ken Wilson says, "the mere listing of adultery in a vice list doesn't help us understand whether remarriage after divorce or lusting after a woman constitutes adultery. For that we need more than a vice list and Scripture provides it, offering many specific examples of adultery. These relevant examples are missing with respect to same-sex relationships" (Letter to my Congregation, 73).
The word often translated "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and (only the word "homosexual" in) 1 Tim. 1:10 is the greek words malakoi. Malakoi has been translated "effeminate" often, but technically means "soft." It's a difficult word of which to parse an exact meaning. It can refer to a passive partner in a same-sex act. It can also be an attack on a man's masculinity. It's also been translated "weakling," "wanton," "debauchers," and "male prostitutes." The exact meaning behind the word literally translated "soft" is difficult.

The word translated "homosexual" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the Greek word arsenokoitai. Arsenokoitai has a lot of possible meanings. It has been posited by some to refer to the active partner in a same-sex act. This is possible. But a few uses of arsenokoites outside of scripture refer to economic exploitation and power abuse. It's a difficult word to understand, especially because it's a word that Paul seemingly made up.

Whatever the translation, we need to remember that it likely does refer to exploitation, because the kinds of same-sex acts that happened when Paul was writing were exploitative things like pederasty, prostitution, and master/slave. So when talking about sexuality, it would be exploitative forms of sexuality.

Again, the kinds of same-sex acts in the first century are not what is found in a modern committed, life-long union--because these kinds of same-sex unions didn't exist when Paul was writing.

I would call exploitative forms of sexuality, as well as pederasty, master/slave sex (well, slavery altogether), and prostitution/idolatry to be sinful today. I consider extramarital sex to be sinful.
These were the kinds of same-sex unions that were present in the first century. I still find them sinful today, whether they're committed homosexually or heterosexually.

The Bible is still authoritative. Scripture holds up. But context when reading scripture is extremely important. I don't see the Bible, in context, speaking against the kinds of lifelong, committed, covenantal, same-sex unions that LGBTQ Christians seek today.

All the Things I Haven't Said

Discussion about this post