The Bible, homosexuality, and the truth.

The Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is a source of irritation for me. Not because I disagree with the Christian faith. I absolutely agree with Christianity. However, I utterly disagree with any representation of any brand of faith that would take the Bible, and specifically the teaching of Christ, and use it as a weapon to bludgeon other people.
Christ summed up the entirety of the faith in the Great Commandment:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. These two commandments sum up, and upon them depend, all the Law and the Prophets.

In essence, this is the litmus test. Whatever your belief on an issue, whatever doctrine you encounter, it passes or fails based on this metric.

The evangelicals have made their stance known on the topic of homosexuality. They hold the intractable belief that sex is only permissible between a man and a woman who have been wed. They hold that the scriptures dictate this stance, and the scriptures are inerrant.

The core problem here is this: they have no desire to believe in inerrant scripture. They only desire to defend what in their minds is inerrant interpretation.

I believe that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. I believe that He speaks to us through the Bible. But am not arrogant enough to believe that we interpret His words without error.

A History of Bad Interpretation

Unfortunately, the Christian Church has over two millennia of indoctrinated bigotry. Jews were executed under the Inquisition. Slavery was justified and extended because it was “in the scriptures.” Blacks were defined as subhuman “by the scriptures.” Women were relegated to inferior status because of the scriptures. The documentation of these acts of prejudice and intolerance can be found in libraries and the internet.

In every one of these examples, the doctrine was intractable, supposedly backed by the inerrant word of God, and the official stance of the Church.

I use the phrase “the church” here to speak of established institutions with political and power structures. For over 1,000 years, that was the Catholic church. It has extended to cover both protestant and catholic belief systems. However, not all churches fall under this umbrella. Today, many houses of worship have eschewed bigotry for tolerance. Have opened their doors and hearts to all who seek to live a life of love as set forth by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I view these communities of faith to be the bride of Christ, the biblical description of the church. I view those who seek to pass judgment and condemn the people they are meant to embrace and love as “the Church.”

The list of bad doctrine, embraced and endorsed by Christians over the centuries, fills libraries. There are, no doubt, pages of examples of further crimes of bigotry committed by supposed Christians, but I think I have sufficiently made my point for this topic: the “inerrant scripture” has been riddled with errors for as long as the faith has existed. I do not fault the scripture itself. I indict vehemently those who will stand in the pulpit with such arrogance and self-righteousness to espouse their beliefs and interpretations of scripture as unimpeachable.

This is anathema, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ.

The rules for interpreting scripture

The fancy, technical term for in depth study and interpretation of scripture is exegesis. This no task to be taken lightly and requires a level of discipline most Christians fail to bring to the Word of God. Moreover, exegesis concerns itself with “what did the author intend? What did the author want the people with which he was communicating to understand?”

The rules of exegesis are:

Rule No. 1: Survey the historical context in general.
Rule No. 2: Confirm the limits of the passage.
Rule No. 3: Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope.
Rule No. 4: Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships.
Rule No. 5: Establish the text.
Rule No. 6: Analyze the grammar.
Rule No. 7: Analyze significant words.
Rule No. 8: Research the historical-cultural background.

I will not explore these with depth here. I present them to demonstrate the rigor with which this undertaking must be handled. The whole of the Bible is written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We should understand the implied “ancient” before each language name. These writings occurred two to three millennia ago, and just like English, languages evolve. I have difficulty trusting anyone with handling the translation of these ancient tongues who is not a PhD in historical linguistics. The academic, and unbiased, study and understanding of ancient languages sheds a pure light on what the biblical authors tried to communicate to their audiences. Within that context, we can grow to understand what they are, in turn, saying to us.

Point by point thru the New Testament

I chose to focus here on the scriptures in the New Testament that have historically been used to ban homosexuality and condemn the men and women who have romantic and erotic feelings toward the same sex. The Old Testament has fewer passages on this topic, and dealing with the Levitical texts opens a can of worms that I have no desire to deal with here.

I will also not be presenting the “conservative” view of these scriptures as they are well known. My focus is to explore the original languages, the historical context, and attempt to understand what was being communicated in each passage.

In the New Testament, three passages exist which have been used by Christians to directly indict homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, 1Timothy 9-10. All three are from Pauline Epistles, with Christ being strangely silent on the topic. A fourth verse, Jude 1:7, is virtually unused by evangelicals, but I will examine it as well.

Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error

Though other passages are more frequently cited, this one is the most direct addressing of same-sex couples in all of the New Testament.

Many progressives argue that the bible appeared to advocate a number of activities found to be reprehensible in the modern world: genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, torture, execution of women found to not be virgins on their wedding night. In some passages, the bible seems to dictate the women who are raped must marry their attackers. Clearly, all of these are unthinkable today.

I believe that when employing exegesis, you come to understand the context of what each of those scriptures meant. They applied to specific situations that have no true analog today. Some argue this passage belongs in this category.

In Paul’s time, specifically as he spent his life reaching the gentile, or Greco-Roman world, a fundamental daily truth was that the dominant religion in the Roman Empire employed prostitutes in the temple. Participants in the orgiastic, sexual “rituals” performed in pagan fertility rights engaged in heterosexual and homosexual activities. Clearly, this is not in line with a holistic biblical view of the place and role of sex. A common progressive interpretation of this scripture is that Paul is speaking to men and women who have abandoned their “natural” sexual identities for something that is against what their natural sexual desires would be. It is “unnatural” for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals and homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. In context, Paul is writing to Romans (duh) and no Jewish or even Judeo-Christian bias/prejudice can be assumed here. These people lived in the world of temple prostitution. Furthermore, any individual having multiple sex partners of any gender, particularly at one time, would be found to be “unnatural,” using this interpretation.

In addition, in Paul’s time, orgies, particularly in the temple, promiscuity, and pedophilia, would be far more problematic and in need of addressing than any type of committed, monogamous homosexual relationship. Even today, we can view any one of these practices as unhealthy, damaging and in some instances, illegal.

As with another pandemic error, the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the bible explicitly states that God destroyed the cities because “not one righteous man” could be found, perhaps we are missing the point here. A group of men knocking on your door demanding to rape the visitors in your house falls well within the realm of unrighteous. Rape is never acceptable. Rape is, at heart, a perversion of an act of love into an act of power and control. The Bible has a zero tolerance policy in regards to coercion of another person’s choices and rights. In the world of the Romans that Paul wrote to here, the historical accounts of what transpired in the temple showed an almost identical perversion: sex as a means of power and control.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

This passage is hugely problematic for those in the “God hates gays” camp. The translation of this scripture varies widely amongst nearly all modern translations of the bible.

Regardless, I will just boil it down to this: In the time this was written, and to the audience Paul addressed (Greek, since its to the citizens of Corinth) the word used to describe sex between two men was “paiderasste.” The word Paul used, “arsenokotai,” has lost its meaning over the centuries. “Arsen” meant “man,” so even the traditional view would let lesbians off the hook here.

In plain truth, we have no real idea who Paul was talking about here. The linguistic norm, which he would have known, was not used. Instead, we have a word that we have no true understanding of, and the wholesale condemnation of 10% of the population is based upon.

The next verse in 1 Timothy, uses the same word. I cannot, in good conscience adhere to, promote, or even entertain any doctrine that condemns based on something this nebulous.

Many scholars argue that Paul once again addressed the boys and young men forced into prostitution in the temples, and the men who engaged them in sexual activity. Given historical context and audience, there is logic in this interpretation. However, as we have no certain scholarship on the word he used itself, I cannot with great confidence adhere to this view.

Jude 1:7 (New American Standard Bible)

7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

First, my previous statement about Sodom and Gomorrah stands here as well. Second, the phrase “strange flesh,” the emphasis of this particular study, is “sarkos heteras.” The fact that our word “heterosexual” derives from “heteras” is an irony for another time. While this passage is far less used than the Pauline passages, it has been hurled at those men and women that church going folk want to hate. We have zero inclination or understanding about what Jude is specifically speaking to here. Rape is a strong contender, and no one would advocate that. A logical interpretation would be that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah sought to rape angels, who are not human and have no gender. Their flesh would indeed be strange.

Again, we don’t have a clearly defined direction. Its far too vague to base a doctrine on it.

Author’s Intent

Like Paul and Jude, I have an intent and audience in mind. I write all of this with a clear understanding that the hardliners will not sway in their beliefs. Logic, reason, and fact have no part in dogma, and these men and women would willingly set themselves on fire to watch others burn.

I write for the men and women who take to heart Christ’s edict that we love each other. Who see the horror and injustice inflicted on His children in his name. I write this for the man or woman, young or old, who have been taught that they are anathema and hell-bound for who they are. I write this for every person who ever cried out to heaven to change them, and received no answer, because in heaven’s eyes, they are precisely as they should be.

In 20 years time, I think this will largely be a non-issue. Historically, the progressives have successfully steered the church as a whole away from bigotry. For the here and now, I pray that with every passing day, more and more churches and communities of faith will embrace homosexual men and women, loving them and accepting them precisely as they are.

For the hardliners, I pray mercy on them. I fear for them when they face the judgment of God, and have to answer for their hatred and intolerance. May they receive the grace they could never show to others.